It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adam and eve

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Problem with God creating Adam THEN Eve is that genetic scientists say "Eve" (first human female we all come from) is quite a bit OLDER then "Adam", the first male.
I've read about this recently, can't remember where though, will try to find the link.




posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
There is something i must say. The story of Adam and Eve is not at all ficticious (spelt wrong so dont tell me it is ) The theories of evolution and the big bang are both lacking some minor details. The big bang if you think about it could not have happened due to the fact that there was nothing to create it. The theory of evolution would have to deal with spontaneous creation of organic matter and as i learned in biology the spontaneous creation of organic matter is impossible.



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   
A bit off the main topic here in response to the last post...


The big bang if you think about it could not have happened due to the fact that there was nothing to create it.


The Big Bang theory does not state - as many believe - that suddenly there was a huge explosion of matter and energy out of nothing. Basically the theroy says that about 14 billion years ago the universe began a rapid expansion from a state of extreme density and temperature. If you look at the devestation left by a large forest fire, you can look at the rate and direction at which it is burning outward and begin to trace its progress backwards. Eventually you will be able to say that at approximately XXX location at XXX time, a fire started and began to spread rapidly outward. Your logic is saying that because noone can specifically say how that fire started, this explanation for its existance cannot possibly be correct.

Our understanding of the universe did not come to us overnight. It had been a long process with more pieces fitting into place (and in some cases more questions arising) as the years go by.

If you would like to talk about 'lacking minor details' - where in the story of Adam and Eve does it state 'and then god created the Pterodactyl. And god saw that it was not so good, so he caused it to become extinct' ?

[Edited on 15-2-2004 by Donner]

[Edited on 15-2-2004 by Donner]



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donner
If you would like to talk about 'lacking minor details' - where in the story of Adam and Eve does it state 'and then god created the Pterodactyl. And god saw that it was not so good, so he caused it to become extinct' ?

[Edited on 15-2-2004 by Donner]

[Edited on 15-2-2004 by Donner]



Very nice way of putting it!
Why is it, that no one can believe, that a long time ago, something happened here, that "sparked life"? Is there a higher power? Sure...maybe something that until we die, we may NEVER comprehend it's existance. But that doesn't mean that this higher power created "a perfect begining"
The Bible, are stories told by man to man. Anyone who writes, will want "perfection" in some things that they talk about.
We needed something to follow, to focus our thoughts and energy on, so Religion was created. Please notice, as you read through history, that ALL races, had different gods, and STILL do . What lead to those different gods? BUT also notice, that ALL races, believe in an afterlife in one form or other. SO perhaps, at a "subconscious" level, we know that there is "something bigger" than us

--Waveracer-- I think that when you say this "spontaneous creation of organic matter is impossible." You are thinking of something going "poof" out of the air...YOU can create life (procreating) it's not "spontaneous" but when the sperm and egg meet...they "recognize" each other, bond, electrical crap starts to happen at the molecular level, and "life" appears.

Do I understand who Jesus was? No, who knows, perhaps Jesus was a "version" of us in the far future, and he came waaaayyyy back then and tried to leave the message that "You can do all that I do" just follow my teachings.





[Edited on 15-2-2004 by NetStorm]



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
If you follow the bible, it says that Adam and Eve were the first people, not the only. It's a common misconception to think that they were the only humans at that time.

Hrothgar



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   
When God made Adam and Eve, He said they were very good. They were perfect with no mistakes in their genes. After Adam and Eve disobeyed God, God cursed them and the earth. Therefore everything has been breaking down ever since. Including our genes. The first people could intermarry because they didn't have any mistakes in their genes.

By the time of Moses genetic mistakes had built up, making it necessary for God to forbid close relations to intermarry.



posted on Sep, 26 2004 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Noahs sons spread out after the flood to seperate regions to repopulate didn't they. Noah had like 6 sons so wouldn't we all come from 1 of 6 genetic lines? I'm just curious to what anyone thinks of this theory that I've heard.
doctorduh



posted on Sep, 26 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Noah had three sons and they had wives. After the flood they all had many children. The population grew, God then commanded them to spread out and populate the earth. They disobeyed so God confused their language which cause them to break up into smaller groups which then scattered over the earth.

This is how we come to get different races. With different mixes of genes certain groups would with natural selection have different skin colors and of course different languages.

Noah and his family were probably mid brown with genes for light and dark skin.



posted on Sep, 26 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   
There were other people on the planet......why would Cain have a mark put on him for everyone to know he was a murderer if there were no one else on the planet......

And the Lord said unto him [Cain], Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
-- Genesis 4: 15-16 (KJV)



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 12:05 AM
link   
During their lives Adam and Eve had many children. Even though there are only three males mentioned, Abel, Cain and Seth. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty'three sons and twenty'three daughters.' Josephus, Flavius, (translated by William Whiston, A.M.) 1981. The Complete Works of Josephus, Kregel Publications.

Remember Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
'And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.' Genesis 5:4

The following verses do not say that Cain found his wife in Nod it simply says he knew her.
And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch: and he built a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. Genesis 4:16-17



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 12:05 AM
link   
[edit on 27-9-2004 by rosebeforetime]



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by rosebeforetime
By the time of Moses genetic mistakes had built up, making it necessary for God to forbid close relations to intermarry.

Uhm, what possible reason is there to beleive any of this? And inbreeding isn't a problem because of 'mistakes' or imperfections, its a problem because individuals can get double doses of lethal or deformative genes (ones that in single doses do nothing, or perform normally). Making up somethign about 'mistakes accumulating' is just plain silly, its not in the bible, so it can't pretend to have any biblical basis, and its not supported by any kind of science or evidence. Its just making something up to make it sound like some myth written by "pastoral goat herders" a few thousand years ago isn't silly.


gradyphilpot
Consider the following:

Why? This is just stuff from the book of urantia. Its like mormonism of seventh day adventism, its supposed to be 'sacred wisdom' divinely inspired by some prophet in the past. Why give it any credibility?

doctorduh
Noah had like 6 sons so wouldn't we all come from 1 of 6 genetic lines?

No, humans don't come from 6 genetic lines. There's nothing to support that idea, and besides, th whole noah story falls apart when one realizes that there was no world-wide flood.

rosebeforetimeNoah and his family were probably mid brown with genes for light and dark skin.

This is preposterous, along with the rest of the post. The whole noah story shouldn't even begin to be accepted as fact, nor the 'tower of babel' story either. There isn't any evidence to support it, not in the least. How can you even pretend to surmise as to what skin colour noah and his family have? Also, there is only one human skin pigment, its melanin, there aren't genes for 'black skin' or 'white skin' or anything else.

The following verses do not say that Cain found his wife in Nod it simply says he knew her.

Isn't 'knowing' someone in the biblical sense supposed to mean a little more than it does in modern usage? Something one might do with their, er, wife?



posted on Sep, 27 2004 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by rosebeforetime

Isn't 'knowing' someone in the biblical sense supposed to mean a little more than it does in modern usage? Something one might do with their, er, wife?

Yes..."knowing" in the biblical sense refers to sexual intercourse.....

[edit on 9/30/2004 by LadyV]



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Of course, views of the Bible depend on whether you believe it is the original, or as others believe that it was a compilation of earlier tales and stories written by people to be passed on as truth.

www.sitchin.com...
www.sitchin.com...

Sitchin's work would have us believe the latter. It's not everyone's cup of tea mind ;-)



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   
not for nothing, but sitchin is hardly the person who put forward the idea that the old testament had multiple authors



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
The Bible itself says that it is a compilation written by many authors, all apparently inspired of God. And at the end of the day, what idea is new or original? I haven't seen too many others who advocate the theory of Anunnaki coming from Nibiru and genetically engineering mankind, and basing that on texts from the oldest known civilisation. But the fact that he's reading that into old texts means that possibly the people who wrote them meant it, so at best that's the 2nd time that information has come to light ;-)



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Problem is, it looks like only sitchin is translating these sumerian texts as supporting the alien domination theory. I don't know much about sumerian and akkadian linguistics or reading cuneiform, but why is he the only one advocating these readings, or have others independently come to similar conclusions?

Also, I do know enough about genetics to know that, at least what i've seen of his genetics claims, that he isn't qualified to make any statements or interpret any gentic information.

What are his qualifications for translating sumerian and akkadian? Now, I'm not going for some 'arguement from authority', I'm just curiuos, where was he trained for this? I can't imagine that he hasn't received any training.



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
From what I understand, although I do not remember where from, there are some 100 or so people around who understand Sumerian, Akkadian and the like. Meaning that there's not too many people out there to either confirm or deny what Sitchin says. In his books he will go through why he translates phrases the way he does, pointing back to the root words and alternate meanings that he believes are meant to be used in the context that they are.

As for his training, without picking up one of his books I can't tell you for sure. He was born in Russia and lived in Palestine + Israel I believe it was. He did go to University of London, thought I can't be sure it was languages that he studied there.

The anicent languages he studied from a very young age when he was already studying Hebrew. He enjoys recounting the tale, so you can probably google it very easily. He was at Sunday school and was reading about the Nephilim, which was commonly translated as "giants", but he argued that the literal translation meant "they who from heaven to earth came", and he got reprimanded for it and told not to question it. So naturally he started questioning it ;-)

If you can find any of his books at a local library it may well contain the information in the front of the book or on the inside sleeve of some of the hardback ones (the lost book of Enki, the cosmic code).



posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nairod
From what I understand, although I do not remember where from, there are some 100 or so people around who understand Sumerian, Akkadian and the like. Meaning that there's not too many people out there to either confirm or deny what Sitchin says.

I really don't think that the numbers are quite that low, and the tablets he uses, its not like no one else has translated them no?

In his books he will go through why he translates phrases the way he does, pointing back to the root words and alternate meanings that he believes are meant to be used in the context that they are.
Hmm, this is infact disapointing. I had thought he was directly reading the cunieform, but this seems to indicate that he is looking at already made translations?

If you can find any of his books at a local library it may well contain the information in the front of the book or on the inside sleeve of some of the hardback ones (the lost book of Enki, the cosmic code).

I'll actually be in the library before long, I think I will do this.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join