The creation of man.

Actually, God already had something working in the garden, it was the serpent.
The closest animal to Adam, was not a snake.
It was man that God created before Adam.

Adam wasn't created to be a mortal beast, or a host for an angelic spirit.
He was created to be a son of God, housed in flesh to reign over this world.
Above the angels in authority.

When Eve fell she was seduced by the devil in mortal host called the serpent.
Cain was that offspring.
-He tilled the soil like his father the serpent.
-Railed against God in anger like the devil.
-Murdered his brother Abel.
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, not a tiller of the soil like Cain.
Received revelation from God that about the proper sacrifice.
Cain was like his father the serpent.
It was created to till the soil of the garden.
Adam only had to work the ground by the sweat of his brow...after the fall.
Actually, this is all irrelevant.
But still, kindly provide a source for your following assertions:
TheVisitor said:
Actually, God already had something working in the garden, it was the serpent.
TheVisitor said:
It was man that God created before Adam.
 
Enmos,

All the be-fruitful-and-multiply bits come after this. And so have no bearing on the question what Gods initial intentions with man were.

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,



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.
How do you get that from the scripture you quoted ? I have to say I'm puzzled..

Either that, or incest is cool.
Hey, it's your religion, not mine :rolleyes:

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.
And ? :confused:
That's pretty obvious from earlier verses.. :shrug:

Adam became naturally lonely, and must have naturally expressed some desire for company
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.

In the same sense that the beasts had been formed earlier, I think man and woman had been formed earlier as well.
jan.
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
 
Actually, this is all irrelevant.
But still, kindly provide a source for your following assertions:

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.


Why is it that at least two Sumerian 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.

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,

jan said:
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.

How do you get that from the scripture you quoted ? I have to say I'm puzzled..

The real question is how do you conclude that Adam was the first ever human being.?

Hey, it's your religion, not mine :rolleyes:

What does religion have to do with it?

jan said:
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.


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?


Where does it say that ?? Where ?

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.

It says that God created a woman to help Adam. Nowhere does the bible say that Adam was lonely.

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.

Where does it say that in the bible ?

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Can the designated mod please delete this thread OR ban all the idiots that have replied to it ?
Thanks.
 
So the idea of taking a rib from a man to create a female counterpart did not come from the sumerian creation story?
So why give the impression that it did?

jan.

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...
 
Anyway there is a lot of different versions of the Enki Creation myth - this is the one I was talking about:

Additional parallels are seen between the Genesis account and the myth of Enki and Ninhursag. Enki, the god of fresh water, and Utu, the god of the sun, cooperate to bring life-giving water to Dilmun, a process suggestive of the biblical creation account: "There went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground" (Genesis 2:6). The Sumerian myth specifies that Ninhursag gives birth to her children easily and without pain. This contrasts with God's curse upon Eve to give birth in pain after the Human Fall, similar to Uttu's birth pangs after she leaves the marshes and conceives Enki's child on dry land. Meanwhile, Enki's lust for sex and his eating of the sacred plants in the Sumerian paradise, after which he is cursed by Ninhursag, echoes Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, after which they are cursed by God. Finally, in the Sumerian myth one of Enki's diseased body parts that Ninhursag heals and conceives through was his rib. Ninhursag soon gives birth to Nin-ti, ("Lady Rib"), a motif that is echoed in the Biblical story of Eve, who was taken from Adam's rib.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ninhursag
 
nietzschefan,

You read all that and didn't see it?

I didn't see anything about woman being made out of a man's rib, which is the
claim you made.

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 can see similarities, but I don't see evidence of plagarism.

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.

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:
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.

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.
 
That's very interesting. What does this myth say about a possible first man (Adam) ?

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.
 
Before Nimrod in Babylon the world was of one language, and one religion.

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."
 
Back
Top