Where did people come from?
- Thread starter Naat
- Start date
The "Adam and Eve" story of the bible is mythology. Its an allegory that was useful for ancient man and is now only believed fundamentalists to be literally true.
Man evolved slowly from earlier hominid species over a long period of time. http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
Man evolved slowly from earlier hominid species over a long period of time. http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
Naat said:
no, god created many humans at the same time.
just as he didn't create only two ants and then those two ants became billions of ants.
SkinWalker said:
as if 'mythology' couldn't be true.
why allegory? why not just tell it plain and simple? because there's a higher meaning there if you can decode the allegory.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/ape1.htm
Naat, I have Yorda/c7ity on ignore, but rest assured, whatever she said is poppycock.
It´s just a theory, although very sensible and realistic.SkinWalker said:
Wouldn´t The Bible sound more sensible and thus, have more influence, if it wouldn´t consist so obviously unrealistic stories? Realistic = more effect on people? Or has it changed since the writing of this book?
Naat: The people who wrote the bible could simply not conceive of scientific concepts of today. It's not their fault, they just lived at a time when they could only guess at certain things. But this is why you should simply not pay any attention to stories such as Adam and Eve unless you merely want entertainment value. You are just kidding yourself if you think you are honestly gaining any intelligence from taking stories in the bible as fact.
Something to ponder: we have clear evidence that man existed thousands of years before the advent of writing. How then did anyone record the stories of Genesis? How is it that someone was able to observe the "first human" and then write about it? Would that not imply that there must have existed someone to observe the events?
Biblical stories are allegory and it is only of relatively recent times that so many people have taken them so literally. I think this is a response to the threat that science has on biblical mythology and the fear of believers that their superstitions will go the way of many of humanity's other superstitions once science provides viable explanation.
Biblical stories are allegory and it is only of relatively recent times that so many people have taken them so literally. I think this is a response to the threat that science has on biblical mythology and the fear of believers that their superstitions will go the way of many of humanity's other superstitions once science provides viable explanation.
I have never thought that the stories are literal. I was just wondering why Christians haven´t ask why their holy book has such taboo in it. I also understand that inbreeding was not taboo a while back. Why was the story ever created? To increase males power over female? (Eva was "made" out of Adam´s rib, or some otherpart of Adam) Any toughts?
Naat said:
*************
M*W: You've probably hit the nail on the head. Back in those days, it was not only common to inbreed, but expected. The male Egyptian pharaohs, for example, inbred with their sisters to ensure their royal lineage. The Hebrews had laws that should one's brother die, he had the responsibility to impregnate his sister-in-law to keep the lineage going.
The rib story is older than Genesis. In fact, most of the Genesis stories were written before Genesis, so Genesis and the stories within are repeated for later generations, and they cannot be taken literally. Why do christians take everything the bible says literally? Good question. It's beyond me. Welcome to the forum.
If God is so powerful, he could have made all the first humans from virgin births, right? Or maybe they bred like Vulcans by touching fingers, so they didn't have to do their own siblings. He must have created the taboos against inbreeding later. Did Adam and Eve have navels?
I didn't know that. But the others are correct, like I read in the intro to "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins (to paraphrase) We should abandon any explanations for the origin of life formed before 1879 (or before Darwins theory).
Actually, two roaches are enough to make billions if left unchecked, I would be surprised if two ants won't when left alone.
Medicine Woman said:
Since when did all Christians take the Bible literally? I dont... I dont believe ANY of the Genesis sotries one bit... so im not Christian?? Last time i checked Christians are those who believe Christ lived and was the Son of God... oops, must have been mistaken (sarcasm)
There is no answer to the question posted above. No way can we prove were people came from, and Adam and Eve were maybe the 1st people the Supreme Spirit called upon. Cain killed Abel, then went off and married a woman from the Land of Nod. Nod means wanderer, so where does that lead too? Cain had a child at the same time Adam and Eve were bearing Seth, so Cain didn't marry his sister.
Back in those days, incest or inbreeding was common and expected. Their genes were much better off then they they are now. Hence the reason why people lived to be hundreds of years old.
Back in those days, incest or inbreeding was common and expected. Their genes were much better off then they they are now. Hence the reason why people lived to be hundreds of years old.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Do you derive much comfort from living in a fantasy world?
Do you recognise that by interpreting the metaphorical interpretations of Origin postulated by the ancient writers as real, you do them and yourself a great disservice?
Do you have any plan to wake up an breathe in reality?
Do you recognise that by interpreting the metaphorical interpretations of Origin postulated by the ancient writers as real, you do them and yourself a great disservice?
Do you have any plan to wake up an breathe in reality?