What does the Bible say in regards to...
UpSideDown
Posts: 1,966
Humanity before Jesus' coming?
For that matter, what does every religion say towards that issue? There is a huge gap between the first signs of early *truly* human life and the beginnings of religion.......
Also, what do different religions state regarding earlier forms of the human race.....for example, homo erectus?
This has bugged me for quite some time. I would like to hear some opinions on this
For that matter, what does every religion say towards that issue? There is a huge gap between the first signs of early *truly* human life and the beginnings of religion.......
Also, what do different religions state regarding earlier forms of the human race.....for example, homo erectus?
This has bugged me for quite some time. I would like to hear some opinions on this
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The bible begins with 6 creative "days" (actually spanning thousands of years) where God creates the Heavens and the Earth then the Animals then Adam and Eve. On the 7th day God rests- according to the Bible we are in that 7th day now.
The bible starts with Adam and Eve, then The History of The Israelites which spans all the way to the End of The Hebrew Scriptures. Around 500 years then passed until Jesus' birth and by that time Greek was the common language, thats why the Gospel and the Rest of The Greek Scrips were written in Greek and not Hebrew. After Jesus' murder its basically the Apostle Paul setting up the first Century Christian Congregations then the last book is Johns Revelation of "Armagedon" - God finally intervening in Man's affairs to restore the Earth to a Paradise condition.
There is no Gap. Also, you are either a Creationist, Evolutionist (or Agnostic-undecided)..with both sides claiming total support for their theories.
So according to the bible, how long ago were adam and eve created?
But old religions had few concepts of earlier men, I think. Most of them start with some kind of adam and eve theme, and some god(s) before that or forces of nature etc. But these myths are all about simplifying complex and difficult matters and adding some meaning to it. thus you will find few references to Homo Erectus. If for nothing else, written records dont begin to go as far back as that. And the oral creation myths were pretty vague on the details most often.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But what about people after the very early homo erectus, like pre-classic Maya society, or the the Harappan or any Indus Valley civilization that came before JC?
I guess I wonder, did God from the Bible create everyone, but others may have eventually 'chosen' a different god? And were the civilizations pre-JC just screwed?
cross the river to the eastside
I don't think thats true. I am a pretty adherent Jew and I believe in Evolution.
no believing
seventh day in the Cellular cycle
seventh day in the Mammialian cycle
seventh day in the Familial Cycle
seventh day of the Tribal cycle
seventh day of the Cultural Cycle
seventh day of the National Cycle
seventh day of the Planetary Cycle
fourth night of the Galactic Cycle
we haven't entered into the Universal cycle.
I don't understand your point. I can still believe in something that is fact, or not a fact. And I can also refuse to believe in something that is a fact.
6,000 years ago in 1975.
There are different books out there available for people's take on the evolutionary change. Many of them discuss problems with lucy, neanderthal man etc... some people contend that they were contemporaries; therefore, they could not be evolutionary lineage. The Bible traces the jewish society not many of the otehrs. Here's a snippet as to what some who disagree with evolutionary early man think. The issue of the gap, so to speak is not addressed by some bible scholars b/c they believe in a young earth; thus rendering millions and billions of years of history irrelevant. It comes down to the interpretation of the word Day in Genesis. Some argue for a literal 24 hour day others argue that Day is an unspecified length of time (millions of years or more). If you believe in a 24 hour day it is impossible to accept billions of years as a legit answer. If you believe a day = millions of years, then the evolutionary timeline fits right in and is more agreeable.
a little snippet of thought re: early man.
since you asked about homoerectus here's a snippet of thought on it.
At least 222 fossils of Homo erectus have been found to date throughout Africa, Asia, Australia and Europe. When considering these fossils as candidates for human ancestors, three key questions should be asked:
1. Does Homo erectus have a form that is so different as to place it in a distinct species outside of the Homo sapiens?
There is no clear boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. Below the neck, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are virtually identical. The head resembles the Neandertals but smaller. A number of evolutionists have stated that although Homo erectus is a bit different they are not so far apart that they should be classified as separate species. In the opinion of Lubenow, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Neandertals form one continuum.
2. Are Homo erectus fossils found at the right time (i.e. after apes and before Homo sapiens) so as to establish them as legitimate ancestors to modern man?
When the ages of the fossils are compared using the dates ascribed to them by evolutionary investigators, it appears that Homo erectus and modern man are contemporaries. In an exhaustive listing of man-like fossils, Lubenow (Lubenow 1992, 121-123, 128) finds that 106 of the 222 the fossils have dates earlier than their assumed age of disappearance of 300,000 years ago. Of these 106, 62 are dated more recently than 12,000 years ago, effectively modern history. When evolutionists are confronted with this evidence, they reply that they must be Homo sapiens, since they have recent dates, despite what they look like (Lubenow 1992, 132).
In addition, in more than half the sites where these fossils have been discovered, stone tools have also been discovered. At eleven sites, there was exhibited the controlled use of fire. These are very human characteristics. (Lubenow 1992, 140).
3. Are there adequate non-evolutionary explanations for the appearance (morphology) of Homo erectus?
Yes, rickets. This disease causes deformation of the bones and skull in children due to a lack of vitamin D, which is caused by diet and absence of ultraviolet light (sunlight). One model of a post-flood world predicts the Ice Ages and a decrease in sunlight due to atmospheric particulate matter lofted by volcanoes. There may be a connection. Homo erectus is closely related to Neandertal. Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), professor of pathology at the University of Berlin, was a distinguished physician and is considered to be the father of the science of pathology. Virchow diagnosed the first Neandertal as having a case of rickets. Virchow, living in the 1800's had the advantage of seeing cases of rickets firsthand, unlike recent physicians.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/cartoon.htm see this site for more information and some people's thinking. It addresses a lot of problems with the earlier man. Enjoy the reading.
how so????
Imo science is never fact just speculation
I was not taking the christian stance there. I was just saying that written records go back, what, 6000 years at best? And whatever was before only exist through an oral tradition, with a lot of details open for the story-teller to embellish. Then at some point it got written down, and then evryone can pretend it was always like that.
I dont think people had concepts of "earlier men" or what they might be. Before the major religions of today, a kind of nature worship was pretty common, with a cyclical worldview shaped by the seasons and cycles of nature. And in the stories they told eachother, there were some tales of some kind of "first men" as to explain from whence they came, and solidify their tradition as being from the beginning of time.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
speculation
noun [C or U]
when you guess possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain
science
noun
1 (knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities:
Either you have no idea what science really is, or you don't know the meaning of 'speculation'.
Chopitdown, please visit Post-modernism in pseudoscience: a creationist's deconstruction of Gish for some info on Lubenow.
source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lubenow_cg.html
This review was originally published in the Spring 1993 issue of the skeptic, by Colin Groves.
It is republished here by permission of the Australian Skeptics and Colin Groves.
Dr. Colin Groves is a paleoanthropologist and Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University.
naděje umírá poslední
thanks for the link, i'll have to read it a little later, but it's on my to do list now.
Thank you for having an open mind about it, which seems to be a rare thing here.
naděje umírá poslední
Maybe... God closer resembles that hippopotamus/Cow-snake-ape thing on South Park and the God we see in paintings and churches that closely resembles us is just our vanity... claiming God as a property of Man.
Maybe... my cats and your dog and my hamster have a better understanding of God than we do. Maybe they understand that God is the life that is in them and accept Him... rather than projecting their flawed animal traits and characteristics upon Him.
We don't know and we don't understand and anyone who claims to 'Know the Truth' is only fooling himself. Why don't know why we are here and we don't know the meaning of life... and maybe, we're not supposed to know. Maybe we're supposed to just life our lives and value life as God Himself. I don't know... and I know that no one else knows.
Hail, Hail!!!
I'll confess that I won't most likely change my views on many subjects, but I like understanding why people choose to believe something not what they believe. The only way to better understand your view and a different view is by reading and discussion of valid arguments and reading and discussing the presuppositions that form views.
not only that, but god apparently planted dinosaur fossils here to test our faith...:rolleyes:
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
BUT beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - ben franklin