Revealed - The TRUE Biblical Geneology

reply to post by Shane


Funny, I was in the middle of watching Evan Almighty when I minimized the movie and came on here real quick and saw this post,

Thanks for the explanation

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Shane

 

Shane, I've been looking into theistic evolution more and I came across this page that goesinto different types of Theistic Evolution, and I've been thinking about Adam and Eve maybe being literal, and God using evolution to produce the physical vessels for Adam and Eve, check this out:

Listen my friend. It may shock the Christians, one of whom I am, but Evolution isn't anti-GOD, nor is it something that is not GOD inspired.

"In the Beginning", covers alot of matters, none of which are spelled out in specific, but further study in various other texts, offers insight of all things.

Polygenistic Theistic Evolution: This category admits a more direct role of the Creator in creation, but nevertheless accepts the premise that at least man’s body evolved from purely natural processes—even if perhaps under the guiding hand of Providence.

Now, in regards to this, I see nothing curious or startling. There is of course, a line drawn in TIME, in which this ended. Take a look again at Genesis 1:26. What is said, and how is it expressed?

"Let us make an upright being, in our image, and call him man."

No, the expression suggest a previous version of man. It is a familiar term. THEY (GOD and the Angels) KNEW of man, or what man had become, through the evolutionary, for lack of a better term, process.

Another key is "be Fruitful and Replenish the Earth. Replenishing doesn't occur if man, in some form, hadn't been here previously.

Monogenistic Theistic Evolution: Broad Natural Transformism. This form of evolutionary theory not only accepts that God’s Providence directed the evolution of man but also insists on (1) monogenism (the belief that the human race descended from only one human couple) and (2) the immediate creation of the soul by God (whether immediately after the human body was completely formed or just prior to that point, with some changes resulting from the infusion of the soul). But these theistic evolutionists still allow for natural transformism in the formation of the bodies of both Adam and Eve. [8]

The problem here, is two fold.

1: The Scriptures, along with local lore and legends of ancient peoples, such as seen with the Aborigines of Australia, clearly demonstrate, Modern Man, as expressed in Genesis 1;26, was here long before Adam and Eve.

2: Our souls are eternal. Our Spirit being was here on this earth during the first earth age, as it will be during the Millennium Kingdom, (The Third Earth Age), and for all eternity after that, whatever "age" that may become or be.

The balance of these, I believe are responded to in the above.

Listen, I have a question.

You seemingly have this blind spot that dismisses the Biblical Account, as expressed within the Books of Moses, yet embrace the Farmer and his offspring, and wish to make him and his family into something they where not.

Now don't get me wrong, because your not alone. Most Sects of Christiandom, (aka the Church), also fail in separating, the Sixth Day from SOME Day after the Day of Rest, (The 7th day). Now, I have heard some asinine commentary come from Pulpits, when discussing this topic, as well as the one which is presented in Genesis 6 with Noah. Incest, Sin, Curses,, and on and on, attempting to speculate on matters, which in the case of Adam and Eve for example, are already clearly noted within the Scriptures.

Adam, the Tiller, is not the Hunter / Gatherer peoples made on the 6th. Why this is ignored, I don't get it. I know within ATS, when discussing things like this, terms like racist gets thrown around, but outside of that, I can't explain it.

I hope you get what it is I am trying to express. Only got to page 5 last night, going to 6 now, and based on yesterday, I may say something shortly.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

The translation I put forth is a combination of the KJV and the CLV, I took words from both, and then changed a few of the words (like Adam) to it's original meaning (mankind), and I think the translation I presented paints a much more scientific picture of our heritage, than does accepting the KJV presented translation, which seems to point to a singular Adam and Eve, which is incompatible with modern science.....

So I see and understand what you are doing now. Creating your own scriptural text, which is much akin to the various fuzzzy speech bibles you can purchase on the shelf.

Pal, here is the Bible.
www.jesus-is-lord.com...

And here is the tool needed to verify the text of that Bible.
www.eliyah.com...

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Iason321

 

Do you think God condones incest? Because if Adam and Eve were singular people, and Cain and Abel were singular, then guess what? God commanded incest.

He didn't command not to do it until after the Exodus in Egypt. It was a necessary thing, same as when Noah and his sons and their wives left the ark.

I was going to pick on MamaJ, just because she looks quite hot, but come on people.

There are Flood Tales, which are quite similar to the Biblical Account throughout the world. Some vary in minor aspects, but they do tend to express common themes.

Asia, Australia, the Americas, as well as the Middle East all have these with in their Lore passed down to their descendants.

Why does Africa not have such Tales or Lore?

Because they never had a Flood Event, of Biblical proportions, occur.

People survived Noah's Flood.

As for Adam and Eve, what does the scriptures say?

Genesis 1:26. Does it need to be printed yet again?

These people lived and where fruitful, and multiplied and worshiped GOD and taught Adam, eventually Eve, Adam's Son Abel, and Cain, (aka Spawn of Satan) of the Feasts and Holy Days and the rites of Offerings and such.

When Cain killed his half brother, he went to Nod. He got a wife, Not his sister, or Eve, but a wife who bore Enoch the City Builder.

Who was his Wife? One of the Descendants of the 6th day Peoples.

Who did Seth take for a wife? One of the descendants of the 6th day Peoples.

These Peoples where everywhere. They where given instructions by GOD during the time of their creation/recreation, (the 6th Day), and they followed those instructions. Many of those people are still following those instruction today, although the descendants of Cain, have done their best to stop them. But that's another topic.

Ciao

Shane

This idiocy about incest is truly ignorance run a muck.

Originally posted by Iason321
......so I'm proposing the theory that the Adam and Eve and the early ancestors were the Hominidae and Homininae who evolved into the current Human Beings......

Forgive me folks, I am still learning the ins and outs of evolution, I'm working on proving what I know to be true now....I'll get you all more answers in the near future.....

Try this on.

What is missing from the "Evolutionary Progression" to Modern Man? Science seeks it constantly, yet it is still missing? It's on the tip of my tongue, but........ No no. I think it's.....??? Lost Chain? no Forgotten Clog? no Don't say it, it will come to me.......The Hidden Stage? no.

Crap, now I lost my train of thought. I hate MISSING thoughts while I attempt to LINK things together.

Oh Yeah. Now I remember.

MISSING LINK.

The Genesis Account of Recreation, is just that. The Missing Link. We know now that man in some level, was here from the fossil record, and on the 6th day, a new "man" (mankind) was created and told to replenish, multiply and be fruitful.

Ever find it curious we can seek and locate most everything that ever was, but not the transition between man of the First Earth Age, if I may, and man of This Earth Age?

Why is this?

Genesis 1:2, And the Earth BECAME a waste and a desolation..........(The Original Text verbatim).

There is nothing for science to find. They fail to realize what took place in Genesis 1;2.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by np6888
How come wiki says an ark was never discovered? Did you try to edit it and see if someone contested you?

Sorry, I've been away for work. What wiki are you referring too? Obviously the answer is NO if I know of no such Wiki (FYI).

Originally posted by Iason321

I am just trying to bring Biblical Theology and my fellow ATS Christians up to speed with modern scientific thought, so we don't get shunned by the community at large......if we're trying to win hearts to Christ, we're not gonna do it by telling them evolution is a lie, because that's simply not true. Amen then

If, as you note, this is true, what is wrong with the Biblical Account as it is?

I know some have difficulties because their own agendas take over, and as you can see in pulpits around this planet, verses are twisted to suit those needs to blend in with the ebb and flow of those who run the established Church.

And here a secret that not too many people have caught onto. Don't be telling just anyone.

Science and the Bible have no reason to be considered Enemies. Science confirms the Biblical Account, and todate, I have not seen anything presented by even the most Spite Fill Anti-Christian Trolls that come close to suggesting otherwise.

And again, don't tell this to just anyone. Casting Perals to Swine and all,

Ciao

Shane

P.S. Seems I have tooooo much to say.

reply to post by Shane

Listen my friend. It may shock the Christians, one of whom I am, but Evolution isn't anti-GOD, nor is it something that is not GOD inspired.

I guess other than the calling God a liar part it's not.

And "replenish" in 1611 vernacular meant "to fill up" not "to fill up again".

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

And "replenish" in 1611 vernacular meant "to fill up" not "to fill up again".

Excellent.

But it means quite a view things, actually.

Result of search for "replenish":
4390 male' maw-lay' or malae (Esth. 7:5) [maw-law']; a primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively):--accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) full(-ly, -ly set, tale), (over-)flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a (hand-)full, + have wholly.

Knowing that Biblically, the first earth age has past, and we are in the second earth age now, it is obvious something manlike was once here. We have the fossil records to verify this. We know that this earth is Billions of years old. This isn't fiction.

We have a text, that despite the OP's considerations, it is basically a Family Tree. It's Christ's Family tree to be precise. It shows events and how these events effected the "family" for the most part. Some failed miserably while others excelled, all according to there relationship with GOD, the Father.

Our Brother Judah, also flows from this same Tree. Many of the Family, are presumed lost at this time, although that is a debatable subject in it'self. Our Cousins of Islam also part of this genealogy.

There are, though out the Text, instructional comments, attributed to GOD directly, as well as commentary that discusses past events. First Earth Age events.

Within ATS, we seem to see the Conflictive commentary's that question the truth of the Bible. The Great Flood is one example. To me, this thread is one, which doesn't reflect one Biblical truth, and lends to further confusion for those who seek nothing more than to wallow in it.

You have now clearly denoted that Biblically, Man, made in the image of God and the Angels, created both male and female, and given dominion over the fruits of the earth, (Gatherer) and the Fish/Fowl/Fauna found there, (Hunter), and told to replenish the earth, whatever that ultimately means.

Now to me, this is what is needed to point out the misleading thought being presented in this thread. The Races where here long before Adam and Eve. Now if you opt to think in 24 hour periods, the Races where here 48 hour before Adam and Eve.

Point is, the Races where here already. There is no need to speculate upon unnecessary nonsense about the what if this, or what if that.

The Longevity of Adam thru to Noah, has to do with the environment they lived in and living during the days of a "Numbered" Lifespan. Prior to the events in the garden, it can be suggested, we had no "Shelf date" of expirey, but that again is yet another topic.

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

and

Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Now, this message was quite clear, and in the end, Adam and his descendant did exactly that, Die. Mankind, of the 6th day is likely to also have bore a similar occurrence although that isn't expressed.

There is also the condition this planet was in at the time. No Rain, just misting of the earth. The Firmament and it's effects on both Flora and Fauna, let alone mankind.

The next event that resulted in a deterioration of the longevity of Man was Noah's Flood. A lifespan was then limited to 120 Years, instead of a 1000 Years.

I believe it is the events that surrounded the Tower of Babel, and the mischief we can get into with tooooo much time on our hands, that we again had a lifespan lowered to what we have today, some 70 years.

Now, some may argue against this, and so be it. This is what the Bible says. I am good with that.

We can also do something else, and that is to see what Legends and Lore of Ancient Peoples, and those that today, still typify their ancestors and lifestyle.

I contend Gilgamesh actually sought out Noah, (or one of his sons), seeking the secret of immortality .

There are tales of Immortals around this globe. Whether these are persons or entities (aka, the Fallen) is subjective, but the point is, they exist.

So, You may think as you wish about what I say, but I have no need to question or consider GOD is a liar. His Word is quite clear. I have NO PROBLEM with what is expressed there.

Ciao

Shane

S&F !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not Just for the question the OP poses but also for the vigorous dbate it generated. While I didn't involve myself in the debate, I really enjoyed reading everyone who did chose to become involved (the only 2 options really) replies.

PEACE