How did such a primitive people, get the "order" of creation, or how life came about...

[Neogaia777]

How did such a primitive people, get the "order" of creation, or how life came about right? According to evolution? How did they know, unless they had "help"?

God Bless!

 

[roamer_1]

The idea of 'primitive' ancestors is a myth.

 

[Winken]

They had help. It started right after the flood.

 

[TurtleAnne]

One of the reasons I really like Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead

This makes so much sense to me. All of the strong similarities in creation stories across so many civilizations throughout human history. Even if different languages and names were used, it's just so evident to me that there is an inherent understanding in humans in regards to these things, as though it's a part of our very DNA or something. I believe that for each human, there is a possible personal relationship with God, and that it is between that person and God, the words used and so on, and that many different people have felt and will feel the Holy Spirit, whatever they call it in their language or culture, and have the opportunity to respond and understand.

It is also another reason why I wonder sometimes, when I see people expressing doubt or anger, with such concerns along the lines as.. "I knew this very wonderful, sweet person who died and since they were not a Christian, it means that God sent them to hell," but for me I'm like well.. we don't really know that. We don't know what their private relationship with God may have been like, what they may have felt or experienced internally, spiritually, and if they may have responded to it in the privacy of their hearts, even if they had shied away from the modern churches for whatever reasons. So who knows.

 

[Neogaia777]

The idea of 'primitive' ancestors is a myth.

Maybe, primitive is the wrong word, simpler maybe, but, you've got to admit, they had very limited (scientific or otherwise) knowledge about how life came about on the earth, How'd they get it right, how could they have known, by what they alone knew, back then?

God Bless!

 

[faroukfarouk]

One of the reasons I really like Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead

This makes so much sense to me. All of the strong similarities in creation stories across so many civilizations throughout human history. Even if different languages and names were used, it's just so evident to me that there is an inherent understanding in humans in regards to these things, as though it's a part of our very DNA or something. I believe that for each human, there is a possible personal relationship with God, and that it is between that person and God, the words used and so on, and that many different people have felt and will feel the Holy Spirit, whatever they call it in their language or culture, and have the opportunity to respond and understand.

It is also another reason why I wonder sometimes, when I see people expressing doubt or anger, with such concerns along the lines as.. "I knew this very wonderful, sweet person who died and since they were not a Christian, it means that God sent them to hell," but for me I'm like well.. we don't really know that. We don't know what their private relationship with God may have been like, what they may have felt or experienced internally, spiritually, and if they may have responded to it in the privacy of their hearts, even if they had shied away from the modern churches for whatever reasons. So who knows.

I think the force of the first few chapters of Romans is that, whatever the culture, God concludes all under sin; all have a God consciousness against which in one way or another they have offended. Romans 3.23: 'All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". In the very next verse Paul speaks of the wondrous grace in free justification through faith in His blood that is available.

 

[roamer_1]

Maybe, primitive is the wrong word, simpler maybe, but, you've got to admit, they had very limited (scientific or otherwise) knowledge about how life came about on the earth, How'd they get it right, how could they have known, by what they alone knew, back then?

God Bless!

The creation story runs through every race and mythology - Somewhat canted by those who led toward false gods, but it is there - Noah would have brought the knowledge across the flood - and carried on by Shem - Shem was around for some 500 years after the flood... Contemporary even into Abraham's time.

The story could surely be transmitted accurately that far by a single voice.

And 'scientific knowledge' ain't all it's cracked up to be...

 

[Neogaia777]

The creation story runs through every race and mythology - Somewhat canted by those who led toward false gods, but it is there - Noah would have brought the knowledge across the flood - and carried on by Shem - Shem was around for some 500 years after the flood... Contemporary even into Abraham's time.

The story could surely be transmitted accurately that far by a single voice.

And 'scientific knowledge' ain't all it's cracked up to be...

Is the creation story the same with every race and mythology? If so, same question, how could they have known and got it accurate without some kind of otherworldly help?

 

[roamer_1]

Is the creation story the same with every race and mythology? If so, same question, how could they have known and got it accurate without some kind of otherworldly help?

No. the creation story is fairly neatly divided between pantheistic systems, which follow generally the story of the fallen ones taking credit for creation, and the monotheistic, which shows up in the strangest of places... which still have vestiges of the truth....

but in the larger picture, yes - written on the hearts of men are the creation, the fall, the rise of the titans/fallen ones as powerful gods, and the flood,

 

[Winken]

Before the beginning of space and time, GOD. And He is One.

 

[archer75]

It's not exactly the same but there are striking similarities as well as strikimg differences. I know a good "odd" creation story and will dig up the text later and post it. But for now, I'll say that the amount of sheer information and interpretations of informatiom held by even an average member of an oral culture is insanely large. They may have lacked smartphones but I think they had very deep understanding of plenty of stuff purely through their God-given intellects and without "revelation".

 

[Neogaia777]

No. the creation story is fairly neatly divided between pantheistic systems, which follow generally the story of the fallen ones taking credit for creation, and the monotheistic, which shows up in the strangest of places... which still have vestiges of the truth....

but in the larger picture, yes - written on the hearts of men are the creation, the fall, the rise of the titans/fallen ones as powerful gods, and the flood,

So, the first monotheistic have the truth about how life came about, according to what we know of it today, but all of them have a story of a creation, (yet not accurate in the polythesitic beliefs) the fall, the rise of the titans/fallen ones as powerful gods, and the flood?

How'd they know?

How did the monotheistic ones get the creation account right over the others, unless it was given them by their monotheistic God?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

It's not exactly the same but there are striking similarities as well as strikimg differences. I know a good "odd" creation story and will dig up the text later and post it. But for now, I'll say that the amount of sheer information and interpretations of informatiom held by even an average member of an oral culture is insanely large. They may have lacked smartphones but I think they had very deep understanding of plenty of stuff purely through their God-given intellects and without "revelation".

Surely they couldn't have got the order of creation right on their own though, could they?

 

[archer75]

Regarding order, tell me what you mean by order and I'll give my best guess. You just mean the basic order in Genesis 1?​

 

[roamer_1]

How did the monotheistic ones get the creation account right over the others, unless it was given them by their monotheistic God?

That is the better question - Native Americans, for instance - some of their stuff is right on point. Some of the Cherokee have long thought they are of the Hebrews somewhere in the past because of the similarities.

But I am probably the wrong guy to ask, as I believe strongly in oratory history, and have long been a proponent of ancient trans-continental and trans-oceanic trade routes... I can see the stories coming that way, pretty easily... Though I would never rule out revelation.

 

[archer75]

From a book by Gregory Bateson. Will edit post tomorrow with the title and stuff. Presented here for the striking difference from the account in Genesis.

"...among the Iatmul of New Guinea, the central origin myth, like the
Genesis story, deals with the question of how dry land was separated
from water. They say that in the beginning the crocodile Kavwokmali paddled with his front legs and with his hind legs; and his paddling kept the mud suspended in the water. The great culture hero,
Kevembuangga, came with his spear and killed Kavwokmali. After that the mud settled and dry land was formed. Kevembuangga then stamped with his foot on the dry land, i.e., he proudly demonstrated "that it was good." Here there is a stronger
case for deriving the myth from experience combined with inductive reasoning. After all, mud does remain in suspension if randomly stirred and does settle when the stirring ceases. Moreover, the Iatmul people live in the vast swamps of the Sepik River valley where the separation of land from water is imperfect. It is understandable that they might be interested in the differentiation of land from water. In any case, the Iatmul have arrived at a theory of order which is almost a precise converse of that of the book of Genesis. In Iatmul thought, sorting will occur if randomization is prevented. In Genesis, an agent
is invoked to do the sorting and dividing. But both cultures alike
assume a fundamental division between the problems of material
creation and the problems of order and differentiation."

 

[Papias]

How did such a primitive people, get the "order" of creation, or how life came about right? According to evolution? How did they know, unless they had "help"?

God Bless!

Umm... what? The order is not "correct". It's all mixed up. Again and again the order in Genesis is completely wrong if read literally.

Some examples, by day of "creation":


Initial State

Watery abyss

wrong - Land has always existed on Earth

1

Light (no Sun yet)

wrong - Light without sun?

2

Firmament/inverted bowl

wrong - Hebrew word shows this to be solid, but there has never been a solid dome over the earth.

3

Dry land, then All land plants

wrong - sea animals preceded land plants

4

Moon, Sun, stars and the whole universe

wrong - Those existed long before life and most of the other things made in days 1-3.

5

Aquatic Animals & Birds

wrong - Birds were not before animals on land.

6

Land animals and humans

But this is a different order than Genesis 2.

7

Rest

Just like any other primitive creation story, some things are right here and there - especially since most of these stories (as shown above) go from simpler to complex, as makes sense.

Our story isn't anywhere close to being right. The most accurate stories are by religions made up recently - like scientology. But that, of course, only means that we knew more when they made up the religion, not that scientology is right.

In Christ-
Papias

 

[Neogaia777]

Umm... what? The order is not "correct". It's all mixed up. It again and again the order in Genesis is completely wrong if read literally.

Some examples, by day of "creation":


Initial State

Watery abyss

wrong - Land has always existed on Earth

1

Light (no Sun yet)

wrong - Light without sun?

2

Firmament/inverted bowl

wrong - Hebrew word shows this to be solid, but there has never been a solid dome over the earth.

3

Dry land, then All land plants

wrong - sea animals preceded land plants

4

Moon, Sun, stars and the whole universe

wrong - Those existed long before life and most of the other things made in days 1-3.

5

Aquatic Animals & Birds

wrong - Birds were not before animals on land.

6

Land animals and humans

But this is a different order than Genesis 2.

7

Rest

Just like any other primitive creation story, some things are right here and there - especially since most of these stories (as shown above) go from simpler to complex, as makes sense.

Our story isn't anywhere close to being right. The most accurate stories are by religions made up recently - like scientology. But that, of course, only means that we knew more when they made up the religion, not that scientology is right.

In Christ-
Papias

You're not understanding that Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 is a summary of the beginnings of a creation of an entire universe and an earth like planet down to it's very ending and conclusion... It's a very quick "fly by" or "fly over", not even mentioning the fall of man and the restoration of man between, It's trying to summarize the entire life of an entire universe and earth like planets, from beginning to end... It leaves out a lot, and I mean, a lot of detail... Genesis 2:4 even says "This is a "history" (a historical record of) it says "the" but I think "a" is also appropriate, "A" Heavens and "a" earth, or "the" earth's...

Look at it again, with this perspective in mind...

We don't get into the details until Genesis 2:5, and it jumps right in beginning with Man, and doesn't mention any of the rest mentioned in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4...

And, Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 is nearly entirely in symbolic representations that are only likened to the things it is saying, It's also and is talking about other realities as well, were things in those realities are like, but not exactly alike, the things we know of here...

The Hebrew words "meanings" if you look some of them up, are clearly not only and may not even be at all directly referring to this kind of reality that we know (of)... (The meaning of the Hebrew names and meanings of the names of the four rivers in Eden are just one example)...

Man, Adam, is symbolic of the Son of God, or the God-Man, or God, cause the spirit of the Father was in him, the animals, symbolic of spirit creatures, plant's, animals, trees, the Garden paradise itself (symbolic of Heaven) is all in symbolic representations of likening things we can understand to things we can't, like the reality of paradise or heavenly realm, or other dimension, or another kind of reality entirely... Beyond our comprehension right now...

I posted this on it, it's a bit simpler...

Genesis: Another Kind of Reality... Hebrew language...

God Bless!

 

[archer75]

You're not understanding that Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 is a summary of the beginnings of a creation of an entire universe and an earth like planet down to it's very ending and conclusion...

I think I missed something. Weren't you expressing surprise above that they got the order right? Did I not follow that?

 

[Neogaia777]

I think I missed something. Weren't you expressing surprise above that they got the order right? Did I not follow that?

I was in the middle of editing my post above, might want to check it again if you want to know what I'm talking about?