How did apes evolvle into humans?

[gunglepus]

The OT was written by people who did not believe in a trinity.

My bubble is not yet burst and I sure would like to know where you got that from.

Hear oh Israel, Yahu our god, Yahu is ONE.

ONE means ONE not three.

 

[A4C]

Gen 1:26:

Then God (Eloheim) said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ....

Now since when does "us" and "our " reflect the translation of a singular word

Now did the Hebrews think their God was singular or plural or what ?

Like I said the Hebrews know their God. He just happens to be the same one that we know.

 

[A4C]

The OT was written by people who did not believe in a trinity.



Hear oh Israel, Yahu our god, Yahu is ONE.

ONE means ONE not three.

Perhaps by "Yahu" you mean YHWH sometimes translated as YAHWEH and subsequently angicanised to Jehovah
An in depth study in the Word of God would reveal that Jesus is Jehovah a fact that he alluded to Himself and was a significant factor in Him being crucified.

Refer John Chapter 8

Joh 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

Joh 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

Joh 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Joh 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Ask a Jew what it means when sombody speaks of "I AM "

Why did Jesus say what he did ? Was He a fool, a liar, or was He who He said He was. This question indeed seperates believers from non believers.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You won't see any disagreement with the Christians on this thread about the deity of Christ.

The point here is what the OT writers thought. And they were strictly monotheistic. The Trinity was a very difficult concept for the early Jewish church. It took some time for people who came from an orthodox Jewish background to dare to start seeing Christ as God. It's really only hinted in the NT, in that there are statements that only really make sense with a divine Christ, but nowhere is it explicitly said, with the possible exception of Thomas' exclamation at being confronted with the risen Christ. You will no doubt be aware that there's considerable debate over exactly how verbatim John's accounts should be considered to be.

The funny thing is, whilst Elohim (why must you consistently mis-spell it?) says "Let us make", when the narrative then says "so Elohim made..." with a singular form of the verb.

Quite what any of this has to do with how humans evolved from their common ancestors with the great apes I have no idea. Wouldn't it be better over on one of the theology fora? I mean, it's interesting to me, but it's not relevant, nor particularly interesting to many people on this thread.

 

[A4C]

You won't see any disagreement with the Christians on this thread about the deity of Christ.

The point here is what the OT writers thought. And they were strictly monotheistic. The Trinity was a very difficult concept for the early Jewish church. It took some time for people who came from an orthodox Jewish background to dare to start seeing Christ as God. It's really only hinted in the NT, in that there are statements that only really make sense with a divine Christ, but nowhere is it explicitly said, with the possible exception of Thomas' exclamation at being confronted with the risen Christ. You will no doubt be aware that there's considerable debate over exactly how verbatim John's accounts should be considered to be.

The funny thing is, whilst Elohim (why must you consistently mis-spell it?) says "Let us make", when the narrative then says "so Elohim made..." with a singular form of the verb.

Quite what any of this has to do with how humans evolved from their common ancestors with the great apes I have no idea. Wouldn't it be better over on one of the theology fora? I mean, it's interesting to me, but it's not relevant, nor particularly interesting to many people on this thread.

The author of God's Word is God (Eloheim) and He knows who He is

 

[Illuminatus]

The author of God's Word is God (Eloheim) and He knows who He is

Good, now, can he share with everyone else? The rest of us aren't too sure.

 

[A4C]

Good, now, can he share with everyone else? The rest of us aren't too sure.

The best suggestion I have is to read one book of the Bible -Genesis
This will give you a good idea about how He began everything.
After you have read that I would suggest you read Revelations . Then you will know how the same God intends to complete His creation

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The author of God's Word is God (Eloheim)

Which you still can't spell

and He knows who He is

I daresay He does.

But can you substantiate your identification of the Word of God with the Bible? Can you show that it was actually written by God? Are you not getting confused with Muslim beliefs about the Quran?

 

[corvus_corax]

Gen 1:26:
Then God (Eloheim) said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ....
Now since when does "us" and "our " reflect the translation of a singular word
Now did the Hebrews think their God was singular or plural or what ?

All very nice, but not a very good translation really.
You should re-read what Karl wrote, namely-

The funny thing is, whilst Elohim (why must you consistently mis-spell it?) says "Let us make", when the narrative then says "so Elohim made..." with a singular form of the verb.

(emphasis mine)
A4C- If you go back and read the verses in question in the Hebrew, Im sure you will find what Karl has, and what the Jewish people have (one source quoted in my previous post, I can provide more if needed). Or you can do what Ive done (since I dont read Hebrew) and take the word of those who read hebrew.
Now, if you're not going to take the word of the Jews themselves, then there is no helping you.

Elohim was only used in the strict plural form when referring to other gods.
Elohim was always used with a singular form of the verbs when referring to the Jewish God.

You may not like that little fact, but it doesnt change the fact that the Jews are strictly monotheistic and do not adhere to any form of Trinitarianism

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I always assumed that when God said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ...." it was ment as in the "Royal we". The way queen Victoria said "We are not amused" meaning "I am not amused, but since I am Her Royal Majesty I am pluralized".

There is only one god after all, not three.

 

[A4C]

All very nice, but not a very good translation really.
You should re-read what Karl wrote, namely-

(emphasis mine)
A4C- If you go back and read the verses in question in the Hebrew, Im sure you will find what Karl has, and what the Jewish people have (one source quoted in my previous post, I can provide more if needed). Or you can do what Ive done (since I dont read Hebrew) and take the word of those who read hebrew.
Now, if you're not going to take the word of the Jews themselves, then there is no helping you.

Elohim was only used in the strict plural form when referring to other gods.
Elohim was always used with a singular form of the verbs when referring to the Jewish God.

You may not like that little fact, but it doesnt change the fact that the Jews are strictly monotheistic and do not adhere to any form of Trinitarianism

I can only go by what is written in the Bible
If somebody wants to go and make God singular and gets His permission to do so I quess I will go along with it

 

[L'Anatra]

I always assumed that when God said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ...." it was ment as in the "Royal we". The way queen Victoria said "We are not amused" meaning "I am not amused, but since I am Her Royal Majesty I am pluralized".

There is only one god after all, not three.

Interesting point, but I've read that the concept of a "Royal we" was rather foreign to Hebrew. Either way, I'm sure the exact meaning and origins of Elohim will continue to remain shrouded in mystery.

And just to reiterate: the Jews absolutely and most certainly did not and do not believe in the Trinity. The word Elohim is absolutely and most certainly not evidence for any belief Christians now carry about God. For the last time A4c, this is called an anachronism, and, as a result, your exegesis of the Old Testament in this particular case is blatantly incorrect.

 

[L'Anatra]

I can only go by what is written in the Bible
If somebody wants to go and make God singular and gets His permission to do so I quess I will go along with it

Forget it. I'm done with you for today. I could talk to JohnR7, but I have no patience for someone who flat out refuses to admit he is wrong.

 

[nvxplorer]

I can only go by what is written in the Bible
If somebody wants to go and make God singular and gets His permission to do so I quess I will go along with it

The problem is, you're not going by what's written in the Bible. As I suspect you do with everything, you're going by some delusion in your head. It would take a simple visit to a local synagogue, a short conversation with a Jewish acquaintance or a quick internet search to reveal your error. Searching any of these sources would be problematic for you, and you know it. In agreement with L'Anatra, you're not interested in truth. You only care about believing that you're right; infallible.

Learn to translate ancient Hebrew and get back to us.

 

[Loudmouth]

The best suggestion I have is to read one book of the Bible -Genesis
This will give you a good idea about how He began everything.
After you have read that I would suggest you read Revelations . Then you will know how the same God intends to complete His creation

How can we know if the Bible is right or not? Might the "Epics of Gilgamesh" be more accurate?

 

[JimmyKoKoPop]

How can we know if the Bible is right or not? Might the "Epics of Gilgamesh" be more accurate?

I don't recall any direct mentions of creation in the story of Gilgamesh... Though I have read the creation mythos from Babylonian/Sumerian religions before.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

nteresting point, but I've read that the concept of a "Royal we" was rather foreign to Hebrew. Either way, I'm sure the exact meaning and origins of Elohim will continue to remain shrouded in mystery.

And just to reiterate: the Jews absolutely and most certainly did not and do not believe in the Trinity. The word Elohim is absolutely and most certainly not evidence for any belief Christians now carry about God. For the last time A4c, this is called an anachronism, and, as a result, your exegesis of the Old Testament in this particular case is blatantly incorrect.

Thanks for clearing that up.
I think that a lot of fundamentalist christians tend to forget that the old testament was written by jews (they even seem to forget that Jesus was a devout jew). In fact, one individual on BaptistBoard a couple of years ago refered to Daniel from the OT as a "good strong christian".

 

[Physics_guy]

the Jews are strictly monotheistic and do not adhere to any form of Trinitarianism

You are right that the Jews were and are clearly against the concept of the Trinity; they consider it heresy of the highest order to consider God part man. You might not be right about the monotheistic part. The Ancient Hebrews clearly believed other gods existed, but they considered Yahweh to be the one true God. This is fairly obvious from reading much of the Torah - Exodus and Genesis both make reference to or imply the existence of other gods.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Nathan Poe

"First of all, apes DID NOT evolve into human beings. DID NOT. A common ancestor evolved into apes as well as humans in two different environments. This common ancestor was very ape-like, but it was NOT an ape, not an ape we see today."

Even if this imaginary "common ancestor" of yours was not an ape, it was, as you say, a very ape-like non-human African primate, which is even worse.

"One more time: Apes DID NOT become human. Now that you have been told this, if you ever make this claim again, you are a liar. Remember this."

If apes did not become human then no common ancestor became both apes and human either. Now that you have been told this, if you ever make this claim again, you are a liar. Remember this.

"A monkey might not give birth to a human, but it could (and often would) have an offspring that was ever-so-slightly more humanlike. And that offspring could (and, given the opportunity, would) have an even more humanlike baby. And that offspring would have a still more humanlike offspring. It would not happen in one generation, or even a hundred, maybe not even a thousand, but given enough time, you'd get there. Now that you see how it could happen, the question is whether it did happen. And that's where the fossil record comes in. When you compare various fossils that have been found, obvious pattens are apparant. Placed in chronological order, the last fossil looks very different from the first, but intermediate fossils in a sequence look very similar. The only good explanation for this similarity is that the fossils are related. So we know that evolution does happen. And among the various fossilized animals we've discovered, some of them look way too much like us to be a coincidence. So we know that humans have evolved.
Any questions?

Are you saying that when evolutionists compare the first human fossils in Africa with those human-like fossils of some monkey offspring, they are able to theorize that the first African people resembled human-like monkeys? That sounds like a racist theory of human evolution to me.

 

[corvus_corax]

That sounds like a racist theory of human evolution to me.

Still beating a dead horse are you jc?
This old "evolution=racism" canard (along with countless variations) is tired and pathetic. It has been refuted and destroyed several times on these forums.
It seems to me that you are simply looking at this through "racism colored glasses", which speaks simply of a previous unsubstantiated bias.

Give it a rest.