Genesis Creation Story easily understood?

[dana b]

The Genesis Creation Story has been read to people of Europe for 2000 years. During most of this time the majority of the people attending the Sunday Bible Readings were poor people from farms. Let us imagine what these farmers and gardeners of European Christiandom would have thought while they listened to the Genesis Creation Story.
The Bible begins by describing this entire physical world and everything in it. In it's first chapter everything in this world is defined and catagorized under the headings of six days. When we consider the main points of each of the six day's creations an obvious pattern is exposed.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the " EARTH," and the " EARTH " was without form and was barren. Then on the second day he divided the " Waters " from the " Waters." On day three dry land is developed and then is immediately filled with "Air" producing plants. Plants expel oxygen while their decomposing foliage rots and produces carbon dioxide. These plants grow towards the " Fire " of the Sun that was created on day four.
This is what a farmer thought as he was plowing his field and watching the plants stretching tall towards the Sun. He was part of the process and with his effort he would continue helping Earth to be dissolved by Water and to rise up towards the Sun. And on the fifth and sixth days this pattern continued. As we can see from the above analysis the idea of farming is embedded int the first four days of the Genesis description. The fifth and sixth days continue a similar progression. In fact, if we consider the six days of creation written in these 31 versed of Genesis a simple and practical pattern is easily detected.

THE FOUR ELEMENTS

This world's physical manifestation is elemental. All physical material found on this planet is entirely composed of either one or a combination of these basic elements. Apart from plant and animal tissue, these four elements compose the totality of the planet's material. These four elements are entirely unconscious and completely inactive. They are inert and passive. They cannot feel, think, comprehend or consciously experience anything at all. They are simply the current state of a series of physical reactions. these physical elemental materials play no part in initiating the activity of this world but are simply acted upon by the pressures of forces outside of themselves.

THE TWO LIFE FORMS

.........1. Plants(vergetation)
.........2. Animals( including fish, birds, reptiles and Mankind)

The first of these two life forms, plants, requires the existence of the first three elements and is activated and grows toward the fourth element. Vegetation grows out of Earth, using Water, into and creating Air, and towards the Sun which is Fire.
The second life form phenomena that can be grouped under a general heading of animals are dependent on and even more advanced order of physical manifestation for their existence and physical survival. Animals require not only earth, water, air and the sun's fire, but also biological material of vegetation for their consumption.
Whereas plants can find sustenance and nutrition in both elemental material and from biological decayed vegetation, animals can only assimilate and digest the latter. Animals are different that plants in that they cannot digest either earth, water, air or fire as a totally sustaining form of nutrition but require composting biological material. Besides a few differences rooted and immobile vegetation along with mobile and active animal organisms are both biologically functioning life forms experiencing certain degrees of consciousness.

THE TWO OPPOSING FORCES

1. The Sun
2. The Earth

These two forces are continually pulling or attracting all of the four elements and also the two types of life forms toward their own opposite directions. While the earth's gravity is continually pulling everything of mass or material downward, the Sun is heating, brightening and so therefore attracting everything up.
So we can see a circular play of elements, life forms and forces. Round and round the elements go as the sun attracts and raises up warmed air, water and earth materials in the form of growing plants and waking animals. With the coming of night the air cools and drops, dew(water) falls, plants droop their leaves while animals lie down and sleep. So we can see quite clearly the entire consistency of this world's humanly conceivable, physical manifestation. Now isn't that a well drawn out plan and analysis of the physical world that the Book of Genesis has described? I think it truly is!

 

[laconicstudent]

The Genesis Creation Story has been read to people of Europe for 2000 years.

You realize that in 20 AD Jesus was still alive, right? You are several decades early for any proselytizing in Europe at all.

During most of this time the majority of the people attending the Sunday Bible Readings

The Christian Bible wasn't established until the 5th century.

were poor people from farms. Let us imagine what these farmers and gardeners of European Christiandom would have thought while they listened to the Genesis Creation Story.

European Christendom didn't come about for hundreds of years later.

The Bible begins by describing this entire physical world and everything in it. In it's first chapter everything in this world is defined and catagorized under the headings of six days. When we consider the main points of each of the six day's creations an obvious pattern is exposed.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the " EARTH," and the " EARTH " was without form and was barren. Then on the second day he divided the " Waters " from the " Waters." On day three dry land is developed and then is immediately filled with "Air" producing plants. Plants expel oxygen while their decomposing foliage rots and produces carbon dioxide. These plants grow towards the " Fire " of the Sun that was created on day four.
This is what a farmer thought as he was plowing his field and watching the plants stretching tall towards the Sun. He was part of the process and with his effort he would continue helping Earth to be dissolved by Water and to rise up towards the Sun. And on the fifth and sixth days this pattern continued. As we can see from the above analysis the idea of farming is embedded int the first four days of the Genesis description. The fifth and sixth days continue a similar progression. In fact, if we consider the six days of creation written in these 31 versed of Genesis a simple and practical pattern is easily detected.

THE FOUR ELEMENTS

This world's physical manifestation is elemental. All physical material found on this planet is entirely composed of either one or a combination of these basic elements. Apart from plant and animal tissue, these four elements compose the totality of the planet's material. These four elements are entirely unconscious and completely inactive. They are inert and passive. They cannot feel, think, comprehend or consciously experience anything at all. They are simply the current state of a series of physical reactions. these physical elemental materials play no part in initiating the activity of this world but are simply acted upon by the pressures of forces outside of themselves.

THE TWO LIFE FORMS

.........1. Plants(vergetation)
.........2. Animals( including fish, birds, reptiles and Mankind)

The first of these two life forms, plants, requires the existence of the first three elements and is activated and grows toward the fourth element. Vegetation grows out of Earth, using Water, into and creating Air, and towards the Sun which is Fire.
The second life form phenomena that can be grouped under a general heading of animals are dependent on and even more advanced order of physical manifestation for their existence and physical survival. Animals require not only earth, water, air and the sun's fire, but also biological material of vegetation for their consumption.
Whereas plants can find sustenance and nutrition in both elemental material and from biological decayed vegetation, animals can only assimilate and digest the latter. Animals are different that plants in that they cannot digest either earth, water, air or fire as a totally sustaining form of nutrition but require composting biological material. Besides a few differences rooted and immobile vegetation along with mobile and active animal organisms are both biologically functioning life forms experiencing certain degrees of consciousness.

THE TWO OPPOSING FORCES

1. The Sun
2. The Earth

These two forces are continually pulling or attracting all of the four elements and also the two types of life forms toward their own opposite directions. While the earth's gravity is continually pulling everything of mass or material downward, the Sun is heating, brightening and so therefore attracting everything up.
So we can see a circular play of elements, life forms and forces. Round and round the elements go as the sun attracts and raises up warmed air, water and earth materials in the form of growing plants and waking animals. With the coming of night the air cools and drops, dew(water) falls, plants droop their leaves while animals lie down and sleep. So we can see quite clearly the entire consistency of this world's humanly conceivable, physical manifestation. Now isn't that a well drawn out plan and analysis of the physical world that the Book of Genesis has described? I think it truly is!

You realize that we now know that Aristotle was wrong, right? The Sun is not a huge ball of fire, it is incandescent plasma and gas. "Earth, water fire and air" are not "Elements". The Sun does not "attract" things by "heating" them. Also, if you reviewed the metabolic cycles in plants, you would see that they don't turn "Water" into "Air", they convert CO2 into O2 as a byproduct of cellular respiration.

 

[dana b]

Hello Laconicstudent, nice to hear from you again.

I too have read in many many books about how Jesus Christ was crucified about 33 1/3 years AD. But personally I still go with the AD=after death. It makes much more sense. Maybe it's just some antichrist figure who pulled a fast one on us. Because as 2 Pet.3;8 tells us " a day with the lord is a thousand." Now why would he tell us this and insist that it's so very important? It is because the Christians probably including Peter himself set up our Christian calendar to mark the years after his crucifixion, and so therefore count the years until his return. Jesus rose on the morning of the third day and is also, according to Peter's calculation expected on the morning of the third millennium. That is the very purpose of the Christian calendar, regardless what historians and encyclopedias write. Otherwise his statement, Peter"s, would be foolishness and not at all important. The only historian of Jesus's day was Joshephus, and he has of lately been discredited. His works were interloped, someone put stuff in.
The Bible and the Christian calendar have both needed to be kept preserved and protected throughout many turbulent ages. To protect it's contents from those who are yet unprepared and unable to seriously benefit from these revelations, the Bible requires acceptance of two miraculous acts of God pertaining to the adjustment of historical time. Besides these two instances, no where else in the bible is time changed unnaturally or adjusted.

1. In Joshua 10;13 the Bible tells us that God had the Sun stand still for about the period of one day.

2. In Isaiah 38;8 the Bible tells us that God returned the Sun back ten degrees.

If we therefore calculate these two descriptions of literal and physical occurrences into symbolical historical understanding we have the following;

1. Joshua 10;13 tells us the sun stood still for a day. In biblical historical time a day equals 1000 years. Since half of a 24 hour day is nighttime, God therefore held the sun still for 500 years in symbolical historical time. This also accounts for the extra blue the protrudes into the green in the color spectrum that everybody keeps telling me about.
2. Isaiah 38;8, tells us that the sun was set back 10 degrees. 360 degrees is a full circle. 10 degrees is equal to 36 years in symbolical historical time as equated in the Bible. Both these time adjustments are necessary to make biblical historical time-keeping conform to modern conventional dates.
So according to this Jesus Christ was born sometime 30 odd years before the year 0.
About when and where Christians were listening to the Genesis Creation Story. Well, there were some, who probably were farmers hearing it at the very time of Jesus. Then as the apostles spread his message, Genesis and the Gospels extended in a wider and wider hearing range. I agree that the whole of Europe took at least until 1000AD to all become Christian, according to Encyclopedia Britannica.
Aristotle got the elements wrong! The Genesis creation Story got them right! This is because the four elements go from the heaviest to the lightest, from the darkest to the brightest and from the coldest to the hottest. So no, Aristotle was not the guy. His entire physical philosophy thus suffered as he played with things like, some elements are wet and some are dry ect. He missed the boat here. He should have read the Bible.
Thankyou for your attention and comments. I really appreciate corresponding with someone who is actually interested in God's Holy Book. And I myself am but a humble farm worker as you may be able to notice from my writings. So please, don't expect too much. But I believe in Jesus. Peace and understanding. dan b

 

[Cabal]

Ok, seriously, can we PLEASE dispense with the four elements discussion at least? The physics part of my brain is giving me a headache to tell me to make the madness go away.

There are NOT four elements.

Air, fire, water and earth are NOT among them.

Periodic table - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About 116 have been observed.

And actually, now that I've reread the above, I'd like to also point out that there are PLENTY more forces acting in nature than what is described above.

 

[gluadys]

I too have read in many many books about how Jesus Christ was crucified about 33 1/3 years AD. But personally I still go with the AD=after death. It makes much more sense.

Why do people think their personal idiosyncracies carry any weight?

If the 6th century Christian named Dionysius Exiguus who first used the term really intended it to refer to the death of Christ we wouldn't be using the abbreviation AD (Anno Domini=in the year of our Lord), we would be using the abbreviation PMD (post mortem Domini=after our Lord's death). Dionysius' own writings indicate he intended Anno Domini to refer to the Incarnation, not the Crucifixion or Resurrection.

Some confusion comes from the fact that the abbreviation BC is for the English words "before Christ" which has mislead some into thinking the AD is also derived from English, hence "after death". But AD was used first in Latin, even by English scholars like the Venerable Bede. That Bede also intended AD to refer to the year of the Incarnation is shown by the expression he uses for what we now label BC ""ante vero incarnationis dominicae tempus" (the time before the Lord's true incarnation).

While AD was first used in 525 and had become standard practice by 900, using BC to refer to the era preceding the incarnation was not customary until the 15th century.

Anno Domini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[laconicstudent]

Periodic table - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About 116 have been observed.

As a minor correction, we've actually observed 117 elements. A Russian lab is currently trying to produce 117, Unumseptium, while a joint Russian-US team in a Russian lab produced 3 atoms of 118, Unumoctium-294 in the years 2002-2005 apparently.

 

[dana b]

Yes, scientifically they say there are many elements. But Genesis shows a symbolical scheme of just the four traditional ones. Earth, Water, Air and Fire. With these it presents a story that when followed leads directly to Jesus. So Praise the Lord for the bible. Science leads to the modern world. dan b

 

[pgp_protector]

 

[Cabal]

Yes, scientifically they say there are many elements. But Genesis shows a symbolical scheme of just the four traditional ones. Earth, Water, Air and Fire. With these it presents a story that when followed leads directly to Jesus. So Praise the Lord for the bible. Science leads to the modern world. dan b

Given that this model of rainbows and classical elements shows that Genesis apes man's schemes more than, I dunno, what colour and elements ACTUALLY are - doesn't that just imply that Genesis is more a manmade description than divinely inspired?

 

[pgp_protector]

Ok Serious Question.
Your site, is that a book you made or just one you colored & scanned ?

 

[dana b]

hello pgp protedtor, nice to meet you. The Holy Bible is the word of God. I believe it fully and think that everything written in it is absolutely true. It is like a beautiful polished diamond. Whichever way that you turn and look at it, it's true. This does not mean that you can make your own interpretation of it, just that it itself shows many many perspectives. For the word of God is all fulfilling. I myself speak and show only what the Bible shows me and not anyone elses works. Jesus Christ is the savior of Mankind. He was born in a physical body, was crucified, died, was physically raised from the dead after three 24 hour days and by this brought mankind salvation.
In Genesis 1 God created the Heaven and the Earth and everything else in it. Then in Mesopotamia at about 4000BC he "formed" Adam and gave him the breath of life(ability to use words). Immediately after this Adam was brought the animals to name. Then as Gen 4 tells us Adam's descendants continued using language to invent metal, civilization, cities ect. and in this way followed God's pattern over 6000 years until today the year 2000AD. Now we have entered the 7 millennium, the forcast time of rest for the Christian people here on earth.Rev.20;6 Praise the Lord! dan b

 

[pgp_protector]

hello pgp protedtor, nice to meet you. The Holy Bible is the word of God. I believe it fully and think that everything written in it is absolutely true. It is like a beautiful polished diamond. Whichever way that you turn and look at it, it's true. This does not mean that you can make your own interpretation of it, just that it itself shows many many perspectives. For the word of God is all fulfilling. I myself speak and show only what the Bible shows me and not anyone elses works. Jesus Christ is the savior of Mankind. He was born in a physical body, was crucified, died, was physically raised from the dead after three 24 hour days and by this brought mankind salvation.
In Genesis 1 God created the Heaven and the Earth and everything else in it. Then in Mesopotamia at about 4000BC he "formed" Adam and gave him the breath of life(ability to use words). Immediately after this Adam was brought the animals to name. Then as Gen 4 tells us Adam's descendants continued using language to invent metal, civilization, cities ect. and in this way followed God's pattern over 6000 years until today the year 2000AD. Now we have entered the 7 millennium, the forcast time of rest for the Christian people here on earth.Rev.20;6 Praise the Lord! dan b

This doesn't answer the question asked though.

 

[lucaspa]

hello pgp protedtor, nice to meet you. The Holy Bible is the word of God. I believe it fully and think that everything written in it is absolutely true.

How do you account for the different geneologies of Jesus in Luke and Matthew. One of them can't be true.

Or how about the contradictory creation stories?

You need to be careful of that "absolutely". You can state "I believe it is theologically true". All Christians do. But "absolutely" gets you into trouble.

Jesus Christ is the savior of Mankind. He was born in a physical body, was crucified, died, was physically raised from the dead after three 24 hour days and by this brought mankind salvation.

Actually, Jesus rose on the third day. That does not mean it was three 24 hour days. If you read the gospel accounts, he died at ~ 3 PM on Friday. That's the first day, which ended at ~ 6 PM. Saturday was the second day. Jesus was already risen by dawn on Sunday when the women went to the tomb. That is approximately 6 AM. So Jesus was dead about 39 hours, not 72.

In Genesis 1 God created the Heaven and the Earth and everything else in it. Then in Mesopotamia at about 4000BC he "formed" Adam and gave him the breath of life(ability to use words). Immediately after this Adam was brought the animals to name.

That's not what the stories say. In Genesis 1 it specifically (in the Hebrew) says that God created men and women. Both plural. And He spoke them into existence. In Genesis 2 God makes Adam from the dust of the ground, then also makes the birds and animals from the dust of the ground. It's not that God just brings the animals to Adam; He creates them first. That contradicts the order of creation in Genesis 1.

For someone relying on the Bible to be "absolutely" true, you seem to have your own private interpretation that is contradicted by a plain reading of the text.

 

[lucaspa]

Let us imagine what these farmers and gardeners of European Christiandom would have thought while they listened to the Genesis Creation Story.

Let us go back further than that. After all, the Genesis creation stories were in circulation among the Hebrews for at least 500 years before this. Genesis 1 was written either toward the end of or just after the Exile after the Babylonian conquest. What would the people at the time it was written have thought? That is the question you need to ask.

To do that you need to know the Enuma Elish and the Babylonian creation story. Why? Because that was the main religious rival to Judaism at the time. Remember, Israel had been conqueored, its people taken off into captivity. There was enormous pressure on the Hebrews to convert to the Babylonian religion. Especially since, at that time, gods were associated with nations. The reality of a god was determined by the success of the nation. Babylon was successful. Israel was not.

So the author(s) of Genesis 1 took the Babylonian creation story, with the creation of the Babylonian gods, and destroys them. How can you have a god of plants, when plants were created by another god? You can't. Remember, in polytheistic religions gods are associated with particular things in the physical universe. So Marduk (the chief Babylonian god) is the god of plants. But in Genesis 1 plants are created by Yahweh. Marduk can no longer be a god.

Genesis 1 is a refutation of the Babylonian religion and anyone (and everyone) at the time would have recognized this. But by 1 AD, the Babylonian religion had disappeared and Zoroastrianism and Mithraism were practiced in the region that had once been Babylon. People forgot the original context in which Genesis 1 was written. Just like you are unaware of the context. So we get thousands of fanciful ideas of what Genesis 1 means. Yours is just one of the more fanciful.

There is so much in your story that is contradicted by God's Creation that I can't go into it all. Some other people have done work in that area.

What you forget is that "science manuals" describe God's Creation. Therefore they are going to be much more accurate than whatever fanciful interpretations people make out of Genesis 1-3. If the description is wrong, then God's Creation will show that they are wrong. But if you stick only to your interpretation of Genesis, you aren't going to let God tell you that you are wrong.

 

[dana b]

Hello Lucaspa, Thanks for reading and replying to my post. I really tried hard to get it straight before I wrote it. But it seems that there are still difficulties with understanding it. I'll try to address some of your questions. But I'm only me, not a super intellectual, don't count on perfection in my answers.

Your first question was " how do I account for the " two genealogies of Jesus Christ and the two creation stories." I'm glad you are informed and noticed them. They are actually really amazing and tell much more by being there than would be understood in their absence. Here's my take on them.

As you pointed out, there are two genealogies of Jesus written in the New Testament just as there were two creation stories written in Genesis. The first genealogy in Matthew 1 is actually the more recent because it is describing history from the time of Writing.(Abraham)
The second genealogy of Jesus traces his lineage all the way back to Adam and God which was the beginning of speaking and thinking with words in Mesopotamia. This is evident when we realize that the cuneiform tablets found in early Mesopotamia contain only columns of numbers, but not grammatical sentences. This is also apparent because the genealogy of Matthew begins with the words "The book of ......"
Now we can see why the descendants of the tribe of Judah who have been referred to as " the people of the book " always ascend themselves from Abraham and not from Abram or Adam. Their covenant is with the abilities brought about by the written word.
Therefore just as in Genesis the second Creation Story of Gen.2;7 is considered by scholars to be older than the the first, this same case also applies to the New Testament genealogies of Jesus Christ.Matt.1Luke3;23

About Jesus Christ being raised from the dead, in my earlier post in saying it as 24 hour days I was just trying to indicate that I believed in his three day resurrection, as well as a day = 1000 years return. I did not mean to at all imply that it was three 24 hour days. Of course he rose very early on the third day just as John 20;1 tells us. Sorry for my bad explanation there.

Your last question about how Mankind was created as "male and female" and then in Gen. 2;7 Adam was "formed" and the animals were "formed" of the ground and brought to him to name. Well, I still stand by the statement as I wrote it. Thats what Genesis says. How or why this "Adam" was now formed instead of created as in the first Genesis story is beyond me at this time. But thats how it says it. In the Gen 1 Creation Story Mankind was created as Male and female, in the Gen. 2;7 story Adam was formed first and Eve made later. I've looked it up in a Hebrew-English Bible. My take on this is well known on this forum but we can discuss it more if you life.
So thankyou for considering my post worthy of discussion, let talk more, I want to learn, I don't think I have it all. dan b

 

[theFijian]

Why do people think their personal idiosyncracies carry any weight?

If the 6th century Christian named Dionysius Exiguus who first used the term really intended it to refer to the death of Christ we wouldn't be using the abbreviation AD (Anno Domini=in the year of our Lord), we would be using the abbreviation PMD (post mortem Domini=after our Lord's death). Dionysius' own writings indicate he intended Anno Domini to refer to the Incarnation, not the Crucifixion or Resurrection.

Some confusion comes from the fact that the abbreviation BC is for the English words "before Christ" which has mislead some into thinking the AD is also derived from English, hence "after death". But AD was used first in Latin, even by English scholars like the Venerable Bede. That Bede also intended AD to refer to the year of the Incarnation is shown by the expression he uses for what we now label BC ""ante vero incarnationis dominicae tempus" (the time before the Lord's true incarnation).

While AD was first used in 525 and had become standard practice by 900, using BC to refer to the era preceding the incarnation was not customary until the 15th century.

Anno Domini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I prefer AD = after dinner, that's when I do most of my reading anyway.

 

[lucaspa]

But I'm only me, not a super intellectual, don't count on perfection in my answers.

Do you mind if we test your answers for accuracy?

As you pointed out, there are two genealogies of Jesus written in the New Testament just as there were two creation stories written in Genesis. The first genealogy in Matthew 1 is actually the more recent because it is describing history from the time of Writing.(Abraham)
The second genealogy of Jesus traces his lineage all the way back to Adam and God which was the beginning of speaking and thinking with words in Mesopotamia.

However, when you read the geneologies, they do not differ from David back to Adam. Instead, the geneologies differ from Mary and Joseph back to David. So your answer is not relevant.

Now let me give you my take on things. Both Luke and Matthew are trying to put Jesus into the House of David because this is where the Jews (and the authors of both books are Jewish) believe the Messiah will come from. Both are trying to convince people that Jesus is the Messiah. Instead of focussing their argument solely on his life and resurrection,they both try to make a geneology to connect Jesus to David. In the case of tracing the lineage back thru Joseph, this becomes very silly in hindsight. After all, Joseph isn't the father of Jesus, is he? So it doesn't matter what his lineage is!

This is evident when we realize that the cuneiform tablets found in early Mesopotamia contain only columns of numbers, but not grammatical sentences.

Where did you hear this?

Therefore just as in Genesis the second Creation Story of Gen.2;7 is considered by scholars to be older than the the first,

Yes, the J tradition in Genesis 2:4 thru Genesis 3 is considered to be older than the P account in Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3. However, that does not account for the inconsistencies that prevent them from being "absolutely" true. Wouldn't you have thought that the later account would have been consistent with the earlier one?

However, the stories are telling different theological truths. They were never meant to be read as history, but theology.

Your last question about how Mankind was created as "male and female" and then in Gen. 2;7 Adam was "formed" and the animals were "formed" of the ground and brought to him to name. Well, I still stand by the statement as I wrote it. Thats what Genesis says. How or why this "Adam" was now formed instead of created as in the first Genesis story is beyond me at this time.

It is easy once you:
1. Give up the idea that the Bible is "absolutely true" and
2. Read the stories how the people at the time would have. The stories had to make sense to the people at the time. Otherwise, they never would have kept them. If we can get additional meaning for our time, that's a freebie. But to forget about them and try to force our understanding on the stories distorts and forgets the meaning.

About Jesus Christ being raised from the dead, in my earlier post in saying it as 24 hour days I was just trying to indicate that I believed in his three day resurrection, as well as a day = 1000 years return. I did not mean to at all imply that it was three 24 hour days. Of course he rose very early on the third day just as John 20;1 tells us.

He also died very late on the first day. There is no connection at all to the "day = 1000 years". Different book, different context. The Bible is not a single work, but a collection of individual books. You have to be very careful about trying to connect what was said in one book to what is said in another book. There are some common themes, but not continuity.

But thats how it says it. In the Gen 1 Creation Story Mankind was created as Male and female, in the Gen. 2;7 story Adam was formed first and Eve made later. I've looked it up in a Hebrew-English Bible. My take on this is well known on this forum but we can discuss it more if you life.

Since I have not seen your posts, please summarize your take. Thank you.

 

[dana b]

Hello Lucaspa, I see that we have both done a good deal of studying on these subjects. It is easyer for me not to re-write my conclusions but to refer you to my notes. In www.secondbookofdaniel.com in chapter 3 my opinion of Adam and Eve is more clearly stated. There you can see how one day = 1000 years and how it thus brings us up to today. Since after 6000 years from Adam Mankind's creation period has ended today we have entered the millennium. I have documented the Bible verses, the dates, numbers and the identiy of the re-generated tribes in chapter 10. On page 150 in chapter 10 you can even measure distances on a map to prove that this is done by the hand of God. No man could have arranged the cities of the tribes in this way. It's easyier and more reasonable for me to show you my opinins there that trying to type them all out again.

 

[lucaspa]

Hello Lucaspa, I see that we have both done a good deal of studying on these subjects. It is easyer for me not to re-write my conclusions but to refer you to my notes. In www.secondbookofdaniel.com in chapter 3 my opinion of Adam and Eve is more clearly stated.

Thank you for the information.

Oh boy. I went to chapter 3. You use John 1:1 as evidence that language is the beginning of evolution. But John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word". Not small "w" word, but the Word as used by John. John uses "Word" to refer to Jesus, not to language.

Dana, this is where I get very sad. People get an idea into their head and then go thru the Bible trying to get the Bible to back the idea. In the process they end up misrepresenting what that particular author was trying to do. I am sad to say that you just did this too.

Human language predates 4000 BC by at least 44,000 years. Lots of things were invented/developed before then. Very sophisticated stone tools (have you ever tried to make stone tools? It is very difficult and involves a very complex procedure and technology), boats, houses, curing meat, nets, fishing implements, etc.

People had language and culture long before 4000 BC. There was no literal Adam and Eve. What you done is try to fit Adam and Eve into archeology. What you haven't done is try to fit Adam and Eve into religion. For instance, what do the words "Adam" and "Eve" mean in Hebrew? Are they names like Paul or Dana? That is, words used exclusively for names? They are to us, but how about then?

Adam means "dirt". Eve means "hearth". So we have a story about Dirt and Hearth. Does that make it clearer to you? We have an allegory. That is how the people of the time would have recognized it. Now, what were the religions around Israel saying? In Egypt the religion said that, if you could get enough knowledge, you would become a god. Not just "godlike", but a real god. What's the message in Genesis 3? Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Do they become gods? NO! That's one of the religious messages: you can't become god by more knowledge. There is only one God and people can't get to be Him.

Since after 6000 years from Adam Mankind's creation period has ended today we have entered the millennium. I have documented the Bible verses, the dates, numbers and the identiy of the re-generated tribes in chapter 10. On page 150 in chapter 10 you can even measure distances on a map to prove that this is done by the hand of God. No man could have arranged the cities of the tribes in this way. It's easyier and more reasonable for me to show you my opinins there that trying to type them all out again.

How disappointed are you going to be when God doesn't close out the world as you expect? Have you forgotten Jesus said "But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

It is true that Paul preached mostly in Europe, but Christianity spread in Asia and Africa as well. Not all the disciples went to Europe. They traveled thruout the Roman empire. For instance, the Ethiopians claim that the disciple Matthew was martyred in Ethiopia. Andrew preached along the NE shore of the Black Sea (Scythia), etc.

 

[dana b]

Hello again Lucaspa,
Nice to hear from you. Don't worry about my interpretation, there is a lot more to it before it's understood. Worry about the false and tricky interpretations that abound today under the antichrist's mist.
I must tell you, I have studied so much, probably more that the vast mojority. i am in this way a minority. It may be you are also. For thirty years I have studied languages. I already spoke Russian and English but I first studied Hindi/Urdu. Then I went deeply into German, Arabic, Greek and now Persian/farsi. Lucaspa, the word "Adam" is the word used in Persian, Turkish and Hindi/Urdu for "I" or "man." All of these languages come from Persian or Aryan is it is really called. That is why it's called the Indo-Eurpean language group or previously the Aryan- European. Adam means Adam or Admi. It is the word for Man in Eden which is in Mesopotamia. Don't be deceived by the modern scholars. They help the anitchrist to confuse us.
I have studied history, been frequently to the British Museum in London England, to the oldest room there. Believe me, the artifacts are from Mesopotamia and the earliest dates are 3500 to 4000BC. Don't let the newer books confuse you. It says in the Bible that in the end times we will be lied to. Check the actual artifacts yourself or trust me.
Language was very primitive before 4000BC. They really were just cave men. The early sumerians only put scratches for counting figures, not even words on their clay tablets. Egypt is said by all the notable archeologists say it was only about 3000BC. It is said to probably be a copy civilizations of Mesopotamia. And I wait not for a big climax, or for God to intervene at this time necessarily to arrive in person soon. The final Judgment is in 3000AD. This is the forcast millennium for the Christian kingdom of heaven on earth that Jesus taught us to pray for. European Christian Israel is describes in THE SECOND BOOK OF DANIEL in chapter 10. Don't hold your breath with the many other Christians that do. We are in to day. Read more. peace and understanding. dan b