Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Actually, this is all irrelevant.
But still, kindly provide a source for your following assertions:
TheVisitor said:
TheVisitor said:
The creation of man.
- Thread starter Enmos
- Start date
But still, kindly provide a source for your following assertions:
Enmos,
18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Was Adam the first human being, or was he the first human of his type?
I believe he was the first of his type, and see no indication that he was the first ever human being, in the scripture. There is however, every indication that there were already existing humans outside of Eden. Either that, or incest is cool.
It says in the above text that God "had formed", not "did form", the beasts out of the ground, which he brought to Adam, to name.
Adam became naturally lonely, and must have naturally expressed some desire for company, so he created a female counterpart.
In the same sense that the beasts had been formed earlier, I think man and woman had been formed earlier as well.
jan.
18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Was Adam the first human being, or was he the first human of his type?
I believe he was the first of his type, and see no indication that he was the first ever human being, in the scripture. There is however, every indication that there were already existing humans outside of Eden. Either that, or incest is cool.
It says in the above text that God "had formed", not "did form", the beasts out of the ground, which he brought to Adam, to name.
Adam became naturally lonely, and must have naturally expressed some desire for company, so he created a female counterpart.
In the same sense that the beasts had been formed earlier, I think man and woman had been formed earlier as well.
jan.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
How do you get that from the scripture you quoted ? I have to say I'm puzzled..
Hey, it's your religion, not mine
And ?
That's pretty obvious from earlier verses.. :shrug:
Where does it say that ?? Where ?
It says that God created a woman to help Adam. Nowhere does the bible say that Adam was lonely.
Where does it say that in the bible ?
Why is it that at least two Sumarian epics are strikingly similar concepts and events as described in Genesis? I'm sure it doesn't stop there, I've not read enough about ancient pre-Hebrew text.
The ones I know about are:
Gilgamesh is like Noah
Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta is like the Tower of Babel
The ones I know about are:
Gilgamesh is like Noah
Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta is like the Tower of Babel
That answer was relevant to the questions at hand.
The scriptures that "provide the source" are too many to list.
I'll give you some clues so you can look them up.
But that doesn't mean you will see it right away.
The scriptures said God has hid things from the wise and prudent.
-God created the animals before Adam.
-The serpent was an animal.
-Cain was a tiller of the soil.
-It's why Cain was not allowed to be killed.
-It explains the "mark" given him.
-His father was that original beast.
-Cain was "of his father the wicked one".
-Adam was not "the wicked one"
-Look at Abel, the first true son of Adam and Eve.
-He was a shepherd. He led the animals, as his father Adam was to do.
-Abel naturaly received revelation from God, and obeyed the instructions.
-Cain was like his father the serpent. He naturally tilled the soil.
-God spoke to him also, but he did not obey.
-They had two different fathers.
-Eve was called "mother of all the living".
-Adam was never called "father of all the living".
-John calling the multitudes a "generation of vipers"...
-Jesus doing the same "you're of your father the devil"...
-Paul saying; "as the serpent beguiled Eve so I fear you'll accept another gospel"...
-Eve cursed in childbearing, not in her mouth from eating a literal fruit.
-Proverbs..."The way of an adulterous woman, she eateth and wipeth her mouth and says I've done nothing"
-Proverbs..."The words of a righteous man are as the fruits of the tree of life"
-Jesus, the beginning of the creation of God.
-Jesus, the firstborn of many brethren.
-Those led of the Spirit are called the sons of God.
-You must be born again.
This is hidden all through the scriptures. There are many more references.
It's everywhere once you can see it. Like a rosetta stone. The story of two races.
Genesis. Gene - Sis. Two seeds. Plural.
Don't try to make this into some racial thing either, the race of Adam and the serpent were mixed in the garden and again before the flood.
Today there is no difference.We are all the same.
The flesh of man is a descendant of the serpent, but in the soul of man is God.
The Bible has always been a story about the creation of God.
When Noah came over the flood all humanity spread out from there all of one language.
The prophecies and histories from before the flood spread out with them to every culture.
That's why you find madonnas with child saviour's in China and India thousands of years before Jesus was born.
Last edited:
Enmos,
The real question is how do you conclude that Adam was the first ever human being.?
What does religion have to do with it?
If you don't have any objection to that point, then why do you think that God created man and woman for the purposes of multiplication came after Adam?
It doesn't say, but if you use common sense it can be understood.
From God's point of view, He created a helper (not necessarily just to help in the garden). From Adams point of view she was a woman, his wife, and all that it entails.
In verse 18 it say's that God said, "...it's no good for a man to be alone" So it stands to reason that Adam must have been lonelhy.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image....
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
jan.
The real question is how do you conclude that Adam was the first ever human being.?
Hey, it's your religion, not mine
What does religion have to do with it?
jan said:
And ?
If you don't have any objection to that point, then why do you think that God created man and woman for the purposes of multiplication came after Adam?
It doesn't say, but if you use common sense it can be understood.
From God's point of view, He created a helper (not necessarily just to help in the garden). From Adams point of view she was a woman, his wife, and all that it entails.
In verse 18 it say's that God said, "...it's no good for a man to be alone" So it stands to reason that Adam must have been lonelhy.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image....
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
jan.
You don't seem to understand my question. Why does Sumerian texts which predates the old testament from the Bible, contain strikingly similar stories that are in the Bible. How can we say with certainty that the Bible is not an interpretation of Sumerian and Babylonian text? I know this is a controversial subject, but I'd like to know what you all think. I was not aware until today that there were more than one story in the Bible that seem duplicated from much earlier secular texts. The more apparent duplication, the more I will tend to deduce that the Bible (and its original text) as merely copies of ancient myths, rather than original myths...which would help me further along to discover.
Because if they happened, then everyone would know about it world wide. Religion seems to be the only topic where people can find MORE proof about something happening, and have it actually reduce the likelihood. The original Torah never claims to be the first writing down of events that happened...it simply claims to be the monotheistic interpretation of those events.
lolwut
Last edited:
You read all that and didn't see it? Head swimming at all from all the plagiarism Hebrews/Jews/Muslims/Christians have done from the original(probably they predate civilization even) stories? No? Truely you are impervious to reason...
I'd love to be banned, reduce the temptation of coming here to argue pointlessly ...
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You aren't amongst the ones I meant. You aren't an idiot, right ?
I'm just trying to not name them.
Anyway there is a lot of different versions of the Enki Creation myth - this is the one I was talking about:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ninhursag
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ninhursag
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
That's very interesting. What does this myth say about a possible first man (Adam) ?
nietzschefan,
I didn't see anything about woman being made out of a man's rib, which is the
claim you made.
I can see similarities, but I don't see evidence of plagarism.
jan.
I didn't see anything about woman being made out of a man's rib, which is the
claim you made.
I can see similarities, but I don't see evidence of plagarism.
jan.
I answered much of that question here...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1987622&postcount=33
Before Nimrod in Babylon the world was of one language, and one religion.
He confused the people and split this monotheism into polytheism, created the worlds first army (after the flood anyway) and used religion as a tool for war.
Why were similar Sumerian stories earlier?
Because the events happened before there were Hebrews to write them down for one thing.
These events were written by different perspectives, the Sumerians served gods that were sworn enemies of the God of the Hebrews.
So...who wore the black hats and white hats may have naturally been reversed.
Older doesn't make something more accurate.
The Sumerian accounts being older had more time to lose accuracy due to embellishments and legend.
The Hebrew accounts were given at a later date yes, but they were given Moses by vision from God according to their account.
That could make them more accurate than the older Sumerian accounts.
Like I said there are many reasons for the similarities.
Just because the Sumerian texts are older, that doesn't mean they are the truth.
That doesn't mean they are a complete lie either.
There can be much truth inside a story that as a whole is false.
Last edited:
It's tough for you to accept ... I know, maybe it hurts.
The hebrews "Wrote it down" 3500 years AFTER the Sumerians. And you are telling me the Sumerians copied THEM?
The Hebrew are decedents of some Semite tribe - probably former/beaten/enslaved, Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians. They were "originally" (when they decided they were one people) so hard done by they didn't even have written language while everyone else in Mesopotamia laughed at them like any roaming illiterate fools would today. they had the hand-me-down stories from the past.
The reason they change is stories change with each telling, with each new translation to a new language, with every splinter of someone claimnig to know the true name/voice/intent of God(s).
Monotheism is what ...2700 years old and it's splintered into 3 paths. Jews and their Torah have managed to keep the story straight since they started the Torah 700BC. Even they have their splinter groups...Samaritans etc.
Christianity has suffered numerous translations first to Greek, then to Latin, then to Greek again, then pick your European flavor. Oh and don't forget the rewrites and the chucked books from the Torah AND ignored books of apostles and the gospels that Constantine, didn't like. The original Sumerian stories hold up DAMN well, even with their variation to ALL the changes with what's included/not included in the Bible these days.
And it's 3500 years older (at least).
It doesn't mean they are true at all, it just means that hey they thought up the creation, the Flood myth (Moses=Gilgamesh), and numerous other little tales 3500 years before Hebrews wrote them down. Also their gods had understandable reasons for doing everything they did. Your god just did all this, so you can bow to him forever.
It's not even your god, it's not even the Hebrews God, nor the Babylonian's god Ea(again pronounced very close to the original sound of Yahweh), it's not the Akkadian, the Assyrian, or even probably the Sumerians God. Some forgotten people probably originally thought all this bullshit up in lost forgotten history to keep people from shitting all over each other in the new cities that started up.
Who are the Sumerians on down to the Jews and even ME myself and I to ruin a good bullshit crowd control story? Whatever works...
But it's in the way of a lot of progress. You can sit in the past, I'm betting of the future.
How absolutely archaic and infantile your superstitions are today...can't you see it? Even knowing truly, if you know so much about this, you suspect it's just a hand-me-down bullshit story.
The original Sumerian story usually had "Adamu" made from a vessel of clay, with Enki's semen poured into it and in some versions - grown in his wife's womb. The details can vary and also depend on who is translating. It is a considerably longer and more detailed story than Genesis.
Adapa, was a hybrid God/human. He was made much later when Enki lay with a nice looking Human. Adapa was taught civilization (Cultivating crops/Language/animal husbandry) by Enki. Previous to that Humans were basically slaves(though happy ones - well fed - well treated) to the Annunaki(Gods).
So they kinda had two...Adapa is actually more important.
You do realize there is a lot of direct evidence that your position is entirely false?
Nobody of any note believes that "the world was of one language, and one religion." Even fairly loopy religious wackos have given up on pretending the tower of Babel is true.
It takes a total and fanatical disregard fro the truth to claim "the world was of one language, and one religion."