AcademiaAgriculture & FarmingHumanitiesSocial SciencesSTEM

Adam Was Not the First Human, for the Bible Tells Us So

Updated on January 24, 2017

God Created Evolution

'God Created Evolution' is a project consisting of multiple articles that evaluate the first 11 books of Genesis in the context of known history and modern science.
'God Created Evolution' is a project consisting of multiple articles that evaluate the first 11 books of Genesis in the context of known history and modern science.

The creation of man in Genesis has always been read to mean that Adam was the first human God created. Why is that exactly? It doesn't state that anywhere. In fact, what it actually says is that God created humans on day 6 of the creation account in chapter 1, then it says God rested on day 7 at the beginning of chapter 2, then comes the story of Adam's creation. It's nothing more than an assumption that these are two tellings of the same event.

For most of recorded human history, it really didn't matter. The events listed in the creation account were of little consequence. Whether God created all the earth in six days or in 4.54 billion years was irrelevant as there was no way of knowing one way or the other. There wasn't any reason to even suspect it was any different than how it read, and the overall message of the Bible didn't hinge on it.

Today it does matter. In these modern times, we now understand more about the history of the earth and humanity than was ever before possible. And that modern understanding has proven to be in direct conflict with traditional interpretations of Genesis. This has resulted in many rejecting the Bible as nothing more than mythology and many others rejecting modern wisdom and scientific progress as false.

The creation versus evolution debate has come to be one of the most divisive topics we face. Many people of faith fight tooth and nail to keep topics like evolution out of the school curriculum and many others don't see why their children must remain in the dark because some people can't let go of their old religious beliefs.

The interpretation that says Adam was the first man in existence is the primary misconception that makes the Bible and modern science seemingly incompatible. Correcting this one small error takes pre-flood Genesis out of the realm of mythology and plants it firmly into known history.

The Mythology of the First Civilization

Civilization first began in Mesopotamia over five thousand years ago and the Sumerians are credited as the inventors. They built the first cities that ever existed, with populations in the tens of thousands, made possible through their development of large-scale year-round agriculture. Throughout the rise of civilization the Sumerians also became talented builders, they created the first government and the first laws. They also invented arithmetic, astronomy/astrology, the wheel, sailboats, frying pans, razors, harps, kilns for firing bricks and pottery, bronze hand tools, and plows, just to name a few.

Not long after large-scale agriculture first began, a crude form of writing was developed out of the need to keep records of labor and materials. Another first accredited to the Sumerians. Over the centuries that followed, as writing became more advanced, they began to record stories passed down through the generations that explained how their people came up with all of these ideas that would forever change the human race. Funny thing is, these stories didn't give credit to their ancestors. They claim they were taught by immortal human-like gods.

The Sumerian and Akkadian tablets where these Sumerian stories are found predate the oldest books of the bible as we know them today by over a thousand years by our best scholarly estimations. Some of these tablets contain stories that share many very similar components to stories found in early Genesis, including the story of Adam and Eve, the Biblical Flood, and the confusing of a once universal language. Numerous tablets from throughout the latter part of the 3rd Millennium BC containing these stories have been found all around Mesopotamia, suggesting they were very well known in the region during that time. Because of this it has become a more and more common assumption that some of the stories found in early Genesis were actually inspired by these.

There’s no doubt Sumerian mythology had an impact on subsequent civilizations. The Akkadians were definitely inspired considering they basically adopted much of the Sumerian lifestyle, including their mythology. Greek and Roman mythology also contains echoed themes that suggest the roots of their beliefs may have come from the well-known Sumerian beliefs as well. They all speak of multiple immortal gods, human in form, male and female, who were fallible, moody, and often at odds with each other. And they all speak of intermingling between these immortal beings and mortal humans, producing demigods or titans.

If the creation of Adam in Genesis happened in an already populated world, given the time frame and location specified, then the humans who eventually became the Sumerians would have been the people that populated the landscape.

The Books of Moses

Other than the obvious correlation between a handful of stories in early Genesis with Sumerian Mythology, the Books of Moses are very much unique. The most obvious quality that differentiates them from the others is that in this story there is only one God. The Greeks were fascinated by them, which is why some of the oldest manuscripts of the Torah that still exist today are written in Greek. They also had a strong impact on the Romans, who after over a century of Christian persecution first legalized Christianity, then a few decades later made it the only legal religion. And they have continuously been an ever-present influence on the Western world in every age since. Today the Books of Moses serve as the foundation for the world’s two largest religions, making up half the world’s population, three thousand years later. No other writings from these ancient civilizations can make that claim.

In today’s scientifically enlightened age many dismiss Genesis as nothing more than mythology as well. There are nearly as many in the Nonreligious/Secular/Agnostic/Atheist category as there are Muslims, making them the third largest segment of the population behind Christians and Muslims.

A big reason for this is because it has been confirmed that those events in early Genesis did not happen. For instance, we’ve confirmed geologically that there has never been a global flood. The last time the entire planet was covered with water was over three billion years ago when land did not yet exist, much less humans. And we have confirmed genetically that, while every human alive today does actually share a common ancestor, this ancestor existed in Africa tens of thousands of years before the events of Genesis.

The thing is, those interpretations of Genesis that say the flood was global and that Adam was the first human to ever exist were formed centuries ago by people who couldn’t have known any better. Now we do. Re-reading the first five and one-quarter chapters for what it actually says, and not for what we’ve always been told it says, tells a very different story that's much more in sync with our modern scientifically-based understanding.

Pre-Flood Genesis in an 'Already Populated World' Context

The first order of business is to establish the proper context. What was the state of the Earth during the time frame in which early Genesis is set?

We now know that by 10,000 BC homo sapiens had already populated the planet and had over the course of many generations established themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom, which is exactly what the humans created in Genesis 1 were commanded to do:

Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

We also know that humans in this same region were the first to use the seeds in seed baring vegetation to grow food starting around 9,000 BC, which matches up with the illustration in Genesis 1 of God teaching humans. Where these same verses also state that the animals will use these plants for food as well, only with the humans does it specifically talk about the seeds that then bare other seed-bearing plants:

Genesis 1:29-30 - Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so.

And we also know through climatological evidence that this same region matched the description given at the beginning of Genesis 2 from around 6,200 BC on due to the dramatic shift in climate that transformed much of the region from lush green lands to desert. An aridification event often referred to as the 8.2 kiloyear event:

Genesis 2:5 - No no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground.

Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden

But where the humans (and everything else) in Genesis 1 were specifically told what to do, in Genesis 2 Adam was only told what not to do - eat from any tree but that one.

Genesis 2:16 - And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;
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."

In fact, the whole theme of the Adam and Eve story has to do with them exhibiting their own individual free will. For instance, one of the very first things it says God did after placing Adam in the garden is He brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them.

Genesis 2:19 - And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The humans created in Genesis 1 were given very specific commands that would take generations to realize; populate/subdue the Earth, establish dominance in the animal kingdom. So then how could Adam, Eve, and their descendants be expected to accomplish these things considering how capable and willing they were to disobey? Reconsidering things with the idea that Adam was not the first human, but rather was the first human capable of behaving contrary to God's will introduced into an already populated world of humans, yields many interesting possibilities both throughout the remainder of the bible itself as well as far outside of it.

The 'Others' that Cain feared

Within the Bible, some of the more cryptic and confusing verses in the chapters to follow begin to make much more sense if the region was already populated when Adam was created. Like the unnamed 'others' that Cain expressed concern about in chapter four. A concern God validated by somehow 'marking' him to protect him from harm.

Genesis 4:13 - Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear.
Genesis 4:14 - Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
Genesis 4:15 - But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over. ” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

It also puts a whole new spin on the first few verses of chapter six that talk about the 'sons of God' finding the 'daughters of humans' beautiful and having children by them. This comes right in the middle of its explanation for why the flood was necessary. It even goes on to explain that humans are mortal and live less than a hundred and twenty years, contrary to the hundreds of years it says Adam and his descendants lived in chapter five.

Genesis 6:1 - And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them,
Genesis 6:2 - that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took for themselves wives of all whom they chose.
Genesis 6:3 - And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."

The Flood wasn't global

This should be obvious, but many still hold onto the belief that the flood completely covered the entire Earth. Even in the traditional context this would not make sense as the flood occurred just 10 generations after Adam. So Adam's descendants could not have populated more than a small portion of the Earth. There would be no need in that sense to flood the entire planet. Not to mention the fact that the authors of the bible would have no sense of what global really means as the entirety of the Earth from their perspective was the land they lived in.

But even beyond that reasoning, there are a couple of subtle clues that tell us the flood wasn't a global phenomenon that wiped out everything that lived. The first comes at the end of chapter four when the author explains that three of Cain's descendants were the 'fathers of all those who: lived in tents and herded cattle/ played stringed instruments/ made metal tools'.

Genesis 4:20 - And Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents, and of those who have cattle.
Genesis 4:21 - And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who handle the harp and organ.
Genesis 4:22 - And Zillah, she also bore Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron; and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

These descendants are seven generations after Cain, which is the same number of generations Methuselah was from Seth. Methuselah died the same year as the flood, probably in it. Specifically stating that these descendants 'fathered' or 'instructed' anyone would be totally pointless if Cain's descendants and everyone else were wiped out in the flood. Plus, it's clear these verses are referring to individuals the intended reader is familiar with, so they couldn't be people who hadn't existed since the flood.

The other clue can be seen in the only two biblical mentions of the 'Nephilim'. One before the flood...

Genesis 6:4 - The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

... and one after...

Numbers 13:32 - So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height.
Numbers 13:33 - And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

Of course, simply proving the flood wasn't actually global doesn't do much considering the whole purpose of the flood was to wipe out the 'wicked' element that had risen in humanity. A localized flood would hardly accomplish that in this 'already populated world' scenario. But, if Adam was the introduction of free will, and wickedness was only possible through free will, then a local flood of the Mesopotamian valley would be all it would take. In fact, that valley, which is a geological equivalent of a storm drain, would be the perfect location to place an element as potentially dangerous as free will.

In Conclusion

In this modern age, many will surely find this a bit much to swallow. But in the context of the evolution of life as we understand it, the appearance of a new species of humans with free will and extended lifespans would be no more of a leap than the change from single-celled to multi-celled organisms or the adaptations that made crawling up onto land from the sea possible. Even in the progression of the Homo genus, there were large leaps forward from one species to the next. However, if an even more advanced species did actually appear just a few thousand years ago, they're certainly not here anymore. Of course, according to the story, they were all washed away by a large flood. Mass extinctions play a crucial role throughout the evolutionary history of life. In that context, the flood was merely the last of many 'edits' that shaped life as we know it today.

Is this possible? Even if any physical remains that could potentially confirm this theory had been washed out to sea by a large flood, certainly the existence of beings like this would have left some sort of lasting impression. Especially if they existed for over sixteen hundred years in a region populated by humans. You might expect to see rapid advancements in intellectual and technological capabilities, like what appears to have happened with the Sumerians and the Egyptians. Or you might expect to see their influence reflected in the mythology written by these ancient civilizations, like what can be seen in the Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian, Greek, and Roman stories. Immortal beings who lived the equivalent of ten mortal lifespans, who were exceptionally wise and knowledgeable in agricultural practices, who were prone to human emotion, who bred with mortal humans and created beings of both bloodlines, then disappeared.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      paarsurrey 5 years ago

      Adam was not the first human, for the bible tells us so

      I agree to the above thought

    • Millercl profile image

      Millercl 5 years ago

      "The Sumerian and Akkadian tablets where these Sumerian stories are found predate the oldest books of the bible as we know them today by over a thousand years by our best scholarly estimations."

      I read the rest of your article, but are you suggesting anything here?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      No, not suggesting anything. I'm acknowledging the most commonly held view by scholars regarding the estimated dates that each version was scribed.

      Some of the oldest tablets containing Sumerian stories that show thematic resemblances to Genesis date back to the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150 to 2000 BC).

      The oldest known tablets containing the books of Moses only date back to about 200 BC, but we know they're not the originals, so nobody knows for certain how hold they really are. The most commonly cited theory that attempts to pinpoint the origin of the books of Moses, the Documentary Hypothesis, suggests the oldest stories probably date back to the Kingdom of Judah (about 950 BC).

      I believe they're much older myself. This is something I plan on covering in more detail in future hubs.

    • Castlepaloma profile image

      Castlepaloma 5 years ago from Saskatchewan, Canada

      Good start

    • Deborah Brooks profile image

      Deborah Brooks Langford 5 years ago from Brownsville,TX

      this is most interesting.. wow. I am going to re-read this.. great points. these are questions asked over and over.

      Voted up

      Debbie

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Thank you, Debbie, for reading and for your comment. For as long as I can remember I've been trying to reconcile my faith in God and my fascination with science, and it's led me to a conclusion that makes a lot of sense out of a lot of things to me. In the coming weeks I hope to have more published on this. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

      In the meantime, keep doing what you're doing. I tend to get stuck in an analytical gear, so it's always a nice charge to read inspired writing about just how amazing it all really is.

    • Trish_M profile image

      Tricia Mason 5 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hi :)

      This is a fascinating subject.

      I find it hard to believe that Genesis is anything but allegorical, but, as you point out, it contains some very interesting mysteries, which are worth looking into.

      And I think that I shall have to study those Sumerians a bit more :)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Thanks for reading and for your comment, Trish_M. If you ever find yourself reading those first few chapters of Genesis, I encourage you to consider the idea of it being set in a populated region. It reads very differently and isn't nearly as ambiguous.

      And I highly recommend looking into the Sumerians. Fascinating stuff.

    • Trish_M profile image

      Tricia Mason 5 years ago from The English Midlands

      Hi :)

      Actually, I have read those Genesis verses, and have questioned Christians about those 'others', who were clearly around at the time (according to the book, that is). :)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Yeah, I have too. It's amazing the responses I've gotten. There are a great many who will tell me the 'sons of God' that had children with the daughters of humans in Genesis 6 were disgruntled angels who were jealous of the attention humans were getting and decided to rebel by impregnating a bunch of humans, making the nephilim, which were the giants. Some translations of the bible will even go so far as to change the 'sons of God' in Job to 'Angels' and change 'Nephilim' in Genesis to 'Giants'. Even though this whole idea contradicts numerous other passages throughout the bible.

      a) why would God make supernatural beings like angels equipped for procreation? Are there momma angels and baby angels?

      b) how were angels able to rebel without free will?

      c) why does the entire rest of the bible only refer to the Israelites as 'sons of God' throughout the old testament and only refer to believers in Christ as 'sons of God' after Jesus' crucifixion? Not to mention this ...

      Hebrews 1:5 – For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my son”?

    • Trish_M profile image

      Tricia Mason 5 years ago from The English Midlands

      Yes, there were quite a few 'sond of God' in the Bible. :)

    • Trish_M profile image

      Tricia Mason 5 years ago from The English Midlands

      That should, of course, be 'sons of God' :)

    • Castlepaloma profile image

      Castlepaloma 5 years ago from Saskatchewan, Canada

      I prefer sond, it's more science related

    • cam8510 profile image

      Chris Mills 5 years ago from St. Louis, MO until the end of June, 2017

      I recently wrote in my blog (not on hubpages) something that might resemble what you have described. I'm not trying to steal your thunder. I did not develop the thought beyond asking a question, which is fairly short, so I will copy and paste it. Tell me if I was beginning to have thoughts that are compatible with what you have so masterfully developed here. "I have a totally fictitious scenario I would like you to consider. Imagine for a moment that Adam and Eve were real individuals who were created by God and lived in the Garden of Eden. That will be easy for those of you who hold to the Bible as the Word of God and that is fine for this exercise. You will have a different viewpoint. After they disobeyed God, He threw them out of the Garden. There they were, standing on the edge of Paradise, looking out on an empty wilderness. Now, imagine evolutionists were also right and a race of humans did evolve. Imagine a couple of the evolved species coming along and running into Adam and Eve. Given the scenario that we have here, which is two pairs of people from entirely different backgrounds, what would be the differences in how they lived from this point onward?" It seems that it wouldn't take much for this to fit into the scenario you have given us. Voted up, useful and interesting. Thanks for the food for thought.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Yes, that is very much compatible. If you keep that thought in the back of your mind I think you'll find there are a lot of clues that support this throughout the rest of the bible as well as outside of it.

      In my mind the ultimate truth is not going to be some disjointed, convoluted sounding interpretation that makes people tilt their head sideways like a confused dog when they hear it. It's going to be a simple answer that was right there in front of us all along that ties together all the scattered, seemingly unrelated, puzzle pieces we've all been examining this whole time.

      Every ancient civilization in that region of the world speaks of immortal human-like beings in their ancient past. And each of these civilizations proved to be exponentially more advanced in every way than the early humans who came before them. Wouldn't it be interesting if these civilizations were what they were and told the stories they told because there actually were beings in their ancient past who were incredibly wise and lived immortal lifetimes?

      And wouldn't it be almost poetic if the very same scientific knowledge many use to convince themselves God does not exist and that we're actually the most advanced being in existence turns out to be the very same knowledge that allows us to finally see that what Genesis described was right all along? That just sounds like God's style to me.

    • jacharless profile image

      Charles James 5 years ago from Between New York and London

      proto-Eurasians, proto-Neanderthals...hmmm.

      Okay, fine. however, an issue faced is the Epicurean dilemma, as there was no actual Garden, were these two "trees" existed. James

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 years ago from Texas

      Thanks for the comment. I'm assuming you're referring to the conundrum of reconciling the existence of evil while God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent? Realizing Adam wasn't the first human God created goes a long way towards addressing that by more clearly illustrating the difference between behavior according to God's will and true free will.

      The world was already fully populated by humans. What was significant about Adam was his ability to behave outside of God's will. The humans in Genesis 1 were given specific tasks that took numerous generations to accomplish (fill/subdue all the earth, establish dominance in animal kingdom). Adam was only given one thing not to do, and did it anyway. Adam was the introduction of free will.

      Free will is a will apart from God's. Everything before Adam, including early humans, behaved exactly as instructed. Free will introduces the potential for evil. Adam's ability to act outside of God's will means the ability to behave in ways that are potentially destructive and unnatural. Unnatural in that the laws of nature that the natural world conform to is God's will.

      An individual with a capability as powerful of free will, but lacking the perspective of being omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent, will inevitably do wrong by the standards of nature. It's the knowledge of good and evil and the capability to do either. This is why commandments and judgement and grace are necessary.

      How do we know there wasn't a garden where these trees existed? There's a site in the plains of eastern Turkey known as Gobekli Tepe that's older than any other man-made site and is in a location that matches the description given in Genesis 2.

    • WD Curry 111 profile image

      WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

      Very interesting and well presented. I am the same kind of Christian as you, sort of. I always wondered where the people came from that Cain was worried about. I don't sweat it though. "I know whom I have believ-ed"

      The word of God is not a book. The Word of God is a person.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you for the comment. For most of my life I always wondered about those more ambiguous portions of the bible as well, but basically took on faith that I did not need to understand. This new perspective more came from a fascination with science and the history of the world that it presents. I always accepted both, but never really tried to deliberately reconcile the two. It was those first few verses of Gen6 that made it click for me. Since then there are fewer ambiguous sections and I see a much clearer story being told.

    • cam8510 profile image

      Chris Mills 4 years ago from St. Louis, MO until the end of June, 2017

      HeadlyvonNoggin, very well written and carefully taught. I think I understand it now even better than I did before. Thanks for introducing this fascinating topic.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you for reading and for the comment. In my experience discussing this topic I've found that it's a bit of a creeper. I think it's just that this topic has so many preconceived notions that go along with it that it's sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees, for lack of a better analogy. But I've also found others, you included, that seem to have had very similar inclinations totally independently. In recent months I've become more and more confident that this is much closer to the truth than many of of the traditional interpretations just based on the research I've done and how well everything seems to fit. With others seeming to see at least bits and pieces of the same idea, I think it's just a matter of time before this kind of view becomes more and more generally accepted.

    • WD Curry 111 profile image

      WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

      Good point. The Bible says that every good and perfect gift comes from God. I reckon that includes scientific and medical knowledge.

      One thought . . . Eve was definitely the first woman, and before her Adam was alone.

      I don't think it matters much if we are right or wrong about the foggy past. Here and now is what counts for us.

      I always appreciate a good think. I''ll be back whenever I get some time. We have to scramble to make a living in Florida right now.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I don't think Eve was the first woman. The humans created in Gen1 were created male and female. Here's the bit that got me going on this train of thought. See if you get the same out of it that I did ...

      Gen 6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      Just one chapter after stating that Adam and his descendants lived for centuries, there's this bit that says that humans are 'mortal' and only live 120 years. It also says that another group other than these mortal humans, the sons of God, found the daughters of humans beautiful and they married any of them they 'chose'. This is the same bit that's explaining the 'wicked' element that arose in humanity that warranted a flood.

      Of course many believe the 'sons of God' were rebellious angels, however, the only group specifically described in pre-flood Genesis as different than how these humans are described (mortal/120 year limit) are Adam and his descendants. And after this, the next few chapters illustrate a gradual decline in lifespans. God says that His 'spirit will not contend with humans forever'. Does that not sound like descendants of Adam having children with mortal humans?

      Now of course that begins with 'when human beings began to increase in number on the earth'. The beginning of Gen2 describes a specific geographic location as desolate, without rain or vegetation. This matches the conditions of the Mesopotamian valley from 6200 BC on (see 8.2 kiloyear event). There were also no humans in this region because humans had not yet figured out farming. They had to go where the food was. Then, in Gen4, it says Cain 'built a city'. So Cain, who knew how to work the ground but was cursed from doing so himself, built a city. The first city to ever exist was in Mesopotamia and was built around a new-found knowledge of wide-scale farming. This comes right before the mention in Gen6 of 'human beings increasing in number on the earth (or in the land).

      I assume that when you say Eve was definitely the first woman, you're referring to Gen3:20 where it says That Adam called her Eve because she was the mother of 'all the living'. I don't see this to mean she's the first woman ever. What is significant about Adam and Eve is that they're the first in all of creation able to behave with their own free will. And everyone born of them had free will as well. Including those born of both Eve's and natural human's bloodlines. Hence the wickedness. Hence the flood.

    • WD Curry 111 profile image

      WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

      No I'm talking where God said it was not good for Adam to be alone. I figure Adam was alone. When God got tired of contending with man, quite a few years had gone by.

      Hey brother, I'm not here to dissuade you. It was just a thought. However, I am glad I mentioned it. Your elaboration is real interesting. Thank God we don't have to know for certain. Not enough people explore the angles in my opinion. So, I respect and admire your intense study, and individual journey into the scriptures. Don't mess with Texas.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I appreciate it. Please don't take my endless carrying on as arguing or getting defensive. This is apparently just my natural state. I'm fascinated by this stuff and compelled to go on and on at great length to any poor soul who chooses to discuss it with me. This is a topic most shy away from, so when someone truly engages this idea I pounce and start spouting uncontrollably.

      As for Adam, while the world was already populated by the time he was created, he was alone both in the location in which he was placed, and in the sense that he was not like those other humans. Think about it this way, every civilization in that region speaks of immortal gods, male and female, who existed in their ancient past. The Sumerians/Akkadians/Bablyonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, etc. Now, what if that those stories weren't entirely fictional?

    • cam8510 profile image

      Chris Mills 4 years ago from St. Louis, MO until the end of June, 2017

      "when someone truly engages this idea I pounce and start spouting uncontrollably.".......yes he does. :)

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Before I even start reading this and provide a comment, go to Google and type in the following: "Theory of Evolution: Where is the missing link between Homo sapiens & Homo erectus"

      I'm currently ranked number 8 on the first page for those terms, but if it slips, you should be able to tell by the perpendicularity.org domain, which post is mine. Read that and comment accordingly, as I'll do the same here...

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      To me, the story of Adam & Eve could very easily explain a project involving the gene-splicing of DNA within a controlled environment, hence forth the woman from a man's rib talk. Everything seemed controlled and under observation, like a laboratory or testing ground, if ya will...

      As for the floods, there is no doubt we have had a few major ones that earned the respect of being called "cataclysmic disasters that plagued Earth."

    • WD Curry 111 profile image

      WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

      It's all good. My Mom's side of the family is from Texas, and I lived in Abilene for awhile. Stayed with relatives in Buella, Houston and Sweetwater as well. My Dad was a career fighter pilot. Whenever he was deployed, we went to Texas. They are all like that, and so am I. It's good to talk Texan again.

    • Jerami profile image

      jerami 4 years ago from Houston tx

      You have put words on many thoughts and beliefs which I have been having. And you did it exquisitely (?)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you, Jerami. I've encountered a few people who have had similar thoughts. Personally, I think it's just a matter of time before this is a much more widely held interpretation.

    • Jerami profile image

      jerami 4 years ago from Houston tx

      I think you are correct; just a matter of time. It is very difficult for us to unbridle ourselves of 1650 years of misinterpretations created by a religious institution which was established by a Roman Emperor for political purposes. This religious institution (RCC) is the mother of Christianity as we know it. I believe this too was part of Gods plan. He foretold of such an institution and of its success (Rev 13).

      I don't think we will ever know the whole story while we are standing on this green side of the dirt.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Very true. When an institution is built on specific interpretations, it's not easy to change those interpretations. Just ask Galileo.

      I know I'll one day have all the answers I seek, but I'm determined to figure as much of it out as possible before the answers are just given to me. I read your profile. With you 'un-interpreting' end time prophesy, while I work on 'un-interpreting' creation and the origins of humanity, maybe we can someday meet in the middle, compare notes, and get this whole riddle solved.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Children with pristine thoughts have a better chance at solving this conundrum, more so than any scholar of today...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      That's very true. The best scholars, the most educated, have basically learned the same ways of thinking as everyone who has come before them. Flawed or not, it's passed on. Though humans only live 100 years or less in most cases, we still manage to have problems that span for centuries. Those kinds of flaws aren't natural. They're learned and passed on to the next generation to continue on. Once we're too tainted by our experience in this world, it's hard to see beyond it.

    • Jerami profile image

      jerami 4 years ago from Houston tx

      I think that there is joy in searching for the answers and finding them; and then comes sadness. I think that is why Jeramiah was called the weaping prophet. He was given the answers and understanding to go with them. And he wept. BUT; as King Solomon once said, it is all vanity, it is better to just eat drink and be merry.

      SO ??? I don't know ?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Me neither, Jerami.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Very well written, laid out,  and  logically documented Hub. 

      To support your ideas and to add something from my own, I'd like to say that the first chapter of Genesis, Genesis 1, covers billions of years; from idea, to the creation of the first human like people. 

      It is counted as six days creation, but obviously, in God's Days. There was neither Sun nor Earth on the first day of creation, and you know how our days are counted - rotation of  Earth around its axle.

      Then, Genesis 2, moves to tells us about the creation of Adam and Ewe, and placing them in the Garden of Eden. 

      According to Dr. Zarins, American anthropologist conducting excavations in Middle East,  it happened around  5000 BCE, when, after long arid stretch, come a period called Neolithic Wet Phase and rains returned to the present Persian Gulf region. 

      This area became green and fertile again, and the rain filled the four rivers described in this chapter.

      Headly, there is something I've just realized and what bothers me; the discussion we both enjoy on your other hub, has nothing to do with the descendants of Cain, but in fact relates to the second Adam. 

      Adam = Red and Edom = Red. 

      So, Edom = Adam, a new creation.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you, Sagittarius 2012.

      I'll have to read more about Dr. Zarins. I like his ideas regarding the location of the garden of Eden. And his timeline is very close to mine. I place it closer to 5500 BC.

      You're very right about the climate in that region. There's actually two climatological events that kind of bookend pre-flood Genesis. The 8.2 kiloyear event (6200 BC) which actually did transform this region into a very dry desert landscape, followed by a recovery that again brought rains, lakes filled, and vegetation again began to grow. Then came a larger aridification event known as the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BC) that again transformed the landscape to desert, and this time there was no recovery. The band of brown dry land that can be seen across northern Africa and the Oman peninsula is the result of this.

      The first event in 6200 BC created the setting described at the beginning of Genesis 2, followed by the recovery when the rains came, again like described. It's in this span that agricultural practices really took off in Mesopotamia. There were large populations in the Sahara region in the Ubaid era. When that second event hit in 3900 BC it triggered massive migrations out of the Sahara region towards land along rivers, like the Nile and the Tigris/Euphrates, where there were already settlements.

      That second event is considered by many as the catalyst that triggered the dawning of the civilizations in Sumer, Egypt, and the Indus Valley in India. This, I believe, is what the story of the tower of Babel is describing. The people that populated that region were building city-states and irrigation systems and temples.

      These, in my mind, were the descendants of Adam/Eve/Cain amidst the early humans of Genesis 1 who also populated this region as well as the rest of the world. Anyone 'of Eve' would have the same self-awareness that first made Adam/Eve aware of their nakedness, and this stronger sense of 'I' would be the fundamental difference that made them capable of living outside of the whim of nature through their ability to invent. In fact, it's this capability that Genesis says God specified as the reason he dispersed the people at Babel.... "now nothing will be withheld from them which they have imagined to do" (Gen11:6)

      In the centuries following 3900 BC, set against the backdrop of a growing desert and the arrival of Semetic speaking nomads from the Sahara, the first human civilizations were born in Sumer, then Egypt to the west, then the Indus Valley to the east, and later to the north with the Akkadians. Each showing dramatic progressions in technology and craftsmanship, and each with their own unique language.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Dr. Zarins is very interesting person, except the Garden of Eden, he was also taking part in NASA expedition searching for the City of Iram, also called Atlantis of Sands; lost under the biggest in the world sandy dessert - Rub Khali.

      I met him last year in Salalah, Oman, where he is excavating ancient city Al Baleed.

      http://home.kpn.nl/~janm_schreurs/AlBaleed.htm

      Back to the story of Eden:

      "Long before Genesis was written, Zarins believes, the physical Eden had vanished under the waters of the Gulf. Man had lived happily there. But then, about 5000 to 4000 B.C. came a worldwide phenomenon called the Flandrian Transgression, which caused a sudden rise in sea level. The Gulf began to fill with water and actually reached its modern-day level about 4000 B.C., having swallowed Eden and all the settlements along the coastline of the Gulf. But it didn't stop there. It kept right on rising, moving upward into the southern legions of today's Iraq and Iran.

      "The Sumerians always claimed that their ancestors came 'out of the sea,' and I believe they literally did," says Zarins. "They retreated northward into Mesopotamia from the encroaching waters of the Gulf, where they had lived for thousands of years."

      From "Has the Garden of Eden been located at last?"

      By Dora Jane Hamblin

      http://www.ldolphin.org/eden/

      Headly, I believe that Semitic people came from southern Arabia; people there are called Shahra people, although the true is that the whole Arabian Peninsula was once part of Africa. Present Africa with Sahara was homeland of Hamatic people. 

      Once I was passionate about all events of the Bible, now I'm more concentrated on after the deluge events, and what is good in the Bible, so we can take example of it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I too have considered the possibility that the original location of Eden has since been submerged, or otherwise buried, somewhere along the stretch of where the coast of the Persian Gulf used to end back in the days of Eridu and Ur, and where they are now. However, I was under the impression that the Flandrian Transgression happened much earlier, closer to 9500 BC or so.

      If Eden did in fact get swallowed by the Gulf, especially around the timeframe given here, then that makes this bit from the Epic of Gilgamesh really interesting ...

      At the beginning of tablet nine, Gilgamesh is grieving the death of Enkidu, and begins to fear his own eventual demise. He then decided to seek out Utnapishtim, the Sumerian flood hero, to learn the secret of eternal life. Among the survivors of the Great Flood, Utnapishtim and his wife were the only humans granted immortality by the gods.

      In tablet eleven, Utnapishtim demonstrates that his gift of eternal life from Enlil was unique by challenging Gilgamesh to stay awake for six days and seven nights. When Gilgamesh fell asleep Utnapishtim instructs his wife to bake a loaf of bread on each day that he slept so that Gilgamesh could not deny his failure. The point being that how could Gilgamesh hope to conquer death if he can't even conquer sleep.

      As a parting gift to Gilgamesh, through his wife's asking, Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh that at the bottom of the sea there lives a boxthorn-like plant that will make him young again. To obtain the plant Gilgamesh tied stones to his feet so he could walk on the bottom of the sea. He planned on testing the plant on an old man when he returned to Uruk, but before he could get there the plant was stolen by a serpent who sheds its skin as it departs.

      I'm glad you're so passionately focused on post-deluvian biblical stories. That portion is much more daunting to me than pre-flood, though beyond fascinating. Like you, I'm looking for truth through studying the bible against our modern knowledge-base, whether it be historical records, scientific findings, mythologies, whatever. If we can accurately determine how exactly the stage was set initially, then that should lend timelines and detailed context to the rest of the story, making it all that much easier to hash out.

      In the age I'm focusing on the majority of humans still lived much like the more primal cultures still in existence today who are not too strongly influenced by modern humans. There were no leaders, no social stratification, no male dominance, no desire to rule people or own land or possessions. Those first pre-flood city-states of ancient Sumer were the direct result of the introduction of some very different humans who brought a new element to the table. Those city-states represent the first time a culture had a central government and organized labor carried out by a lower class.

      The portion you're focused on is when there was not just one spot where this was going on, but many (due to the dispersion at Babel distributing more self-aware beings into an already existing population, like planting seeds), and each of them eventually beginning to compete as they came into contact with one another. Some erred more to the side of peace, others were much more violent. Many lands, many kings or chiefs, all fighting for their slice of land and resources. That's when you have not just the Egyptians and the Sumerians, but also the Akkadians, the Edomites, Moabites, Amalekites, and many others. Trying to hash all of that out I find to be a daunting task, which is why I am beyond appreciative for individuals like yourself that take all of that on and who also try to find the correlations between these events and real history.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      I have to say that it is a pleasure to meet someone like you, with such a fascination and advance knowledge of ancient times in relation to the Bible and other ancient works of literature.

      Sorry Headly for small misunderstanding; in the first of my previous posts, I didn't finish what I was going to say. -  I don't consider Edom to be the first Adam, and specially, I don't consider Edomites to be descendants of Cain. This is why I would like to move our discussion about Edom, Job, and their descendants to this Hub.

      You are right, that I focus my search on times after dispersion at Babel, however, from there, my interest goes on and reaches present days, and related to the bible conflicts our society is experiencing.

      Headly, I see that we are both looking for truth trough studying the bible, and I think this is what we were told to do; in John 8 Jesus said:

      "The Truth Shall Make You Free".

      So why don't we try together to solve some mysteries of the past?

      Before I will try explain to you my point of view on the book of Genesis and emerge of some of the nations, I'd like to mentioned that English is my second language, and I still make plenty of silly grammatical mistakes.

      But now to the point.

      Headly, I was going to explain to you my point of view about one particular nation starting from its beginning, however, I have noticed that you consider works of Augustine of Hippo as reliable source of information; so let me start from the end. 

      "De Civitate Dei, (full title: De Civitate Dei contra Paganos), translated in English as The City of God, is a book of Christian philosophy written in Latin by Augustine of Hippo in the early 5th century AD. 

      It is one of Augustine's major works. 

      Augustine is considered the most influential Father of the Church in Western Christianity, and The City of God profoundly shaped Western civilization."

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_God_(book)

      In this book, The City of God, Augustine is commenting on some of the Biblical books; one of them is The Book of Obadiah, also called Abidias.

      THE PROPHECY OF ABDIAS

      His prophecy is the shortest of any in number of words, but yields to none, says ST. JEROME (author of Vulgate and close friend of Augusine), in the sublimity of mysteries. It contains but one chapter."

      In this masterpiece, CITY OF GOD  Book XVIII, St. Augustine writes:

      Chapter 31.-Of the Predictions Concerning the Salvation of the World in Christ, in Obadiah

      "Obadiah, so far as his writings are concerned, the briefest of all the prophets, speaks against Idumea, that is, the nation of Esau that reprobate eider of the twin sons of Isaac and grandsons of Abraham. 

      Now if, by that form of speech in which a part is put for the whole, we take Idumea as put for the nations, we may understand of Christ what he says among other things,

       "But upon Mount Sion shall be safety, and there shall be a Holy One."

      35 And a little after, at the end of the same prophecy, he says, "And those who are saved again shall come up out of Mount Sion, that they may defend Mount Esau, and it shall be a kingdom to the Lord.""

      http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm

      Headly, have you noticed the last verse? 

      - "And those who are saved again shall come up out of Mount Sion, that they may defend Mount Esau, and it shall be a kingdom to the Lord."

      Of what I'm understanding, we are told that: if we will be saved again (from whatever is going to happened, or is happening), we shall defend Mount Esau, and it shall be a kingdom to the LORD.

      Headly, do you see it the same way I see it?

      Do you know what is Mount Esau? The one we shall DEFEND, in order to be part of the Kingdom of the LORD.

      Would you be interested to go with me on the Quest, to find out who was Esau?

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, I'd like to share with you some info about historical Esau.

      From history, we know Esau as one of the bringers of our civilization.

      In the archaeological record of Sumer, Esau is mentioned as Lipit-Eshtar who inherited the throne of Isin from his uncle and Father in Law Ishme-Dagan. 

      Esau, Lipit-Eshtar, is well known from Sumerians Clay cones. 

      As the fifth king of the First Dynasty of Isin, Esau / Lipit-Ishtar reigned c. 1934-1923 B.C.E.

       He instigated legal and economic reform through his “Code of Lipit-Ishtar.” He was involved with a number of building activities and most of the extant information about him is related to his Code or to his building projects, as attested by these cones.

      These cones, written in Akkadian, would have been placed in the walls or foundation of buildings that Lipit-Ishtar commissioned.

      Esau became king of Isin because trying to pleased his parents, Isaac and Rebecca, he married Ishmael's daughter, princess Basemath.  

      Ishmael, the firstborn son and heir of Abraham, was the fourth  king of Isin; in Sumerian list of kings he  is called Ishme-Dagan - "Dagan heard." His full title ran, "IshmeDagan, governor of Nippur, prince of Ur, Uddadu of Eridu, lord of Uruk, king of Isin, king of Sumer and Akkad, the beloved husband of Naua".

      Esau / Lipit-Ishtar drafted a formal legal code for Summer and Akkad in 1930 B.C., which precedes the famous Low Code of Hammurabi a couple centuries later.

      His Code was the first legal code to deal substantially with the inheritance of children of plural wives, including slaves wives.

      It opened a window on social development of the period, including the first legal provision for child support.

      It was also the fist to allow daughters to inherit from fathers. 

      This new inheritance law, allowed Timnah, granddaughter of Esau and firstborn daughter of Jeush, to became the first female Duke / Chief of Edom. (Genesis 36)

      Timnah, who was first married to Egyptian Sinuhe (The Story of Sinuhe), became later concubine to Eliphaz king of Thameans - the firstborn of Esau, and seattled what is now called after her - Timnah Valley (present Israel).

      Timnah gave birth to Amalek, ancestor of Amalekites.

      This new inheritance law of Esau / Lipit - Esthar, was also used by Job, who - "having been restored to his former circumstances, divided his possessions equally among his sons and daughters, which was directly contrary to the Israelite  law."(Voltaire), (Job 42).

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, let's have a look into the Bible, and see what we can learn about Esau from there.

      But first quick remainder about Esau's closest ancestors; his father Isaac, and grandfather Abraham.

             Abraham (name meaning - the father of multitude) was born in Ur Mesopotamia, and died at age of 175 in Hebron. Abraham was descendent of Shem, the son of Noah and ancestor of Semites.

      According to Islam, Christianity and Judaism - the three major religions and 3/4 of world population, Abraham was elected by God to become a father of many nations and a carrier of His plan for humanity.

      The Bible, Genesis 12 reads: 

      "1 The LORD had said to Abram,..."

       2 "I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. 

      3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." 

      God also said to Abraham, Genesis 15: 

      "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward"... "Look up at the sky and count the stars - if indeed you can count them."... "So shall your offspring be."... 

      "To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates." 

      Abraham was a father of eight sons who become ancestors of many nations. 

      Esau was descendent of Abraham second (promised) son, Isaac, and he married daughter of Abraham's firstborn son, Ishmael.

      BTW. Job was descendent of his two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. 

              Isaac ("he will laugh"), was the only son Abraham had with his wife Sarah. He was the father of two sons, founders of two nations:

       Esau the firstborn, called later Edom, 

      and Jacob renamed as Israel. 

      Bible - Genesis 17 reads:

       "1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. 

      2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 15 Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife ... I will bless her and also give you a son by her; ... and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be from her." " ... Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; 

      I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. " 

      Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born to him. When Isaac was forty years old, he took Rebekah, a granddaughter of Abraham's brother Nahor, as wife. Isaac pleaded with the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD granted his plea, and Rebekah conceived. 

      But the children struggled together within her; and she said, "If all is well, why am I like this?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.

       And the LORD said to her: 

      "Two nations are in your womb ... " 

      So when her days were fulfilled for her to give birth, there were twins in her womb. The firstborn was named Esau, and after him came out his tween brother, with his hand grasping Esau's heel; so he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when Rebecca bore them, 

      and Isaac loved Esau. (Genesis 25)

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, knowing his ancestors, let's have a closer look at Esau. His story begins in Genesis 25 which says:

      Esau and Jacob

      "19 This is the account of the family line of Abraham’s son Isaac.

      Abraham became the father of Isaac, 

      20 and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan Aram and sister of Laban the Aramean.

      21 Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. "

      Headly, I'd like to stop here for a while and go back to Genesis 6, because this verse, Genesis 25:21, indicates that there was intervention of LORD, in granting Isaac a son. This child was not born of earthly father Isaac, but was conceived by the Spirit of God.

      Do you remember the fragment of Genesis 6 which says:

      "4 There were giants on the earth in those days, 

      and also afterward, 

      when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

      Have you noticed the - "also afterward"? 

      It means that also after the deluge, there were children born not of the earthly fathers, but conceived by the power of the Word of God; and not only of God but also of Devil.

      We know that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and so was Mary, mother of Christ (according to Catholic Dogma).

      Who else was born of Spirit? 

      In the Book of Job, Elihu says:

      Job 33

      "Elihu Contradicts Job

      33 “But please, Job, hear my speech,

      And listen to all my words.

      2 Now, I open my mouth; My tongue speaks in my mouth.

      3 My words come from my upright heart; My lips utter pure knowledge.

      4 The Spirit of God has made me,

      And the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

      Headly, do you remember from the Bible any other people who were born by the power of Spirits?

      The Gospel of Matthew brings to us interesting parable.

      Christ was telling about this story in the Parable of Weeds.

       Matthew 13:24-29

      http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?s...

      The Parable of the Weeds

      " 24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.

       25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 

      26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

         27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

         28 “An enemy did this,"he replied.

         “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

         29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 

      30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      @Sagittarius: What is this, Biblical Spam? Is French your first language?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      Biblical spam ... haha. I asked for, and approve of, these comments.

      Sagittarius2012,

      There's a lot here and a lot of it is new to me. Could you tell me what resources you got some of your time frames from, like this ... "the fifth king of the First Dynasty of Isin, Esau / Lipit-Ishtar reigned c. 1934-1923 B.C.E"?

      I'm wondering for a couple of reasons. For one, this would mean Esau lived a good 1000 years or more later than I thought. For another, this would mean he reigned in the age after the Akkadian kings of the north had already taken Sumer.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Yeah, well, my biblical spam comment was mostly intended for humor, but I really would like to know the other guy's first language. Is it French? If he doesn't know, I may start commenting on other people's Hub with stuff like, "excuse me, but English is my third language," that way I'm free from any errors... LOL!

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      No Insane, it's not Biblical Spam but clearing Biblical Scam, a hoax in religion history, multitude of lies to cover up the truth and demoralize our human society; scam which was developed by council of shadows, an ancient group of despots, members hidden in high ranking positions surrounding world governments and the church.

      My last name is French.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      I must be psychic! Just think, I didn't even use any of that boogy-boogy black magic... Pardon me, but English is my fourth language; ha! Yep, enjoy using your dogma filter, and good luck with that. Cheers!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Personally, Sagittarius, I never would have guessed English wasn't your primary language. I sometimes struggle to convey what I'm trying to say, and English is my only language.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

       

      Headly, here is some of the info you were asking for. 

      Even more detailed is the Egyptian source, The Story of Sinuhe; more about it in next post.

      CUNEIFORM LAW TABLET 

      1860 BC 

      Historical Replica

      Museum mold Sumerian clay tablet from Old Babylonian Period.

       

      Inscribed in closely written Old Sumerian Cuneiform, the tablet was discovered in the ruins of Nippurby the Pennsylvania University team of 1889.

      Fifty years later researchers sorted it from amongst 3,000 tablets and translated it to reveal a partial summary of the legal code of the period. A group of related tablets which complete the summary was assembled and published in 1948. 

       

      HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

      Providing invaluable insight into the development of law in early urban society, the document outlines the Laws of Lipit-Ishtar, fifth ruler of the First Dynasty of Isin. A shepherd and farmer from Nippur, Lipit-Ishtar became king and ruled Isin from 1934 to 1924 B.C.

      Following the ground breaking laws set down by Ur-Namma, King of Ur in 2100 BC, Lipit-Ishtar drafted a formal legal code for Sumer and Akkad in 1930 BC, which precedes the famous Law Code of Hammurabi a couple of centuries later.

      The tablet includes 38 sections from the second half of Lipit-Ishtar's code dealing with real estate, servitude, interest rates (from 20% to 33.3), inheritance, marriage and penalties for damages to or caused by rented livestock.

      It is the first legal code to deal substantively with the inheritances of children of plural wives, including slave wives and prostitutes. It is also the first to allow daughters to inherit from fathers. It opens a window on social development of the period, including the first legal provision for child support.

       

      Lipit-Ishtar

      Year names of Lipit-Ishtar

      (return to Rulers of Mesopotamia)

      1. mu dli-pi2-it-esz4-tar2 lugal

      Year: "Lipit-Ishtar (became) king"

      a. mu nig2-si-sa2 ki-en-gi ki-uri-a mu-ni-in-gar

      Year: "(Lipit-Ishtar) made justice in Sumer and Akkad"

      b. mu inim den-lil2 dnanna-ta ur2iki ki-be2 bi-in-gi4-a

      Year: "On the order of Enlil and Nanna (the city of) Ur was restored"

      c. mu giszgu-za ku3-sig17 dnin-in-si-na-ra mu-na-dim2-ma dnin-in-si-na-ke4 sza3hul2-la e2-gal-mah ba-gub-ba

      Year: "(Lipit-Ishtar), having made a throne in gold for Ninisin, had it joyfully placed in (the temple) Egalmah for Nin-Isin"

      d. mu id2-dnin-ki ba-ba-al

      Year: "The canal of Ninki was dug"

      e. mu la'u3 ki-en-gi ki-uri i-in-gal2-la … e2-kiszib-ba …

      Year: "The arrears of debts lasting on Sumer and Akkad (were released) … in the accounting house"

      f. mu us2-sa la'u3 ki-en-gi ki-uri i-in-gal2-la … e2-kiszib-ba …

      Year after the year: "The arrears of debts lasting on Sumer and Akkad (were released) … in the accounting house"

      g. mu en-dnin-sun2-zi en-dnin-gublaga ur2iki-ma masz2-e i3-pad3

      Year: "(Lipit-Ishtar) chose by means of the omens Enninsunzi for en-priestess of Nin-gublaga in Ur"

      h. mu giszapin ba-dim2

      Year: "The plow was made"

      i. mu sza dli-pi2-it-esz4-tar2 amurram it,-ru-du-usz

      Year: "Lipit-Ishtar repulsed the Amorite" (BM 78395)

      (return to Rulers of Mesopotamia)

      In the archaeological record of Sumer, Esau is mentioned as Lipit-Eshtar who inherited the throne of Isin from his Uncle and Father in Law Ishme-Dagan. The dating of the Sumerian records is problematic no doubt as the result of mixed age artifacts appearing in the same strata beneath and within the Shuppurak flood layer. Lipit-Eshtar

       

      Lipit-Ishtar

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        (Redirected from Lipit-Eshtar)

      Jump to: navigation, search

      Lipit-Ishtar (Lipit-Eshtar), was the fifth ruler of the first dynasty of Isin, and ruled from around 1934 BCE to 1924 BCE. Some documents and royal inscriptions from his time have survived, but he is mostly known because Sumerian language hymns written in his honor, as well as a legal code written in his name (preceding the famed Code of Hammurabi by about 200 years), were used for school instruction for hundreds of years after his death.

      Isin

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Isin and the other major city-states of Hammurabi's Babylonia

      Isin (modern Ishan al-Bahriyat, Al-Qādisiyyah Governorate, Iraq) was a city of lower Mesopotamia, which flourished during the 20th century BC.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Oh Insane, you must be a poor psychic, and poor reader as well. I've never said that my first language if French; what I say is that my last name is French. Thanks for reading my comments anyway.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, let's continue the quest and read about the child Isaac was praying for; and Almighty granted to Isaac; Genesis 25 reads:

      "21 Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 

      22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord.

      23 The Lord said to her,

      “Two nations are in your womb,

          and two peoples from within you will be separated;

      one people will be stronger than the other,

          and the older will serve the younger.”

      24 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 

      25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau. 

      26 After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob. 

      Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them."

      I don't think, Headly, that Isaac was asking for twins; and I don't think that God gave to Isaac more that he was asking for.

      This situation brings back memory about the Parable of Weeds:

      "The kingdom of heaven is like a man (Lord) who sowed good seed (Giant / Son of Lord) in his field.

       25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy (Adversary / Satan) came and sowed weeds ( his Son) among the wheat, and went away. 

      26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads (when the Son of Lord was born) then the weeds (Son of Satan) also appeared."

      Can Satan have children? Apparently Cain was not son of Adam, but of Satan.

      Those two boys born to Isaac were not naturally conceived children, and looking at their later characteristics, it is obvious that they were born of two different Spirits. Even in the oracle the Lord says: 

      "Two nations are in your womb,

          and two peoples from within you will be separated;"

      And Genesis continues:

      "27 The boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the open country, 

      while Jacob was content to stay at home among the tents. 28 Isaac, who had a taste for wild game, loved Esau,"

      At this point we will leave the present Bible and look for continuation of Esau's story in to one of the lost biblical books, The Book of Jasher.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, because The Book of Jasher helps frequently in solving the Bible mysteries, let me first make some comments regarding this book.

      There is no doubt that this book was once part of the original set of books which we call now, the Bible; maybe original Tanakh or even Septuagint. 

      In the present Bible there are two references to what was once a fortieth book of the Old Testament, called the Book of Jasher. 

      Joshua refers to it: "it is not written in the Book of Jasher; (Joshua 10:13).  As does King David:  "Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher" (II Samuel 1:18).

      For some reason the Book of Jasher had been removed from the original Bible, but corrupted copies of this book were circulating between Jewish scholars for ages, and are now available on the Internet. 

      Although corrupted, this book contains very useful informations, which help us to understand difficult Torah's passages.

      The Book of Jasher helps us to understand origin of the Dukes of Edom, and tells us who were the Hyksos.

      The original Book of Jasher had been found, and now is lost again. Although historically  valid, it contains to many "not politically correct informations".

      In the original book, Jasher, after whom the book is named, was a priest and a warrior, who appointed Joshua as the field commander of Israelite armies. According to the Book of Jasher, Jasher and his tribe, the Edomites, were the Chief tribe and highest Judge of the area.

      When Canaan was finally conquered, Jasher summoned all of the the conquered kings to Beth-El, in order to make peace. In the passage below, Jasher is portrayed as the chief Judge of all of the tribes:

      "And in those days, the kings and princes of the sea coasts, the kings of the mountains, and the kings of the valleys, assembled themselves together, nigh unto Bath-El... 

      And Jasher, the priests of Edom, and all the elders of the tribes of Israel, came there also... 

      Then answered all the kings of the sea coasts, the kings of the mountains, and the kings of the valleys, and they said:  “What thou, O Jasher, Judge of all Israel”…

       

      So, according to the Book of Jasher, the Edomites, descendants of Esau  were the Chief Judges of the tribes in the area.

      This book was lost to history until the twentieth century. A number of different copies of the Book of Jasher appeared during the nineteenth century, and were used by various offshoot Christian sects to support their religious convictions.

       A sixteenth century English copy of the original book was rediscovered in the archives of the Rouen Cathedral in 1929, and was obtained by the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris. It remained tucked away and forgotten in the vaults of the library until it was examined by American historian Michael Martin of Philadelphia University, in 1993.

      Martin's research traced the Book of Jasher back to ancient Judah.

      The Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar obtained an original scroll of the book when he captured Jerusalem in 597 BC and took it back to Babylon along with other booty. The book remained there until the city itself was looted by the Persian King Cyrus II in 539 BC. 

      It was then housed in the great library of Gazna in Persia, until it was bought by Alucin, the Archbishop of Canterbury, during a pilgrimage to the Middle East around 800 AD. The scroll was taken to Canterbury, where it was copied into Latin in the 1140s and then into English during the 16th century. 

      Along with the medieval manuscript, the original scroll perished before the dissolution of monasteries, however the manuscript, containing the English version, was taken along with other documents to Rouen Cathedral in France, where it remained until it was acquired by the Bibliothèque Nationale.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, let's look back 4000 years, in to the era of Patriarchs, to learn more about the firstborn and beloved son of Isaac, who was not quite son of Isaac, but of the Spirit of God.

      As you remember, Genesis 25 tells us that Essau was a great hunter:

      "27 And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.

      28 And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob."

      Headly, for continuation of Genesis story about Esau, we have to look in to times and places you surly like.

      The Book of Jasher tells us story what happened next to Esau, the great hunter, and his fight with the mighty king Nimrod and his people:

      Book of Jasher, Chapter 27 reads:

      http://sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/27.htm

      "1 And Esau at that time, after the death of Abraham, frequently went in the field to hunt.

      2 And Nimrod king of Babel, the same was Amraphel, also frequently went with his mighty men to hunt in the field, and to walk about with his men in the cool of the day.

      (small note Headly, this Nimrod is called Amraphel; it is possible that he in not son of Ham, but one of his descendants, like in Herodian dynasty)

      3 And Nimrod was observing Esau all the days, for a jealousy was formed in the heart of Nimrod against Esau all the days."

      But wait Headly, do we know who was Nimrod?

       I think that without explaining first who was Nimrod and his wicked descendants, this story will lost most of its meaning. 

      So let's go find out first who was Nimrod.

      Book of Jasher, Chapter 11

      "1 And Nimrod son of Cush was still in the land of Shinar, and he reigned over it and dwelt there, and he built cities in the land of Shinar.

      2 And these are the names of the four cities which he built, and he called their names after the occurrences that happened to them in the building of the tower.

      3 And he called the first Babel, saying, Because the Lord there confounded the language of the whole earth; and the name of the second he called Erech, because from there God dispersed them.

      4 And the third he called Eched, saying there was a great battle at that place; and the fourth he called Calnah, because his princes and mighty men were consumed there, and they vexed the Lord, they rebelled and transgressed against him.

      5 And when Nimrod had built these cities in the land of Shinar, he placed in them the remainder of his people, his princes and his mighty men that were left in his kingdom.

      6 And Nimrod dwelt in Babel, and he there renewed his reign over the rest of his subjects, and he reigned securely, and the subjects and princes of Nimrod called his name Amraphel, saying that at the tower his princes and men fell through his means.

      7 And notwithstanding this, Nimrod did not return to the Lord, and he continued in wickedness and teaching wickedness to the sons of men; and Mardon, his son, was worse than his father, and continued to add to the abominations of his father.

      8 And he caused the sons of men to sin, therefore it is said, From the wicked goeth forth wickedness."

      And now Headly, back to the story of Esau.

      Book of Jasher, Chapter 27

      1 And Esau at that time, after the death of Abraham, frequently went in the field to hunt.

      2 And Nimrod king of Babel, the same was Amraphel, also frequently went with his mighty men to hunt in the field, and to walk about with his men in the cool of the day.

      3 And Nimrod was observing Esau all the days, for a jealousy was formed in the heart of Nimrod against Esau all the days.

      4 And on a certain day Esau went in the field to hunt, and he found Nimrod walking in the wilderness with his two men.

      5 And all his mighty men and his people were with him in the wilderness, but they removed at a distance from him, and they went from him in different directions to hunt, and Esau concealed himself for Nimrod, and he lurked for him in the wilderness.

      6 And Nimrod and his men that were with him did not know him, and Nimrod and his men frequently walked about in the field at the cool of the day, and to know where his men were hunting in the field.

      7 And Nimrod and two of his men that were with him came to the place where they were, when Esau started suddenly from his lurking place, and drew his sword, and hastened and ran to Nimrod and cut off his head.

      8 And Esau fought a desperate fight with the two men that were with Nimrod, and when they called out to him, Esau turned to them and smote them to death with his sword.

      9 And all the mighty men of Nimrod, who had left him to go to the wilderness, heard the cry at a distance, and they knew the voices of those two men, and they ran to know the cause of it, when they found their king and the two men that were with him lying dead in the wilderness.

      10 And when Esau saw the mighty men of Nimrod coming at a distance, he fled, and thereby escaped; and Esau took the valuable garments of Nimrod, which Nimrod's father had bequeathed to Nimrod, and with which Nimrod prevailed over the whole land, and he ran and concealed them in his house.

      11 And Esau took those garments and ran into the city on account of Nimrod's men, and he came unto his father's house wearied and exhausted from fight, and he was ready to die through grief when he approached his brother Jacob and sat before him."

      For continuation of Essau's story we have to go back to the Bible - Genesis 25:29.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Sagittarius: I'm not a psychic, I was being sarcastic; duh! No, you said English wasn't your first language, yet you have only spoken English here. You can always just make up a language and tell us it's your first... I asked if you spoke French because you are from Canada, and there is a little bit of French up there.

      English is my fifth language... LOL!

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, let's continue the story about two brothers, founders of two nations, and see what we can learn from it.

      In the last post we stopped at the moment when the older brother Esau, after killing the wicket king Nimrod, "the same was Amraphel", arrived at his father's house.

      Book of Jasher 27.

      "11 And Esau took those garments and ran into the city on account of Nimrod's men, and he came unto his father's house wearied and exhausted from fight, and he was ready to die through grief when he approached his brother Jacob and sat before him."

      Now Genesis 25:29 continues:

      "29 And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint:

      30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.

      31 And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.

      32 And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

      33 And Jacob said, 

      Swear to me this day; 

      and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.

      34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way:".

      Headly, do you think it was right to ask fainting, ready to die from grief BROTHER, to give away his BIRTHRIGHT, for a bread and pottage of lentiles; from older brother who was worker of the fields and hunter, providing food for Isaac's house, and defender of the house from people like Nimrod? I don't think so.

      Now Headly, before we will have a closer look in to the meaning of BIRTHRIGHT, let's have a look in to the teaching of Proto-Christians, the Essenes (descendants of Esau), and the Essenes' Doctrine of  two Spirits from the Manual of Discipline:

      "He (God) has created man to govern the world, and has appointed for him two spirits in which to walk until the time of His visitation: the spirits of truth and injustice.

       Those born of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of injustice spring from a source of darkness. 

      All the children of righteousness are ruled by the Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light, but all the children of injustice are ruled by the Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of darkness." (1QS3, 18-22.) ( Vermes , p. 73);

       and based on Manual Discipline the Doctrine of Two Spirits in John's writings:

      1 John 3:7-10 

      "Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning.

       The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

       By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his BROTHER."

      Headly, what do you think about origin of those two people Esau and Jacob? 

      Why was Jacob requesting birthright, from a fainting brother for a bowl of soup?

      Do you think it possible that they were born of "Two Spirits"?

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      OK Insane, my respond was also sarcastic, I know you are not psychic; however, it would be nice if you can add something relevant to this hub and comments, not just interfere with "Insane's" questions. 

      Just to ease your curiosity, I will let you know that I left my home country when I was 25, then I've lived many years in several countries, learning different languages (non of them French), before I ended up in western Canada, where we don't speak French.

      Hope you enjoy and learn something from my comments.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Woah, Sagittarius, hang on. Let's slow down a bit. You're throwing me a lot of information here, some of it from sources I'm not familiar with and will need some time to get to know. The quotes from the book of Jasher, for instance. While there's definitely a lot of interesting information there, especially in regards to Nimrod, being that those books appear to have been written within the past 400 years or so makes me leery about trusting what it says or any theories based on it.

      You also mentioned the possibility of Cain being the son of Satan. We have to establish a standard here or we could easily get lost in endless speculation. This is something that is in direct contrast to what's specifically said in Genesis ...

      Gen4:1 - "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.”

      Timelines also seem to be a pretty significant issue here. Especially in regards to Nimrod and Esau living in the same time and interacting with one another. Nimrod was the son of Cush, who was the son of Ham, so he was Noah's grandson. Esau, however, was the grandson of Abraham, who was 11 generations after Noah. Not to say this would be impossible, given the extended lifespans specified. Salah, who would have been same generation as Nimrod, was said to have lived to the age of 433. Assuming Nimrod lived roughly the same length, he would have been over 400 years old when Esau was born as Salah was born 1695 years after Adam and Esau 2110.

      Also, while I'm definitely intrigued by the whole Jacob/Esau thing as far as being different nations, I can't see the connection you're making to Iron age rulers. Again, it's the time frame. If Esau truly is one and the same as a ruler from the 20th century BC, then that would mean Adam was created around 4000 BC and the flood would have to have happened somewhere around the middle of the 3rd millennium, which would have been right in the middle of the civilization boom of sumer/egypt/akkad.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, I totally agree with you that we need standards, however, when the reliable sources are contradicting each other, then we have to use common sense and our conscience in searching for truth.

      Regarding Cain, I had a hard time to understand why the firstborn son of Adam was so wicked that killed his brother Abel; then he lie, even to God. 

      Have you noticed this verse in John 3:12,

      "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother."

      Obviously, Adam was not "that wicked one", so who was the one, father of a murder and liar?

      There is an interesting article on the www, and I think you will find it interesting, also, because it relates to Revelations, maybe our guru on Revelation, Jereme can also expressed his opinion.

      "Great Deceptions

      Cain: The Son of Satan

      THE BIRTH

      The following verse has often been explained as the birth of Jesus. That is incorrect. This passage, in truth, describes the birth of Cain, the son of Satan.

      Revelation 12: 4-5 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

      Line by line meaning:

      “And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood…”

      Is this not understood to be the fall of Satan, the dragon, and the one third of heavens angels that he led in rebellion?

      “and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered”

      Is it not logical that the father would stand at the mother’s bedside at the birth of the child?

      “for to devour her child as soon as it was born.”

      In this context, the word “devour” means to claim, to possess, to take or take over; to assume authority and rights over the child.

      “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations”

      Jesus did not rule all nations. He turned down the offer, remember? Scripture clearly shows who does own and rule all nations.

      Matthew 4:8-9 Then the devil led Jesus to the top of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and all their splendor. The devil said, "If you will bow down and worship me, I will give you all these things."

      “to rule all nations with a rod of iron”

      A “rod of iron” would indicate tyranny and enslavement. Through various kingdoms which include both governments and religions, the lineage of Cain continues to rule the earth.

      and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

      Satan, the alien-angel, took possession of the child for a period of time.

      ------------------------

      ANCESTRY

      Although Cain was the first born of Eve, he is not mentioned in Adam’s lineage. The following scriptures uphold the fact that Cain was not Adam’s son. The fact that Cain is not listed in the lineage of Adam in Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles, nor in the record of genealogy in Luke 4, gives speculation that he was an illegitimate son. (Cain stands alone in his lineage and his genealogy is listed separately.)

      Genesis 5:

      1 This is the family history of Adam.3 When Adam was 130 years old, he became the father of another son in his likeness and image, and Adam named him Seth.

      6 When Seth was 105 years old, he had a son named Enosh.9 When Enosh was 90 years old, he had a son named Kenan

      12 When Kenan was 70 years old, he had a son named Mahalalel

      15 When Mahalalel was 65 years old, he had a son named Jared.

      18 When Jared was 162 years old, he had a son named Enoch.

      21 When Enoch was 65 years old, he had a son named Methuselah

      25 When Methuselah was 187 years old, he had a son named Lamech

      28 When Lamech was 182, he had a son.29 Lamech named his son Noah

      32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth

      This possibility is further substantiated by the fact that elsewhere in Scripture, a firstborn son's name is never omitted from a genealogy, though he may forfeit inheritance rights for improper behavior. (1 Chronicles 2:3, Gen 49:3-4)

      -------------------------

      Genesis 4:1 

      And Man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have acquired a man with Jehovah. (Darby translation)

      This verse seems to imply the cause and effect , but that is incorrect.

      “Adam knew Eve his wife”

      This was a reconciliatory event. Satan has scorned her and admonished her to return to her husband. (Your desire shall be to your husband and he will rule over you.) It is the old story of a woman seduced, then discarded. Eve confesses when she realizes (or has been told what is happening to her) that “she acquired a man with ‘the Lord’.” By disobedience she has entered into a covenant with Satan and he now lords position over them.

      ------------------------

      1 John 3:12

      Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.

      ------------------------

      I hypothesize that this is a mistranslation in that the following statement was not made by our creators, but rather a comment from Satan to Eve. Here he tells her that the seed of his lineage and the human seed would always be enemies.

      Genesis 3:15

      And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise (trample upon) thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

      Many people incorrectly assume that Jesus is this “enmity”.

      Enmity means “enemy, hostility, state of war.”

      These words were actually a warning that there would always be hostility between the pure human lineage of Adam and Eve and the bloodline that sprung from the angel alien and Eve.

      He shall bruise thy head 

      The serpent would have the authority of headship; thus, control over the “head” indicates the leadership position. To this day this serpent line is exercising control and power over the human race through governments and religions.

      and thou shalt bruise his heel

      This indicates that the human race would show contempt for these powers being lorded over them, but that whatever they might do to combat it, humans would merely be a nuisance and would not be effective to change things.

      In the last book of the Bible, scriptures tells us that this serpent lineage which is directing the beast even makes war with and overcomes the saints. The powers in this world were transferred to the progeny of evil alien-angels long ago.

      Change can only come from divine intervention when our Creator(s) return.

      --------------------------------------------

      The following scripture is taken from The Message bible. There are various translations which can be used for cross reference at http://www.biblegateway.com/ . I have chosen this text because it gets the point across in a more lively manner.

      For a translation from the Septuagint: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/24-psalms-n...

      Psalms 2:7-9

      Let me tell you what God said next. 

      He said, "You're my son, 

      And today is your birthday. 

      What do you want? Name it: 

      Nations as a present? continents as a prize? 

      You can command them all to dance for you, 

      Or throw them out with tomorrow's trash."

      Does this passage sound like a loving “god” who deserves devotion from humans? This “god” is not our Creator(s). The son referenced here is certainly not characteristic of Jesus."

      From:

      http://ximun-ximun.blogspot.ca/2008/07/cain-son-of...

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, I also consider Timeline a very important issue in restoring history of the Bible, and would be thrilled to see your bible timeline; maybe on separate hub. Something we could discuss and correct as we discover new events.

      We could use as a benchmark eruption of Thera on Santorini Island in 1628 BC.

      Regarding Nimrod and Esau, you say that Selah lived 433 years (460 in Septuagin) , so the chances that Nimrod could be killed by young Esau are pretty high. 

      I don't think that human  lifespan had been drastically reduced to 120 years right after the flood. We still have Abraham living 175 years, Isaac 180.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Sagittarius: I made my contribution to this Hub. In fact, I think it needs an occasional pop-up from other people, to break up your long monotony of strung-out verbiage.

      My last exchange with HeadlyvonNoggin (concerning this hub topic) best sums up this subject, here:

      Insane Mundane says: "Children with pristine thoughts have a better chance at solving this conundrum, more so than any scholar of today..."

      HeadlyvonNoggin says: "That's very true. The best scholars, the most educated, have basically learned the same ways of thinking as everyone who has come before them. Flawed or not, it's passed on. Though humans only live 100 years or less in most cases, we still manage to have problems that span for centuries. Those kinds of flaws aren't natural. They're learned and passed on to the next generation to continue on. Once we're too tainted by our experience in this world, it's hard to see beyond it."

      Well, knock yourself out and have fun... Personally, I haven't read any of your last several comments (except the ones directed towards me), as I'd hate to taint my level of awareness with overly analytical garbage; thanks!

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      I have to agree with you on this one Insane - "Children with pristine thoughts have better chance at solving this conundrum, more so than any scholars of today...".

      Consider me as one of them; I wasn't even ten years old when I have noticed that injustice happened to Esau. 

      Since then I went a long way without guidance of any scholar.

      For some people treasure is for other garbage, and vice versa; it depends what they are made of. 

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      I agree with you Headly, that The Book of Jasher, we see on Internet, are copies produced c. 400 years ago, however, they have been based on much older scripts. 

      The detailed recounting of the events described in this book certainly suggests a composition date, of the original book, fairly close to that of the actual events; moreover, Jews who preserved Book of Jasher would never write about Edom, the nation they want to wiped out from human history. 

      This book not only preserves infos about Edom, but also corrects some of unclear passages from the Bible, regarding history of the nation of Edom.

      I will provide some examples of it as we continue "the quest for truth."

      Going back to events from Genesis 25; for thousands of years we have been deceived that Esau, the firstborn and beloved son of Isaac, sold his Birthright and later lost his Blessing; however, is it true? Have someone ever examined those events?

      What was actually the meaning of Birthright and Blessing?

      Headly, let's have a look at the meaning of:

      - Firstborn

      - Birthright

      - and Blessing

       

      The role of the First-Born, in the Patriarchs times, was of crucial importance.

      Among the Hebrews, as well as among other nations, the first-born enjoyed special privileges. Besides having a greater share in the paternal affection, he had everywhere the first place after his father and a kind of directive authority over his younger brothers.

       

       A special Blessing was reserved to him at his father's death, and he succeeded him as the head of the family. Moreover, the blessing included a right to the Priesthood.

      This latter privilege, as also the headship of the family, to which it was attached, continued in force only when brothers dwelt together in the same house; for; as soon as they made a family apart and separated, each one became the head and priest of his own house.

       

      The privilege of the firstborn also included the Birthright.

       

      The Birthright, as we know from (Deuteronomy 21:17), meant, receiving a double portion among his brothers. It was working this way:

      Father’s inheritance was divided in to three parts; the 2/3 of the inheritance was granted to the firstborn son, and the reminding 1/3 of father’s property was divided between reminding sons.

      In Esau – Jacob case, the 2/3 of fathers property should belong to Esau, as the first born son, and the reminding 1/3 to Jacob, as there were no other sons in Isaac’s family.

      All what Jacob wanted from Esau, for the bowl of soup, was Esau’s Birthright, the 2/3 of inheritance, leaving Esau with the 1/3, which was meant for Jacob.

      Exhausted and dying Esau, didn’t care much about the material property; he said yes, ate, and left.

      It wasn’t the last time when Esau was so geneourus to his brother Jacob; Genesis 33 tells us how Esau was refusing to accept gifts from Jacob and in Genesis 36, King James Version, we read how Esau gave up all land to Jacob, long before their father passed away.

      Genesis 36 reads:

      “1 Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom…

      6 And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house, and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his substance, which he had got in the land of Canaan; and went into the country from the face of his brother Jacob.

      7 For their riches were more than that they might dwell together; and the land wherein they were strangers could not bear them because of their cattle.

      8 Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom.”

      It was the time when Esau left to his brother the reminding 1/3 of their father inheritance, and had moved to the land of Seir.

      For his generosity God granted Esau very fertile land of Seir, and blessed him with even more grandchildren, the famous Dukes of Edom.

      In Deuteronomy 2 (KJV), we read that when Moses was leading Israelites from slavery of Egypt, God warned him not to attacked descendants of Esau, the Edomites:

      “1 Then we turned, and took our journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea, as the Lord spake unto me: and we compassed mount Seir many days.

      2 And the Lord spake unto me, saying,

      3 Ye have compassed this mountain long enough: turn you northward.

      4 And command thou the people, saying, 

      Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore:

      5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; 

      because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

       

      6 Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink...

      8 And when we passed by from our brethren the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, through the way of the plain from Elath, and from Eziongaber, we turned and passed by the way of the wilderness of Moab.”

       

      Headly, do you now see anything wrong in being generous as Esau was to his brother?  I don’t think God did.

      On the other hand, and losing the Blessing, which was purely spiritual meant a lot. 

      Let's start with example of Blessing from Patriarchs times and see how Jacob, on his deathbed, was blessing his sons:

      Genesis 49 King James Version

      "1And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.

      2Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father.

      3Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:

      4Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch. (Genesis 35:22)

      5Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. (Genesis 34:25)

      6O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.

      7Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.

      8Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee.

      9Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?

      10The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

      11Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

      12His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk."

      Now, four thousand years from the time of Blessing, we can see how important role plays the tribe of Judah between the tribes of Israel. His descendants still hold the scepter and create laws for all Israel.

      The blessing doesn't have anything to do with dividing of material things, but was dealing with leadership and destiny.

      Next, let's  have a closer look at the blessing Esau supposedly lost, and how the message, he thought in his heart, about killing Jacob, was delivered to Rebecca.

      One more example of losing Birthright we can see in the Book of Jasher 36:

      "And Reuben (the firstborn of Jacob) was jealous for his mother Leah on account of this, and he was filled with anger, and he rose up in his anger and went and entered the tent of Bilhah and he thence removed his father's bed.

      At that time the portion of birthright, together with the kingly and priestly offices, was removed from the sons of Reuben, for he had profaned his father's bed, 

      and the birthright was given unto Joseph, 

      the kingly office to Judah, 

      and the priesthood unto Levi, 

      because Reuben had defiled his father's bed."

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius, I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I've been reading the Book of Jasher among other things. There seems to be quite a few that dismiss it as a hoax, and there are passages in there that make me suspect the same, like the bit about the children of men deliberately encouraging their women to drink something that made them baron in the interest of 'maintaining their figure'. But I'm not just going to dismiss it entirely without giving it due consideration.

      This is also the source, apparently, behind the idea that the old man and young boy that Lamech killed in Gen4 was Cain and Tubal-Cain. I had read that before, but didn't know what it was from. What I do find interesting is the large role that the 'children of men' play in the story. A big part of my view has to do with naturally evolved humans populating the landscape and playing a significant role in the stories of early Genesis, so I certainly find that intriguing if there's any legitimacy to this text.

      But I do have to say I'm having a hard time with this idea that Cain was fathered by Satan. If you'll notice, in the old testament Satan was always behaving according to God's will, serving a particular purpose. We was often the 'adversary' who would act almost as a prosecutor in the judgement of an individual. Like in Job where he first had to have God's permission to take action against Job.

      It was only in the centuries following Jewish exile that Satan began to become more like we know him today, which does not much resemble how he was portrayed in the books of Moses. If you haven't already, go check out DisappearingHead's hubs on the evolution of Satan for more on this.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, it is me who should apology for not slowing down, but you see, there is so much to say about the true people of God, suppressed for millenniums by the usurpers, that with the slow speed it would take months to get the big picture. 

      Although important, I consider the pre-deluge events not as crucial as the new era. 

      Noah's Flood was created to wipe out the wickedness from the Earth's surface, then in Genesis 9 humanity got new law. 

      Genesis 9 (NIV) reads:

      God’s Covenant With Noah

       1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth..."

      And God gives them new Commandment - Thou Shall Not Kill.

      "5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

       6 “Whoever sheds human blood, 

         by humans shall their blood be shed; 

      for in the image of God 

         has God made mankind."

      Unfortunately, after Noah's Flood Satan got again involved in God's creation, and had his own children; John 8 talks about it.

      Headly, you have mentioned in the previous post, that you can't see the connection between Esau and the Iron Age rulers. Let's establish some biblical chronology based on what we know from ancient sources related to Bible, like:

      The Book of Jubilee or Testament of Twelve Patriarchs.

      From those books, preserved between the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know that Esau was murdered by his brother Jacob, and according to Testament of 12 Patriarchs, it happened 18 years after Jacob escaped from Laban.

       

      IV.—THE TESTAMENT OF JUDAH (son of Jacob/Israel) 

      CONCERNING FORTITUDE, AND LOVE OF MONEY, AND FORNICATION.

      http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.iii.vi.html

      9. Eighteen years we abode at peace, our father and we, with his brother Esau, and his sons with us, after that we came from Mesopotamia, from Laban. 

      And when eighteen years were fulfilled, in the fortieth year of my life, Esau, the brother of my father, came upon us with much people and strong; 

      and he fell by the bow of Jacob, and was taken up dead in Mount Seir: even as he went above Iramna was he slain. 

      The Book of Jubilees

      http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/38.htm

      [Chapter 38]

      1.And after that Judah spake to Jacob, his father, and said unto him:

      'Bend thy bow, father, and send forth thy arrows and cast down the adversary and slay the enemy; and mayst thou have the power, for we shall not slay thy brother, for he is such as thou, and he is like thee let us give him (this) honour.' 

      2.Then Jacob bent his bow and sent forth the arrow and struck Esau, his brother (on his right breast) and slew him. 

      3.And again he sent forth an arrow and struck 'Adoran the Aramaean, on the left breast, and drove him backward and slew him.”

      Now, knowing that the reign of Esau / Lipit-Esthar came to abrupt end in 1924 BC., we can try to establish some kind of Chronology of Patriarchs Age - Middle Bronze Era.

      With recent discoveries we can be more specific with dating the Kingdom of Edom during Iron Age. 

      From the Brown University professor emerita Martha Sharp Joukowsky, present directing the archaeological excavations of the Great Temple at Petra, Jordan, came this statement:

      http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institu...

      "According to tradition, in ca. 1200 BCE, the Petra area (but not necessarily the site itself) was populated by Edomites and the area was known as Edom ("red"). 

      Before the Israelite incursions, the Edomites controlled the trade routes from Arabia in the south to Damascus in the north.

       Little is known about the Edomites at Petra itself, but as a people they were known for their wisdom, their writing, their textile industry, the excellence and fineness of their ceramics, and their skilled metal working."

      In the last century, the idea of highly developed civilization of Edom was rejected by many Israelite and modern scholars, however, recent excavations such as the 2002-2004 UCSD dig at Khirbat an-Nahs in Jordan have shed new light on history of Edom, unearthing artifacts and evidence of settled society as early as the thirteen through tenth centuries BCE.

      http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/soc/EDOM.asp

      "The Edomite lowlands, home to a large copper ore zone, have been ignored by archaeologists because of the logistical difficulties of working in this hyper-arid region. 

      But with an anthropological perspective, and using high precision radiocarbon dating, this new research demonstrates two major phases of copper production—during the 12th to 11th centuries B.C. and the 10th to 9th centuries B.C. 

      In this period evidence was found of construction of massive fortifications and industrial scale metal production activities, as well as over 100 building complexes."

      Now Headly, we can try to place the seven kings of Edom between those events. Knowing Job's, the second king of Edom, lifespan, 240 years according to Septuagint, I think it will be possible.

       

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Sagittarious: If you utilize the "copy & paste" function much more, they will ban it forever... LOL!

      Hey, I understand you are a biblical spammer, oops, I mean fanatic, but dang! I'm cutting in to ask you a few simple questions:

      Do you think that life exists elsewhere in the cosmos?

      Do you think that a more advanced race once existed on Earth way before the Homo sapiens?

      Do you believe in crystal/advanced technology and the use of universal resources that could make for amazing uses of energy or do you think we are all meant to be stagnant sheep?

      Do you think man once existed alongside the giant beasts/dinosaurs?

      Do you believe in a mysterious underworld?

      Do you believe in a permanent area called Hell?

      Do you believe in reincarnation?

      Do you have trouble accepting a theory of unity without bigotry?

      I could ask questions all day, but since you can "copy & paste" all over the place, I don't feel bad for giving you a quick Q & A moment.

      I'm just trying to understand your reason for being such a fanatic...

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Insane, if you call me fanatic then it makes me believe that your personality is matching your hub name.

      There is nothing fanatical in searching for Truth, and if you find it, in sharing it with others. 

      If my views are not the same as of the mainstream, that's ok; only dead fish flow always with mainstream.

      For thousands of years we have been feed with biblical stories describing sinful life and unimaginable cruelty of the children of Jacob / Israel; and then we were told that they are God's beloved, chosen people. What a lie!!!

      And still today this council of shadows,  group of despots, members hidden in high ranking positions surrounding world governments, multimedia and the church, are demoralizing our human society, feeding us with the same lies again and again. Unfortunately, so many people are drinking these lies like water, without even questioning what they are being served.

      Your questions are containing some interesting topics; write hubs about it and then we can explore it.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      As you see Headly, there was nothing wrong in Esau's decision to give away his Birthright to his younger brother Jacob. Certainly, there was wrong from the point of view of our loving and caring God. As Christ was teaching in Matthew 5,

      42 "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

      Later God blessed Esau / Edom and his descendants with kingdoms and great riches for many generations, while Jacob / Israel and his descendants, spend many centuries as a slaves in the sands of Egypt. 

       As in the covenant, which God made with Abraham, kings were born of Esau and ruled the ancient world, from the brook of Egypt to the great river Euphrates. 

      Esau gave away his material possession (Jacob was so jealous about), but never lost the Blessing of the Almighty.

      All this is written in the Bible, and  can be find if someone is looking for it with loving heart, and with open mind.

      Headly, we are being brainwashed that with the Birthright, Esau gave away the Blessing, because he didn't care about it. However, if you read Genesis, you will easily find that this is an obvious lie, because Genesis 27 shows how important was the Blessing for Esau. 

      Genesis 27 reads:

      "30 After Isaac finished blessing him (the usurper), and Jacob had scarcely left his father’s presence, his brother Esau came in from hunting. 31 He too prepared some tasty food and brought it to his father. Then he said to him, “My father, please sit up and eat some of my game, so that you may give me your blessing.”

      32 His father Isaac asked him, “Who are you?”

      “I am your son,” he answered, “your firstborn, Esau.”

      33 Isaac trembled violently and said, “Who was it, then, that hunted game and brought it to me? I ate it just before you came and I blessed him—and indeed he will be blessed!”

      34 When Esau heard his father’s words, he burst out with a loud and bitter cry and said to his father, “Bless me—me too, my father!”

      35 But he said, “Your brother came deceitfully and took your blessing.”

      36 Esau said, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob (a)? This is the second time he has taken advantage of me: He took my birthright, and now he’s taken my blessing!” Then he asked, “Haven’t you reserved any blessing for me?”

      37 Isaac answered Esau, “I have made him lord over you and have made all his relatives his servants, and I have sustained him with grain and new wine. So what can I possibly do for you, my son?”

      38 Esau said to his father, “Do you have only one blessing, my father? Bless me too, my father!” Then Esau wept aloud."

      Footnotes:

      (a) - Genesis 27:36 Jacob means he grasps the heel, a Hebrew idiom for he takes advantage of or he deceives.

      There is also plenty evidence in the Bible, showing that Esau never lost the Blessing which belonged to him as the firstborn son of Isaac. He was the carrier of Abrahamic covenant with God.

      There is enough evidence in the book of Genesis, to prove that in Patriarch's time, the "Birthright" and the "Blessing" were two separate events; one could gave  away the birthright, but keep the blessing.

      In addition, it is very important to notice that while the Birthright was material, dealing with inheritance division of fathers's property, the Blessing was purely spiritual and was given in the presence of the LORD.

      Genesis 27 reads:

      36 Esau said, “Isn’t he rightly named Jacob (a)? This is the second time he has taken advantage of me: He took my birthright, and now he’s taken my blessing!”

      By this statement Esau makes it clear, that the birthright and the blessing are two separate events; he honestly admits that he gave away the Birthright to his younger brother Jacob, however, now the Blessing has been stolen from him. (obviously, Esau was to gentle to use the word "stolen").

      In addition, if  Rebecca and Jacob would not be aware that  the Birthright and the Blessing were two separate not related events, then there would be no need for Rebecca and Jacob to deceive the old and blind Isaac; all Jacob needed to do, was to go and tell Isaac that he acquired from Esau the right to be blessed.

      In fact, Jacob was not really interested in the Blessing, he was satisfy with the Birthright he got from Esau. 

      It was Rebecca's idea to deceive Isaac and initially Jacob opposed her plan and got the right idea:

      "11 And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man:

      12 My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing."

      In conclusion, this special Blessing, which was reserved to Esau at his father's death, included a right to the Priesthood, and succeededing Isaac as the head of the family

      The right to Priesthood, as also the headship of the family, to which it was attached, continued in force only when brothers dwelt together in the same house; for; as soon as they made a family apart and separated, each one became the head and priest of his own house. The Bible shows us that Esau / Edom and his children (Eliphaz - Job), were the carriers of Abrahamic religion and covenant with God, while Jacob / Israel and his children forgot about God and his law, long before they ended up in slavery of Egypt.

      But what actually was the Blessing (and the Curse) in the case of Esau and Jacob about?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius 2012,

      I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and insights on the Esau/Jacob tale. It's not a topic I've spent much time on or thought much about, but it does make up a significant portion of Genesis and is certainly relevant information in regards to how the stage was initially set, so it definitely deserves attention in the context of what I'm writing about.

      I've been doing some reading since we first began to discuss this. There's a lot of ground to cover here, so any assessment I have so far is based on my very limited grasp of the topic. However, having said that, here's my initial impressions when considered against the grand scheme of what it seems to me God's ultimate purpose was.

      A big theme throughout the bible has to do with the wants of the flesh versus the wants of the spirit, like how it's described in Galatians 5:13-26 ...

      "13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

      16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

      19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

      22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

      The purpose carried out by God throughout the remainder of the old testament had everything to do with preserving the spiritual essence in the bloodline that would ultimately bring about the savior. If taken in the context of Adam's creation and the dispersion of Noah's descendants at Babel happening in an already populated world of naturally evolved humans, then it becomes clear that there is a very real separation here between flesh and spirit. To the point that 'God's spirit', first breathed into Adam, would not contend (Gen6:3), and would be diluted by (Ezra9), interbreeding with natural humans. In this context, those 613 mitzvah laws have a very clear purpose.

      It seems the fundamental issue between Jacob and Esau had everything to do with what they treasured and desired. Though Jacob was clearly deceitful and manipulative, his desires were always more concerned with the things of significance to God's plan, where Esau's base desires were more of immediate gratification of the temporary desires of the flesh.

      Once the course had been set and the birthright and blessings belonged to Jacob/Israel, they were the priority. And it was the events afterwards that seemed to be the key reasons for the eventual demise of the Edomites. It was the descendents of Esau, the Amalekites, who were the first to attack and terrorize the Israelites in the wilderness. It was the king of Edom who did not allow passage for the Israelites when asked. And it was the Edomites who it says rejoiced and even aided in the kingdom being overrun. Where the ultimate priority was the coming savior who would overcome the flesh and death and allow for the holy spirit to then make 'sons of God' of all who accept, Esau first gave away his right caring more for gratification of the desires of the flesh, then his descendents became a hindrance that attempted to stand in the way through what I can only assume was resentment.

      I know that you say there's a conspiracy to cover up the truth, but I have a hard time with that in general. Beyond my skepticism of any human-based organization having the capability to carry out such an elaborate scheme, there's also the fact that this view would bring into question the validity of Jesus, which gives me reason to doubt considering the rest of the bible's context. And while Jacob was certainly not blameless, and while the Jewish people were certainly not blameless, they did continue to survive against some seemingly insurmountable odds where the Edomites did not, even with the blessings they continued to receive.

      Again, these are just my initial impressions, but I clearly have much more to read and consider.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, I wish I will have your writing skills to express my thoughts so fluently.

      I totally agree with you, that setting the stage is of uttermost importance. 

      From what I understand reading Genesis, we had the Creation, the wickedness, and the Noah's Flood which removed most of the wickedness from the earth surface. 

      Then we see in Genesis 9 the New Covenant and new law - "Thou Shall Not Kill".

      God was very specific about this law when He said:

      Genesis 9 (NIV) reads:

      God’s Covenant With Noah

       1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them...

      5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, 

      I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

       6 “Whoever sheds human blood, 

         by humans shall their blood be shed; 

      for in the image of God 

         has God made mankind."

      And in the same chapter, Noah is setting the initial stage for the nations by blessing his sons:

      "24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

      "25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

      26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

      27 God shall enlarge Japheth, 

      and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; 

      and Canaan shall be his servant."

      We know that the three sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth, gave birth to three Nations: Semitic, Hamitic and Indio-European. We still classify languages based on the names of those people.

      The descendants of Japheth settled north of Mediterranean Sea, from Spain to Anatolia, the sons of Shem populated Arabian Peninsula and part of Middle East, and descendants of Ham settled in Africa and wheather by right or conquest, east of Mediterranean Sea.

      It is worth to noticed, that according to Noah's Blessing, the Indio-European descendants of Japheth should increase their territory by intermarrying with the children of Shem, the Semites -

      "27 God shall enlarge Japheth, 

      and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; 

      and Canaan shall be his servant."

      Several chapters later, God makes covenant with Abraham, then gives Abraham the promised son Isaac; and in Genesis 25 we see the creation of the two new Nations, which according to St. Augustine, will play the major role on the End Times stage; Edom - the House of Esau, and Israel - the House of Jacob.

      As I have mentioned before, in his masterpiece, CITY OF GOD  Book XVIII, St. Augustine wrote:

      Chapter 31.-Of the Predictions Concerning the Salvation of the World in Christ, in Obadiah

      "Obadiah, so far as his writings are concerned, the briefest of all the prophets, speaks against Idumea, that is, the nation of Esau that reprobate eider of the twin sons of Isaac and grandsons of Abraham. 

      Now if, by that form of speech in which a part is put for the whole, we take Idumea as put for the nations, we may understand of Christ what he says among other things,

       "But upon Mount Sion shall be safety, and there shall be a Holy One."

      35 And a little after, at the end of the same prophecy, he says,

       "And those who are saved again shall come up out of Mount Sion, that they may defend Mount Esau, and it shall be a kingdom to the Lord.""

      http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm

      Headly, have you noticed the last verse? 

      - "And those who are saved again shall come up out of Mount Sion, that they may defend Mount Esau, and it shall be a kingdom to the Lord."

      Now Headly, let's talk a bit about my "conspiracy theory".

      From your other hub, "In Science we Trust?", I know that you are aware who was St. Augustine, and that you consider him as reliable source of information. 

      He was a great scholar and had access to ancient manuscripts of the Bible, as well as writings of early Christians. He was also close friend of St. Jerome, author of Vulgate, the only official Bible of the church for another 1000 years. 

      Now, when you look at the last verse of Obadiah prophecy from Augustine's City of God written c. 400 AD,

      21 "And those who are saved again shall come up out of Mount Sion, that they may defend Mount Esau, and it shall be a kingdom to the Lord."

      and compare it to any edition of the present Bible, you should be shocked. The most popular of them say:

      Obadiah 1

      Good News Translation (GNT)

      "21 The victorious men of Jerusalem

          will attack Edom and rule over it.

      And the Lord himself will be king.”

      This ancient council of shadows, removed the original verse, ending the prophecy of End Times, and replaced it with something with totally opposite meaning. 

      They did it in every Bible and every language, but missed the Augustine's City of God, which retained the original verse 21.

      According to the original prophecy of Obadiah, retained in The City of God, confused Judeo-Christians should get out of their judaistic roots and DEFEND Mount of Esau. 

      How can they, if the present Bible says something quite opposite; in addition, they have no idea what is the Mount  of Esau. 

      Deceiving comments had been added to bible texts to twist the truth about Esau, and this deceivers almost managed to remove the Nation of Esau from human history.

      This council of shadows also replaced historical Christ, Iesous,  with Judaistic Jesus, and then replaced the teaching of Christ with the deception of Paul, which doesn't have much to do with the original teaching of Christ and his Apostles.

      Who was Iesous?

       He spoke Aramaic, language of Edomites, 

      lived in Galilee - country separated from Jewish Judea by Samaria, and populated by Edomites and Minaeans, 

      belonged to the Essene sect, named after Esau,

      and belonged to Yawistic religion, worshiping Yahveh - the main Deity of Idumea / Edom. 

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, I think I brought some confusion with my stupid mistake missing the word "Nothing" in one of my previous comments. The comment should read:

      "As you see Headly, there was nothing wrong in Esau's decision to give away his Birthright to his younger brother Jacob. Certainly, there was

      NOTHING

       wrong from the point of view of our loving and caring God."

      As you will find in examples from the Bible, the Birthright was separated from the Blessing; 

      while Birthright was material, dealing with material inheritance,  

      the Blessing was purely Spiritual and was given in the presence of the LORD.

      While exhausted, fainting Esau gave away his Birthright to his jealous brother, it wasn't his intension to gave away his Blessing. 

      You will easily notice it if you read Esau's story in Genesis; or my previous comment.

      Esau gave away his Birthright and that's OK, God blessed him with much greater possession.

      However, what about the Blessing; was Jacob able to steal the Blessing from the LORD? 

      Yes Headly, from the LORD, because the Blessing is not material possession, but Spiritual destiny; it can not be stolen because is granted by the All Seeing, Almighty LORD.

      And the Book of Job tells us about our God:

      Job 34 (NIV)

      1 "Then Elihu said:...

      10 “So listen to me, you men of understanding. 

          Far be it from God to do evil, 

          from the Almighty to do wrong. 

      11 He repays everyone for what they have done; 

          he brings on them what their conduct deserves. 

      12 It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, 

          that the Almighty would pervert justice."

      We know that Esau gave away his material possession to his younger brother, he honestly admitted it. However, what happened to his Blessing. Let's look at the story again:  

      Genesis 27 (KJV)

      1"And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, here am I.

      2 And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death:

      3 Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison;

      4 And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.

      5 And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it.

      6 And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying,

      7 Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the Lord before my death.

      8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee.

      9 Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth:

      10 And thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, and that he may bless thee before his death.

      11 And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man:

      12 My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing.

      13 And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them.

      14 And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother: and his mother made savoury meat, such as his father loved.

      15 And Rebekah took goodly raiment of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son:

      16 And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck:

      17 And she gave the savoury meat and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.

      18 And he came unto his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I; who art thou, my son?

      19 And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy first born; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.

      20 And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the Lord thy God brought it to me.

      21 And Isaac said unto Jacob, Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau or not.

      22 And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.

      23 And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau's hands: so he blessed him.

      24 And he said, Art thou my very son Esau? And he said, I am.

      25 And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine and he drank.

      26 And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son.

      27 And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the Lord hath blessed:

      28 Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine:

      29 Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.

      30 And it came to pass, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting.

      31 And he also had made savoury meat, and brought it unto his father, and said unto his father, Let my father arise, and eat of his son's venison, that thy soul may bless me.

      32 And Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy firstborn Esau.

      33 And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who? where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed.

      34 And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father.

      35 And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.

      36 And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

      37 And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?

      38 And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.

      39 And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;

      40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck."

      Let's analyze this Blessing in details.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Before we will continue analyzing the Blessing, I would like to address some of your concerns from your recent post, regarding Esau.

      You say, " A big theme trough the bible has to do with the wants of the flesh versus the wants of the spirit, "

      Knowing now that the Birthright was dealing with material, and only material possession, and that POSSESSION  is considered as a FLESH, we know now, that all Jacob was concern about was the FLESH; Jacob wanted the material possession, which was assigned to the firstborn Esau.

      Esau didn't care about the FLESH, the material possession, and gave it away to his greedy brother.

      Was it right decision?

       From the time perspective, and seeing the present Israeli - Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, probably would be better if the strong hunter would say to the homemaker: 

      "You better give me this bowl of lentil soup, or I bit a sh..t out of you!!!". 

      But now is to late, and we have to wait until God will get feed up with the inhuman treatment of Palestinians by the "chosen people". It did happened before several times, and if we don't learn from history, then the history tend to repeat itself. 

      Headly, we are always told by the preachers, that Esau didn't care about the Blessing; but is it true?

      Obviously not! It is a lie and deception; Genesis 27 clearly states how much Esau cared about his Blessing. Genesis 27 reads:

      32 "And Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy firstborn Esau.

      33 And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who? where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed.

      34 And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father.

      35 And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.

      36 ...And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?...

      38 And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept."

      Headly, I believe that Esau have truly cared about the Blessing, and the LORD who was present at the Blessing  had seen it. 

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

       If you read the stories about Esau and Edom carefully, and analyzing what you are reading, you will not find anything in the Bible, indicating that Esau lost the Blessing. 

      But before analyzing the Blessing, let's have another look at another biblical story about Esau, describing his spirituality and personality. Genesis 33 reads:

      Genesis 33 King James Version 

      1 "And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. 

      And he divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids.

      2 And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost.

      3 And he passed over before them, 

      and bowed himself to the ground seven times, 

      until he came near to his brother.

      4 And Esau ran to meet him, 

      and embraced him, 

      and fell on his neck, 

      and kissed him: 

      and they wept.

      5 And Esau lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who are those with thee? And Jacob said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant.

      6 Then the handmaidens came near, they and their children, and they bowed themselves.

      7 And Leah also with her children came near, 

      and bowed themselves: and after came Joseph near and Rachel,

       and they bowed themselves.

      8 And Esau said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And Jacob said, These are to find grace 

      in the sight of 

      my lord.

      9 And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; 

      keep that thou hast unto thyself.

      10 And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand:

       for therefore I have seen thy face, 

      as though I had seen the face

       of God, 

      and thou wast pleased with me.

      11 Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee; because God hath dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough. 

      And Jacob urged Esau, and he took it.

      12 And Esau said,

       Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before thee.

      13 And Jacob said unto him, 

      My lord

       knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die.

      14 Let

       my lord, 

      I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto 

      my lord 

      unto Seir.

      15 And Esau said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me. And Jacob said, What needeth it? let me find grace in the sight of 

      my lord.

      16 So Esau returned that day on his way unto Seir.

      17 And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, "

      Headly, do you see,from this story, that there is anything wrong with Esau? Bad personality or lack of spirituality?

      From this passage I see Esau as:

      Loving,

      Joyful,

      Peaceful,

      Forbearing,

      Forgiving,

      Faithful,

      Kind,

      Good,

      Gentle,

      Sensitive,

      Generous,

      Caring,

      and as Jacob described him, as an image of true God.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius,

      Your grasp of the descendents of Noah's sons in relation to location and languages attributed to them is impressive. And this goes right to the heart of what I've been trying to convey here, and why the timeline you've specified in other comments seems a bit late. We know for certain that the Semetic-based languages, specifically Akkadian, dates back before 3000 BC. And we know that there Semetic speaking people present in the earliest days of Sumer, dating back to the 3500-3000 BC range.

      In fact, there are non-christian experts now who are suggesting the onset of civilization was brought about by the introduction of the human ego, not naturally developed in the already settled cultures of Mesopotamia, Africa, and the European region, but introduced by the arrival of Semetic and Indo-European speaking nomads from the Sahara....

      "Archaeologists have never been able to conclusively answer the question of who the original Egyptians were. But evidence clearly suggests that the Egyptians who "civilized" the Nile region were immigrants from the desert areas. As Brian Griffith points out, in North Africa recorded history begins against the background of mass migrations out of a growing desert. He notes that "pre-dynastic Egyptians were a jumbled assortment of tribes, many of them recent arrivals from the deserts."

      "The origins of the Sumerians are vague too. However, since we know that they were migrants who arrived some time during the second half of the fourth millennium BCE, there is a high probability that they were also refugees from desertification. This is suggested by very early Sumerian cylinder seals, which show similarities with the cultures of the Arabian and Syrian deserts. There is a connection to Semetic peoples as well. Whoever the original Sumerians were, Semetic peoples were present as a minority amongst them from early on."

      "According to DeMeo, archaeological evidence suggests that "Settlements on the Nile and rigris-Euphrates, as well in the moister highland portions of the Levant, Anatolia and Iran, were invaded and conquered by peoples abanding Arabia and/or central Europe."

      - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era

      If the descendents of Shem, Ham, and Japheth were dispersed at Babel around 3900 BC during the 5.9 kiloyear event then this would line up perfectly. And if this is the case, according to what's specified in Genesis, then the age of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Esau would have been roughly 3500 BC and later.

      As for the idea of Esau being inaccurately represented, you make a good case if there's any validity to the bit about the quote in Augustine's City of God reading exactly opposite to what the various translations of the bible read now. This is certainly something I'll keep in consideration as I delve further into this portion of the story. Though, I have to say, it's going to take quite a lot to convince me that Jesus was actually a descendent of Esau and later changed.

      Do you have any evidence for the existence of this 'league of shadows' you speak of? Or can you tell me how you became aware of it?

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, can you provide me with any supporting documents for placing the age of Patriarchs in Early Bronze Era; because for me, placing Esau in 20 century B.C. match perfectly not only Sumerian, but also Egyptian sources.

      I will get to it later, but now let's look at the Blessing Esau supposedly "lost" - and Jacob "gained".

      Let's number the blessings just to make them more visible, and then let’s look in to the Bible for references, just to find out how did they turned out, and who got what.

      Genesis 27 (KJV) The Blessing:

      "27See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD hath blessed:

      28Therefore God give thee of 

      # 1 - the dew of heaven, 

      # 2 - and the fatness of the earth, 

      # 3 - and plenty of corn and wine:

      # 4 - Let people serve thee, 

      # 5 - and nations bow down to thee: 

      # 6 - be lord over thy brethren, 

      # 7 - and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: 

      # 8 - cursed be every one that curseth thee,

      # 9 - and blessed be he that blesseth thee.

      Let’s look at the event #1 of the Blessing – “God give thee of the DEW OF HEAVEN” .

       

      From the Bible we know that sometime during Jacob’s 20-year stay in Haran, Esau (Edom) had begun to establish himself in the land of Seir, “the field of Edom” (Genesis 32:3).

      Thus, even before the death of his father (Genesis 35:29), Esau was apparently beginning to fulfill Isaac’s prophetic blessing, directing his attention to the mountainous region of Seir; eventually, Esau married Oholibamah of the children of Seir, and gave two his daughters as a wives to the sons of Seir.

       

      Deuteronomy 2 (KJV) reads that it was the LORD who blessed Esau and his Edomite descendants with the Land of Seir.

      We learn about this from the   Bible.

      Deuteronomy 2 reads:

      “1 Then we turned, and took our journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea, as the Lord spake unto me: and we compassed mount Seir many days.

      2 And the Lord spake unto me, saying,

      3 Ye have compassed this mountain long enough: turn you northward.

      4 And command thou the people, saying, 

      Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore:

      5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

      6 Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink.”

      Headly, the ancient territory of Edom extended about 160 km (100 ml) from it’s frontier with Moab in the North, formed by the torrent valley of Zerad, down to Elath on the Gulf of ‘Aquaba in the South (De 2:1-8, 13, 14, 1King 9:26). To the East, the Edomite domain extended out to the edge of Arabian Desert, while to the West it reached across the Arabah Valley to the Wilderness of Zin and embraced the Negev highlands region stretching from the SW corner of the Salt Sea down to Kadesh – barnea. The western portion of Edom therefore came to from the SE boundary of Judah’s territory. – Jos 15:1; compare Nu 34:3.

      However, the true heartland of the Edomite territory lay east of the Arabah, for here the high mountain range, with some points reaching an altitude of 1,700 m (5,600 ft), receives some rainfall. This is because the land West of the Arabah, the Negev, is considerably lower, allowing he remnants of Mediterranean storm clouds to pass over and reach the higher mountains of Edom, where they release some of their remaining moisture – the DEW OF HEAVEN.

       

      Archaeological investigations show a string of ancient settlements and fortresses along a narrow tongue of arable land on the highest part of the long mountainous tableland, or plateau. Modern Tafileh, about 30 km (19 ml) south of the Dead Sea, has large olive groves; this is due mostly to the flow of water from eight fine springs.

      The Book of Numbers 20 (KJV) provide us with some more details about the riches of the land:

       

      “14 And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:

      15 How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers:

      16 And when we cried unto the Lord, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt: and, behold, we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border:

      17 Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: 

      we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: 

      we will go by the King’s Hwyway, 

      we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders.”

       

      So Headly, the first part of the Blessing, the “DEW OF HEAVEN”, definitely went to Esau not to Jacob. There was no dew of heaven on the Egyptian dessert.

       

      Next, let’s have a look at the - “fatness of the earth” ,  #2 of the Blessing.

       

      BTW, are you interested in Dead Sea Scrolls, and origin of their authors, the Essenes?

      Would you consider them to be Proto - Christians?

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, let's  look at the second and third part of the Blessing, and see where did it go; to the righteous or to  the deceiver;

      Whom did the LORD really blessed with the fatness of earth and plenty of corn and wine.

      Genesis 27 reads:

      "28 Therefore  God give thee of :

      # 2 - the fatness of the earth, 

      and

       # 3 - and plenty of corn and wine:"

      For a change, let's  look first in to outside Biblical sources, in search for the truth, which had been distorted so badly.

      I believe that the closer to the source, the  the information is more reliable.

      Let’s move then 3900 years back, to a setting of a  piece of poetry know as The Story of Sinuhe.

      “The Tale of Sinuhe is considered one of the finest works of Ancient Egyptian literature. It is a narrative set in the aftermath of the death of  Pharaoh Amenemhat I, founder of the 12th dynasty of Egypt, in the early 20th century BC. It is likely that it was composed only shortly after this date, albeit the earliest extant manuscript is from the reign of Amenemhat III, c. 1800 BC.....”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_Sinuhe

      http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible...uhe-1900bc....

      In the story of Sinuhe, we have a reference to one of the "Jeush, one of the Chiefs of Edom" Gen 36:15-18

      "May then your Majesty command to have brought to you the prince of Meki from Qedem (Edom), Jeush the mountain chiefs from Kushu."( "Khentiaush from Khentkesh = Jeush the mountain chiefs from Kushu").

      So let’s summarise the beginning:

      “The Story of Sinuhe is like an ancient story or novel written by a man named Sunuhe! 

      The Egyptians referred to the land of Edom as the Kushu. In the story of Sinuhe, dated 1900 BC, there is a reference to one of  the "chiefs of the Kushu" whose name is Jeush.  

      Jeush is listed as one of the chiefs of Edom in Gen 36:15-18. He is the first son of Esau and with his wife Oholibamah.

      Amazingly, the Jeush of Gen 36 lived at the same time as the story of Sinuhe was written.

      It is our conclusion that the story of Sinuhe is a literal reference to the actual Jeush of Gen 36!”

      So Headly, let’s bring back now the Genesis chapter, which tells us about Jeush.

      Genesis 36 (NIV)

      Esau's Descendants 

      1 This is the account of Esau (that is, Edom). 

      2 Esau took his wives from the women of Canaan: Adah daughter of Elon the Hittite, 

      and Oholibamah daughter of Anah and granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite- 

      3 also Basemath daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth. 

      4 Adah bore Eliphaz to Esau, Basemath bore Reuel, 

      5 and Oholibamah bore Jeush, Jalam and Korah.

      These were the sons of Esau, who were born to him in Canaan. 

      6 Esau took his wives and sons and daughters and all the members of his household, as well as his livestock and all his other animals and all the goods he had acquired in Canaan, and moved to a land (Seir) some distance from his brother Jacob.

      7 Their possessions were too great for them to remain together; the land where they were staying could not support them both because of their livestock. 

      8 So Esau (that is, Edom) settled in the hill country of Seir. 

      9 This is the account of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. 

      10 These are the names of Esau's sons: 

      Eliphaz, the son of Esau's wife Adah, 

      and Reuel, the son of Esau's wife Basemath. 

      11 The sons of Eliphaz: 

      Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam and Kenaz. 

      12 Esau's son Eliphaz also had a concubine named Timna,

      who bore him Amalek. These were grandsons of Esau's wife Adah. 

      13 The sons of Reuel: 

      Nathan, Zerah, Shammah and Mizzah. These were grandsons of Esau's wife Basemath. 

      14 The sons of Esau's wife Oholibamah daughter of Anah and granddaughter of Zibeon, whom she bore to Esau: 

      Jeush, Jalam and Korah.... “

      Just a little note before the next verse Headly; in the present Bibles we are missing the list of grandchildren of Esau and Oholibama.

      The Book of Jasher is a good reference to the Bible and it says, that the Dukes/Chiefs of Edom listed below, are in fact childern of Jeush, Jalam and Korah.

      So the names of the children of Jeush, Jalam and Korah are:

      Timna, Alvah, Jetheth, Elah, Pinon, Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar, Magdiel and Iram.

      This chapter of the Bible gives us also some more information about Seir.

      Genesis 36; (NIV)

      20 These were the sons of Seir the Horite,  who were living in the region: 

      Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, 

      21 Dishon, Ezer and Dishan. These sons of Seir in Edom were Horite chiefs. 

      22 The sons of Lotan: 

      Hori and Homam.  Timna was Lotan's sister. 

      23 The sons of Shobal: 

      Alvan, Manahath, Ebal, Shepho and Onam. 

      24 The sons of Zibeon: 

      Aiah and Anah. This is the Anah who discovered the hot springs  in the desert while he was grazing the donkeys of his father Zibeon. 

      25 The children of Anah:

      Dishon and Oholibamah daughter of Anah. 

      26 The sons of Dishon :

      Hemdan, Eshban, Ithran and Keran. 

      27 The sons of Ezer: 

      Bilhan, Zaavan and Akan. 

      28 The sons of Dishan: 

      Uz and Aran. 

      29 These were the Horite chiefs: 

      Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, 

      30 Dishon, Ezer and Dishan. These were the Horite chiefs, according to their divisions, in the land of Seir. “

      And as we continue reading chapter 36 we find list of descended from Esau who are in fact, (according to The Book of Jasher), the grandchildren of Esau and Oholibamah, daughter of Anah (grandson of Seir) 

      “40 These were the chiefs descended from Esau, 

      by name, according to their clans and regions: 

      Timna (firstborn daughter of Jeush), Alvah, Jetheth, 

      41 (Oholibamah), Elah, Pinon, 

      42 Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar,

      43 Magdiel and Iram. 

      These were the chiefs of Edom, according to their settlements in the land they occupied. 

      This was Esau the father of the Edomites.”

      Ok Headly, let’s go back to the story of Sinuhe and find out if in the land of Seir, Esau was indeed blessed as Isaac  blessing followed:

      Genesis 27 (NIV)

      "28 May God give you of heaven's dew and of earth's richness— 

      an abundance of grain and new wine."

      The Story of Sinuhe:

      "I set out at night. At dawn I reached Peten. I halted at "Isle-of-Kem-Wer." 

      An attack of thirstovertook me; I was parched, my throat burned. I said, "This is the taste of death." 

      I raised my heart and collected myself when I heard the lowing sound of cattle and saw Asiatics. 

      One of their leaders, who had been in Egypt, recognized me. 

      He gave me water and boiled milk for me. I went with him to his tribe. What they did for me was good.

      Land gave me to land. I traveled to Byblos; I returned to Qedem.(Edom)

      I spent a year and a half there. Then Ammunenshi, the ruler of Upper Retenu, took me to him, saying to me: "You will be happy with me;

      you will hear the language of Egypt........ 

      ...........He said to me: "Well then, Egypt is happy knowing that he is strong.

      But you are here. You shall stay with me. What I shall do for you is good." 

      He set me at the head of his children. He married me to his eldest daughter. (Timna, first Duke of Edom)

      He let me choose for myself of his land, of the best that was his, on his border with another land. It was a good land called Yaa.

      Figs were in it and grapes. It had more wine than water.

      Abundant was its honey, plentiful its oil. All kinds of fruit were on its trees. 

      Barley was there and emmer, and no end of cattle of all kinds. 

      Much also came to me because of the love of me; for he had made me chief of a tribe in the best part of his land. Loaves were made for me daily,

      and wine as daily fare, cooked meat, roast fowl, as well as desert game.

      For they snared for me and laid it before me, in addition to the catch of my hounds. Many sweets were made for me, and milk dishes of all kinds. .........

      http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible...uhe-1900bc....

      Wasn’t it a beautiful land and fulfilment of the LORD's blessing for Esau?:

      28 May God give you of heaven's dew and of earth's richness— 

      an abundance of grain and new wine.

      Next, we will go back to the Bible to see if it's confirming The Story of Sinue, that it was Esau / Edom, not Jacob / Israel, who was trully blessed by God, with the fatness of earth and plenty of corn and wine.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Sorry Headly, I've just noticed that one of the links doesn't work; here is the correct one:

      http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-ed...

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Okay, since my last comment got deleted (or labelled as Spam), I'll simply say that Sagittarius 2012 is an idiot that doesn't realize that Esau most likely smelt worse than a dead donkey and that he couldn't give a rat's hiney about you... It is you, the fool, that thinks the answers of life lay within other people's scribblings of the past... God and the unity of all things wasn't meant to stop at such petty matters like who you decide was truly blessed with the God power... What a joke! Get a life!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius,

      Regarding supporting documents, it's more a matter of logistics. Abraham was born less than 300 years after the flood, roughly 200 years after Babel. Jacob was born 350 years after Babel. Ham's son, Egypt, was the same generation as Arphaxad, who was born just 4 years after the flood, and lived over 300 years after Babel. The first dynasty of Egypt was around 3100 BC, over a thousand years earlier than the time frame you're talking about. If the biblical events of Babel are equated to the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BC), which actually did spawn mass migrations and is seen by many as the catalyst that spawned the first civilizations, then this coincides with the establishment of the Sumerian city of Uruk (around 39-3800 BC), which Genesis says was built by Nimrod (same generation as Salah who would have been in his 60's at Babel). Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's list say Uruk was established not long after the flood, and both attribute it to individuals that are described as mighty hunters (Nimrod in Genesis, Enmerkar in SKL). This also lines up the 1500 years or so that Cain and his descendents lived with the roughly 1500 years of the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia.

      As for Jacob/Esau, I appreciate all the information. I never before realized the level of involvement of the Edomites and the abundance of information about them. They are obviously a very relevant piece of the story and how it all traces back to the birthright and the blessing. I plan on delving more and more into this material, and will certainly take your points into consideration. I do have to say I'm skeptical. Probably one of my bigger reservations has to do with any human-based institution having any sort of success in matters pertaining to God's plan, or being able to manage such an elaborate cover-up of the truth.

      I suggest putting together a series of hubs on this topic as you've obviously got a lot of interesting things to say. I would certainly appreciate having all of this available as reference material as I get more and more into the details of it all.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Insane Mundane,

      Your other comment got marked as spam for whatever reason. It's the first comment I've had that got blocked, so it's new to me. Not sure what constitutes spam. Sagittarius is clearly not an idiot. Whether I totally agree with him or not he's introduced me to a lot of information that's relevant to what I'm working on and has some interesting insights that I find useful. Anyone compelled to search so diligently and sincerely for the truth is alright in my book, and I will always encourage discussing with others because that's what keeps you honest. I say don't hesitate to say what you think. If it's valid it will stand up to scrutiny, if it's not it won't.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Fair enough, but my last comment is partly due to me not "unfollowing" this Hub. It gets really old, when I have 200 (+/-) paragraphs about Esau show up in my HubPages Feed EVERY FREAKIN' DAY! I mean, you two can play and have fun reading about Esau hours on top of hours for the rest of eternity, but I got better things to do. Seriously, if finding the truth requires that much reading about one character, you are obviously going the wrong way.

      You guys have a great day; cheers!

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      OK Headly, I think that I know where your logistic went wrong; you have been misled by the mess in Egyptian Chronology. 

      Every serious archeologist knows about this mess, but non of them wants to talk about it. 

      Eg. We know that volcano Thera on Santorini Island erupted in 1628 BCE., and Egyptologists confirm that it happened during the early reign of Hatshepsut. But they also insist that Hatshepsut reign c . 1479–1458 BC, 18th Dynasty; She was born c.1508 BC and died 1458 BC (aged 50).

      So, 1628 - c.1470 = c. 158 years of difference.

      "Dating of the Bronze Age eruption

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorini#section_6

       The Minoan eruption provides a fixed point for the chronology of the second millennium BC in the Aegean, because evidence of the eruption occurs throughout the region and the site itself contains material culture from outside. The eruption occurred during the "Late Minoan IA" period at Crete and the "Late Cycladic I" period in the surrounding islands.

      Archaeological evidence, based on the established chronology of Bronze Age Mediterranean cultures dates the eruption to around 1500 BC.These dates, however, conflict with Radiocarbon dating which indicates that the eruption occurred about 1645–1600 BC. Around the time of the radiocarbon-indicated date of the eruption, there is evidence for a significant climatic event in the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence includes failure of crops in China, as well as evidence from tree rings. The tree rings date the climatic event to 1628 BC."

      Headly, the problem in your chronology is "Ham's son, Egypt", because Ham's son's name was Mizraim, not Egypt.

      Genesis 10

      King James Version (KJV)

      "6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan." 

      And the country which we know now as Egypt was called Mizraim.

      Egypt, was created over 1000 years later by Hyksos, and was named after 

      Aegyptus 

      the firstborn son of Belus.

      Belus (Greek: Βῆλος) was in Greek mythology a king of Egypt and father of Aegyptus and Danaus, but in history, he was the first king of Edom. (Genesis 36)

      Minoans, Edomites and Ishmaelites created union known today as Hyksos; in 18 century BC. they conquered Mizraim and enslaved warmongering Israelites.

      Mizraim (Hebrew: מִצְרַיִם / מִצְרָיִם, Modern Mitzráyim Tiberian Miṣrāyim / Miṣráyim ; cf. Arabic مصر, Miṣr) is the Hebrew name for the land of Egypt. 

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, before we finish with the material part of the Blessing God granted to Esau;

      28Therefore God give thee of:

      # 1 - the dew of heaven, 

      # 2 - and the fatness of the earth, 

      # 3 - and plenty of corn and wine,

      and look in to the more  Spirittual part of the Blessing:

      # 4 - Let people serve thee,

      # 5 - and nations bow down to thee: 

      # 6 - be lord over thy brethren, 

      # 7 - and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: 

      # 8 - cursed be every one that curseth thee,

      # 9 - and blessed be he that blesseth thee.

      we will look at one more example of the more material part of Blessing which God granted to Esau.

      We will look in to Jewish Virtual Library, into the 

      "Book of Jubilees: A retelling and expansion of the biblical history from the Creation to Moses. It was originally written in Hebrew early in the second century B.C.E."

      We will also looked to the Book of Jasher, and Testament of Twelve Patriarchs.

      But first let's learn some more about these books:

      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaic...

      MIDRASH VA-YISSA'U (Heb. מִדְרַשׁ וַיִסָּעוּ), a medieval Midrash in Hebrew about the legendary wars of Jacob and his sons. 

      The name derives from the first word of Genesis 35:5, with which the Midrash opens. The original name of the work is probably

       "The Book of Wars of the Sons of Jacob,"

       a name which is preserved in Naḥmanides' commentary on the Book of Genesis (to Gen. 34:13), the earliest reference to the existence of the legend. The small book contains three chapters.

       The first describes a war of Jacob and his sons against the army of Ninevites, who came to Palestine to subdue the whole world. Characteristic of this chapter are exaggerations which are lacking in the two other chapters, a style possibly influenced by the Book of Josippon. This chapter does not appear in some manuscripts, although two of them consist of it only, which indicates that it was possibly a later addition to the Midrash. 

      The second chapter describes the wars of the sons of Jacob against the Amorite kings seven years after Jacob and his family withdrew from Shechem (Gen. 35:5) because of the defilement of Dinah and the events which followed. The story of the victory over the Amorite kings is opposed to that of the biblical narrative, where Jacob fears that he will be outnumbered and destroyed. However, the story of the victory is hinted at in Genesis 48:22, a verse which is quoted to this effect in the Midrash. 

      The third chapter describes the war between Jacob and his sons and Esau and his sons, in which Esau is killed by Jacob and Esau's descendants become tributary to Jacob's family.

      The medieval Hebrew book (with the exception of the first chapter) is a free translation from Greek (or Latin) of an old Jewish (Hebrew or Aramaic) text from the time of the Second Temple, a text which was also used by the authors of the Book of Jubilees and the Testaments of the Patriarchs: the wars against the Amorites are narrated in the Testament of Judah, chapters 3–7, and in an abbreviated form in Jubilees 34:1–9; and a parallel narrative to the war against Esau and his sons is preserved in Jubilees 37 and 38:1–14, and in an abbreviated form, in the Testament of Judah, chapter 9. 

      The medieval Midrash Va-Yissa'u is of great importance for a reconstruction of the original ancient Jewish text. 

      The ancient text, which was used by the Book of Jubilees and the extant Testament of Judah, and is the basis of chapters 2–3 of Midrash Va-Yissa'u, could have been a separate work. 

      It seems more probable, however, that the common source of all three works, in their description of the war of Jacob and his sons against the Amorite kings and against Esau, was an older and more expanded form of the Testament of Judah than its extant form in the Testament of the Patriarchs, a situation similar to that of the Testament of *Levi and the Testament of *Naphtali. Some scholars see in the description of the wars against the Amorites and Esau a tendentious projection into the biblical past of the wars of John Hyrcanus against the Samaritans and Edomites, the descendants of Esau, and a historical justification of these wars. 

      Midrash Va-Yissa'u was used, expanded, and rewritten in the medieval Sefer ha-Yashar ("Book of Jashar"). A critical edition was published with an introduction by J.Z. Lauterbach in Abhandlungen zur Erinnerung an H.P. Chajes (1933, Heb. pt. 205–22)."

      So Headly, let's have a look in to the very Jewish Book of Jubilee to find out if there is something about the riches of the earth, God granted to Esau.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Esau was man of a great conscience and as you know already Headly, after Jacob has moved to Haran to serve his uncle Laban for 21 years, Esau has moved to Seir, and after death of his father in law, Ishme-Dagan,  he became the V King of Isin.

      In the archaeological record of Sumer, Esau is mentioned as Lipit-Eshtar who inherited the throne of Isin from his uncle and father in law, Ishme-Dagan.

      Esau/ Lipit-Ishtar (Lipit-Eshtar), was the fifth ruler of the first dynasty of Isin, and ruled from around 1934 BCE to 1924 BCE. 

      Some documents and royal inscriptions from his time have survived, but he is mostly known because Sumerian language hymns written in his honor, as well as a legal code written in his name (preceding the famed Code of Hammurabi by about 200 years). 

      The legal codes of Esau were used for school instruction for hundreds of years after his death.

      So let’s continue our journey to find out the truth, how God blessed Esau and his children, with the abundance of grain and wine, before, and after Esau was murdered by his brother Jacob.

      "28 May God give you of heaven's dew and of earth's richness— an abundance of grain and new wine."

      Let’s look now at the second of the early Jewish writings, which contain the continuation of the story from the Book of Jubilee. This fragment will tell us what was the yoke of servitude, the children of Jacob / Israel had imposed on the children of Esau / Edom:

      Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

      Second Century B.C.

      http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.iii.vi.html

      IV.—THE TESTAMENT OF JUDAH (son of Jacob/Israel) CONCERNING FORTITUDE, AND LOVE OF MONEY, AND FORNICATION.

      "9. Eighteen years we abode at peace, our father and we, with his brother Esau, and his sons with us, after that we came from Mesopotamia, from Laban. 

      And when eighteen years were fulfilled, in the fortieth year of my life, Esau, the brother of my father, came upon us with much people and strong; and he fell by the bow of Jacob, and was taken up dead in Mount Seir: even as he went above Iramna was he slain. 

      And we pursued after the sons of Esau.

      Now they had a city with walls of iron and gates of brass; and we could not enter into it, and we encamped around, and besieged them. 

      And when they opened not to us after twenty days, I set up a ladder in the sight of all, and with my shield upon my head I climbed up, assailed with stones of three talents’ weight;

      and I climbed up, and slew four who were mighty among them. 

      And the next day Reuben and Gad entered in and slew sixty others. 

      Then they asked from us terms of peace; and being aware of our father’s purpose, we received them as tributaries. 

      And they gave us 

      two hundred cors of wheat, 

      five hundred baths of oil, 

      fifteen hundred measures of wine, until we went down into Egypt.

      http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.iii.vi.html

      Headly, are you convinced by now, that it was Esau and his children, not Jacob and Israelites, who received the material part of the Blessing, with which Isaac blessed his sons?

      I think that we can move now to the more Spiritual part of Isaac's Blessing.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      I've made mistake in previous post, I've mentioned The Book of Jubilee, but provided fragment from Testament of Judah, part of The Testament of Twelve Patriarchs. Below is link and chapter of The Book of Jubilee

      The War between Jacob and Esau at the Tower of Hebron. The Death of Esau and Overthrow of his Forces (xxxviii. 1-4).

      http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jub/jub73.htm

      XXXVIII. 

      1. And after that Judah spake to Jacob, his father, and said unto him: "Bend thy bow, father, and send forth thy arrows and cast down the adversary and slay the enemy; and mayest thou have the power, for we shall not slay thy brother, for he is such as thou, and he is like thee: let us give him (this) honour." 

      2. Then Jacob bent his bow and sent forth the arrow and struck Esau, his brother, (on his right breast) and slew him. And again he sent forth an arrow and struck ’Adôrân the Aramaean, 3. on the left breast, and drove him backward and slew him. 

      4. And then went forth the sons of Jacob, they and their servants, dividing themselves into companies on the four sides of the tower. 

      5. And Judah went forth in front, and Naphtali and Gad with him and fifty servants with him on the south side of the tower, and they slew all they found before them, and not one individual of them escaped. 

      6. And Levi and Dan and Asher went forth on the east side of the tower, and fifty (men) with them, and they slew the fighting men of Moab and Ammon. 

      7. And Reuben and Issachar and Zebulon went forth on the north side of the tower, and fifty men with them, and they slew the fighting men of the Philistines. 

      8. And Simeon and Benjamin and Enoch, Reuben's son, went forth on the west side of the tower, and fifty (men) with them, and they slew of Edom and of the Horites four hundred men, stout warriors; and six hundred fled, and four of the sons of Esau fled with them, and left their father lying slain, as he had fallen on the hill which is in ’Adûrâm. 

      9. And the sons of Jacob pursued after them to the mountains of Seir. And Jacob buried his brother on the hill which is in ’Adûrâm, and he returned to his house. 

      10. And the sons of Jacob pressed hard upon the sons of Esau in the mountains of Seir, and bowed their necks so that they became servants of the sons of Jacob. 

      11. And they sent to their father (to inquire) whether they should make peace with them or slay them. 

      12. And Jacob sent word to his sons that they should make peace, and they made peace with them, and placed the yoke of servitude upon them, so that they paid tribute to Jacob and to his sons always. 

      13. And they continued to pay tribute to Jacob until the day that he went down into Egypt.  

      14. And the sons of Edom have not got quit of the yoke of servitude which the twelve sons of Jacob had imposed on them until this day."

      Then the the Testament of Judah provide us with details what was - "the yoke of servitude" - sons of Jacob placed upon Edomites

       -"so that they paid tribute to Jacob and to his sons always. 

      13. And they continued to pay tribute to Jacob until the day that he went down into Egypt. "

      Testament of Judah reads:

      -"Then they asked from us terms of peace; and being aware of our father’s purpose, we received them as tributaries. And they gave us 

      two hundred cors of wheat, 

      five hundred baths of oil, 

      fifteen hundred measures of wine, 

      until we went down into Egypt."

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Idiot......

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Insane, from what I understand it was your signature. Wasn't it?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Nope... But I was born into this insane circus by choice, and I have been laughing my backside off ever since! Don't get me wrong, idiots like you are good for something, which is what I call "cheap entertainment." I mean seriously, do you have a crush on Esau? Bad boy, you are a freak! LOL!

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Insane, if you have noticed this comment then please don't read it; it may drive you completely crazy.

      I will go back to the Bible, to search who received the second and third part of the Blessing; the righteous or the deceiver?

      Whom did the LORD really blessed with the fatness of earth and plenty of corn and wine.

      Genesis 27

      28 Therefore God give thee of :

      # 2 - the fatness of the earth, 

      and # 3 - and plenty of corn and wine.

      But first let's look in to Webster's Dictionary for the definition of "Fatness":

      1. (n.) The quality or state of being fat, plump, or full-fed; corpulency; fullness of flesh.

      2. (n.) Hence; Richness; fertility; fruitfulness.

      3. (n.) That which makes fat or fertile."

      In Joshua 24:4 we read what God said to Moses:

      Joshua 24:4 (NIV)

      “4 and to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau. 

      I assigned the hill country of Seir to Esau, 

      but Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt."

      You may wander; can mountainous territory of Seir, the LORD gave to Esau /Edom and his descendents, with elevation over 5000 feet, be: 

      rich,

       fertile 

      and fruitful?

      In the Bible, Deuteronomy 2 we read how the LORD ordered Israelites not to attack descendants of Esau, and to buy meet and water from them; 

      apparently, the Land of Seir where Esau settled was reach in water and also pastures for their cattle. 

      Deuteronomy 2 reads:

      “1 Then we turned, and took our journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea, as the Lord spake unto me: and we compassed mount Seir many days.

      2 And the Lord spake unto me, saying,

      3 Ye have compassed this mountain long enough: turn you northward.

      4 And command thou the people, saying,

       Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore:

      5 Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

      6 Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink.”

      Let's have a quick look at one of the maps on Internet marking one of the ideas how Israelites traveled from slavery in Egypt to the Land of Canaan:

      http://worldcivilizations.yolasite.com/resources/o...

      The Book of Numbers 20 (KJV) provide us with some more details about the riches of the land, telling us about wine yards and wells.

      “14 And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh unto the king of Edom, Thus saith thy brother Israel, Thou knowest all the travail that hath befallen us:

      15 How our fathers went down into Egypt, and we have dwelt in Egypt a long time; and the Egyptians vexed us, and our fathers:

      16 And when we cried unto the Lord, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt: and, behold,

       we are in Kadesh, a city in the uttermost of thy border:

      17 Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: 

      we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells: 

      we will go by the King’s Highway, 

      we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy borders.”

      There is another place in the Bible talking about green pastures of Edom. Chronicles I Ch 4:41-43 says:

      41 The men whose names were listed came in the days of king of Judah. They attacked the Hamites in their dwellings and also the Meunites (Minaeans- see below) who were there and completely destroyed them, as is evident to this day. 

      Then they settled in their place, because there was pasture for their flocks.

      42 And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by Pelatiah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, 

      invaded the hill country of Seir. 

      43 They killed the remaining Amalekites (Edomites) who had escaped, and they have lived there to this day."

      http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Chronicles%20I/index.ht...

      English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible

      The Translation of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures, Including the Apocrypha.

      Compiled from the Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851

      Chronicles I Chapter 4:41  reads:

      "41 And these who are written by name came in the days of Ezekias king of Juda, and they smote the people’s houses, 

      and the Minaeans whom they found there, 

      and utterly destroyed them until this day: and they dwelt in their place, because there was pasture there for their cattle. 

      42 And some of them, even of the sons of Symeon, went to mount Seir, even five hundred men; and Phalaettia, and Noadia, and Raphaia, and Oziel, sons of Jesi, were their rulers. 

      43 And they smote the remnant that were left of Amalec, until this day."

      Oh Headly, I’ve almost forgot about Job, the second king of Edom and his reaches:

      Job 1 (New International Version)

      Prologue 

      1 "In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. 

      This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. 

      2 He had seven sons and three daughters, 

      3 and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys,  and had a large number of servants. 

      He was the greatest man among all the people of the East. 

      So Headly,  reading these chapters of the Bible, we should have no doubt that the second and third part of Isaac's blessing went also to Esau; however,  if it is not enough proof that Esau was blessed wit the reaches, then there is much more in outsite Biblical sources.

      There was more then riches of the soil of Seir, the LORD granted to Esau. 

       

      Notice also that  this rugged mountainous region Seir, God granted to Esau as inherence,  held valuable deposits of copper and iron; mining and smelting were carried around modern Feinan, some 48 km (30 mi) south of Dead Sea.

      Evidence can also be seen of the existence of ancient pine forests of considerable size.

      On a top of this, Seir was situated at Strategic Position; Moses requested permission for Israel to travel over “the king’s road” trough Edom. (Numbers 20:17). 

      This road, generally called the King’s Highway run from Kadesh Barnea on up to Damascus in Syria. Along it were to be found the major cities of Edom. 

      Another route also led to East from Negeb through Ma’an on the edge of the Arabian Desert and connected there with another route running North and South.

      Over these roads passed rich cargoes from Egypt, Arabia, Syria, and Mesopotamia. Tools collected from camel or donkey caravans traversing the roads contributed greatly to Esau’s / Edom’s wealth. 

      As Moses and Israelites, weary desert travelers also paid for food and lodging upon reaching Seir.

      The steep escarpment or wall of the plateau that faced the Arabah gave the main stronghold of Edom excellent protection from that direction. 

      The deep canyon of the torrent valley of Zered impeded invasion from Moab. A chain of fortresses faced the desert to the ore vulnerable East, providing defence against Midianite and other nomadic tribes. Additionally the clefts that cut into the mountains and plateaus are generally walled in by unscalable red sandstone cliffs forming forbidding gorges.

      With good reason God’s prophecy through Jeremiah speaks of the Edomites as confidently “residing in the retreats of the crag, holding the hight of the hill,” and like an eagle in its nest. _ Jer 49:7. 16.

      Headly, this is called the Blessing for the righteous, while the unrighteous  dwelled in the desserts of Egypt.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Sags: call me crazy all you want, but I'm not the one who copies and pastes everything from other sources... Do you ever write anything original, from the inside, the source from the unity of it all? You are a fool if you continue to live your life via debatable history books; if you can't understand that, you are truly INSANE!

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      No Insane, I'm not going to call you any names. I used to work with insane people, and have learn to understand and respect them.

      If you have any interest in my comments, then I assure you, that the general idea of the point of view on Esau and Edom is mine. I have to provide links and other's commentaries, because the truth about Esau and Edom had been distorted so badly by their enemies (Jews and Israites), that if I wouldn't provide it, I would look Insane.

      However, because you obviously show interest in my comments, then the next one I will dedicate to you.  

      Let's see who got the blessing:

      As Genesis chapter 27 reads:

      28Therefor:

      # 4 - Let people serve thee,

      # 5 - and nations bow down to thee: 

      we will look now how this part of Isaac's Blessing have been fulfilled, and who was bowing down to whom.

      Insane, let's look first in to the Bible; at Esau and Jacob,  and then, in to history of theirs two nations: Edom and Israel.

      Genesis chapter 33 tells us, how Jacob, escaping from serving Laban, met his brother Esau, and "bowed himself to the ground seven times, " - do you know what in Biblical terms means seven times?

      Genesis 33  (KJV) reads:

      "1 And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, 

      and, behold, Esau came,

       and with him four hundred men."

      Insane, did you get the picture - Esau is coming with four hundred people who served him. 

      "And Jacob divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids.

      2 And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost.

      3 And he passed over before them, 

      and Jacob bowed himself to the ground seven times, 

      until he came near to his brother.

      4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept...

      6 Then the handmaidens came near, they and their children, 

      and they bowed themselves.

      7 And Leah also with her children came near, 

      and bowed themselves:

      and after came Joseph near and Rachel, 

      and they bowed themselves."

      So far we see only one nation fulfilling the Blessing of Isaac, it was the nation of Israel bowing down to Esau:

      # 5 - and nations bow down to thee: ;

      However, looking again at Seir, the land God granted to Esau, we see that this land was the crossroads for caravans traveling north and south, as well as some of those traveling east and west. 

      The land of Edom was connected by a well traveled path, known as the King's Highway. Along this road, goods from Egypt traveled to Babylon and back, and goods from southern Arabia traveled to the kingdoms in the north. This trade had existed for millennia after Esau's death. 

       Since many of the caravans traveled up the King's Highway, the land of Edom played an important role in the merchant world, and people crossing this roads were bowing down to Esau and his descendants.

      After Esau become the fifth king of Isin, and have  created law code which brought prosperity to Summer and Akad, there is no doubt that Nations were bowing down to him.

      What about Jacob and all Israel? I don't remember events from the Bible when the Nations were bowing down to him.

      So Insane,

      were nations bowing down to Esau / Edom? - Yes; 

      did they bowed down to Jacob / Israel? - Nope.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      I have never bowed down to any humanoid, ever, hence forth I have never been under dictatorship, either. You are under a domineering a-hole when you spend the majority of your time reading about 'em; duh!

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Hmm Insane, because I'm not Psychiatrist and your behavior is annoying, I have to check if your behavior can be excused by your self assessment.

      From Wiki:

      "Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as 

      violations of societal norms, 

      including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis. When discussing mental illness in general terms, "psychopathology" is considered a preferred descriptor."

      OK Insane, you are excused.

      But you know what, if my comments are entertaining you, then I will add some more info to the # 4, of the Blessing;  4 - Let people serve thee:

      After the more material part of the Blessing (not the Birthright):

      # 1 - the dew of heaven, 

      # 2 - and the fatness of the earth, 

      # 3 - and plenty of corn and wine,

       we will look in to the Spiritual part of the Blessing, which was reserved for the firstborn son at his father's death.

      With this blessing, the firstborn son succeeded dying father as the head of the family.

      Moreover, the blessing included a right to the Priesthood.

      This  privilege, as also the headship of the family, to which it was attached, continued in force only when brothers dwelt together in the same house; for, as soon as they made a family apart and separated, each one became the head and priest of his own house.

      OK, in this case both sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob could be the priests and carriers of Abrahamic religion. Were they? Didn't Israelites forgot about they God while in Egypt?

      We know that Jacob gained the Birthright (2/3 of father's inheritance), from his brother.

      We also know by now, that Jacob wasn't successful in tricking the LORD in blessing him with material part of the Blessing, and that this Blessing was granted to the firstborn son of Isaac, Esau.

      Let see now if Jacob managed to get the Spiritual part of the Blessing; if not, then what did he get?

      Genesis chapter 27 reads:

      28 Therefore:

      # 4 - Let people serve thee,

      # 5 - and nations bow down to thee: 

      # 6 - be lord over thy brethren, 

      # 7 - and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: 

      # 8 - cursed be every one that curseth thee,

      # 9 - and blessed be he that blesseth thee.

      From Genesis 28 we know that shortly after the Blessing, Jacob received another blessing from his father, and went to his uncle Laban to find a wife for himself.

      After being tricked by his uncle Laban, Jacob spent 21 years serving his uncle  by taking  care of his livestock; it wasn't quite what the Blessing was about:

      # 4 - Let people serve thee,

      On the other hand, when after 21 years of service to Laban, Jacob was escaping from his uncle, he mets Esau who came to welcome his brother, and with him came 400 men. We don't know who were those 400 men, however, with Esau statement:

       " 15And Esau said (to Jacob), Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me.",

      we can figure out that those people were with Esau to serve him. 

      After Esau become the King of Isin, there is no doubt that he had plenty of servants. 

      From the Book of Job we know that Esau's descendants, like Eliphaz - king of Thameans, Zepho - king of Minaeans, or Job - king of Edomites, surly did not lack servants. The Book of Job, Chapter 1 reads:

      "3 His (Job's) substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east."

      So Insane, # 4 - Let people serve thee:

      - to Jacob and his children?- Nope.

      - to Esau and his descendants - Yeap.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius,

      I agree with you that Esau was very blessed and that Jacob led a good part of his early life in turmoil. I'm taking what you're saying into consideration, especially the specifics regarding the birthright and the blessing, but much of what you're pointing to outside of the bible is based on a timeline that just doesn't work, and that's one of a few stumbling blocks for me when reading your posts.

      A discrepancy of 158 years doesn't account for the many hundreds of years of Sumerian/Akkadian and Egyptian history that dates back to the middle of the 4th millennium BC. We know that Semetic-based languages existed before 3000 BC, which is already a thousand years prior to the time frame you place Jacob/Esau in. Genesis says Shem was born just 450 years before the birth of Jacob/Esau and actually lived another 150 years beyond that. So then how is that possible?

      Sumer first began to blossom into full blown civilization around 3500 BC. Egypt about a century behind starting as far back as 3400 BC. The Indus valley estimated at around 3300 BC. By 2000 BC writing had already been in use for hundreds of years and there were already differing languages known to be in existence. You obviously hold the writings of Genesis in high regard as a source of legitimate information. Do you not take into account the specific information given regarding the ages of the people spoken about? Because if you do then Jacob and Esau could not have lived in the age that you tie them to.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Sags, you can't even call me insane without having to use Wikipedia quotes via your ongoing copy & paste methods! Do you ever write anything original? I hate to say it, but you are truly pathetic...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Come on, Insane Mundane, I know you're an intelligent and knowledgeable guy. You've got to have something relevant and interesting to add. What's your take on Jacob and Esau? Or on the discrepancy time line wise?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      What is this, the battle of the brothers? I'd rather delve further into the concepts of the Yin/Yang as opposed to Jacob/Esau.

      In my opinion, studying about Jacob and Esau is a waste of time...

      I will politely bow out of this conversation, as I'm not going to waste brain cells studying metaphorical babble about a skilled hunter and a peace-loving hippie.

      The timeline subject is, however, slightly more interesting, albeit I don't think I'd fit in around here as I also believe that a race of giant humanoids once existed on Earth along with a "slightly" more advanced civilization that used a technology that we can only begin to try and fathom; hence forth they either blew their selves up and/or got the hell out of here, a long time ago! Besides, who is to say that a nuclear war isn't what really killed off the dinosaurs; ha!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Well that answers my question. You see these stories as not real history, but as metaphorical tales. As for fitting in, I am attempting to make the argument that Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah and all of their descendents were created separately in an already populated world where their extended lifespans would make them seem immortal and god-like compared to mortal/naturally evolved humans. I also suspect they were slightly larger in stature. That's not too far off. I think they are what inspired the mythological stories of the Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians, the Greeks, and the Romans. I do think the advances in human technology in this same time frame and location is the result of the existence of these beings. I think there were much more advanced things going on back then than we know about. I'd say it's at least possible that you and I may agree on more than you think.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, 

      Let's focus first on what we can agree on, and once we will get in to descendants of Esau, it will be easier to assign chronology to it. 

      Let's have now a quick look at the next two points of the Blessing; blessing, which most of the Bible readers falsely believe, went to Jacob / Israel; while the fact is, that Genesis 33 clearly states that it was again Esau / Edom who received it.

      Genesis chapter 27 reads,

      28Therefor:

      # 6 - be lord over thy brethren, 

      # 7 - and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee: 

      To solve this mystery, all we have to do is flip some pages from Genesis 27, and stop at Genesis 33.

      If you can believe your own eyes, you will also believe that this part of the Blessing went also to Esau, the firstborn and beloved son of Isaac,  not to the deceiver.

      Let's  have a look at the whole chapter first:

      Genesis 33 (KJV)

      1 And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. And he divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids.

      2 And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost.

      3 And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.

      4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

      5 And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who are those with thee? And he said, The children which God hath graciously given 

      thy servant.

      6 Then the handmaidens came near, they and their children, and they bowed themselves.

      7 And Leah also with her children came near, and bowed themselves: and after came Joseph near and Rachel, and they bowed themselves.

      8 And he said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And he said, These are to find grace in the sight 

      of my lord.

      9 And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself.

      10 And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had 

      seen the face of God, 

      and thou wast pleased with me.

      11 Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee; because God hath dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough. And he urged him, and he took it.

      12 And he said, Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before thee.

      13 And he said unto him, My lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die.

      14 Let my lord, 

      I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto 

      my lord unto Seir.

      15 And Esau said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me. And he said, What needeth it? let me find grace in the sight

       of my lord.

      16 So Esau returned that day on his way unto Seir.

      17 And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built him an house, and made booths for his cattle: therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.

      18 And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city.

      19 And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money.

      20 And he erected there an altar, and called it EleloheIsrael."

      When we look at this chapter, Genesis 33, we see that upon meeting Esau, Jacob was calling Esau - "my LORD", and himself - thy SERVANT:

      "5 ...And he (Jacob) said, the children which God hath graciously given thy SERVANT."

      "8 And he (Esau) said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And he (Jacob) said, These are to find grace in the sight of my LORD;"

      "13 And he (Jacob) said unto him, My LORD knoweth..."

      "14 Let my LORD, (Jacob said) I pray thee, pass over before his SERVANT: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my LORD unto Seir."

      The Blessing in Genesis chapter 27 reads:

      28Therefor:

      # 6 - be lord over thy brethren, 

      and the chapter 33 clearly says that Esau was the lord to his brother Jacob.

      What about part 7 of the Blessing?

      # 7 - and let thy MOTHER'S SONS bow down to thee: 

      Isaac and Rebecca had only two sons, the firstborn Esau and his brother Jacob.

      If the Blessing says - # 7 - and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee; 

      and we see in Genesis 33, how Jacob is bowing down to Esau:

      "3 And he (Jacob) passed over before them, and BOWED himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother."

      - then it is obvious that this part of the Blessing had been fulfilled as well, and the blessed one, was again Esau, not Jacob.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, let's look at some more problems with Egyptian chronology.

      The Shepherd Kings, known in history as the Hyksos, were (according to the writer and the Book of Jasher) union of Minoans, Edomites and Ishmaelites.  The word Hyksos is derived from the Egyptian word 'hyk' meaning prince, and 'sos' or 'shasu' denoting pastoral shepherds (so actually, they shall be called Shepherd Princes, not Shepherd Kings).

      The Hyksos did utilize superior bronze weapons, chariots, and composite bows to help them take control of Egypt, and by about 1720 BC they had grown strong enough, at the expense of the Middle Kingdom kings, to gain control of Avaris in the north eastern Delta. 

      This site eventually became the capital of the Hyksos kings, yet within 50 years they had also managed to take control of the important Egyptian city of Memphis.

      Manetho, the famous Egyptian historian of ancient times, tells us that these kings ruled for many years, and that Egypt was indebted to them for much useful knowledge and a great expansion of artistic endeavor.

      In the History of Antiquity', Manetho states that

       "Egypt was indebted to the Hyksos for much of the wisdom and artistry she bequeathed to later civilizations. For five centuries they remained in the land."

      On the whole, the Hyksos were very powerful and influential people; one of the six well known Hyksos rulers was Prince Salatis, a name that has been interpreted to mean “Sultan.” 

      During his rise to power, he banned the contemporary Egyptian rulers from the capital city of Memphis and extended his rule over most of Middle Egypt, eventually taking over Upper Egypt and Nubia as well. In the meantime, Hyksos rulers had moved the capital to Avaris; area of present archeological excavations.

      Although the Hyksos suffered tremendously from volcanic eruption of  Thera, and were eventually overthrown by the Egyptians c. 1600 BC, they left behind the tools and knowledge that helped Egypt in building future empire. 

       Manetho wrote that Tethmosis king of Thebais, or the upper Egypt, besieged the Hyksos or Shepherds, shut up in a place called Auarim (containing 10,000 acres of ground, known now as Avaris),  with an army of 480,000 men. When he found no possibility of taking them, he agreed with them that they should leave Egypt and go freely wherever they wished. 

      They, with all their substance and goods, being in number no less than 440,000, passed through Egypt and went by the way of the wilderness into Palestine, where they built themselves a city in the land of Judah, as it is now called. This city was big enough to hold such a large number of inhabitants, and they called it Hierosolyma, -  Jerusalem. 

      We read in Wikipedia that:

      "The Hyksos first appeared in Egypt c. 1800 BC, during the eleventh dynasty, began their climb to power in the thirteenth dynasty, and came out of the second intermediate period in control of Avaris and the Delta. 

      - "It was sometime after the reign of Sobekhotep IV that the Hyksos may have made their first appearance, and around 1710 BC took control of the town of Avaris (the modern Tell ed-Dab'a/Khata'na), a few miles from Qantir."

      - By the fifteenth dynasty, they ruled Lower Egypt, and at the end of the seventeenth dynasty, they were expelled (c.1560 BC). The Hyksos may have introduced the horse-drawn chariot into Egypt.[4]"

      According to Wikipedia  and statements of Egyptologists, Hyksos ruled Egypt for c.150 years.

      Now Headly, Manetho stated that:

       "Egypt was indebted to the Hyksos for much of the wisdom and artistry she bequeathed to later civilizations. For five centuries they remained in the land."

      So,

       Five Centuries minus c. hundred fifty years, equals c. three hundred fifty years missing in Egyptian chronology.

      Or, it means that Hyksos must have returned to Egypt and reign for another 350 years; who were those people? 

      I think they came back to Egypt and ruled the what we know now as 18 Dynasty.

      BTW. Headly, many Historians and Egyptologists assume that the 18th. Dynasty was extending from 1550-1295 BC, but according to the Samaritan and also the Akashic records, the 18th Dynasty extended from 1900's-1600's.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Potential problems with Egyptian chronology as stated here do not resolve the time line conflict. For Esau and Jacob to have lived in the 20th century BC, this means Ham's son Egypt (born 550 years before Jacob/Esau) would have lived around 2600-2500 BC. The great pyramid of Giza had already been built by this point, so Egyptian history clearly goes back much further. And this would place the birth of Shem/Ham/Japheth around the 27th century, though we know the Semetic and Indo-European languages predate this age.

      This is why I feel it's important to establish the foundation first and work out from there. Using my time line you have the Ubaid culture lining up with the same length of time and same location as when Cain is said to have lived before the flood, you've got an actual abrupt end of that culture (including flood evidence) in the right time and place, you've got a major climatological event that actually had the same impact as what's described at Babel happening in the right time/place, you've got the establishment of Uruk confirmed by both Genesis and the Sumerian King's list as happening not long after the flood that actually did get established in the right time/place, and you've got the beginnings of Sumer and Egypt, then others, where everything lines up according to geography and language. From your timeline you've got none of that.

    • profile image

      Sag 4 years ago

      Headly, have a look at this article:

      Who Built the GREAT PYRAMID?

      Did you know the builder of the Great Pyramid is identified in the Bible?

      by Herman L. Hoeh

      http://cog-ff.com/site/cog_archives/booklets/who_b...

      What do you think about it?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius,

      Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I read the link which then inspired more reading. I don't feel I can really speak on the topic of the writer equating Jesus to the Egyptian god Amen, making Khufu a follower of Jesus in old testament times, but that does seem a bit of a stretch based on nothing more than a verse in Revelation. But on the portion that dates Khufu, and also the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza, to the 18th century BC, I can give you my thoughts.

      He seems to base his approximations of when Khufu lived on his interpretation that Adam was created around 4000 BC, placing the flood somewhere around the 23rd century BC. I assume this timeline is based on the Ussher chronology. The problem with this is that there is no archaeological or geological or climatological evidence to back it up. There is no flood in that time frame that had anywhere near the impact as what's described in the bible and by the Sumerians. Yet the writer uses this timeline combined with Egyptian documentation stating Khufu lived long after the flood to place him so late.

      There seems to be a pretty dominant consensus that agrees Khufu lived, and the Great Pyramid was constructed, around 2700 BC. I feel you would need much more than approximations based on Ussher's chronology to refute that.

      There is, however, archaeological evidence of a flood around 4000 BC in Ur that literally has artifacts of the Ubaid culture just below it and a stark absence of artifacts above it. In fact, this is where the Ubaid period of southern Mesopotamia comes to an abrupt end and the Uruk period begins. And as I pointed out before, not only does the Ubaid period in that region span roughly the same length of time that Cain lived before the flood (5300 - 4000 BC), but the city-state of Uruk was constructed not long after the flood according to both Genesis and the Sumerian Kings List and archaeological evidence supports this being around 3800 BC.

      In my opinion it is far to easy to inaccurately assign key figures of the bible to names of kings or others written about in countless documents in an attempt to place them in history. There's often dubious connections made that really have no solid proof to support it.

      In my mind, much like Augustine wrote, the 'book of scripture' and the 'book of nature' cannot contradict. In this modern era we now have a clearer view of nature than has ever before been possible. And unlike all those man-made documents and man-made interpretations, scientific evidence is free of fallible human influence. It cannot be twisted. It is what it is. This is a much sturdier foundation to build on when attempting to place where and when the events of Genesis took place.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, seeing the ending of Obidiah prophecy in Augustine's City of God:

      21 "And those who are saved again shall come up out of Mount Sion, that they may defend Mount Esau, and it shall be a kingdom to the Lord." and comparing it to the present one in the Bible;

      and seeing that Esau in fact never lost his Blessing, but reading all the commentaries which say that he did, you should noticed that all facts connected to Esau and Edom can be twisted. 

      For the last four thousand years Esau and Edom played major role in development of our civilization, civilization which Jacob and Israel was, and is trying to destroy. 

      Can the truth be hidden, twisted? Of course it can. Who will tell you today that Byzantine Empire was continuation of Edom. After all, what average person knows today about Byzantine Empire?

      Who will tell you that Aramean Holocaust, usually called Armenian Holocaust of 1919 was in fact well planed extermination of descendants of Esau?

      Below I provided some links to the documentary about this hidden Holocaust.

      This Armenian Holocaust, and Germany partaking in it, paved the road to the Holocaust of the WW II, which in fact was continuation of the first one. 

      Germany, Turkey and the Armenian Genocide – Part 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl8sMDZkyXc

       

      Germany, Turkey and the Armenian Genocide – Part 2

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJI0HQLHlX4

       

      Germany, Turkey and the Armenian Genocide – Part 3

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E51OUnvvSf8

       

      Germany, Turkey and the Armenian Genocide – Part 4

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDpd5VIWXlM

       

      Germany, Turkey and the Armenian Genocide – Part 5

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRzeUValOM

       

      Germany, Turkey and the Armenian Genocide – Part 6

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3IDsmqrUnM

       

      Germany, Turkey and the Armenian Genocide – Part 7

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIMkNiqVV-o

       

       

      Condoleezza Rice denies the Armenian genocide

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1C9Wdcmmsk&fea...

       

      Jews, Zionists Behind

      Armenian Genocide Holocaust

      http://www.rense.com/general64/genoc.htm

      http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/arme...

      It is worth to notice that the first Holocaust, exterminations using German railway, applied mostly to Arameans of western Anatolia who were living there for thousands of years, and not to Armenians of Armenia; 

      Arameans and Armenians were two different nations, even their dialect and script were different.

      Below are two links: the first one shows the whole Anatolia with Armenia in its Easter part, and the second map shows German Railway which was used to transport Arameans of western Turkey in to Syrian Desert. This railway, which wasn't even close to Armenia, was used to transport Arameans of western Anatolia, not Armenians of Armenia.

      http://www.studiolum.com/wang/armenia-throughout-h...

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O0X9P3zxpPU/Tj1W1H9Uq_I/...

      It Should make you wander; who were the Arameans?

      They were the Edomites, and this is what Jews were thinking about them; Over ten years ago it was the number one result  on Internet when you typed the keyword Edom. 

      I will provide fragments of this book and the link:

      The Key of David, by Warder Cresson 

      (Michael Boaz Israel ben Abraham)

      Published: 1852 

      Origin of Edom, Babylon, and Rome, or Christianity 

      God has declared that he has "magnified his Word above all his name." (Ps. 138:2.) How very careful then should we be to give diligent heed to his Written Word.

      It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that we become acquainted with the Genealogy of the Gentiles, who are Esau, or Edom, for God has declared

       "that every one of the Mount (or House) of Esau may, 

      or shall, be cut off by slaughter," (see Obad. 9 v.,) and that "there shall not be any remaining of the House of Esau,* 

      for the Lord has spoken it." Verse 18th.

      * God confirms this and says "Amalek was first of the nations , (Amalek was son of Eliphaz, and grandson to Edom or Esau, see Gen. 36:9 and 12,) but his latter end shall be that he perish forever," (Num. 24:20,) and this corresponds with Obadiah and all the rest of the Prophets.

      If these words of God be true--we cannot, and should not, spare any pains, however great, in order to ascertain who Esau, or Edom, is. See Gen. 27:30 and 36....

       In 325, Christianity became the established religion, under Constantine;* hence Babylon, Rome, Edom, and Christianity are one....

      The Great Wise Men and Rabbis Kimchi, Ibn-Ezra, and Maimonides, and Abarbanel, all unite with the foregoing Scripture testimony in saying, that all the Gentile Christians are the seed, or children, of Esau, or Edom, and that "the prophets did not only prophecy against the land of Edom, which is in the neighborhood of the land of Israel, but against the seed of Rome, or Edom, which is of the root, or rather children of Kittim, or Chittim."....

      http://www.jewish-history.com/Cresson/cresson25.ht...

      And this is the corrupted version of the Obidiah prophecy:

      Obadiah 1 Good News Translation (GNT)

      "1 This is the prophecy of Obadiah—what the Sovereign Lord said about the nation of Edom.

      The Lord Will Punish Edom

      The Lord has sent his messenger to the nations,

          and we have heard his message:

          “Get ready! Let us go to war against Edom!”

      2 The Lord says to Edom,

          “I will make you weak;

          everyone will despise you.

      3 Your pride has deceived you.

      Your capital is a fortress of solid rock;

          your home is high in the mountains,

      and so you say to yourself,

          ‘Who can ever pull me down?’

      4 Even though you make your home

          as high as an eagle's nest,

          so that it seems to be among the stars,

      yet I will pull you down.

      5 “When thieves come at night,

          they take only what they want.

      When people gather grapes,

          they always leave a few.

      But your enemies have wiped you out completely.

      6 Descendants of Esau, your treasures have been looted.

      7 Your allies have deceived you;

          they have driven you from your country.

      People who were at peace with you have now conquered you.

          Those friends who ate with you have laid a trap for you;

          they say of you, ‘Where is all that cleverness he had?’

      8 “On the day I punish Edom,

          I will destroy their clever men

          and wipe out all their wisdom.

      9 The fighting men of Teman will be terrified,

          and every soldier in Edom will be killed.

      Reasons for Edom's Punishment

      10 “Because you robbed and killed

          your relatives,[a] the descendants of Jacob,

          you will be destroyed and dishonored forever.

      11 You stood aside on that day

          when enemies broke down their gates.

      You were as bad as those strangers

          who carried off Jerusalem's wealth

          and divided it among themselves.

      12 You should not have gloated

          over the misfortune of your relatives in Judah.

      You should not have been glad

          on the day of their ruin.

      You should not have laughed at them

          in their distress.

      13 You should not have entered the city of my people

          to gloat over their suffering

          and to seize their riches

          on the day of their disaster.

      14 You should not have stood at the crossroads

          to catch those trying to escape.

      You should not have handed them over to the enemy

          on the day of their distress.

      God Will Judge the Nations

      15 “The day is near when I, the Lord,

          will judge all nations.

      Edom, what you have done

          will be done to you.

          You will get back what you have given.

      16 My people have drunk a bitter cup of punishment

          on my sacred hill.[b]

      But all the surrounding nations will drink

          a still more bitter cup of punishment;

          they will drink it all and vanish away.

      The Victory of Israel

      17 “But on Mount Zion some will escape,

          and it will be a sacred place.

      The people of Jacob will possess

          the land that is theirs by right.

      18 The people of Jacob and of Joseph will be like fire;

          they will destroy the people of Esau

          as fire burns stubble.

          No descendant of Esau will survive.

      I, the Lord, have spoken.

      19 “People from southern Judah will occupy Edom;

          those from the western foothills will capture Philistia.

      Israelites will possess the territory of E

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      19 “People from southern Judah will occupy Edom;

          those from the western foothills will capture Philistia.

      Israelites will possess the territory of Ephraim and Samaria;

          the people of Benjamin will take Gilead.

      20 The army of exiles from northern Israel

          will return and conquer Phoenicia as far north as Zarephath.

      The exiles from Jerusalem who are in Sardis

          will capture the towns of southern Judah.

      21 The victorious men of Jerusalem

          will attack Edom and rule over it.

      And the Lord himself will be king.”

      BTW Headly, I'm just thinking - why there is no automatic spellcheck on the word Edom in the Word documents?

      Going back to the Pyramid of Giza, have you ever wandered why the most sophisticated of the pyramids is claimed to be the oldest one? It is like expecting that four thousand years from now someone will think that IPad 5 was the first computer ever build, then people came up with Apple 2.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, 

      I've just noticed where the numbers could go wrong, and what, according to your chronology, is placing the time of Esau hundreds years earlier then he was born.  

      Have a look at this table showing the ages of patriarchs when their firstborns were born:

      Genealogy from Noah to Abraham (Genesis 11)

      Name        Hebrew Bible Greek Septuagint

      Shem               100                100

      Arphaxad         35                135

      Shelah                 30                130

      Eber                 34                134

      Peleg                 30                130

      Reu                 32                132

      Serug                 30                130

      Nahor                  29                179

      Terah                  70                70

      Abraham        100              100

      It gives us 750 years of chronological difference , between the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint, for the time when Esau was born.

      Going back to the Blessing of Esau, we have only two points to go.

      Genesis chapter 27 reads:

      28Therefor:

      "# 8 - cursed be every one that curseth thee,

      # 9 - and blessed be he that blesseth thee. "

      The first people, to somehow cursed Esau, were his mother Rebecca, and brother Jacob. 

      Rebecca knew that she might be in trouble when she said in Genesis 27:13

      "13 And his mother said unto him (Jacob),

      Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them."

      The LORD, who was present during the blessing, knew all the way what was going on, and Isaac found out about the deception pretty soon. 

      As a result of the deception, Jacob have been sent to his uncle Laban, for 21 years to serve him, and Rebecca got the curse, and have never seen her beloved son again.

       Isaac survived the Blessing by several decades, and Esau was blessed with all the blessing he could get. 

      People of Seir, who had blessed Esau by giving him Oholibama (name meaning - the tent of the Most High) as a wife, were blessed with riches, peace (Story of Sinue), and the famous Dukes of Edom.

      Seir become the place where the LORD stayed with his people, and where worship of Yahweh was continued from the times of Esau.  

      "Yahweh ( /ˈjɑːweɪ/ or /ˈjɑːhweɪ/; Hebrew: יהוה‎), often rendered Jehovah /dʒɨˈhoʊvə/ or the LORD (in small capitals), is the god of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. 

      Yahweh is a modern scholarly vocalization of the name as it appears in Hebrew, where it is written without vowels as יהוה (YHWH), called the Tetragrammaton.

      Yahweh was not a Canaanite god, and modern scholars see him originating in Edom (Seir),  the region south of Judah...

      Originally the main god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, worship of Yahweh alone (monotheism) became entrenched in Judaism in the exilic and Persian periods.

      The Bible describes Yahweh as the god who delivered Israel from Egypt and gave the Ten Commandments, and says that Yahweh revealed himself to Israel as the LORD who would not permit his people to make idols or worship other gods "I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, or My praise to idols.""

      From Wikipedia 

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#section_3

      Headly, it looks like the Israel had "stolen" Yahveh from Edom!

      They had stolen the religion of Edom and claim as their own. What a Thief!!!

      The fact is that YHWH was worshiped in Edom / Seir long before Israelites were released from the slavery in Egypt. 

      YHWH was the God of Abraham, and was the God which have been continuously worshiped in the land of Seir, by Esau and his descendants  like Eliphaz, Zophar and  Job.

      One of Esau's descendants, Jethro the Priest of Midian, welcomed escaping from Egypt Moses, and gave him his daughter as a wife.

      It was Jethro, the descendent of Esau by his firstborn son Eliphaz, who taught Moses the Hebrew language, script, and gave Moses the knowledge about YHWH and His law.

      Headly, you don't think that YHWH was sitting on the burning bush dictating Torah, while Moses was carving it on the stone tablets - it would take forever.

      On the other hand, when we read Genesis 28 : 16-22,

      we clearly see that Jacob didn't know YHWH when he said:

      "20 ... If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, 

      and will give me bread to eat, 

      and raiment to put on, 

      so that I come again to my father's house in peace;

       then shall the Lord be my God:"

      What if not? What if YHWH did not provide protection to Jacob?

      Would YHWH be still Jacob's God, or would Jacob choose another God?

      We know that Jacob was cheated by his uncle Laban, to work 20 years, taking care of Laban's livestock; to work  for a wife who died before he got back to his father house. We know that he had never seen his mother again. 

      Was this a Blessing, protection?

      The whole statement of Jacb is radiculus, so let's have a look at it again:

      "16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not.

      17 And he was afraid, and said, 

      How dreadful is this place! 

      this is none other but the house of God, 

      and this is the gate of heaven.

      18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

      19 And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.

      20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,

      21 So that I come again to my father's house in peace;

       then shall the Lord be my God:

      22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, 

      shall be God's house: 

      and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee."

      So, the hose of YHWH is a dreadful place;

      and a stone should be a YHWH's house?

      And of all granted by YHWH he will gave only 1/10 back?

      And if not then YHWH will not be Jacob's God?

      We know that Jacob wasn't blessed by YHWH, so who was the next god of Jacob / Israel?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Sags: Is it against the law in your country to write a freakin' Hub???

      You copy & paste all of this poppycock, yet, at this current time, you still have zero Hubs... WTF?

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Insane, I know that you, and people like you - who hate the Truth, would love to leave multitude of comments on my hubs. Keep reading my posts, one day I will write a hub.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      For such a self-professed "man of truth," you sure like to throw those "names & titles" around... People like me? LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius,

      Don't worry about comments. Have you seen the comment sections of my hubs? If it's the truth it's the truth and it doesn't matter what anyone says. Besides, you have the option to reject any comment you want or you could just remove the comments section all together. You really should write this out in hubs. It would be much easier to read than in comments.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, to make it easy to understand what went wrong with Christianity, and what part of it, is misunderstanding of the Bible stories, we would have to write a Trilogy, not just couple of Hubs. However, I believe that if we combine our efforts, then we can do it.

      I just wander, I think  you were using Hebrew Bible to estimate the year of birth of Esau; however, if you will apply Septuagint chronology, where will you place the year of Esau's birth?

      Genealogy from Noah to Abraham (Genesis 11)

      http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Hubs are a perfect format for what you're describing. In fact, that's the approach I'm using. If you'll notice, the majority of the hubs I've written begin with the 'God Created Evolution' title. That's the whole project, and each hub is a piece of it. In all it'll probably be around 10 or so hubs. And within each I link to the others. That way you can organize all of this information according to hubs which would give us and everyone else a place to discuss each element in detail, assuming you allow comments.

      You're right, I was using the Hebrew version. According to that, based on an approximate birth year of Adam around 5656BC (flood 4000 BC), Jacob and Esau were born 3546 BC and Jacob died in 3399 BC. If I add the 750 years that the Septuagint shows in addition, then that would place their birth at 2796 BC, and Jacob's death at 2649 BC. This timeline would still work for what I'm describing, and would in fact give it more room to breathe. But this is still 6 centuries before the timeline you're describing.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      Yeah, but if the hubber "Sagittarius 2012" writes Hubs like he comments, they'll ban him for the excessive use of the "copy & paste" function, plain and simple...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      That is true. They frown on the excess use of any text previously published elsewhere, including bible verses.

    • Sagittarius 2012 profile image

      Sagittarius 2012 4 years ago from Canada

      Headly, have a look at this interesting article with the Bible dates table:

      http://www.usbible.com/astrology/bible_dates.htm

      I don't agree with author's final statement, but I love his timeline.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius,

      The hub looks good. I went ahead and denied the comment because I don't want your hub to get rejected as previously published material when you go to post it. Once you've published the hub, you can still go in and make changes if need be. Once published I'll be happy to look it over and give you my assessment. I still plan on reading and commenting on your other hub, just haven't gotten to it yet. And I know I still owe you a reply to another comment about the time line. I hope to get that to you soon.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Sagittarius,

      Alright, I read the link you provided. This timeline has the same problem, and from what I can tell he's basically drawing this timeline as a conclusion based on when the bible was edited together (164 BC according to him) plus 4000 or so years. I guess the astrological stuff at the beginning was his suggestion that it was these types of astrologically-based views that dictated the timelines given in the old testament. By using this he basically concludes that none of it happened. However, using that same basic concept, only acknowledging that the original sources of what was later edited together into the Torah date back to at least 950 BC, then he'd be much closer. Still not quite there, but even that date, based on the estimated time of the Kingdom of Judah, isn't certain.

      If you slide that timeline back roughly 1300 years there really are scientifically confirmed events that coincide with the major events of early Genesis, namely a flood that really did have a dramatic impact on that specific region and an actual dispersion of large human populations that mirrors the story of Babel. This timeline, like yours, places the creation of Adam as somewhere around the end of 1500 years worth of Ubaid culture (4000 BC) in Southern Mesopotamia where we see the first human city and the first signs of social inequality. There's no doubt that the differences in the humans of that period were a kind of foreshadowing of what we would then see on a much larger scale a few centuries later as civilizations began to spring up. It makes way more sense if Adam, rather than being created after the Ubaid period (5500 to 4000 BC), was actually created towards the beginning and was the cause of those differences in those specific humans.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      You two obviously disagree on this time-line subject, so why not move on? I wasn't going to bother with this convo anymore, but y'all are as about as devoted a whore in a high-traffic brothel... Hey, do either of you think human life really spawned from the Garden of Eden? Or was it just an experimental zone that later got all metaphorical via recorded history? The Neanderthals got kicked aside about like the dinosaurs, so go figure... What do you think actually happened?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I think anatomically modern humans first came about at least 190,000 years ago, and I think these are the humans Genesis 1 is talking about because they actually did exactly what God told those humans to do; multiply/fill the earth/establish dominance in the animal kingdom.

      I think Adam was not the first human, but was rather the first creature God created that had a will of his own. The first of God's creation that could actually behave outside of God's will. Like when it says the first thing Adam/Eve realized after eating of the tree of knowledge was that they were naked. Unlike prehistoric humans, Adam/Eve had a more distinct self-awareness that wasn't there before.

      I think Adam was created around 5500 BC because it's the Ubaid culture (5500 to 4000 BC) where we see the first signs of social inequality. After that culture came to an abrupt end after lasting the same length of time Genesis says Adam/Cain lived before the flood, a new culture (Uruk period) sprang up in its place not long after. It's here that we see the first full-blown signs of the modern human ego, or human selfishness. It's first in the budding civilization of Sumer (3500 BC), then Egypt (3400 BC), then the Indus Valley (3300 BC) where we see the tell-tale signs of human selfishness; war, social inequality, male dominance.

      There was a fundamental change in these humans in this age and region that forever changed the human race on this planet. I think the creation of Adam was the catalyst that sparked it.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

      HeadlyvonNoggin, it sounds like you are on the right track, much closer than most biblical fanatics... Now, when it comes to genetic experiments, you may fall off track... LOL!

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @HeadlyvonNoggin, a very nicely written treatise. But it has some problems, especially with your reliance on a more literal interpretation of Genesis.

      For instance, the Ussher timeline starting at 4004 BC, pegs the Flood at 2348 BC, which is 3 years before the start of Egypt's sixth dynasty and 13 years before Sargon the Great conquered Sumer. Ussher, if he'd known about these, would've automatically discounted his timeline as inaccurate.

      Sumerians may not have built the first cities. We now have structures built about 9500 BC at Gobekli Tepe, Turkey. At one point, the Sumerians were the builders of the earliest "known" cities, but even Catal Huyuk beat them out when it was discovered at about 7000 BC.

      What is interesting about the Sumerians is that they spoke an agglutinative language, unlike the Semetic languages of their neighbors. But the Basques (Euskaldunak), Etruscans (Rasenna), Georgians (Kartvelebi) and Finns (Suomi) also speak (spoke) agglutinative languages. These groups seem to share a common genetic heritage, too. Higher prevalence of O-type blood, and Rh-negative. And the Basques and Finns include mtDNA haplogroup X which is shared with a small number of Native American tribes in North America. The Georgians (Colchians) also held the Golden Fleece and the golden dragon which guarded it. And the legend tells that when the Colchian princess left Athens, she flew away on a golden dragon. What does this have to do with Sumer? I think that each of these cultures are related -- children of Atlantis. The gods of ancient myth were likely only groups of Atlantean refugees.

      You say that the events of early Genesis have been confirmed not to have occurred. That's clearly not the case. Where is the evidence that "proves" a global flood never occurred. And when you're dealing with an act of God, all physical laws are subject to revocation. What evidence would a worldwide flood leave? Certainly not sediment, especially if the added water came from the deep (thus no erosion).

      There is a biblical timeline compatible with those of science. I discuss this in my "Genesis Bible Commentary" series.

      The problem with Genesis is in the interpretations of others, especially with the biblical literalists.

      Genesis 1 is purely non-physical. This is the template or blueprint of creation (the "Word" of God). Man (not "human") was created in the image and likeness of God -- a non-physical, spiritual and immortal source of creation. "Man" is created again in Genesis 2:7 from the dust of the ground; this is Homo sapiens. But Genesis, here, is more thematic than narrative and sequential.

      Even so, the story of the Garden is of a non-physical place. The "Tree of Life" (found in the Kabbalah as a matrix of concepts) and the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" are both non-physical constructs. Adam and Eve were said to have died on the day they ate of the forbidden fruit, but they did not physically, literally die. In fact, they were escorted out of the Garden. And Adam supposedly lived for 930 years. They had died spiritually. Thus the Garden was a spiritual place.

      Genesis 5:2 says that Adam was both male and female and a "them!" A group. That by itself should change the character of the argument. The apparently outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs may merely have applied only to the eponymous tribes, not to their individual founders. But even so, the ages are too short! They need to be greatly lengthened -- as if Methuselah's 969 years was not long enough!

      @HeadlyvonNoggin, you make a lot of assumptions in your article that are not well-founded. For instance, you say, "the authors of the bible would have no sense of what global really means." That could be true, but you have no proof of their lack of knowledge.

      You also say, "daughters of humans," but Genesis 6 does not say this. In fact, the "daughters," according to other research, were decidedly not human -- and that was the reason for the Flood!

      "Specifically stating that these descendants 'fathered' or 'instructed' anyone would be totally pointless." Why? Are you saying that the period of 7 generations from Seth to Methuselah was the same length as the period of 7 generations after Cain? That's quite a leap.

      If the Flood cured humanity of a certain type of wickedness, what was it? What is it that humanity can no longer do because of the "flood's" cure? I tackle this powerful question in my Genesis series.

      I appreciate your discussion, here. You bring up numerous important topics.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      @lone77star,

      Thank you for reading and for sharing your thoughts. I'm familiar with your views. I had read some of your stuff before and then again just now. You and I agree on one thing for certain, it's only the flawed interpretation of Genesis that makes it seem as if it and science contradict.

      I can see how you could reach the kinds of conclusions you've reached. After all one of the elements of Kabbalah is the idea that when the Tanakh was edited together there was 'secret knowledge' encoded into the text. Once you open a door like that you can see patterns and make connections without limit. This is precisely why I don't take the word of any human interpretation beyond the text of Genesis itself. There's all kinds of interpretations and theories and timelines out there. It's simply too much and all of it made by humans.

      I just use science. Science actually draws out history free of human influence. If there's any truth to Genesis, we should be able to see it in history. So I stood them side by side, taking Genesis literally. Like St. Augustine believed, God reveals Himself to us through the 'book of nature' and the 'book of scripture'. If at any time the two seem to contradict then it's human interpretation that is flawed. I'm still working on getting this whole theory of mine written out but I have overwhelming reason to believe I have found it, and it doesn't require decoding hidden messages or suggesting that a global flood could have happened and then been hidden. What better way for God to reveal Himself than for our very own search for the truth about our existence to actually validate what Genesis said all along?

      There are a few details in Genesis that I used to find a rough starting point, and it's these same details that illuminate a problem with the timeline you're suggesting. One is the fact that Abraham interacted with Egyptians. Another is that Abraham's father was from Ur, a Sumerian city. You show Abraham being born before 16,000 BC and dying before 9,000 BC. Egypt didn't begin to come together as a civilizations until around 3400 BC. Sumer around 3500 BC. Considering Abraham was born 1950 years after Adam's creation when taken literally, this means Adam's creation could have been no earlier than roughly 5500-5000 BC.

      The key to everything is that humans already existed when Adam and Eve were created. They're a vital part of the story. Once that's understood everything else just falls in line. That's what Genesis 6 is talking about. The 'sons of God' (Adam's descendants) began having children with the 'daughters of humans'. It then says they are 'mortal' and only live 120 years right after showing Adam's descendants as living for centuries.

      You ask what wickedness the flood could cure? That's it. You see, Adam was different than the humans that came before. The humans created in Genesis 1 were told to 'be fruitful and multiply', 'fill and subdue the earth', 'establish dominance in the animal kingdom'. This is exactly what homo sapiens did between 200,000 - 10,000 BC. Think about this. If Adam and Eve and Cain were so capable and willing to disobey God, then how could they have ever carried out these commands that took numerous generations to carry out? That's what was different, Free Will. The ability to behave outside of God's will. An individual will. Knowledge of good and evil. Good being God's will/natural law, evil being actions not according to God's will that can be destructive. Like murder.

      Once these two bloodlines began to mix, that's when the flood came. Wickedness was running rampant. And this wickedness, this pocket of free willed beings, inhabited a very small region of the earth considering the flood came 1656 years after Adam. The flood didn't have to be global.

      This lines up with Mesopotamian history down to the number of centuries specified. The Ubaid culture (who built Eridu 5300BC) existed roughly 5400-4000BC, then came to an abrupt end. In fact there was a flood in Ur around 4000 BC that literally ended the Ubaid culture. Then came the Uruk period after 4000 BC named after the city of Uruk built towards the beginning of this age. Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List say Uruk was built not long after the flood. In 3900 BC there was a massive climatological event known as the 5.9 kiloyear event where the Sahara transformed into a desert. This caused massive human migrations that falls right in line with when Babel happened. Not only that, but it's this transformation of the Sahara that many believe sparked the civilizations in Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Akkad, Syria, etc.

      This not only lines up with history according to science, but it also makes the whole bible make a lot more sense, and it even makes sense out of the mythologies of those regions. The Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Akkadians/Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, they all believed there were immortal beings in their ancient past who were human in form, male and female, who actually bred with humans. If Adam and his family did in fact live for centuries, then they'd seem immortal to humans.

      "Sumerians may not have built the first cities. We now have structures built about 9500 BC at Gobekli Tepe, Turkey. At one point, the Sumerians were the builders of the earliest "known" cities, but even Catal Huyuk beat them out when it was discovered at about 7000 BC."

      You're right, but these are not classed as cities. Eridu is classed as the first human city because it was the first human settlement to have a ruling and a working class. The ruling class organized and planned for the workers, who then in turn provided for the rulers. They were very organized and much more advanced. Genesis says Cain built a city. The Sumerians say the god Enki established Eridu and was the patron god who physically inhabited the temple at the center. They also say it was these gods that taught them civilization.

      "You say that the events of early Genesis have been confirmed not to have occurred. That's clearly not the case. Where is the evidence that "proves" a global flood never occurred. And when you're dealing with an act of God, all physical laws are subject to revocation. What evidence would a worldwide flood leave? Certainly not sediment, especially if the added water came from the deep (thus no erosion)."

      Proving the flood never occurred would be trying to prove a negative. If there were a flood there would be significant evidence, well beyond sediment, which would also happen no matter where the water came from. For one there would be a distinct line that showed everything on earth dying at the same time. There are numerous mass extinctions in Earth's history, but none anywhere near 27000 BC. This would have wiped out homo sapiens too, and by this time homo sapiens populated Australia, Africa, and all of Eurasia, with no interruption.

      "@HeadlyvonNoggin, you make a lot of assumptions in your article that are not well-founded. For instance, you say, "the authors of the bible would have no sense of what global really means." That could be true, but you have no proof of their lack of knowledge."

      Here I'm speaking from the standpoint of what humans that long ago would have known. Humans didn't know there was another side of the earth, or even that it was a sphere for a very long time.

      ""Specifically stating that these descendants 'fathered' or 'instructed' anyone would be totally pointless." Why? Are you saying that the period of 7 generations from Seth to Methuselah was the same length as the period of 7 generations after Cain? That's quite a leap."

      I am making that connection as a rough estimate, but there's really no way of knowing. The bigger point is that all of Cain's descendants, except for maybe the wives of Noah and his sons if they were from that side of the family, presumably died in the flood. Again, according to the traditional view. So then why mention this bit about these descendants 'fathering' all of those who had particular skills? It only makes sense mentioning them if there were survivors post-flood. Otherwise it would be irrelevant.

    • A.Villarasa profile image

      Alexander A. Villarasa 4 years ago from Palm Springs

      @Headly and LoneStar:

      Quite a debate you guys went into with the above 2 last posts; suffice to say that my knowledge of biblical/ancient history is of the minimalist variety. However, you both touched on a topic that I am interested in ,and this is, how religion and science informs each other in almost every aspect of their individual precepts but never seem to find a comon language to express the same longing for answers.

      Now that atheism and secularism are on the march, imposing their rather rabid belief that total separation is the only course of action for humanityto take, I am not too optimistic that religion and science would ever come to a conscientious accomodation and cooperation.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      A.Villarasa,

      I share your concerns. This has become a very polarizing topic, with both sides showing an unwillingness to budge. It's like the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Both uphold they have an ordained right to the same piece of land, and neither side is willing to share. Here too, the idea is that only one can be right. True to form, we humans have made it an either/or - us/them scenario where one side must be totally wrong, and the other totally right. We seem to be doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again infinitely. I don't know, I'm an eternal optimist that holds out hope for humanity, so I keep just trying to have the conversation, but if history's any indicator ....

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Headly and @AV, I agree with you both that science and religion can be polarizing, but there are a rich minority who are making every possible topic into a polarizing one -- Demopublicans vs Republicrats, global warming vs deniers, and many others. But behind it all is ego. Those rich few have learned to play ego like a symphony.

      Science and religion do not have to be so polarized. And it remains to individuals like you and I to make it so. Others can go crazy. Let them. They may not last the coming storm.

      The future will belong to those who don't rely on the past to give them a direction.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      lone77star,

      I agree its the ego, but I don't think it requires a small clan of rich conspirators to make it happen. I think it's just what humans do. It's how our mind's work. It keys in on differences no matter how large or small those differences may be. We then distinguish same as 'us' and different as 'them'. It's what gives the 'us' side of the equation unity. A common goal and a common foe. It's apparently our standard mode of operation. Like instinct or something.

    • A.Villarasa profile image

      Alexander A. Villarasa 4 years ago from Palm Springs

      @Headly and Lone 77Star:

      I would urge you, if you have not already done so, to read the book "The Proof of Heaven" which was written by a practicing neuroscientist and neurosurgeon (Dr. Eben Alexander) who, in 2008, was suddenly afflicted with the rarest form of adult meningitis (E.Coli) and became comatose for 7 days, during which time he had a Near Death Experience. His memory i.e. consciousness of that experience (which he detailed in the book) was so crystral clear that it could not have been possibly mediated by his brain, which at that time was non-functional (as evidenced by the various monitoring systems in the ICU).

      There are several revealations (messages in the book) that you might find reassuring: (1) God and Heaven in fact do exist, in the spiritual realm, (2) God is a personal one and He loves all his creation unconditionally, (3) Time-Space continuum is eternal, i.e. no beginning and no end, just as God is eternal, (4) Our universe was created not via the Big Bang that scientists have theorized, but via a "fluctuation" in that space-time continuum, what one scientist, Davide Castelvecchi also termed a fluctuation (he called it Big Bounce, instead of the Big Bang) in an article written for Scientific American(Jan 2013 issue), (5) Our universe is just one among multitudes of universes that are similarly created, as our own, via these fluctuations. (6) There are other sentient beings on other planetrary systems, that are further below or above Homo Sapiens' current state of non-technological and technological development.

      Dr Alexander believed that there are other consciousness aside from the one assuage by the human brain ( what I have termd in my Hubs and forum posts, as the conscientious consciousness of the human soul), and that consciousness was the one that allowed him to clearly experience and recall the events in his NDE. Dr Alexander further posited that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and for man to go through his journey of understanding his existence vis-avis God and the cosmos, he must conjoin science and religion.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I actually read an interview with him not too long ago. I'm never sure what to do with a story like that. Some of what he claims is certainly intriguing, but I'm always skeptical. I mean, I'm a spiritual guy, I've lived a spiritually minded life, and I have no doubt I've been spiritually guided in specific moments of my life, yet I'm always leery when someone else claims to be sharing a spiritual experience. It's hypocritical, I know. And I know there are many who are genuinely sharing real spiritual experiences, and this guy may be one of them. I just never know who to trust or believe, or whether or not any of their story has real merit. Then again I find myself often met with the same kind of skepticism when I talk about spiritual matters, and I really can't blame them for feeling that way. But, that's the thing with spiritual matters. They're personal, internal experiences that are invisible to the exterior world. Of course, if they were just out in the open and obvious to everyone, there wouldn't be much need for faith and I'm sure that would have a pretty significant impact on people being able to exercise true free will. Spirituality is a tricky thing.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Headly, outrageous! (LOL! ;) I agree it doesn't require a small clan of rich to do egotistical things en masse. But it seems clear that a small group is using that predisposition to their own advantages.

      I believe quite strongly that without the aid of spiritual beings (like Yehoshua of Nazareth), ego would ruin civilization. Selfishness would topple humanity into the "wailing and gnashing" of which the Bible speaks -- victim-perpetrator blood feuds reaching critical mass.

      That SOP (standard operating procedure) for humanity, called "ego," is not the true self, though. Ego is a false self -- a physical construct built on action-reaction dichotomies. That's why we have karma. Once we let go of ego, we no longer have karma. We can then no longer be victim, either.

      It took me 41 years to realize the full significance of my own OBE (out-of-body experience). I was able to see without physical eyes. In other words, I had consciousness and perception unrelated to my Homo sapiens body. I had long remembered that I lost that "Light" the moment I became self-conscious that physical light was passing right through "me" -- that "I" was not casting a shadow.

      What I realized only a couple of months ago is that my "self-consciousness" was me pulling the blindfold of ego over my spiritual eyes once again. For the first time in millions of years, I had been able to see again, and lost that sight a few moments later. The last several decades have been spent trying to get it back. And two months ago, I was finally ready to understand a big part of what happened.

      And a couple of months ago, I finally remembered the Scientology spiritual counseling which had triggered that momentary "seeing the Light." The counseling was called "Power Processing," and involved questions to get me to look at the idea of generosity and helping others. In other words, it was helping me get rid of the separateness built into ego.

      @AV, Dr. Alexander's story sounds intriguing.

      But like @Headly, I don't always take such stories as truth.

      Unlike @Headly, I try not to use skepticism, because it is a tainted paradigm. Scientific method warns against bias, but skepticism contains the very potent bias of "doubt." I prefer restraint and humility when searching for Truth, even the relative truths of imperfect scientific discovery.

      Even if what Dr. Alexander says is 100% Truth, I may not be ready yet to assimilate it into my current worldview. I will hold it aside as "interesting" until I can build a bridge or take a leap of faith to that new viewpoint.

      My experiences with miracles have led me to believe that time is not eternal, but like the current scientific view of space, may well be finite but unbounded. And that concept takes some getting used to.

      Objects, states and the like have persistence (the time dimension), but lose that dimension the moment we see the truth of them. Scientology counseling is based on this powerful concept, but the Nazarene said it first, 2000 years ago -- know the truth and the truth will set you free.

    • A.Villarasa profile image

      Alexander A. Villarasa 4 years ago from Palm Springs

      @Headly and Lone Star:

      After reading about Dr. Alexander's NDE experience and the journey that he took after his NDE, I thought he was totally credible. Being the neuroscientist and neurosurgeon pre NDE, he took that scientific predisposition, to examine fully and thoroughly every facet of that experience, and came out convinced that what he experienced was real, and therefore the truth... a consciousness that was unbellished by the material functioning or non-functioning of his brain.

      What struck me as totally stunning was the realization that Dr. Alexander used a word "FLUCTUATION" to describe the events that led to the creation of our universe, and an author (Davide Castelvecchi) on Scientific American using the very same word "FLUCTUATION" to describe the Big Bang or Big Bounce in his particular formulation. Dr. Alexander could not have had any knowledge of what Castelvechi was positing in his article since Dr Alexander's book pre-dates Castelvechi's article by a good year or two.

      So it seems that there is congruence in what Dr. Alexander and Castelvechi were saying... from what seems totally different perspective or point of view.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Well said, lone77star. And you're right about skepticism, that's a good way to look at it. I too hold stories like that in much the same way, not folding them into my own worldview, but more bookmarking them mentally as 'interesting'.

      The way you talk about ego is very interesting to me, because that's a big part of what I'm building towards in these hubs. Basically, I see Adam's creation as the introduction of free will/individual ego into the natural world. It's that capability to behave of our own accord, separate from the instinctual drives of our homo sapiens body, and contrary to God's one/unchanging/consistent will. The same singular will that propels everything else, like the natural laws.

      Ego is the "I' part of us. There are a couple of books from a non-Christian perspective that talk about dramatic behavioral changes and when/where they happened. It's when humans became materialistic and selfish, because that is not, contrary to popular belief, our natural behavior. War and human on human violence and male-dominance and social stratification are all relatively new developments, hardly existing at all prior to 4000 BC. One guy sees it as psychological armoring, the other calls it the 'ego explosion'. I think it was the creation of Adam and their subsequent intermingling with homo Sapiens, who already populated the planet by that time (roughly 5500 BC).

      So, that is why I find how you speak of the ego and your 'homo sapiens' body the way you do, because that falls right in line with what I'm working on. I find that to be a really astute observation, and completely agree with you that unchecked the human ego would be our undoing.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Yeah, his observations were definitely more intriguing given his neuroscience perspective, and I appreciate those insights. Having two kinds of consciousness is similar to how I see it, with one being the construct of the physical brain, and the other being a spiritual self experiencing the material/finite world through a material/finite body. The same goes for his observations about time, which agrees with me, as well as the bit about the 'big bounce'. Kind of like lone77star said, this is something I've kept in the back of my mind since first reading it, not accepting it all with certainty, but more as something I find incredibly interesting and relevant to my own observations and leanings. I'm sure I'll eventually end up reading the book. it's been a while now since I read that interview and bits of it have stuck with me since.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Well, shucks, y'all. This is one of the most interesting conversations I've had in a long time. I just have to tell you both, a big Texas "Thanks!"

      AV, I agree that the "coincidence" of both guys using "fluctuation" to describe the "birth" of the universe as we know it, is interesting. It's not proof, exactly. What if one had used "fluctuation" and the other had used "vacillation?" Different spelling and root, but very similar meaning. They both could be tapping into the same universal, Jungian knowledge base, or they could be using the same mortal misperception of a higher Truth. Don't be skeptical of it, certainly. But don't accept it as absolute Truth, either (my recommendation, at least). Do accept it as a juicy relative truth worth holding onto for awhile.

      Fascinating, Headly, what you brought up about ego explosion. I wonder, though, if that scholarly "perception" is partly because of a lack of documentation prior to 4000 BC.

      According to Plato, Atlantis was very egotistical in its last days. A one-world government (then as now) would have been disastrous for individual free will and the ability to follow our conscience in matters of spirit. Atlantis a fantasy? Perhaps. But I've found proof of an Atlantis-like event changing all of Earth exactly when Plato said his fabled island was swallowed by the sea -- 3 events, each from a different scientific discipline, all coinciding 9620 BC.

      And then we have snippets of evidence like the mtDNA haplogroup X which exists in the Native Americans, in the West, and the Basques and Finns in the East. Plus all of them speaking agglutinative languages and a high tendency for matriarchal or egalitarian societies.

      Was Adam really created 4004 BC, or 5000 BC, or anywhere near that close to our own island of history?

      I discovered a biblical timeline very compatible with those of science. Ussher's 2348 BC for the Flood doesn't work, because the history we've discovered since Ussher tells us that there were too many people on Earth at that time, both before and after that date.

      But one other date from science seems to agree quite nicely with the new biblical date for the flood -- 27,970 BC. Why? Because it identifies the "daughters of man" who gave rise to the _reason_ for the Flood.

      If violence, wickedness and a corruption of flesh were the reasons for the Flood, then they could not have been the garden variety versions of these things, because the Flood supposedly cured humanity of them! Otherwise, God would never have promised never again to use the Flood. Simple.

      So, what were these "special" versions of violence, wickedness and corruption of flesh? Perhaps they were impediments to God's plan. What is God's plan? To get His children back. And because God is not Homo sapiens, His children are not either; they only "drive" Homo sapiens bodies. Why would God need us to inhabit human bodies? Easy answer: to build civilization to give us the opportunity to have discussions like this very one.

      So, what could've threatened civilization? What special kind of violence, wickedness and corruption of flesh could do that? Again, easy answer: genetic pollution, so that "man" could no longer build civilization. Unthinking violence, unthinking wickedness and sex with a different species. The "daughters of man" were similar enough for modern scientists to call them "man," and attractive enough for Homo sapiens to mate with. The "sons of God" found them "hot" and wanted to "tie the knot."

      Who were these "daughters?" Homo neanderthalensis died out 28,000 BC (a near-perfect match for the new biblical date for the Flood).

      How did I come up with this timeline? It takes 6 hubs to discuss this -- my "Genesis" series. If you get a chance, please start at the beginning. Starting in the middle doesn't help nearly as much.

      If this new biblical timeline is Truth (or even close to it), then Adam was "created" (genetically engineered, evolved, created from nothingness, who knows?) 10,434,130 BC -- smack dab in the middle of the Miocene epoch, when Giants roamed the Earth -- herbivores who made full-grown modern elephants look like miniature puppies.

      Talk about coincidences: Edgar Cayce said nearly a hundred years ago that Noah's Flood occurred 28,000 BC (coinciding with one of the three upheavals of Atlantis) and Adam (humanity) had a meeting 10.5 million years ago. Both rounded dates within 1% of the dates found in Genesis. True? It needs corroboration. How about some human bones ten million years old? Anthropologists have yet to dig up every bone that hasn't been destroyed by nature.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      Ah, lone77star, you peak my interest with things like Plato noting the egotistical behavior of the inhabitants of Atlantis and other things involving ego versus our homo sapiens body, but you lose me on the timeline. I think you're very much on the right track conceptually, but the timeline you're referring to doesn't work for multiple reasons. The most glaring is the bit I referred to in an earlier post about your timeline placing Abraham's lifespan as being thousands of years before either the Sumerians or the Egyptians existed, though it's said that his father was from the Sumerian city of Ur and that he had dealings with an Egyptian pharaoh.

      However, the rest of what you're talking about from what I can tell is very much on point with what I'm trying to convey in these hubs. That ego explosion most definitely happened around 4000 BC and it happened in that same region that the events of Genesis are said to have taken place. That date is not based on documentation or any kind, it's based on verifiable behavioral changes in humans. Before that date no graves were larger than anyone else's, people were not buried with prized possessions, art work didn't depict violence of any kind, and settled communities were not built with defensive walls. After that date, however, that all changed dramatically. Human history between 4000 and 3000 BC is noted as being incredibly violent and volatile.

      For more information on this I recommend a book called 'The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era' by Steve Taylor. I think you'll find it infinitely fascinating.

      "the prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolution...despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic." -Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian

      "There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gather era. Graves don't contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns aren't situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era

      "The thousand years or so immediately preceding 3000 BC were perhaps more fertile in inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century AD" - V. Gordon Childe, Archaeologist and Philologist

      "a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics, and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself." - Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      @Headly, thanks for the continuing feast of ideas.

      I can agree that the "Age" of Abraham on the new timeline poses a problem from one viewpoint, but there is still so much we don't know about prehistory.

      Does the 7,000 year timeline span for "Abraham" have anything to do with the individual named Abraham? I don't know.

      The Egyptians, in some of their timelines, professed to have a history that spanned some 30+ thousand years. Each of their "god-kings" could've been dynasties, instead of individuals.

      If some of the biblical timeline was coded ages of tribes instead of individuals, where did the individual stories come into play? That I don't know, yet.

      The current "experts" have their ideas, but they also ignore a great deal of evidence that civilization may be far older. Places like Gobekli Tepe, for instance -- 9500 BC -- only a century after Plato's lost Atlantis. Will we find that the "Ur" of Abraham was in a different location? Could it be that they used the name "Ur," because the real place was very "Ur"-like?

      There are still too many unknowns to say for certain.

      I don't know what all my "discovery" means, but it seems to mean something. The clue about Neanderthals being the "daughters" seems to fit on numerous levels. The reasoning behind the calculations point to a pattern that is suggested by the clues in Genesis 4 & 5 which reveal the pattern of the Kabbalah's "Tree of Life." Not only that, but the female and male paths in the Tree fit the sequence of names like a glove, including the skipped "Enoch" (because he was "taken"). Each path does not touch the same node twice, eliminating any possible ambiguity.

      But I'm not terribly attached to the timeline. Attached a little, yes. But even while researching it, I discarded it on a number of occasions, because it didn't entirely work (until I found the next clue).

      The problem with dismissing any idea too quickly is that, even though the reason for dismissing may seem compelling, is that dismissing without proof is too easy.

      I remember hearing about failure of National Geographic's testing of thermite to melt steel, and thus "proving" that 9/11 "Truthers" are wrong. And I think they used something like 175 lbs of thermite.

      An engineer (Jonathan H. Cole) performed an experiment in his back yard with 1.5 lbs of thermite and not only melted steel, but proved that both vertical and horizontal columns could be cut.

      It's all about motivation. Those who are motivated not to see, will never find. That's why I hold onto my "theories" lightly, so that new data or ideas won't be missed.

      And that's why I like discussing these things with intelligent folks like yourself, because I might just learn something new.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      lone77star,

      Same here. Discussions much like this one have led to some of my biggest realizations. I would actually be very interested to hear your thoughts if you were to consider the timeline I'm specifying given your knowledge base. There's some key things you've spoken about that tell me you're on much the same path as I am, because you seem to key in on many of the same key aspects. Your associations between namesakes and Shem/Ham/Japheth is one, the way you talk about ego versus our homo sapiens body is another, as well as when you refer to ancient writings like those of Plato and what they describe.

      We actually know quite a bit about the Egyptians through archaeology. We know for certain that their history doesn't go that far back. There were settled communities along the Nile, but nothing that resembled what came together around 3500 BC or so. There were earlier large settlements following the discovery of agriculture in northern Mesopotamia, like Catal Huyuk (7,500 to 5,700 BC) in Turkey and the Lepenski Vir settlement (dating back to 7,000 BC), but humans in these settlements behaved in much the same way as humans all throughout the hunter-gatherer era. It's those first Sumerian (pre-flood) city-states where we see the first signs of centralized coordination of labor and the first signs of social stratification, with a ruling class who organized and called the shots and a working class to work the fields and do the labor. Then the same behaviors turned up elsewhere, and spread out from there.

      If there's any literal truth to Genesis then Adam and his family could be seen as a new species not unlike what you're describing with homo sapiens and neanderthal. If God actually did create Adam separate, and if he and his family actually did live for centuries, then to homo sapiens they'd seem immortal, or god-like. Every civilization around the Mediterranean, once written stories began to appear (about 2700 BC and later), claimed that there were immortal beings in their ancient past who were human in form, male and female, moody and unpredictable, and who mated with humans. What if they're actually talking about Adam and his family? If Adam's descendants actually passed on this new ego/free will/knowledge of good and evil genetically, that would explain stories like what you mentioned with Plato writing about Atlantis, as well as all those stories talking about a golden age before humans were violent and materialistic.

      Here's a quick listing to give you an idea of the rough timeline and how things like Gobekli Tepe fit into the picture if there's any validity to it. I would be interested to hear your thoughts if you were to apply your same ideas and knowledge to this timeline....

      Gobekli Tepe (9500 BC)

      * No one lived there

      * Genetic testing of wheat confirms this is the region agriculture was first discovered

      * This site dates back to hunter-gatherer era

      * Gen1:29 depicts God showing humans (pre-Adam) seed-bearing plants that yield other seed-bearing plants

      Ubaid Culture (5500 to 4000 BC)

      * First Sumerian (pre-flood) city of Eridu first established around 5300 BC

      * Gen4:17 says Cain built a city

      * Sumerians say they were taught civilization by immortal beings who physically lived in the temples of the city-states

      * Ubaid culture ended abruptly. At least in the case of Ur, it was in direct relation to a flood

      Babel and the confusing of languages (3900 BC)

      * Right between the Ubaid and Uruk cultures came the 5.9 kiloyear event which transformed the Sahara into a desert for the last time and actually did cause large human migrations like what's described in Gen11.

      * In the centuries following those mass migrations, multiple civilizations formed, each independently, and each with their own unique language. (Sumer, Egypt, Indus Valley Culture, Akkad, etc).

      Uruk Culture (3800 BC to 3100 BC)

      * Sumerian city of Uruk established around 3800 BC

      * Gen10:10 says Nimrod's kingdom included Babel (Eridu) and Erech (Uruk)

      * Both Genesis and Sumerian King's List say Uruk built not long after flood

      * Genesis and Sumerians refer to king/founder of Uruk as a 'mighty hunter'

      ... and of course not long after comes Abraham, just in time for Sumer to exist, including Ur, and for Egypt to be coming together as a civilization, around the middle of that 4th millennium BC.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      I'm delighted with the idea of considering your timeline. I love being surprised with a new discovery.

      Sometimes, a cherished belief plunges into dust when new discoveries prove it to be invalid or incomplete. It also proves interesting when former discoveries are overturned in favor of older ideas that the discovery had only apparently invalidated. Attachments only keep us from moving on to new things.

      But not all new things are valuable. So, I recommend restraint and humility, always (and I'm still practicing on those; not yet perfect).

      Yes, I agree that we already know quite a bit about Egyptians through archaeology. But do traditional Egyptologists have it all right? Could Graham Hancock be right, instead, at least on some issues? Was the Valley Temple far older than the Pyramids at Giza? Could the vertical erosion on the Sphinx be signs of heavy rains 8,000 years ago, before the final desertification of the Sahara?

      When you say, "We know for certain," I have to disagree. You're stopping the conversation dead in its tracks. You're implying that anyone else is immediately wrong for suggesting differently. I suspect that you did not intend to have this effect.

      To argue that Egyptian history could not have gone back further, because of the current evidence we have, is a clear argument-to-ignorance-type logical fallacy. Please take the time to understand this type of logical fallacy. It will help so very much in eliminating muddy thinking. And if you ever catch me doing it, you can remind me.

      The sheer size of the Gobekli Tepe site (9500 BC) indicates that it was not some hunter-gatherer's wild inspiration. The size of the stones, the intricate details of the carvings, all indicate a high degree of civilized nature.

      When you say the "first signs of social stratification," you might want to qualify it with "the first known signs." That's the thing about the unknown and future discovery. The current view of prehistory is based only on incomplete data. Even history itself is colored by the selective tidbits of what is discovered, and by the prejudices of the recorders and the readers.

      I've never suggested that Adam, or any of the patriarchs, lived for centuries. I've always had a problem with that idea, even with my grandfather's sermons.

      ---------------------------

      Timeline:

      So far, researchers think no one lived at Gobekli Tepe, but they've only excavated a small percentage of it. Their assumptions could be proven false.

      Saying that the "site dates back to hunter-gatherer era," prejudices the discussion. It assumes that these were hunter-gatherers and that only hunter-gatherers existed during this era. Assumptions are okay, but we should not be too attached to them.

      Even scientific "law" should never be called such, because it blinds those who come afterward. We should always question authority. Newton's "laws" were in question when Einstein developed Relativity. He found that those "laws" did not apply in all cases. They were imperfect.

      You say "Gen1:29 depicts God showing humans (pre-Adam) seed-bearing plants that yield other seed-bearing plants." Interesting interpretation. Personally, I look at all of Genesis 1 as perpendicular to the space-time continuum -- outside of time. I look at it as the blueprint or template for creation. God's "day of rest" gave that blueprint its physicality or persistence. At least this is my interpretation based on some experience with creation and miracles. The nature of creation seems to be "Idea" and the "Resting from Idea." If this is true, God's "day of rest" began 13.7 billion years ago, or perhaps even longer ago. I still have a rough time visualizing time as "finite but unbounded."

      Placing Gen4:17 on your timeline as you do is very traditional. A lot about that makes sense, but it's not the only possibility.

      The same with Babel and Nimrod.

      And then along came Abraham.

      Yes, your timeline makes a great deal of sense, but it's only one of many possibilities. In the realm of unknowns and artifacts yet to be dug up, there may be a myriad of other possibilities.

      Like "conspiracy theories," not every theory of possibilities can prove helpful. But holding an openness to other possibilities can prove extremely helpful, should the current, accepted theory prove dead wrong.

      Further complicating the situation, the individual Abraham may well have existed in the 4th millennium BC, and the biblical "tribe of Abraham" that lived 7,000 years may have existed at a completely different time.

      ------------------------------

      Additional Comments:

      Holding only to a theory based on existing data (excluding myth, legend and the like), you may have a safe idea that grudgingly gives up its secrets, and usually only with new discoveries.

      Taking a more holistic approach, though, might give one a more predictive theory -- something that yields possible clues that lead to new answers. For instance, the new biblical timeline I discovered, yielded a date that revealed the identity of the "daughters of man" who threatened God's plan. It implied that humans and Neanderthals mated and that such mating messed up the genetic base of Homo sapiens, and threatened the future possibility of civilization. Sure enough, anthropologists have discovered human-Neanderthal hybrids. Scientists have also discovered that Neanderthals likely had the power of speech, but that it was far poorer than that of their human cousins. And geneticists have discovered faint traces of Neanderthal genetics in some human DNA.

      Are alien, human abductions part of God's plan to spot-check for genetic drift? Are they ensuring that there's not too much Neanderthal building up at any one location? I'm not sure I believe in alien abductions, but I hold open the possibility that they exist.

      Cecrops, founder of Athens, was said to have been half man and half snake. What if my interpretation of other "snake" sightings is valid? Greek for snake is "drakon," the root of "dragon." Could Cecrops merely have been the captain of his dragon air ship, who popped the hatch and appeared before the crowd of his soldiers and local natives. The natives saw half of a man and a full, golden snake, and the legend was born.

      Anthropologists have long thought that the myth of centaurs was based on the primitive perception of human riders on horseback. When you've never seen such a thing, before, your mind can trick you into missing certain details -- like the legs of the human draped over the sides of the horse, and the head of the horse, because the human head is so distracting.

      When we look at Cecrops this way, the other myths of golden dragons take on an entirely new meaning. Cadmus and the founding of Thebes where a golden dragon destroyed his men, Medea flying away from Athens on a golden dragon, and the Egyptian merchant-prince who was nurtured back to health by a shape-shifting dragon who also appeared, at times, as a human.

      Not every detail in ancient myth may have been based on direct reality. Some of those details may have been added by storytellers to make the story seem more plausible or more entertaining. Like the fact that Cadmus brought writing to Greece from Phoenicia. But Cadmus may have come far earlier than writing, and a later Greek who loved the story of Cadmus thought that since both Cadmus and writing came from Tyre, both events must have been simultaneous. An assumption that may not be true, but with which we all now live.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      I appreciate what you're saying, and you're right that we shouldn't be too quick to swallow what is accepted nowadays as the truth about any given topic as being absolute, and that we should be open to changes as new information becomes available. Like you said, the picture we have today is based on what little we've found. Gobekli Tepe is a prime example of something that doesn't quite fit the currently accepted framework for how and when things happened. I agree that it's important to leave your mind open to new information.

      Your statements about a more holistic approach and a theory being predictive, that's what this has been for me and why I'm so certain. This timeline applied to the idea that humans existed before Adam has yielded more than I've been able to commit to writing. Numerous discoveries have come through looking at the evidence through this lens. It doesn't necessarily change history, it just puts it in a context that makes sense, and makes sense out of the progression that's led to the world as we know it now. Like the spread of civilization and how 'civilized' humans differ from indigenous/tribal humans. It aligns science, history, the biblical stories, and even the various mythologies of the world into one cohesive story.

      Just keep this timeline in the back of your mind. From what I can see your instincts seem to be very right in a lot of ways, but I think the timeline leads you astray. It requires a lot of redefinition and a lot of 'what ifs' and deciphering cryptic clues and that sort of thing. The timeline I'm suggesting requires none of that and falls right in line with the framework of history as it's understood today. It even makes sense where the current framework does not in regards to discoveries like Gobekli Tepe. It explains things that are known, but not yet understood, offering reasonable explanations across the board.

      I feel like you're very much on the right track, and I expect to hear all kinds of interesting insights from you if you give this due consideration and take a good hard look at things through this lens.

    • cam8510 profile image

      Chris Mills 4 years ago from St. Louis, MO until the end of June, 2017

      HeadlyvonNoggin, I have a fb page which I have dedicated to the writings of freelance writers. I share interesting articles which I find around the web with the members. I just posted this hub and thought I'd let you know.

      Chris

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 years ago from Texas

      That's fantastic, Chris! Thank you.

    • profile image

      JRfromMilton 3 years ago

      There is a lot to learn if we are willing to accept that science and Christianity can embrace one another. There is a new book I recently read called To Adam about Adam by Jim Frederick that makes a great argument as to how science and the Bible can embrace one another as a part of God's plan. Many of the points covered in the book are very similar to the ones that you raise. Except he develops a good case that the two creations (Genesis 1 and 2) both occurred as a part of God's paln. The author works through Genesis step by step to show how science supports creation, like you did. The book builds a good case as to how the basis for sin (being self-centered) originated as a part evolutionary history centered on the fittest will survive. He then discusses in an informal way as how the Old Testament is a series of lessons as to what can not defeat sin, whereas the New Testament describes the only solution. I believe this book can help those of us who have often wonder whether science and the Bible are opposing forces (or not). For me the debate is over!!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Thank you, JR, for sharing that. I'm intrigued by some of Frederick's ideas and will have to look into it further. I think the most important thing here is to keep our minds open to the possibilities. I think you're very right that there's a lot to learn when you allow for the possibility that science and God are not mutually exclusive. I know I've found much deeper insights through this viewpoint by simply using the scientific data and explanations about our history as context to flesh out the stories being described. St. Augustine believed God reveals His nature to us through both the 'book of scripture' and the 'book of nature', and he said that biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge. I whole-heartedly agree.

    • profile image

      Tom 3 years ago

      Very interesting theory, but I have a question that hopefully you can answer. After the flood, Noah, his wife and sons and their wives all leave the ark and are told to be fruitful and multiply. We then get a long list of their descendants. Even if they only populated Mesopotamia and the countries around the Black Sea (what do you think of the Black Sea deluge hypothesis by the way?), wouldn't they then as descendants of Adam and Eve be a different species from other humans? If we then take this down to Abraham and his line who would then give rise to the Israelites, and since we know that humans have been around for over a hundred thousand years, wouldn't the Jews be a different species from us? Yes- I realise how Anti-Semitic that sounds! Please don't think that I am though! But my point is that even if you allow for 'cross breeding' this doesn't explain our obvious similarities with Native Americans and the various indigenous populations. After all we do share a Mitochondrial Eve and Chromosomal Adam as our first ancestors. Does this damage your theory?

      Really looking forward to hearing back from you, God Bless

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 3 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Headly, I just finished publishing my most recent book, "The Bible's Hidden Wisdom: God's Reason for Noah's Flood." It contains my own analysis of these things. I'd love to get your input.

      For a limited time, the book is free in Kindle format:

      http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IN4556E

      I'm also looking for Amazon comments on the book, if you have the time.

      Anyway, I enjoyed looking over your thoughtful article again. Good stuff.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Tom,

      There is definitely a fine line here where speaking of a particular species or race being somehow different, where you can easily tread into what can sound like anti-semetic themes, so I definitely understand your caution.

      No, this does not damage this theory. In this view, this 'different species' would not be specific to just the Israelites. All of Noah's sons descend from the same line. And they all lived exceptionally long lives. The survivors of the flood would have been dispersed into a world already populated by natural evolved humans because the flood would not need to be global. In this light, all of the civilizations that came about in that age came from this. From the descendants of Noah being flushed from Mesopotamia toward the lands along river banks, due to the Sahara being transformed back into an arid desert by the 5.9 kiloyear event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event). This event is what I believe the Babel story is describing. This would mean that all the people that formed Sumer, Egypt, Greece, Rome, all the Mediterranean civilizations, came from this same event. Numerous independent civilizations, each with their own unique culture and language.

      This would mean that all of us that come from "civilized" cultures descend from both naturally evolved humans (Mitochondrial Eve) and from descendants of Adam/Eve. The indicator of cross-breeding between naturally evolved humans and descendants of Adam/Noah is the sharply decreasing ages. There would be no decrease in lifespan if they only bred within Adam/Eve's line. Because the lifespans continued to decrease after Babel this would indicate that cross breeding with naturally evolved, or "mortal", humans continued.

      As for the "Black Sea deluge hypothesis", its estimate as happening around 5600BC places it about 1600 years too early for the timeline I'm postulating. The flood, according to my timeline, would be around 4000BC and would mark the abrupt end to the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Hey lone77star,

      First off, congratulations on your latest book. I've got it downloaded to my phone. Give me some time to read it and I'll be sure to reach out to you at some point and share my thoughts. Probably in the Amazon comments section.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 3 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Thanks, Headly. I sure do appreciate any feedback. Learning is a lifelong thing.

    • Castlepaloma profile image

      Castlepaloma 3 years ago from Saskatchewan, Canada

      Then we must note the first Adam and Eve were Black.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      That's entirely possible. However, if there is any truth to the Adam/Eve clan being one and the same as the Sumerian gods that the Sumerians were describing, the Sumerians named themselves. Their name actually means 'black-headed ones'. Because the Sumerians believed they were created by these gods to do manual labor for them, and because so much of what the Sumerians did were always in some way in relation to these gods, that name makes me think their physical appearance must have been something that would make a bunch of dark-haired people distinct from them.

    • profile image

      Tom 3 years ago

      Headly, thanks for the response but I'm not sure it entirely answers the problem. Yes, I wouldn't doubt that Noah and his descendants, especially after the mass desertification, would be wide spread across Asia and even America if they travelled from Russia to Alaska. But how does it account for the Mitochondrial Eve and Chromosomal Adam of 100,000+ years ago?

      Actually, I might answer my own question and you tell me if it holds. If this cross breeding does occur then we would still be descended from an early human wouldn't we? And this is what we find. Would the introduction of stronger genes at any point disrupt those findings? Perhaps not.

      Also, I have quite a lengthy lexical analysis of your Surface Perspective model of Genesis that I think you'll find very interesting once it's done.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      You're exactly right, Tom. Cross-breeding means all of us 'civilized' humans descend from both naturally evolved humans (the humans created at the end of Gen1) and Adam/Eve. Mitoconrdrial Eve would just be on the other branch of our collective family tree.

      The way I see this happening is after the flood when Noah and his sons and extended family are dispersed by desertification, they found their way to already settled lands along river banks. Recall they were building a city and a tower at Babel when they were dispersed. So after dispersal, they continued to do the same, only then it was the beginnings of Egypt and the Indus Valley culture in India and Akkad to the north. All the Medeterranian civilizations would have been kick started by this dispersal. With these sons of Noah continuing to live for centuries for multiple generations, these would be who inspired the mythologies of the greeks, the romans, etc.

      It all fits in history and offers some explanations behind things that are still a mystery to us. This is the era that modern humanity emerged. I think the story of Genesis is explaining what happened. What set the modern human world in motion.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Also, Tom, I forgot to say, I'm looking forward to seeing your analysis. Let me know when you have it completed.

    • profile image

      Tom 3 years ago

      My original complaint defeated, your theory has my support! But is there another great flood candidate from around the period you give of 4000 BC?

      The analysis is very nearly done, I should hope to post it in perhaps an hour.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Tom,

      Yeah, there is. At the site of Ur, there was an occupation of this land during the Ubaid period (5500-4000BC). There is a silt deposit in the layers there that indicates a flood that literally caps off Ubaid artifacts. It appears that this flood ended the Ubaid occupation in that area.

      Because the only ones the flood would be intended for would be those who were the result of interbreeding between naturally evolved humans and descendants of Adam/Eve, the flood would not have to be global. A regional flood would have accomplished this as these descendants would still be in a rather small area.

      In Gen1, these humans were given very specific commands that would take numerous generations to carry out; 1) be fruitful and multiply, 2) fill/subdue the earth, 3)establish dominance in the animal kingdom. Homo sapiens actually accomplished all of this between roughly 70000BC and 20000BC. In the context of the Genesis story, it doesn't make sense that this would be talking about Adam and Eve as the Adam/Eve story makes it clear that they were able to behave outside of God's will. So how could the humans in Gen1 be expected to carry out these commands if they were capable, as Adam/Eve were, of behaving contrary? If Adam/Eve were the beginning of the humans in Gen1, could God have looked on all He made and deemed it "good"?

      That's what I think the flood was for. God introduced free will into the world through Adam. A free will as in a will apart from God's. A will that is capable of behaving contrary to God's. This intermingling introduced this capability into naturally evolved humans. Only with free will can humans be "wicked"....

      Gen6:1-4 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

      This right here says that humans are mortal, and only live 120 years. Just one chapter after explaining that Adam and his descendants live for centuries. It's following this that the lifespans sharply decrease. I think this is because these long living descendants of Adam were breeding with "mortal" humans.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "Archaeologists have discovered evidence of an early occupation at Ur during the Ubaid period. These early levels were sealed off with a sterile deposit of soil that was interpreted by excavators of the 1920s as evidence for the Great Flood of the book of Genesis and Epic of Gilgamesh. It is now understood that the South Mesopotamian plain was exposed to regular floods from the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers, with heavy erosion from water and wind, which may have given rise to the Mesopotamian and derivative Biblical Great Flood beliefs.[7] The further occupation of Ur only becomes clear during its emergence in the third millennium BC (although it must already have been a growing urban center during the fourth millennium)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur

    • profile image

      Tom 3 years ago

      Alright, it's finished. I'm pasting it to the other page now, and it's very, very long. Please enjoy!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Thank you, Tom, for the excellent info. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. It's taken me a little while to digest all of this. I think your analysis in regards to when (bara) is used is interesting. Namely because of where specifically it is used. As I attempt to highlight in my write-up, much of what's described in the creation account can be understood to be the causal result of what came before. Or what would have "comes to pass" (hayah). For example, the same laws that shaped and formed the heavens and earth, are the very same conditions that created the seas, the atmosphere, the land, etc. It's as if these things are the 'natural' result of that first creation. No interference or need to override what's already set in motion. For the next example to be the creation of humans is interesting. It's like this was a 'change' in the process. An edit. Something that would not have 'naturally' occurred otherwise, without direct intervention.

      I plan on going over this in more detail, so I may have more to add later. But one of the things I was hoping to get through bouncing these ideas off of others, was an analysis of the text by people who know this stuff better than I to see if it adds or takes away any legitimacy to how I'm reading it.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      The first 2 chapters of Genesis have nothing to do with creation. I can prove this if any are willing to listen.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      I'm willing to listen. I'm intrigued. Please explain.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      "In the beginning" is the English translation (at least by the translators) of one Hebrew word…which is the first word of Genesis. The actual translation of this word would be "In the first order, in the first rank, in the first time". By "actual" I mean, if you saw/read/heard this word in any context in Hebrew life, you would understand it to have 3 meanings…those 3 I just mentioned. The translators had to choose something, so they choose a phrase that sort of encompasses (in their minds) those 3 aspects. You can see how "in the beginning" could possibly be OK. However, it is also limiting….and worse yet, it detracts from the original meaning. Here's at least one way it detracts & colors the original word. Let's say you were coming to my house for a visit. And along the way, a police officer stopped you for speeding. Let's also say in my house I have & listen to a police scanner, and I hear my friend HVNoggin has been stopped for speeding. When you arrive, I inquire, "How fast were you going when you got stopped by the cops?". You reply, "Well, the first time I got stopped, etc….." By you saying this, I immediately conclude you had been stopped more than once…I'm not sure how many times, but I believe it to be more than once. So, too, this opening word of the Bible. In the very first word of Genesis, I am told by implication there are more than one "order", "rank", & "time". At this point, by using only the Bible as my source, I don't know how many o's, r's, or t's, but I do know there are more than one. (that's almost 300 words on a very elementary explanation of just the first word of scripture. Are you interested in going on?)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "In the first time" sounds right to me. It's the first day, or the first age, of creation. The 'beginning'. I'm not sure how this goes back to your original point that the first two chapters of Genesis have nothing to do with creation. "In the first time" God created the heavens and the earth. This seems to me to still be consistent.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      Well, we've not even gotten to the second word yet,,,and I've not even begun to address of my original comment. So far, I am presenting the opening steps of a foundation. Actually, we're not told about the "first day" until verse 5. Verse 1 is referring to the "first time".

      But let's consider this……You are saying the Bible is saying God created the heavens & earth, in the First Day. If this is so, what did He do on the other days? The view that this first "time" is the same as the first "day", negates the other meanings of the word….How does one reconcile the other definitions? What then is the "first Rank"?….or the "first Order"? In actuality, there was a First Time & Rank & Order. But in order to understand this, we need to study the next words of verse 1.

      Shall we continue with "God"?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Go for it.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      Excellent!

      Let's start with an utterly silly analogy. I have a pet goose! He's most amazing! He sings! He's famous throughout the county. His fame reaches your ears. You call to make an appointment to hear my amazing pet goose sing. I am happy to oblige. You ask, "What song will the be performed?" I reply, "The geese will be singing Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody". Instantly, this question almost leaps out of your mouth! "There are more than ONE?" You may not know how many, but by me saying "geese", you know there are more than one.

      So also with this second word of Genesis. I was being somewhat gentle with the translators when I mentioned they choose the phrase "in the beginning". They tried to do well, however, they leaned on their own understanding, (Is there a particular verse that comes to mind that discourages this?), and this "understanding" clouded & colored the actual meaning. They complete obliterated the "number" concept of the word.

      However, when it comes to "God", they went into it with a preconceived notion, and attempted to bend the Bible to fit that notion. The Hebrew (H) word translated as "God" is Elohiym. "El" is the the H word for "God". "el" is the H word for "god". "Elohiym" is the H word for "Gods" PLURAL! By rights, they should have said, "In the first order, rank, & time the "GODS" etc. This, however, would be viewed as heresy, as all of them believed & taught there is only one God. So they changed it. If, however, you go into the Bible with no preconceived agenda, the correct way to translate this word would be "Gods". At this point, we don't exactly know how many, because, again, we are using only the Bible as our reference,,,but we know by the use of the word "Elohiym", there are more than one.

      This brings us to the 3rd word. "Created". This is the H word, "bar-a". To save time & space, let us forego a lengthy H description of this word. A short definition, tho, would be "Born of - the Father". For example, "Bar" is "born of", and "a" is Father (Abba). Example: "Simon BAR Jonah"...Simon was fathered Jonah. "BAR-Abbas", in essence, was named as an orphan. He had no first name…which could take us on an especially interesting study of Easter, and who "the people" chose rather than Jesus.

      The concept here is that something was "born". "Create" sort of works,,,for if you have a child, you have created it, and you have also caused it to be "born". However, if you make a clay pot, you wouldn't say you "caused it to be born",,,Rather, it was "created". The 3rd word of Genesis has a definite "born" quality to it.

      So what was born? The heavens & the earth. (& please note the small "h" & small "e"..this will be important later.) Let's look at these definitions: "heavens" is "that which is aloft", and "earth" is "that which is to be firm".

      Now, of course, the sun & the moon & the planets & and everything else out in space are "aloft"….sort of. I mean, to pinpoint them, you have to look "up". But wouldn't you say the moon & the planets are also "firm"? I mean, we have samples of the moon, and they are rocks….which are very firm. Could we find better words for "heavens" & "earth"? What might be another word for "that which is aloft"? Where would you say God the Father lives? Most people would say "UP"…."in Heaven" (capital H). And how might you describe God the Father? (again using the Bible as our reference). "God is Spirit". So, "UP" in "Heaven" is Spiritual…."That which is aloft" is Spiritual. The Spiritual Realm. "That which is to be firm" is then easily discerned. It is the Physical Realm.

      Genesis 1:1 should read thusly: "In the first order, rank, & time, THE GODS birthed/fathered the spiritual realm & the physical realm"…and does, if you disregard the errors injected by the translators.

      At this point, you will either call me crazy or start to see that the Bible isn't as confusing as we have been led to believe. We have only, however, scratched the surface. I would encourage you to continue. I will share more if you like. But as always, I would suggest one keeps an open heart, and after we have looked at this and the next verses, you would go to the Lord and ask Him if what I'm saying is true.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well Jim, I certainly can't call you crazy because I've been down similar paths attempting to decipher what's what word for word. And I am also critical of the English translations.

      If you read my hubs then you'll know I have a rather unique take on things. My alternate take also suggests some problems with the translations. A primary part of that is recognizing that Adam was not the first human ever created, but rather was a being created in an already populated world. A world populated by 'mortal humans' who didn't live the length of lives that Adam and his descendants did. That's the primary reason why the first bit about 'Elohim' jumps out at me. As I'm sure you're familiar, there are other 'gods' spoken about in early Genesis. If beings like Adam and his family were actually created as described in an already populated world, they and all of their offspring would seem 'god-like' in comparison. So it makes sense to me that this text would refer to multiple gods, as that is who they most likely would have gotten an accurate telling of the creation account from. These 'gods' who walked and talked with God.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      I appreciate you not considering me crazy. :) We have some definite points of agreement! I do not believe Adam was the first "being" either. And this is an important point concerning Gen 1: 2,3. And there is an important explanation in the next few verses regarding "gods".

      It always amazes me when I tell someone there are "Gods" and also "gods". They scoff & bluster. They say I'm a heretic, and I'm not taking the Bible at it's word or "obvious" meaning. Then I ask them what the 1st commandment is. This usually stops them in their tracks. Now, all of a sudden, THEY don't take the Bible at it's "obvious" meaning….primarily because it doesn't fit with their preconceived notion. It's an old problem.

      I am more than happy to keep typing if you want to keep reading.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      PS….using the Bible as the only source, it can also be proved (via the book of John) Adam wasn't the first being. It can't be done in one short paragraph, tho. :)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well you definitely peaked my interest with the bit about proving Adam wasn't the first being through the book of John. To test my theory I often bounce this idea off of people more knowledgeable than myself of the bible to ensure it doesn't conflict. I've, so far, found nothing but further clarity through this view. Are you referring to the bit about Jesus being the 'last Adam'? I know that's part of the Paulinean view, but not sure it's from the book of John.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Don't worry Jim, I've been called a heretic too. People tend to latch on to ideas and translations that were formed long before we had the amount of knowledge we have now, and they feel that letting go of their particular view is somehow a sign of their faith slipping. So they can get protective and defensive about it.

    • profile image

      JIm Olsen 3 years ago

      I concur (regarding to people latching on to old ideas….but I find them to get those ideas from their pastors.) I would certainly like to compare notes sometime….A lot of points unfortunatley must be left by the way-side in communicating like this. But having said that, let's touch on this briefly….

      In John 8, Jesus is talking to the pharisees. They are saying their father is Abraham. Now the first question is, are they telling the truth? Yes!..in the physical sense. However, another bit of truth is Jesus never spoke with the "physical" view in mind. Many examples come to mind….here's one: The little girl who died…Jesus said, "she's not dead, only sleeping"…of course she was dead…..But here's a clue….Jesus apparently views death as sleep….but as usual, I'm drifting off the main point :)

      Back to the pharisees…..Jesus said, "You are not of Abraham,,,you are of your father, the devil. He was a a murderer from the beginning!" He, no doubt, is speaking spiritually. But here's the key. We know from Isaiah 14 & Ezekiel 28 that at one time, the devil Lucifer was perfect. So obviously, Jesus wasn't referring to Lucifer's beginning. What is another really big "beginning" in the Bible? We have, of course, already referred to it in our posts. "In the beginning"..To be fair, however, and in the light of our earlier posts, let's use the word "origin". But notice how Jesus says it…..He didn't say the devil was a murderer "in" the beginning/origin….He said "from" the beginning/origin….from the end of that point on. In essence, Lucifer was a murderer from & including Genesis 1:2….but not Genesis 1:1. What is the obvious question? WHO DID HE MURDER? There must have been someone around at Genesis 1:2. And that "someone" was an entire race of "humans" (perhaps not in the sense that we know them, but some type). They ALL were murdered by Lucifer, as the Bible says, "he smote the people with one continual stroke".

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Uhh, Jim, you lost me on that one. That's quite a bit to extrapolate from Jesus' wording here. Going into that kind of depth can lead to all kinds of conclusions that aren't necessarily true. To suggest that by this wording he's referring to some entire other race of humans is a stretch.

      See, in the way I read it, these verses at the beginning of Genesis 6 is the root of everything ...

      Gen6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      Now, according to Luke 3, in the eyes of the Jewish people of that age, everyone from Jesus to his father all the way back through David, Isaac, Abraham, all the way back to Noah, to Adam, were all 'sons of God'. So, the way I read Gen6 is that it's saying that the 'sons of God' were Adam and those 'of Adam'. 'Daughters of humans' were just that. Mortal in comparison, living only 120 years rather than centuries. Genesis 6 explains, in its explanation for why the flood was necessary, that the 'sons of God' (immortal sons of Adam) began to intermingle with mortal humans (daughters of humans).

      In the chapters that follow that explanation in Gen6 it shows a sharp decline in lifespans. I think this is because of what God said in Gen6, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      I think intermingling with 'naturally evolved' humans diluted 'God's spirit' which was given to Adam when God breathed the breath of life into him. In Ezra I think it is, it mentions how the priority of the Jewish people is to not dilute the 'holy seed'. So, in my view, the creation of Adam was God introducing a being into this world that has a 'free will', which I think is what the Eden story is illustrating. Adam and Eve were capable, unlike anything else in God's creation at the time, to behave contrary to God's will. Intermingling with 'mortal humans' introduced this capability into humanity. This is why I think it then says in Gen6 that humans became 'wicked' and why it says that God 'regretted' putting humans on the earth. He created humans in Gen1 that were the same 'image' and 'likeness' of Adam and his family, and because Adam's family was able to behave however they willed they were not in God's control like everything else. So, of their own free will, they began intermingling with mortal humans which introduced free will into humanity and gave them the capability to be 'wicked'.

      So, when Noah's descendants were dispersed throughout the world at Babel, I think the flood was only local and only meant for those created through this intermingling, so it only had to be in that region, though the entirety of the planet by that time was populated by humans. Just not humans with free will. So, this already populated world is the world that Noah's descendants were dispersed into. That's why I think the ages continued to decline. Because from that point on they continued intermingling with 'mortal' humans. This gave rise to the civilizations in Sumer and Egypt and the Indus Valley and beyond.

      So, basically, the story told in Genesis would be this. It's God working in an environment dominated by free will, and thus not entirely under His control. When God tests Abraham, He finds Abraham to be 'good stock' to breed from. So He tells Abraham that He will make his descendants many. So God makes this happen by interacting directly with the Israelites, giving them specific commands that tell them to breed within their own kind and such. I read this to be God creating Jesus through these interactions. Breeding him, so to speak.

      So the bit about not being 'of Abraham' I take to mean they descend from one of the other lines. Which were the result of free willed beings doing much like Eve did, listening to their own wants and not following God's will, so therefore being 'of Satan', so to speak.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      This sounds more like people comparing flour to crackers, hardtacks, and the all-too-common sliced bread. It is all the same crap, more or less.

      In fact, Headly's last comment reminded me of an old poem I once wrote that was entitled "Substance Abuse." I normally wouldn't copy & paste an old poem like this, but somehow I feel that it relates to the prior exchanges at hand:

      ‘Substance Abuse’

      Life finally hits your cranial structure, without the childishly free-spirited playtime; you are finally aware.

      It’s time to grow up now, even though you’re different than before; why can’t you fully share?

      Inseparable in spirits, even though you feel perpetually disjoined, you acclimate to your surroundings – in hopes to be adjoined.

      It doesn’t work out. Things don’t go right……

      Disfigured in thought and itching to rebel, a coincidental ’substance’ comes across your line of sight that compels.

      Is this a snare, perhaps; is this a shiny glare that beckons for your escape?

      Engrossed by it, you dive into this new type of life that seems to sing toward your life’s band…… Eccentric feelings take place, without the aimless joy of childhood or the responsibility of adulthood; mere ecstasy is at hand.

      Time went by so quick; what happened and what was that?

      I like this; want more; please, come back fast……

      The quick-fix and joy is no longer there……

      The platform for ’substance abuse’ is on; it is a separate course from hereon.

      Once rejected before, you have an artificial family, a fake network, and a feign zone.

      Even though you’re dejected, dispirited and crestfallen, you now have an addictive home.

      *You have ’substance abuse’ without substance.

      *You have integrity issues without an awareness of prior structure.

      What have you forgotten … or was it ever even there to start with?

      Essential nature, essence, substance ... what are you looking for?

      You know the answer, now dig within and find it……

      * Life is endless; cycling like the seasons and light as a feather, what is drifting can settle; what is sediment can be churned into refinement; what is unknown can be known. Together, we can enthrone.

      Side Note: Appreciate Nature’s Mysterious Ways, for we are all attached in one way or another: atomically to the universe, chemically to this Earth, and biologically to each other……

      ---End of poem.

      Ha! At any rate, I thought I'd change it up a bit and join the crowd by breaking out some poetic gobbledygook... LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      That's interesting IM. Some of the stuff you said there reminds me of a time in my life that was probably the most defining moment I've experienced. It happened in my late 20's, which apparently is pretty normal. Astrology types associate it with Saturn. I'm a big Tool fan and saw a correlation between what I was experiencing and what was being described in Tool's 'The Grudge'... "Saturn ascends, choose one or ten. Hang on or be humbled again."

      I later found out that Saturn's orbits take roughly 29.4 years. " It is believed by astrologers that, as Saturn "returns" to the degree in its orbit occupied at the time of birth, a person crosses over a major threshold and enters the next stage of life. With the first Saturn return, a person leaves youth behind and enters adulthood. With the second return, maturity. And with the third and usually final return, a person enters wise old age. These periods are estimated to occur at roughly the ages of 28-31, 56-60 and 84-90." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_return

      So, naturally, I'm curious. Were you maybe around the age 27 when you wrote this? In my experience it was like all I held to be my foundation was torn away, leaving me remake myself out of the pieces that were left. I thought I was losing it at the time. But later found out its apparently a transition that many go through at about the same age.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I don't know about any of that crazy stuff. Back when I worked straight midnights for over a decade or thereabouts, I'd often come home from work, drink a few beers and write all kinds of mini-rants, satirical non-sense, informative posts, miscellaneous ramblings and random poetry, etc. It just comes natural for me to play with words and emotions, and doing such things is even easier online when you have the time.

      Personally, as of now, I don't have the time for such things.

      As for the spiritual side of all of this, I was simply born that way via a divine memory, I suppose; ha! I have no choice... I couldn't be an atheist if I tried. I hope some of that makes sense. Oh, I'm glad you liked the poem. I'm sure I can find loads of others to share, but that (the substance abuse poem) was the most fitting for this comment field.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well, how crazy is it really? The correlation with Saturn could very well just be coincidence because of the length of its orbit. What if the mind also, like the body, goes through stages of maturity? Much in the same way the body sheds baby teeth, roughly around the same age for all, hits puberty roughly around the same age for all, etc. What if the psyche itself goes through stages of 'puberty' every 30 years or so? I was just curious if that's around the time in your life that you wrote that particular piece. I think it was this line in particular that got me to thinking that way ... "It’s time to grow up now, even though you’re different than before; why can’t you fully share?" Conjured a familiar feeling I had once.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I don't know about all of that Saturn-based gyration of spirituality stuff, but I'd definitely say that there are cycles and levels through various stages of enlightenment (and/or 'age of existence per soul' or whatever) albeit a more crude diction for such things would often be more appropriate on this K-3 planet; ha!

      At any insane rate, anytime a person throws out enough random verbiage, there are bound to be enough ambiguous terms to relate to the reader. When I get a bit more free time, I may follow the link you provided and check out what you are speaking about, though.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      The correlation to Saturn more has to do with its orbit being roughly the same length of time, so of course Saturn would be in the same region when it happens next. I don't think Saturn in any way causes this. But people in the past, observing behavior, correlate it with Saturn because of the similarity in timeline. What I'm more interested in is this maturing process of the mind. Correlating it with Saturn is more to recognize that it is this that those that wrote and spoke of it before are referring. The change people go through every 30 years or so.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Oh, so it is a cyclic fascination that you are speaking about? Every mind/brain/soul is different, but it is nice that some people try to pry a cycle upon a natural process that has complete individuality of the utmost divinity.

      Maybe the real concern relates to the percentage of life that actually feels the inner-workings of "the source" as opposed to the life that falls under the mechanics of robotics, talking rocks, or the automation of a nameless organic generator without reason. Yeah, same shit, just worded different. Ha-ha!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Human development is undoubtedly cyclical. We lose our baby teeth around the same age, begin to walk around the same age, and begin to speak and understand speech at around the same age. Speech in particular is a development of the mind. Why can't there be phases our mind goes through moving into each cycle of maturity?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I guess because I know too many people that have stayed in the same imbecilic/backward/redneck/hillbilly/moronic state of mind their entire life. Sort of like how some people have one speed, the cogwheels of their brain never change gears or rhythm or cycles. Sure, I'm sure some people have cycles of mental maturity later on in life, but it seems that too many people decline in their cognitive function throughout their life.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Yeah, I can't say the impact would be equal for everyone. In my own experience it was nothing short of traumatic. I had just met my now wife. When we met I had a good job with a good company and had just moved in with her. Just a handful of months after I moved in and we began to build a life together, I got laid off. I worked in the travel industry and this was in the months following 9/11. All of the sudden I was this child in an adult body contributing nothing and feeling like a leech. I remember days sitting at home while she was at work, pacing between the refridgerator, looking out the blinds, the peep hole, back to the fridge. And I was crying constantly. I never before in my life cried hardly at all. Now, a particular touching commercial could send me into a tailspin. I couldn't even carry on a normal conversation with my wife because I would just implode. I can't hardly even explain it. I thought for sure she would dump me because I was utterly useless. I couldn't find a job, was out of work for 13 straight months. I went from feeling pretty good about myself to feeling like a total waste of space. But out of that, during what I refer to as the rebuilding period, I became who I am today. I had always been an analytical thinker, but now it was different. I formed this all new philosophical outlook to myself and to life in general. It was after that that I kept noticing in songs and things I'd read others who described something similiar. And it always seemed to be in their late 20's/early 30's.

      I do think there is something to it happening, or at least being maybe a bit more traumatic, for certain kinds of people. People who, not to sound like a total douche here, but people who are more cerebral-dominate than others. People who have maybe built a cerebral concept of reality around them more than just a straight life-experience kind of thing, I guess. It was a philosophical breakdown. A complete collapse and rebuilding of who I am. I guess that's why I maybe saw something similar in you. I see some of myself in the way you write an the way you think.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      That's an interesting story. I was late getting to it due to an insanely busy schedule, but yeah, philosophical breakdowns can be crucial to a person's moving forward or whatever. I never really encountered a critical situation that re-invented myself or anything, but there did come a time that I began to question everything. The end result of it all, was what I already knew to begin with; cheers!

    • profile image

      Raymond kankomba 3 years ago

      Well, you guys are such great analysts!! I am one person who has always been at cross roads when it comes to believing the biblical explanation about the age of earth vs the scientific age, the flood, adam and Eve etc!!! there are times that I have thought about myself as more of a radical thinker because of the number of questions that I have regarding biblical provisions and their accuracy. I don't believe that the world is less than billions of years in age though i believe that its existence points to some kind of design. I also rubbished the flood issue when I was a teen because I didn't understand why a caring God would want to flood the entire earth just to get read of a few disgruntled humans at some place in the middle east. I also had many questions about putting animals of every kind into that Boat. Having read so much on your hubs really make my thinking feel like nothing. I love you guys keep writing the world is much a better place with your kind around.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Raymond,

      Thank you for that. The whole reason I do what I do is because I was at one time right where it sounds like you are. I found myself conflicted about many of these same things. And at one time I actually felt conflicted about being conflicted. Like my faith was slipping because I doubted the more traditional interpretations. I think it helped me when I realized a lot of the forefathers of religion thought much like I do. For example, St. Augustine is a revered thinker to both Catholics and reformists. And St. Augustine believed God reveals Himself to us through both "the book of scripture" and "the book of nature". In fact, there's a whole philosophy known as "natural theology" that's all about gaining wisdom concerning God through observing the natural world. Our modern "book of nature" is more filled with knowledge and information than was available to anyone before this age. So I believe its of the utmost importance to ground what we read in the bible in known history. Most of the traditional ways in which those stories are deciphered are done so by people long ago who didn't have all the information we have now. So it's important to reassess in light of modern knowledge....

      "Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge." - St. Augustine

    • profile image

      Tom 2 years ago

      Headly, I had been monitoring the other page for your response and so missed all the above! Since writing that lengthy Hebrew commentary I have been made aware of and have noticed many other points, problems and solutions. Perhaps another time I will add to what I wrote.

    • profile image

      Friend 2 years ago

      we don't know nothing....

    • profile image

      steve 22 months ago

      I am a Muslim and a student of Computer Science at Columbia University in New York. I have always had a very hard time reconciling evolution with theological explanations for humans existence. I very recently came to almost the exact same conclusion you have. I am also a published author and if you would ever like to write a book about your theories I would be happy to collaborate. I think two different religions examining this as a team would be incredible!

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 22 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      History is a story of the rise and fall of civilizations. Catastrophes have occurred which wiped out civilization as we know it with only a few survivors to carry on. Such catastrophes have taken the form of floods from super-volcanoes and comets. See the "Toba Catastrophe Theory." “Atlantean” will be used to stand for a civilization which was lost in a catastrophe. It was migrating Atlanteans who interfaced with the ancient people, not God or angels. In this context the story of Noah and the flood is equivalent to the "Toba Catastrophe Theory". Noah was "Atlantean" in this context.

      All one has to do to fully explain the Old Testament is to substitute the word “Atlantean” for Lord or God or angels for the Old Testament to make sense. All actions by God, The Lord or angels in the Old Testament were by Atlanteans. This reading preserves the history of the Hebrews and absolves God of the atrocities committed by The Lord (ordering the killing of men, women and children.)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 22 months ago from Texas

      Hey Steve,

      Yes, I'm interested. I would love to get this published, but know next to nothing about how to do that. I'd prefer published to self-published. Not sure how you went about it. But I'd love to collaborate on this. I'm intrigued about the two religions thing. This is a topic we share in common and should be able to work together on. In fact, working together, and bringing different views together, is a big part of my motivation.

      Feel free to email me at jeremycchristian@gmail.com and we'll discuss.

      Thanks

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 22 months ago from Texas

      Jay C,

      There were no known cultures to predate those who already had the knowledge that these beings described by the Sumerians imparted onto them. The beings in the old testament are not angels. Angels are not what the title 'sons of God' is referring to. They are the long-living descendants of Adam/Eve, introduced into a world already populated by naturally evolved humans. These new beings lived for centuries, making them god-like in comparison to naturally evolved humans, just as the beginning of Genesis 6 explains. These beings were prevalent in the area and didn't die out until the time of Abraham. It's these beings who were the inspiration for the mythological gods of the Romans, the Greeks, the Sumerians, and many other cultures in the region. The displacement of all of these beings in the Babel story is what introduced them into each of these regions. Multiple civilizations sprang up from that. This event archaeologically is known as the 5.9 kiloyear event when the Sahara changed back into desert.

    • colorfulone profile image

      Susie Lehto 20 months ago from Minnesota

      My brain feels like it just got enlightened and expanded. You explained so much very well. Excellent history lessons that I will meditate on as I study the Scriptures in a different way. Thank you!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 20 months ago from Texas

      Thank you for that. The more you read it in that light, the more you reflect on different bits of the story, the more interesting it gets. It goes from being a vague confusing mess to becoming a coherent story.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 20 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      We are just beginning to learn about ancient civilizations. Research archeology underwater. See the underwater city of Dwarka off India's west coast. Also see the remains in the Andes such as Puma Punku. Lastly see Baalbek in Lebanon. How old are these remains?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 20 months ago from Texas

      Hi Jay,

      Thanks for reading and for the comment. All of these sites date to the first centuries BC/AD. Well in line with what I'm speaking about here in both time and location.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 20 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      To what sites do you refer?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 20 months ago from Texas

      I just looked up each site on Wikipedia.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 20 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      The sites to which I refer are:

      Underwater Dwaka (not the one on land)

      Puma Punku and

      Baalbek

      All the above archaeological sites are thousands of years BC. No one really knows who built them.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 20 months ago from Texas

      Looks like I have more research to do.

    • profile image

      Jennifer 14 months ago

      Eve was the mother of all living (Genesis 3:;20) 3:20)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK3eh4Z5Ko4

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 14 months ago from Texas

      Right, but living in this case is I think speaking about living of their own wills and not of God's. I know that sounds like a stretch, but the bible makes it clear that there were other humans not 'of Eve'.

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 14 months ago from California

      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.

      Ok, here is this all powerful all knowing God. He goes through all this trouble to create a vast universe. Of course, he only allows us to enjoy 1/10000000000000000000000000000 of it. Then, knowing all along that his little creatures were going to disobey him, he goes along with the whole soap opera. For what???? This has to be the most capricious all powerful God ever created by man. Nonsense.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 14 months ago from Texas

      The capability to behave freely of God's will and break God's rules doesn't matter if there's no rule to break. For what? Free will. If we're going to be our own beings with our own minds then we have to be able to behave free of God's will. That's what the garden scenario was setup for. To test His creation. And it worked.

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 14 months ago from California

      It failed. He already the outcome and still allowed it to happen. If I have a child who is heading towards boiling water that can kill him, I will stop him. I know what will happen if he falls into the boiling water. Why should I let him die? Nonsense begets nonsense I suppose.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 14 months ago from Texas

      Yeah, He allowed them to make their own choice and choose their own destiny. That's the whole point. Whatever happens, it was up to you. Nobody forced you to do anything against your will.

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 14 months ago from California

      Jeremy, will humans ever cease to have free will?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 14 months ago from Texas

      It seems human because it's the story about the creation of humanity and the element that makes humanity what we are ... free will. It's modern humanity's origin story.

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 14 months ago from California

      If humans will continue to have free will, and if all humans are sinners, then how will it ever be possible for humanity to exist in heaven?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 14 months ago from Texas

      That, I think, is a very important question. Where there are multiple free wills in the same space there will inevitably be conflict. So, there must be rules/laws, and there must be an authority to set them. Because the will is free, all participants must willfully acknowledge that authority as the authority. That's what this life is for. It's two fold. One, it gives us each the opportunity to experience life with free will, and it gives us each the opportunity whether or not to willfully acknowledge God as that authority.

      Like our roadways. We each have the freedom to go where we wish when we wish, but for it to work for everyone, there must be rules and order. Everyone must acknowledge the authority that sets and enforces those rules. And they must be licensed to be a participant.

      It's all about achieving eternal life with free will. I think the entirety of human existence on this planet will serve well as the knowledge base needed to wield such a capability. This life will show us how destructive it can be and why it's so important that there be rules and that those rules not be broken.

      So, in my mind, the answer to your question is the whole meaning of this life.

    • profile image

      Neil 12 months ago

      Your points are pure speculation and conjecture based on false assumptions. Your understanding of the exegesis of scripture and hermeneutics is that of a failing catholic schoolboy, but I don't have time to correct all your mistakes here today. Just consider that Darwinian evolution has proven itself to be nothing more than a philosophical hypothesis searching for it's first piece of supporting evidence. Anyone that believes that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor has either not done the research themselves or is just parroting what they've been taught. Evolution might have been a nice notion 150 years ago when you could make such outlandish claims, but in our current day of scientific discovery it is amazing to me that people still believe this fantasy. Young-earth creationism and Darwinian evolution are closed systems based on presuppositions. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is the only field of study into the origins of life that is purely scientific and open to all possibilities.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 12 months ago from Texas

      Neil,

      I would love to hear more. If there's something you're that certain I'm wrong about then I want to know about it. I want to correct it. If you could find the time to correct where you see that I'm wrong, it would be much appreciated. I would love to have a better understanding of exegesis and hermeneutics.

      A couple of points regarding Darwinian evolution. First off, whether or not you buy into the specifics of how exactly evolution occurred, there's no denying that's how life propagated and filled the planet. The mere fact that we and chimpanzees both share all the traits common with being mammals makes the concept of evolving from a common ancestor as being the most likely explanation. Add to that the fact that human and chimpanzee share commonality both in being carbon based/DNA based mammals, but also the commonality of our genetic sequences, its hard to argue anything other than common origin through reproduction and changes over time.

      As for my points being speculation and conjecture, that's not entirely true. They've verified for historical legitimacy and accuracy. There's evidence that supports these events happening where and when the story describes. If all there was was my interpretation and the text alone, then yes little more is possible than conjecture and speculation. An argument could certainly be made. That's why I anchored everything I'm saying in historical evidence.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 12 months ago from Earth

      At least Neil sounded like he had some good sense.

      I must say, though, not many people (percentage-wise) are like Neil, and actually have enough logic and reason to understand that both young-earth creationism and Darwinian evolution are closed systems dependent upon preliminary constants based on fantastical fabrications via forced-feeding mental limitations upon thee.

      At any insane rate, I wasn't aware of the ID movement Neil mentioned, but I can only assume it's from a more holistic-like universal approach, which anything of that nature is always closer to reality than dogmatic dung or heavily trending, ultra-filtered scientific agenda that is trying to pervade the already-weakened minds of these new-age humanoid thingies. LOL!

      Either way, just thought I'd drop by and say "hi." How's everything been going lately? You still enjoying your philosophical battles on this K-3 planet? Ha!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 12 months ago from Texas

      Hey IM,

      Good to hear from you. Things have been going alright. I can't say I'm still enjoying the philosophical "battles" as much as I used to. I don't engage in them nearly as often.

      Yeah, Neil sounds like he knows a thing or two about what he's talking about, but as is often the case I get a response of how he doesn't really have time to get into the details, but does have the time to just tell me I'm wrong. I'm not sure what to do with that. The details are kind of important. If you don't have the time to lay out the details, why take the time to tell me I'm wrong. I'm naturally going to want the details at that point.

      Most times in the past when someone claimed to have more information that proved this or that wrong, it ultimately proves to not be the case. It usually turns out they didn't share because they don't actually have anything. They just disagree in general and felt compelled to say so.

    • profile image

      Magesh 4 months ago

      who was the serpent ? what is the the fruit ?

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 4 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      According to the Toba catastrophe theory (Noah's flood), a massive volcanic eruption changed the course of human history by severely reducing the human population. This occurred around 70–75,000 years ago. The Toba caldera in Indonesia underwent a category 8 or "mega-colossal" eruption on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. This may have reduced the average global temperature by 3 to 3.5 degrees Celsius for several years and may possibly have triggered an ice age and a world wide flood.

      This massive environmental change is believed to have created population bottlenecks in the various species that existed at the time; this in turn accelerated differentiation of the isolated human populations, eventually leading to the extinction of all the other human species except for the branch that became modern humans.

      Structures in the Andes and India have not been explained by modern science. These structures were built long ago or in a way science cannot explain.

      Much has been written about the remains of Puma Punku and Saksaywaman in the Andes. Pumapunku or Puma Punku is part of a large temple complex or monument group that is part of the Tiwanaku Site near Tiwanaku, Bolivia. Tiwanaku is significant in Inca traditions because it is believed to be the site where the world was created.

      Saksaywaman, Saqsaywaman, Sasawaman, Saksawaman, Sasaywaman or Saksaq Waman is a citadel on the northern outskirts of the city of Cusco, Peru, the historic capital of the Inca Empire.

      More recently discovered is the ancient city of Dwarka. The strongest archaeological support comes from the structures discovered in the late 1980s under the seabed off the coast of modern Dwarka in Gujarat by a team of archaeologists and divers led by Dr S.R. Rao, one of India's most respected archaeologists. An emeritus scientist at the marine archaeology unit of the National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, Rao has excavated a large number of Harappan sites, including the port city of Lothal in Gujarat.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      As for the serpent it's tough to say. It would seem throughout the rest of the story that Lucifer plays a very specific role, almost debating God about humanity and whether or not they can be loyal to God with free will. So I assume this is him playing his usual role in the garden.

      As for the fruit, I don't think the fruit was anything special in particular. What made it what it was was God's commandment to not eat it. Adam and Eve were the first of God's creation able to act contrary to His will. So they're eating of the fruit was their first act of behaving of their own will, outside of God's will. So it wasn't the fruit that had the effect on them it says to have had, but rather their breaking God's command.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      The Toba volcanic eruption was a very catastrophic thing, and it did nearly wipe out the human race that existed at the time. But this is not the flood of the bible. According to the bible, the flood happened 1656 years after Adam was created and Abraham lived roughly 2000 years after Adam, or roughly 350 years after the flood. Abraham's father was born in Ur, a Sumerian city, and Abraham himself had dealings with the Egyptians. Both Sumer and Egypt came into existence around 5000 BC. So the flood of the bible could not have been caused by the Toba catastrophe as this happened roughly 70,000 years prior.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 4 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      When digging for gold in Fairbanks Alaska massive amounts of animals were found in tangled masses, interspersed with up-rooted trees. They seem to have been torn apart and dismembered. Skin, ligament, hair, flesh, can still be seen.

      K. Macgowan, Early Man in the New World (1950), p. 151; F.Rainey, "Archaelogical Investigation in Central Alaska," American Antiquity, (1940).

      Similar finds of bones and artifacts have been unearthed all over Alaska. See the "Ivory Islands" of the Arctic Ocean above Siberia." "These islands were full of mammoth bones and tusks and teeth of elephants and rinos..."

      D.G. Whitley, Journal of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain, XII (1910), 35.

      Hippos and animals that live in the marshes of Africa left their bones in abundance in England and France. These bones are not yet fossilized. J. Prestwich, professor of geology at Oxford (1874-1888). J. Prestwich, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, XLVIII; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1893).

      All of the above show bones of animals broken and buried due to some Great Flood action.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      Well if that is true that these are the results of some great flood, it's not the biblical flood. The biblical flood can be pinpointed quite accurately as being roughly 4000BC. Not only do the ages given indicate a span of time between the flood and Abraham as being just a couple of centuries, and Abraham's interactions with both Sumer and Egypt indicate around the same age, but both the Sumerian King's List and Genesis both say that the city of Uruk was built not long after the flood, and it was also built around 4000 BC.

      The flood was not global. If it had been global then there'd be unmistakable evidence the world over of a matching silt deposit found at the same layer on every continent. Nothing like that has been found.

      Besides, how could people from the bronze age report on a flood that reached Alaska? They couldn't. They were only speaking of a flood in their region of the world.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 4 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      "Well if that is true that these are the results of some great flood, it's not the biblical flood. The biblical flood can be pinpointed quite accurately as being roughly 4000BC."

      Also see descriptions of a "wall of water" in the book, "Navaho Legends" by Washington Matthews (1897)

      What is a "Biblical Flood?" When did it occur, if at all. We just do not know. I am Not saying water covered the entire surface at one time. I am saying there were a series of Wave Actions which swept over great expanses of land. Is a 100-200-300 foot wave a flood? There is enough water in the mantel which, if heated, could rise up and inundate the surface. We just cannot say with certainty.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      There really was a flood. Both the biblical writers and the Sumerians wrote about it. It was only in the southern Mesopotamian valley. This is where both the people of the bible and the Sumerians were. The planet was fully populated by humans by that time, but not humans with free will. Free will was introduced into the world about 5500BC through the creation of Adam and Eve. Only humans with free will could be 'wicked', so the region of the world where people the flood was meant for were located was a small one.

      This flood happened about 4000BC. This can be determined in at least two ways. First, both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List say the flood happened just before the city of Uruk was built, which was built around 3900 BC. Also, Sir Arthur Whooley, an archaeologist from the 20's, found a thick silt deposit in the Sumerian city of Ur that actually separated Ubaid artifacts from Uruk artifacts. The end of the Ubaid culture and beginning of the Uruk culture was also about 4000 BC.

      If you read through my hubs you'll find that all the events of early Genesis can be pinpointed in both location and time frame.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 4 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      "First, both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List say the flood happened just before the city of Uruk was built, which was built around 3900 BC."

      If you are into the Sumerian writings, what do you think of their story about:

      an alien race coming to earth and

      Planet X?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      Actually, that's kind of central to my whole theory. If you read this hub then you'll see it's made pretty clear that Adam and Eve were created in an already populated world.

      Genesis 6:1-4 - When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [1] man forever, for he is mortal [2] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

      This comes just one chapter after explaining that Adam and his family lived for centuries. Yet here it's speaking of two groups; the "sons of God" and the "daughters of humans". It then says that humans are "mortal" and only live 120 years.

      So, basically, if Adam and Eve were created as described, in the region of the world where the Sumerians lived according to Genesis 2, then to the Sumerians Adam and Eve and all their offspring would seem alien. Like they came from another planet. God-like, in fact. My theory here is that the gods that not only the Sumerians, but also the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, and a dozen or so other cultures claim were a part of their ancient past in that region of the world were actually speaking of Adam's family.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 4 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      "Actually, that's kind of central to my whole theory. If you read this hub then you'll see it's made pretty clear that Adam and Eve were created in an already populated world."

      Yes, but created by whom?

      How?

      Stated simply, what is your theory?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      Basically that the idea that the creation of humans in Gen1 and the creation of Adam and Eve in Gen2 are two separate events. God created humans in the same image as Adam and Eve on day 6 of creation. Once He introduced free will into the world, the descendants of Adam/Eve, the "sons of God", found the "daughters of humans" beautiful and began intermingling with them, introducing free will into naturally evolved humanity. This is what caused humanity to become "wicked", and this is why God "regretted" putting humans on the Earth.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 4 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      I seem to be behind here.

      "Yes, but created by whom?

      How?"

      Describe this "God of Creation."

      Created How? by evolution? manipulation? thin air?

      Did God materialize on earth to do this?

      What about Planet X; today it is called "The Ninth Planet," by astronomers.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      Created by God, by evolution. For more detail on this you can check out my hub on creation ... https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Genesis-A...

      According to Gen1:2 God's spirit was on the surface when He created the Earth.

      The "sons of God", or the gods according to the Sumerians, descended from the 'heavens'.

    • Mageswaran Shalom profile image

      Mageswaran Shalom 4 months ago

      who was the serpent in the garden ? what is the mystery hidden in first three chapter of genesis ? anybody can help on this ?

    • Green-TZM profile image

      Green-TZM 4 months ago

      Do you have an area where people who heard you on Dogma Debate can ask questions?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      I don't have a specific area designated for that purpose, but you can ask me here, you can email me, or if necessary I guess I could start a forum thread.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Thank you, Jim. It's always good to encounter like minded people. Yeah, I feel organized religion has made the mistake of appointing themselves as an authority on these topics when all they've really done is tether themselves to ideas born generations ago and make themselves resistant to new ideas and approaches. I'm more of the mind of St. Augustine who said, "The interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge."

      I'll be sure to check your articles out. Thank you for the feedback.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 2 months ago

      I don't know whether you miss interpret but Adam indeed was the first man...Genesis 1 1-18 clearly admits God created man...not men..and seen that that man was lonely so he created eve (his helper) .... Though it didn't stated Adam first chapter it stated him in the 2nd.. The 1st chapter states WHAT he created the 2nd WHO..JUST LIKE example 1st chapter it tells us what animals God created and in the 2nd just like Adam It gave the names of the animals by Adam..Also its says in the Bible A hell is created (What) ..But never states Who by name will be going but it gave characteristics as adultery etc ...So I say to you don't deceive others by Your misinterpretation.....READ FOR YOURSELF PEOPLE AND THEN YOU WILL KNOW...Don't go by what others say...Be Blessed

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      I certainly don't want anyone to take my word for it. Like you said, read for yourself. But it seems to me there being two groups, naturally evolved humans from Gen1 and Adam and his descendants from Gen2, the others Cain feared in Gen4, the two groups it talks about in Gen6 (sons of God/daughters of humans). Just consider that context when you read it and see what you think. You're right, we shouldn't listen to others. That, in my mind, includes old religions who decided they knew what it said generations ago and stick with that. We've been told by others how the story goes. So, everyone should follow your advise. Read and decide for yourself.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      I have read the Koran, or at least most of it. The part of the bible I'm focusing in on here is the same in the Koran. The first books, the books of Moses, are also the beginning of the Koran.

    • profile image

      Isikeli 6 weeks ago

      My reading of Genesis is clear that Adam was the first created being then Eden then all the plants and animals then Eve. The somehow God created all the earth simultaneously or after Eden. On the sixth day when men and women was created Adam and Eve were already in Eden so therefore others were created just like Adam and Eve. In pairs so there were no incest committed by Adams family. Also we accept that plants fiah animals were created in numbers and different species but somehow we limit the creation of men and women in different races. Finally you cannot say God allowed incest then later called it sin. It is impossible for God to do that.

    • profile image

      Isikeli 6 weeks ago

      Read Genesis 2 and you will find that when Adam was created it was like the 2nd day of creation by reading the way it explains the surrounding. Also Even came nuch later first God created the garden for him to roam and work then he saw he was lonely and he created Eve from his sleep and finally he saw he was happy. You see thats why you love your wife always it makes you complete. Now in day 6 many couples were created in different races. I has to be.

      No one knows how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of eden lets say it was 500 years the earth would have been populated well during that time. Aging did not occur or time did not matter till after Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were kicked out of Eden.

      Only Adam could have sinned as he was the one given the first law. Do not eat of that fruit. Of course after being there for a long time idle thoughts and wondering what would happen allowed Satan to enter the Garden. You ask yourself how did Satan entered the Garden it is idle thought and sinful thought against what God says do not do that.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Isikeli,

      Gen1 says God created humans on 'day 6'. Then in Gen2 it starts with 'day 7', then Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created in an already populated world, so you're right, there were others for them to marry and have children with.

    • profile image

      Isikeli 6 weeks ago

      To say that the flood was not global when the Bible says it was it is interesting. First flooding does not stop sin nor did it stop fallen angels having sexual realtions with daughters of man. So no where in the bible says that. So now post Noah all races as we know it come from Noah. At last we can be sure that there was no incest as all Sons had there wives and so there children as first cousins can now marry and multiply and occupy the entire earth.

      Surely the fallen angels would do their best still to corrupt the human race why to ensure that we all go to hell. Why else.

      Is it possible that there may be other people survive the flood we dont know. What we do know in the flood conditions described unless you had a boat like noah and this a huge ark it is impossible to survive that long in the water fully exposed if live after the first blast of water.

      So now God really populated the animal kingdom who cannot live in water as 2 by 2 birds and animals both. Plants of all kinds would germinate from seeds.

      Have you thought about Fish mamals they were never threated just a joyful blissful experience. I am sure there is a lesson there.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      The description in Gen2 of their surroundings sounds similar, but is not a rehashing of Gen1. Gen2 is talking about a particular place on Earth. Mesopotamia. And in that age it really was barren. Climate changes drastically changed that region of the world during that time. Adam was created around 6500BC. Humans fully populated the planet around 10000BC, over 3000 years earlier.

      All other humans aged just as we do. Only Adam and Eve and their descendants lived the length of lives they lived. You can tell this by Gen6 ...

      Gen6:1-3 -When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      Here it's talking about two different groups. 'Daughters of humans', and 'sons of God'. Humans, in comparison, it says are "mortal" and only live 120 years. This is one chapter after Gen5 says Adam and his family lived for centuries. The 'sons of God' are Adam and his kin.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      The flood wasn't global. One way you can tell is that the "Nephillim" are mentioned twice. Once before the flood in Gen6, once after in Num13. Descendants of the Nephillim are seen in Hebron. Yet they were not on the ark.

      The flood wasn't meant to wipe out all humans. Only where free will had been introduced into humanity and made them "wicked". Gen6 explains that the Adam's descendants began marrying and having children with humans. This introduced free will into humanity making them wicked. But they only existed in a small part of the world. So the flood didn't have to be the whole world.

      Also, 'sons of God' are not angels. Luke 3 says everyone from Adam through Noah/Abraham/David, all the way down to Jesus, they were 'sons of God'. Plus, there's this ...

      Hebrews 1:5 - for to which of the angels did God ever say, "you are my Son; today I become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my son"?

    • profile image

      Keith 3 days ago

      Very nice read.. Some of it might be true also, but some of it is just opinions

    Click to Rate This Article