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

Updated on August 6, 2018
HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

For as long as he can remember, Jeremy has been formulating theories that reconcile his fascination with science and his faith in God.

"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.

Was Adam the First Human?

The creation of man in Genesis has always been read to mean that Adam was the first human God created. Why is that exactly? This isn't stated anywhere. In fact, what it actually says is that God created humans on day 6 of the creation account in chapter 1, then 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 ever before. 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.

Sumerian writing tablet recording the allocation of beer.
Sumerian writing tablet recording the allocation of beer. | Source

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 became talented builders. They also created the first government, the first laws, arithmetic, astronomy/astrology, the wheel, sailboats, frying pans, razors, harps, kilns for firing bricks and pottery, bronze hand tools, and plows, to name just 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, writing became more advanced and they began to record stories passed down through generations that explained how their people came up with all of these ideas that would forever change the human race. The 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 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 ancient tales.

There’s no doubt Sumerian mythology had an impact on subsequent civilizations. The Akkadians were definitely inspired by this first civilization, 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, both male and female, who were fallible, moody, and often at odds with each other, and they all speak of the intermingling between these immortal beings and mortal humans, producing demigods and titans.

Were There People Before Adam and Eve?

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 these books, 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 legalized Christianity, then a few decades later made it the only legal religion. What's more, the books 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.

At the same time, in today’s scientifically enlightened age many dismiss Genesis as nothing more than mythology. There are nearly as many in the non-religious, secular, agnostic, or atheist category as there are Muslims, making them the third largest group behind Christians and Muslims.

One 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, let alone 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.

Those interpretations of Genesis that say the flood was global and that Adam was the first human to exist were formed centuries ago by people who couldn’t have known any better. Now, we do. Rereading the first five and one-quarter chapters of Genesis 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.

A map of DNA migration.
A map of DNA migration.

What Was the State of the Earth During Genesis?

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?

Pre-Flood Genesis in an Already Populated World Context

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:

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." (Genesis 1:28)

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:

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. (Genesis 1:29-30)

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 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:

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. (Genesis 2:5)

Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

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: He was to eat from any tree but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;

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." (Genesis 2:16-17)

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 was to bring the animals to Adam to see what he would call them.

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. (Genesis 2:19)

The humans created in Genesis 1 were given very specific commands that would take generations to realize. They were told to:

  • Populate and subdue the Earth
  • Establish dominance in the animal kingdom

So 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 in 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.

Cain leads able to death.
Cain leads able to death. | Source

Who Were 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 4. The concern God is validated by somehow "marking" him to protect him from harm.

Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear.

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.”

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. (Genesis 4:13-15)

It also puts a whole new spin on the first few verses of chapter 6, those which 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 5.

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them,

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.

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." (Genesis 6:1-3)

Noah's ark.
Noah's ark. | Source

Was the Flood Really 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."

And Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents, and of those who have cattle.

And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who handle the harp and organ.

And Zillah, she also bore Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron; and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah. (Genesis 4:20-22)

These descendants come 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:

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. (Genesis 6:4)

And one after:

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.

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.” (Numbers 13:32-33)

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.

Adam Was Not the First Man

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.

FAQs About Genesis

Below are some frequently asked questions about the creation story, Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden.

How Was Eve Created?

According to the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions, Eve is the first woman created. In Islamic tradition, Eve is known only as Adam's wife, and her origins are never addressed. According to the second chapter of Genesis in the Bible, Eve was created by God (Yahweh) from the rib of Adam, and was meant to be his companion.

How Old Was Adam?

Adam was created by God as an adult of an unspecified age. Genesis 4 describes the birth of Adam's three sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. Genesis 5 lists the descendants of Adam with their ages at the time they had their first sons, and they ages they were at their deaths. According to this measure, Adam was 930 years old when he died.

Who Ate the Forbidden Fruit First?

Eve succumbs to the serpent's temptation to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She shares the fruit with Adam, and as a result humans are expelled from the Garden of Eden. Christian and Jewish teachings sometimes hold Adam and Eve to a different level of responsibility for this error, while the Islamic teaching hold both equally at fault. This scene is often called the "fall of man."

Where Is the Garden of Eden?

The Garden of Eden is considered to be mythical. However, there have been suggestions of its supposed location. These suggestions include:

  • The head of the Persian gulf
  • Southern Mesopotamia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea (now Iraq)
  • The Armenian highlands
  • The Armenian plateau

What Was the Forbidden Fruit in the Garden of Eden in the Bible?

The forbidden fruit is never specifically identified, but is instead referred to by only the phrase "forbidden fruit." According to the Book of Enoch, the tree of knowledge is described as a "species of the Tamarind tree, bearing a fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended a considerable distance." Using this information, the forbidden fruit is often thought to be one of the following fruits:

Fruits That May Have Been the Forbidden Fruit

Fruit
Supporting Evidence
Quince
According to Enoch's description, the forbidden fruit may have been a quince.
Apple
In western Europe, the fruit is often depicted as an apple. This is where the term "Adam's apple" comes from to describe the bump of cartilage that is often seen in the throats of men.
Grape
Rabbi Meir says the fruit was a grape. This is why Noah attempted to rectify the sin of Adam by using grape wine for holy purposes.
Fig
Rabbi Nechemia holds that the fruit was a fig since Adam and Eve were wearing clothing made of fig leaves when they left the Garden of Eden.
Pomegranate
Proponents of the theory that the Garden of Eden was located in the Middle East believe that the fruit was a pomegranate, an indigenous fruit to the region.
Wheat
Rabbi Yehuda holds that the fruit was wheat because "a baby does not know to call its mother and father until it tastes the taste of grain."
Mushroom
Terence McKenna proposed that the forbidden fruit was a reference to psychoactive plants. Before this suggestion, John M. Allegro proposed the mushroom as the forbidden fruit.

Are the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge the Same?

Whether tree of life and the tree of knowledge are the same tree is still a matter of debate. According to the book of Genesis, the tree of life was planted "with" the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "in the midst of the Garden of Eden" by God.

Karle Budde proposed a one-tree theory which says, while there was only one tree, it was qualified in two ways:

  1. It is known as the tree in the middle of the garden.
  2. It is known as the forbidden tree.

Ellen van Wolde noted in a 1994 survey that among Bible scholars "the trees are almost always dealt with separately and not related to each other” and that “attention is almost exclusively directed to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, whereas the tree of life is paid hardly any attention."

Chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis (Video)

© 2012 Jeremy Christian

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      4 hours ago

      All mountains were at some point under water some point in their lifetime. Basic bible backed science. What are now mountain tops were once sea floors. The Earth constantly changes due to erosion, wind, varying temperatures, volcanoes, etc. In a worldwide flood, they would be at different levels, not at the tops of every one. What was once at the bottom of the ocean is now at the top of a mountain after millions or even billions of years of movement called subduction.

      Do NOT alter science to fit the bible, and do NOT alter the bible to fit science. In its proper god given time all things are revealed. Using the still in its infancy science of today to explain each and every bible statement ends in tragic failure. A Christian invented the theory of the 'big bang' for a reason. No one has been able to debunk it because it is truth. Let there be light. There was light which dimmed, stars then formed, then oceans, then plants, then animals, then man, just as the Bible claims.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      16 hours ago from Texas

      daniel cristancho,

      Re: multiple translations

      Yes, you're right, in many cases alternate translations don't change the main narrative of the story. But often these discussions come down to disagreements based on specific wordings. And between translations those can be very different. For example, in Gen6 some bibles call them "Nephilim", others say "Giants". Or in Job, some say "angels", others say "sons of God".

      And in the end little things like this can even alter one's perception of the message. Like in these cases stated above some believe the early Earth was populated with angels that rebelled against God and procreated with humans. That leads to big differences in the perceived message of the bible. Here's an example of a misunderstanding that I feel is based on small differences in wording ....

      "Advocating some kind of theistic evolution or trying to fit evolution into the Creation narrative is absurd and violates what's actually written."

      It actually doesn't. Creation says God commanded life to be fruitful and multiply. That's what evolution is. Multiplying. And often, to be "fruitful", life had to adapt to the environment it lived in. Small changes over time that made life more capable of being "fruitful" led to significant evolutionary changes over time. God gave life a direction, I desired outcome, and life became. Like "let there be birds in the sky". Life became that, over time. Through evolution. This is how God creates. His word, His command, dictates the behavior of all things in the universe. He doesn't just make things magically appear. He doesn't form each one as He did Adam.He commands, it becomes. This is no way conflicts with the explanations given in the bible.

      " It also destroys the very basis of the Gospel, that death was foreign until the fall of man and Christ came to take away death and give eternal life."

      The Gospel isn't talking about physical death. To reach eternal life we must all still physically die. Believing in Jesus doesn't make you physically immortal. That death still exists. And always has. There are species of insects and animals who only feed on death plants and animals. They exist because physical death has always existed. It's part of the natural system.

      The Gospels are talking about spiritual death. Evolution in no way invades on the themes of the Gospel.

      ".. there are sea fossils on the tops of every mountain in the world."

      This simply means life existed in the sea before the formation of those mountains. Mountains are places in the continental land masses that buckled up as they shifted. This doesn't mean the sea rose over them after they had formed into mountains. There was no reason for God to flood the entire Earth. The situation simply didn't call for it.

      There was a time early in Earth's formation when the seas formed before the continents existed. This is the only time the entirety of the Earth was covered in ocean.

    • profile image

      daniel cristancho 

      35 hours ago

      ''To treat the bible, which is printed in countless different forms/translations, as if it's God Himself directly speaking to you can and often does only lead to misleading misconceptions.''

      So what? True, the bible is the most translated book in the history of literature (the entire bible has been translated into 800+ languages and counting), but it is consistent in it's message, no matter what translation it's in. You can take any bible you like and the stories are the same. There isn't one version of David and Goliath in one translation and another version in another. No matter what version you choose, the story of David and Goliath is the same. Same thing with the Creation story and the world flood story. The only thing left is man's interpretation of those events. That's where the errors pop in as you have so blithely demonstrated. But the bible message is consistent all the way through.

      ''Any explanation other than evolution is laughable.''

      Advocating some kind of theistic evolution or trying to fit evolution into the Creation narrative is absurd and violates what's actually written. It also destroys the very basis of the Gospel, that death was foreign until the fall of man and Christ came to take away death and give eternal life. You cannot shove evolution into the Christian faith without wreaking havoc on the gospel and bringing into question the entire credibility of the bible. After all, the creation story isn't just believed by Moses, it was believed also by Jeremiah, Isaiah, Christ, Peter, Paul, and Luke. How utterly ridiculous to think that in Luke 3, Luke, a physician, in recording the family tree of Christ, adds the supposedly fictional characters Seth and Adam. Men who try to discredit the simple reading of the scriptures, know not what they are messing with.

      ''There's absolutely no reason to flood the whole planet, and no way the authors of the bible ''

      This is why the bible is considered the Word of God. There are things in it man could not possibly know but God would. What's interesting to the the denial of the world flood is that there are sea fossils on the tops of every mountain in the world. Every mountain. A few mountains can be explained away. Every mountain including Everest, is not explainable. There was a world wide flood.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 days ago from Texas

      Cipriano.jr100,

      Haha... Right to the point. Care to share what specifically you find to be nonsense?

    • profile image

      Cipriano.jr100 

      3 days ago

      Nonsense

    • profile image

      VipinPA 

      5 days ago

      God's wisdom and power is all above human wisdom & understanding.You can't measure god's wisdom with human wisdom.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      10 days ago from Texas

      TreyTevin,

      My statements about it being man-made are to address those believers who treat it as the infallible word of God. To treat the bible, which is printed in countless different forms/translations, as if it's God Himself directly speaking to you can and often does only lead to misleading misconceptions.

      But for it to be man-made doesn't mean it has no value as a reference. It's a man-made text that documents actual interactions between the God it's speaking about and humanity. It also gives specific geographic details and a specific timeline that can be used to locate these events in the archaeological record.

      I did not cherry pick or "one time they got it right". I found a span of time in the region it specifies where the series of events it describes can be seen as to have happened along the same timeline it gives. This isn't cherry picked events. This is a series of events that spans over 2000 consecutive years.

      Any explanation other than evolution is laughable. And so is the idea that the flood was global. There's absolutely no reason to flood the whole planet, and no way the authors of the bible could even claim that considering they didn't know there was a whole globe at the time and certainly could not report on the status of the whole planet.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      10 days ago from Texas

      Hey Jay! Long time no see!

      Yes, you're right. Humans have been anatomically modern for roughly 200,000 years. But this doesn't mean there were ancient cultures all along the way through that time.

      The cause that led to civilization is the creation of Adam and through him the introduction of free will into the world. Before that humans lived just as indigenous cultures still do to this day. They have no ambitions to progress beyond the simple life they are content living. That ambition that makes modern "civilized" humans what they are is a product of free will.

      While there were ancient cultures along the way, none were cities with a ruling/working class. That's one of the tell-tale signs of free will. The humans that built the Sumerian and Egyptian and Indus Valley cultures were the first to behave as they did, unlike humans had for tens/hundreds of thousands of years.

    • profile image

      TreyTevin 

      10 days ago

      If man made what exactly is the point of this? You can't possibly be using,referring to,or backing any claim(s) by using it then. You cannot claim only that supports your theory as "viable". So why use any of it at all? It's just a silly book with a few perhaps somewhat accurate historical contexts according to you. You do realize you must take those views if you wish to continue your theory? Right?

      Cherry picking,or in your case I assume you'd deem it as "one time they got it right",is not a method respected by anyone of intellect.

      It's either bunk with a few got it right moments or it's true,correct,the actual God Inspired Infallible Word Of God as it claims to be. You cannot have it both ways Jeremy. It always baffled me when an individual does this circular reasoning. With a "cherry"on top as it were. Evolution is laughable. I don't have the time nor inclination to prove to you how,if you missed the ridiculousness of it to begin with odds are you cannot cure stupid. Suffice it to say,bunk and plain lies aside,they merely replaced God with their own and named it "nature". But I digress.

      A global flood is proven,actually the bible has been proven accurate,science merely moved the time line. And "we" buy it because we trust in them,in man. No need to prove it to yourself,or even demand science prove it,if science merely can say so and explain that "evidence" in a manner in which it could but never that it did,it must be true. So let's change the world around us to coincide,correlate,support, such science,and disregard,even argue against anything that doesn't. Even if it's the infallible word of God. Good job Jeremy. smh-

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 

      10 days ago from Houston, TX USA

      The human mind has been around with its current capacity to think and plan for about 200,000 years or more. If it takes 1,000 years to make a civilization, then 20 civilizations could have risen and fallen in succession. That does not even count parallel civilizations. So, Humanity goes back about 200,000 years.

      The Ancient writings tell a story of a group of War Lords trying to rebuild civilization after a catastrophe. God was not in the Old Testament (OT), it was a Human War Lord. For evidence of ancient civilizations, see monolithic structures such as Baalbek Lebanon and the ancient city of Dwarka.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      11 days ago from Texas

      They weren't the ones editing the book together. That was done way later by people who weren't dumb, but who were certainly ignorant.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      11 days ago

      They weren't dumb enough to make the same mistake but they are dumb enough to record them in the same book, change three words around and pretend it's not the same person.

      "You're free to think that if you wish, but it's pretty apparent what actually happened."

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      12 days ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      You're free to think that if you wish, but it's pretty apparent what actually happened.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      12 days ago

      Abram. High or exalted father. Abraham, father of multitudes. Given to Abram after 25 years of loyal and faithful service. Same guy. You and the secular world say these are retellings, but I dont buy it. The mistakes Israel made right in Gods face were also ridiculous, taking from his example more times than makes sense, but truth is often stranger than fiction.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      As for the desendents of Adam being mistaken for gods, Erech is very likely Uruk. In fact Uruk was the first Sumerian city after the flood, and Genesis says Nimrod established Erech right after the biblical flood.

      I don't personally think Nimrod and Gilgamesh were one and the same primarily because Gilgamesh went to visit the "Sumerian Noah" in the Gigamesh story. If they were one and the same then Gilgamesh would have been visiting his great grandfather. He visited him to find out the secret to not dying and living such a long life.

      But yes, I think Nimrod was himself seen as a god by the humans that populated the region. All the patriarchs of the bible are the gods of the Sumerians/Egyptians/Greeks/Romans/etc. It's the descendants of Noah who were dispersed at Babel, all of them long-living god-like beings that showed up in the human cultures that had formed along riversides, like the Tigris/Euphrates in Sumer, the Nile in Egypt, the Indus Valley in India. All of them carrying with them the same stories of a flood. All of them the god-like beings in the ancient histories and fuzzy memories of these cultures.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      While the quote was found on Wikipedia, it was a direct quote from the Jewish Dictionary.

      The mistakes of the Jewish people were not limited to just them. These are the free willed humans the stories focused on, but the same would have been the case for any human. You included, I assure you. It's simply illustrating how free willed humans are out of God's control no matter what He does. With free will God introduced an element into the world that's not under His control, by design. That is what they were and what we are.

      This is the central theme. When God tested Abraham it was the same thing. Would his own personal will override God's will, or would he choose God's will even if it was something he very much did not want. This is why He bred from Abraham the line that ultimately brought about Jesus. God actually worked with an element not under His control to create Jesus.

      And I never said the bible is just a book filled with a few nuggets. These are actual accounts of the God of this universe interacting with mortal humans. These texts and the information in them are priceless. My pointing out that it's man made is not to diminish it in any way. Just to realize the importance of not interpreting it as a fault-free word of God Himself. To recognize it for what it really is to aid in studying it. To better understand it and what it's saying.

      And no, it really doesn't work. The first two times it was Abram, then Abraham. The third time it was Isaac. All three with a Pharoah in Egypt. The same Pharoah in the second and third. This is the same story. Same beats. Same events. Same ending. Same structure. Yes, history has as tendency to repeat itself, but this is just ridiculous.

      The Jewish culture is a story telling culture. Word of mouth tales were all the rage. This was one of those. Very popular and recorded multiple times. Multiple variations as it changed over the years.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 weeks ago

      Going back to the descendents of Adam being mistaken for gods, any thoughts on the belief Gilgamesh could have also been Nimrod, which means "rebel", great grandson of Noah from the bible? The city of Kish, and Nimrods grandfather Cush, seem likely to be related. Erech is very likely to be Uruk as well. Him being great grandson of Noah would be perfect tie in for him being 1/3 god. There are several other similarities as well.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 weeks ago

      You make it seem like these supposed conflicting incidents you keep bringing up, this one massive glaring contradiction spanning 3 well separated chapters of Genesis, are just rehashing the same story. These aren't just two random dudes who lived decades or even years apart. Abraham and Isaac respectively, are father and son. Time flows like a river and depressingly history repeats itself. You could be right. I could be wrong. Of course. Like Plato credited to Socrates, I don't claim to know more than I know. But I do have faith. I suppose all we can do is respectively agree to disagree.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 weeks ago

      Its hard to take your critiques when you try to validate yourself through secular and unreliable sources like wikipedia. Thats even worse than trying to get me to believe what some atheist with a bunch of degrees on the history channel has to say. 9 times out on ten, at least, the media goes out of its way to make people with faith seem nonsensical and antiquated. My impression of people is that they are people. I respect Abraham but have no allusions about his mistakes during his early years. You must not have paid attention to the Tenakh? The Hebrews made the same mistakes over and over and over and over. And yes, Abram was scared and its obvious, a trait his son also carries. You know, like father like son? He did great things but not until later in life. Same as Moses. In fact, in the desert every five minutes they went back to worshiping Baal whenever Moses' back was turned. Do I seriously have to give a bunch of verses about the Israelites doing the same shady stuff over and over again? God let them be enslaved and dispersed constantly due to their really dumb mistakes. I have face palmed several times reading the Old Testament wondering how they are so hard headed. Which version full of geniuses have you been reading? They are so consistently wicked that in 2nd Kings God finally lets 10 of their 12 tribes disappear for several thousand years (or forever if you dont adhere to Revelations) and ends their winning streak until just a few decades ago.

      "Not very probable" isn't good enough to persuade me into thinking the bible is just a book filled with a few nuggets of truth and nothing more. The whole bible, cover to cover isn't just improbable, it's all but 102 % with a 2 % margin of error impossible save for a couple historical accuracies to the secular world, which is also what these Jews of today and yesteryear "close to the source material" invariably are.

      And I don't kind of make it work as that would mean it also kind of doesn't work. It just works. These aren't philosophical fictionalized history stories meant to have a moral at the end. If anything, this is God proving that people are weak and shady and helpless and no one is righteous without him; yet for all of this he is always faithful to keep his word in the long run. It's the paraphrased playbook He uses to grow closer to his sinful creation.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      See, this is the danger in treating the bible as God's infallible will I feel. You've rationalized a whole explanation around it to kind of "make it work". And in doing so you've deemed some characters chicken shits and whatnot. It's completely altered the impression you have of these characters. It changes the whole story.

      "According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the recurring story has a unified purpose:

      "From the point of view of the history of culture these episodes are very instructive. But it is not very probable that Abraham would have run the risk twice. Moreover, a similar incident is reported in regard to Isaac and Rebecca (Genesis 26:7-11). This recurrence indicates that none of the accounts is to be accepted as historical; all three are variations of a theme common to the popular oral histories of the Patriarchs. That women were married in the way here supposed is not to be doubted. The purpose of the story is to extol the heroines as most beautiful and show that the Patriarchs were under the special protection of the Deity." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife%E2%80%93sister_...

      Even those closest to the culture and the language don't take it as historical. These texts committed to tablet, were popular stories. I'm sure it was a popular story to tell. It's got all of that good stuff that people want to hear. A punished man of power who's oppressing the hero. The hero going off into the sunset having been protected by a powerful God. The wife is exquisitely beautiful to the point that no man can resist.

      Yes, you're exactly right. Context is everything. Part of understanding context is understanding each story for what it really is.

      As for the hangup I have about the mysteries in the bible and the research is that I don't see God as being coy about what's happening. Like it's some puzzle we have to figure out. Or to feel better about ourselves because we feel God has in some way deemed us worthy and has revealed something to us in some way.

      That inevitably leads to too many misgivings and pitfalls of imagination.

      Like your comments about David and Abraham and Moses. These men lived long, full lives. There's a reason why these stories only really focus in on their not so proud moments. If you edited together a brief story of my life with nothing but the less attractive moments end to end then I definitely would not come off well.

      But that's the theme of these stories. Humans have free will and constantly do their own thing. They can't be controlled. You can do miracles right in front of them. Feed them mana from heaven. Water from rocks. Strike them down in front of one another. Free them from slavery. It doesn't matter. They won't follow God's will. Free will is the theme of the story and illustrating how it affected these people is the whole point of the story being told.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 weeks ago

      Context context context. It's considered everything for a reason. Without it the bible makes no sense.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 weeks ago

      Abraham was a chickenshit. The Pharoah and Abimalech, ruler of Gerar are two different rulers he thinks will kill him because of Sarah. The Hebrew are the scum of the earth who backslide and forget god at the drop of a hat in spite of seeing more miracles than any other people. Isaac inherits his fathers fear and penchant for lies and repeats the same mistake of his father out of fear for his life. Yet god shows that his power through grace is manifest in even the weakest and undeserving of people. 20 9-13 shows that Abraham and Sarai agreed to do this a lot, this fear and practice also being raised up in their child Isaac so that he makes the same mistakes. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. It seems like a retelling with different names, but it isn't, Abram just had bad habits which he made up for in his older age and passed onto his son. Remember even Moses, though he did great things, was wrathful, cowardly, and a killer. David even murdered a man by sending him as cannon fodder so he would die and David could take his wife. Wife stealing via murdering the husband was apparently a very common practice back then. The Hebrews made dumb mistakes over and over and over and over again like clockwork.

      And I dont see how God having mysteries such as when God tells Daniel and John not to talk about parts of what he showed them makes invalid that the bible requires intensive research to understand what appear to be inconsistency left and right.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      There's a big difference between the wife-sister narratives of Genesis and the gospels. The gospels are four different points of view of similar periods of time in Jesus' life. The wife-sister narratives are the same story told with different characters in each role. If we're to believe all three actually happened then this same series of events happened to Abraham twice and the same Pharaoh twice.

      The much more likely explanation is that the story was told over and over throughout the ages, and like with many stories like this, the names are interchanged to maybe make them more relevant and familiar to whoever the audience is. They were then edited into the narrative as though they happened during the course of these men's lives.

      I definitely don't think ancient people were dumb. These texts as you and I read them weren't edited together as they are now back then. These decisions were made by men centuries later. Genesis, for example, was cobbled together from at least four different sources.

      Here you first said that there are scriptures and mysteries hidden from us. Then you say the bible often reiterates things so research can be properly performed.

      Just as you have here, I'm considering the conditions of the creation of the Bible and am considering those things in an attempt to further my study. The reason why I focused exclusively on the beginning of Genesis is because it's the oldest of all of them. Those first 11 chapters come from the oldest tablets. Multiple versions even back then, edited together. This editing together made possible by the fact that these four sources were so similar in context.

      I incorporated the original Hebrew in every way I know how. I tested each piece of my theory and corroborated it word by word with the Hebrew version to see if I could find the Hebrew conflicting. I tried to break it. I couldn't.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 weeks ago

      Issue 1. For the flawed thing that the new Testament is, I blame Constantine, murderous, boiling his wife alive after "converting to christianity" monster that he was for hurrying Nicea into dictating what was or wasn't truth due to all the theological arguments undermining his rule.

      Issue 2 is mistranslation. Many words in New Testament Greek don’t have clear English equivalents. Sentence structure, idioms, stylistic differences, context, etc., are challenges when converting versions of the New Testament books into English. Koiné is ancient Greek and not spoken anymore. Koiné was written in 'scriptio continua' which was without spaces or punctuation. Sentences can have different meaning depending on where the spaces are placed. For example, godisnowhere could be “God is now here” or “God is nowhere.” This is why English translations differ, with many having been revised to reflect the views and guesses of translators.

      Unfortunately the King James Version everyone loves with its thee and thou, completed in 1611 was not a translation of original Greek. They used Latin manuscripts translated from Greek. They compared Latin translations with the earlier Greek, found what they thought to be errors and decided that the later Latin version was right and earlier Greek manuscripts wrong even though they made those errors by translating it from Greek to Latin in the first place. Silly, hard headed, egotistical stuff.

      One must seek in order to find and do our own research which is what the Boreans were credited for, which is another reason the road to eternity is narrow and few find it.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 weeks ago

      I also challenge you to bring me these supposed mistakes you say the bible is full of. I am not a perfect theologian but perhaps I can clarify some issues many mistake as obvious biblical errors as I like to think apologetics are my specialty. I will happily admit when I am stumped.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 weeks ago

      We have mysteries hidden from us. The book of daniel proclaims it. There are then, according to this, likely scriptures that are deliberately kept from us or destroyed. Also those chapters are not mistaken retellings just like Matthew through John are not faulty retellings, but tellings of diffetent events through the eyes of of different witnesses of Jesus' life. The bible reiterates itself often, on purpose, so that research may be properly performed. Ancient people aren't as dumb as you might think they were that they wouldn't correct such hilariously glaring problems in their fake biblical history. Also you are reading translations which are fallible and man made with errors, many made by people who only care about making money by printing a different translations and failed to pay money and attentiom to edit it properly, not the original Torah and Tenach which are also full of narrative and poetry, not all to be taken 100 % literal word for word or to be combed through with a scientific lens. Miracles make any attempt at complete scientific or historical evaluation utterly impossible. God confounds the minds of the 'wise' for a reason.

      It's why many hardcore Muslims will roll their eyes at you if you try to use anything other than a proper text in the proper parent language to debate them. Also Revelations and Daniel state there are prophecies and assorted knowledge that will come to light when it is Gods will for it to. English and other language translations are not inspired by God and it was never my intention to defend them as their flaws are often laughably obvious. King James for instance even wrote about what was thought to be the proper witchcraft of the day. The original texts themselves are what is infallible inspired Word. I don't defend anything but original Hebrew and Greek. And the only writing from God proper is of course the ten commandments themselves. No overriding of free will is necessary to inspire people who want to know and write the truth. Trust me, in those days it wouldn't be hard at all for God to easily convince a willing scribe or an already existing prophet to write what He tells them. Read Revelations. He wouldn't have had to make the assertion that people will be cursed if they tamper with the words and prophecies of the bible if humans are incapable of said tampering. Those who created false books or translated wrong have had or will have their just rewards. The only things that are without question are how to obey gods laws and obtain life in the world to come. The rest is mostly fluff and flavor. My apologies for not expounding on this earlier.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Thank you Mary. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

    • profile image

      Mary 

      3 weeks ago

      I agree with you. I also enjoyed reading the article. It brought to mind more questions and ideas

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      You - "It wasn't until the 60s that schools taught the universe had a beginning. Think about it. Thanks to Hubble, "Let there be light" is now current science fact."

      Exactly. And think of how much more we know now than then. More of the bible can be shown to be scientifically accurate.

      You - "If the bible is man made and god had nothing to do with keeping it intact, then none of its contents is anything but bullshit."

      Not true. The texts of the bible are recorded events in human history when this God interacted with humanity. But for the words of the bible to be God's word He would have had to override a human's free will to act through that person. It's often said the writers of the bible were 'inspired' by God. If so it's still their words and created by their hands.

      You - "To believe otherwise and cherry pick what parts of religions you want to accept is delusional."

      This is why it was deemed by religions to be the infallible word of God. So you can't argue what it says. It was established as 'perfect'.

      What you and I have on our bookshelves have been through numerous changes. There are hundreds of different translations of the same text. I've got one bible that says the "sons of God" in the book of Job. Another that says "Angels". One of them calls the beings in Gen6 the "Nephilim". The other says "Giants". There are some bibles that have books included that aren't in others. It's not possible that these can be the "word of God". Not to mention the mistakes. Just look at }Gen12/20/26. It's clear these are duplications of the same story, just written with different characters three different times. If this was God's infallible word, that wouldn't happen.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      3 weeks ago

      Science changes. The Word does not. It wasnt until the 60s that schools taught the universe had a beginning. Think about it. Thanks to Hubble, "Let there be light" is now current science fact. If the bible is man made and god had nothing to do with keeping it intact, then none of its contents is anything but bullshit. To believe otherwise and cherry pick what parts of religions you want to accept is delusional. This entire discourse is a waste of time as the longer you live, the more proof of god comes to light. The god of this world will advent soon, the prince of the power of the air through technology will speed up prophecied events, and all will know truth in short order.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Hannah,

      These are not God's words. God didn't write this. The bible is man made. it's important to understand that.

      But the people who did write these words, who told these stories, they actually walked and talked with God. The creation account they give is what they were told. It's an account of the Earth's creation told in a perspective humans can understand. From a surface of the Earth perspective. And when seen that way it lines up exactly with what science says happened in Earth's history. The darkness was because of a dense cloud cover over the Earth before the land and atmosphere existed. The light was light coming through that dense atmosphere. The early Earth could certainly be described as "without form and void". It all lines up.

      Genesis does say there were humans before Adam and Eve. And they did not have free will as A/E did so they were not capable of sin. Free will is what made A/E significant. They were the first of God's creation able to behave of their own will. The humans created in Gen1 were told to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the Earth" and to establish dominance in the animal kingdom. Then God deemed all of creation "good". A/E were breaking the rules right from the start. Humans before them carried out God's commands though it took numerous generations. Science shows that humans did exactly as God commanded. A/E were breaking God's command right from the start. Would they even be able to carry out God's commands?

      I agree with you about faith. If it could be proven then faith would not be required. Someone centuries later proving it would undermine all of those who believed through faith without physical confirmation.

      Personally I think it's about calibrating us. Training us to look within to find our connection to God. To not depend on our senses and scan the outside world for proof.

      When it's by faith, it's a choice. We choose by free will. If there were proof it would no longer be a choice.

    • profile image

      Hannah 

      3 weeks ago

      I think you may find this interesting. Of course, some speculation but much scripture to back up the theory.

      https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/cre...

    • profile image

      Hannah 

      3 weeks ago

      I don't know that there's any harm in speculation. That's between the speculator and God. When I read Genesis, 1:1 tells me In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth. Creation isn't without purpose; an accident is. There is no telling of the time it was created. That is not relevant so God left that part out. 1:2 tells me the Earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. I think there is a great catastrophy between 1:1 and 1:2 and there are other scriptures to back that up. Man went to the Moon only to find out it is a wasteland. How did it get like that? I think that's what Earth was like. Between 1:1 and 1:2 you have a great catastrophy in God's universe. The darkness is the absence of God. What do you get without God? The devil: the fallen angels. What does the Bible tell us about Satan? He fell from heaven. Where did he go when he fell? The Earth was without form and void. Darkness covered it. Then God moved and made it a habitable place for man. Apparently, there was some creature on Earth before Adam, before the spirit of God moved. But God has not given us all the details. The spirit of God moved and recreated. Then in the next verses you have the six days of renovation of the Earth. He used the matter that already existed and recreated. I have faith that when God says six days, that's what me and you refer to as six days. He created light and separated it from the darkness. Called the light day and the dark night. He created the first 24 hour day. God separated the waters. Some above and some below. Then he separated the waters from the land. Then he prepared the ground for man. Who is to say that God didn't create a hydraulic chamber with the water above? Whose to say God couldn't unseparate and reseparate the waters horizontally and vertically when he pleased or during Noah. As for Adam, he created, not recreated, man. Gave him consciousness and free will. Was he the only man God ever made? God doesn't tell us. He only gives us enough details to have faith. The fall of all humans happened when Eve and Adam ate the forbidden fruit. God covered all their needs, gave them power and they didn't have to do anything. All the food was there they just had to gather it and not eat of the forbidden. They sinned and then they were required to work for their food. Then they had to sacrifice innocent blood in order to be in the presence of God. To cover their sins with killing an innocent animal and offering to God. If other people were on the Earth when God made Adam, were they sinners or did they have the same power as Adam? Were there women? Was Eve the first? The author's purpose, God's purpose, in the old testament is to tell us who created, what he created, why he created and how we were separated from him and that the solution would come in the new testament. In six days God turned an inhabitable place for man into a habitable. 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. I am inclined to believe when he says replenish he means there is no other human. Replenish also indicates that something has been there before but not during their time. God uses the word replenish again with Noah. Every human was wiped from the face of the Earth and Noah was to repopulate the Earth. Does it matter if every drop of water covered the land? There are many things we cannot explain about God, his power, his miracles. How do we scientifically prove the virgin birth, the resurrection or even where we were when God created all of this? We can speculate all we want, we may have evidence to support our hypothesis, overwhelming evidence, but the truth of the matter is that you can explain away any detail you want but God is the only one that knows. God wants us to believe with faith. He already knew the intellectual man would be interested in his book and want to bridge the gap between human and biblical knowledge. Or separate it further. That we are a curious people and like to have all the answers. If someone tells you they love you, there may or may not be any evidence to support their claim. If there is evidence, correlation does not equal causation. You cannot know for sure that what they say is true. There isn't a test they can do on the brain to tell you that. You either blindly believe or not. I think God knew there wouldn't be a man on Earth that could prove that anything happened the way that it did. That in all eternity we could not scientifically prove a thing. He wants us to believe without all the answers and without any proof. That means more to him then believing something just because we know 100% with evidence. I don't want to confuse anyone. I'm only speculating the unknown. It's better to stick to the facts that save. Virgin born, innocent sinless Jesus, died as a sacrifice for our sins and rose again. He's sitting at the right hand of God waiting for us to recieve him and the forgiveness of our sins. He will return one day and save us from judgment. No one reads a book only to focus on the introduction. In my opinion, the middle is one of the best parts of a book and the end is the very best.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      N/A

      My desire isn't to prove the existence of God or to 'win souls'. I'm pointing out the obvious truth. God and "evolution" are not two opposing sides. Evolution is "how" God works. God created evolution.

      I don't and I've never doubted God's existence. The existence of God is apparent.

      This isn't about proving God real. This is about understanding. I have good reason to think humans have been reading this wrong for a very long time. The people/churches who interpreted these words didn't know all we know now.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Hannah,

      I got this from the bible. The evidence that goes along with it came later. The words of that very same bible gave me specific dates and events and locations. It's not speculation. It's confirmation.

      Everything you explained to be the only information you need, that came from this same bible. It's all in the same book. So where's the harm? As you said, it's the only thing we can count on as fact.

    • profile image

      N/A 

      3 weeks ago

      Jeremy, I understand the desire to scientifically prove the existence of God and to bridge the gap between modern science and the Bible's version of creation and the world's history. If we could only prove it, then only a fool could deny it. In going this route, assuming the goal is to save more souls, do you ever find yourself struggling to believe in Him? How successful have you been in converting lost sinners with these "facts"? Is your work and research for His glory? Or are you trying to still convince yourself that He is real? I read in a comment that you believe in God but are you saved? Do you truly believe that you are a sinner saved by grace? Saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus? Do you know for a fact that you will be saved from judgement and hell? Can you put that same faith in this article of hypothesis? A saving faith? I feel your playing with fire, a believer in God and a believer in evolution. It's like that old Greek race, where you put one foot on one horse and one foot on the other and then you start out. It's marvelous when the two horses keep on the same route but believe me when one of them decides to go another direction, you're in for trouble.

    • profile image

      Hannah 

      3 weeks ago

      The Bible includes the only facts God wants us to know... The Bible says the only Truth, the only things we can count on as fact is His Word. I don't care what you say... ANYTHING BEYOND THE BIBLE IS PURE SPECULATION. Maybe he'll tell us the rest when we get to heaven.. maybe he won't, but in the here and now the only thing that matters is that we are sinners separated from God, He sent His Son to to be born of a virgin, die for our sins, to be a replacement offering/final sacrifice, and be raised from the dead so that we may be saved from our sin. That's the only fact I need.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 weeks ago from Texas

      Sorry you feel that way.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      4 weeks ago

      Your so full of shit i dont even want to talk to you any more.its allways the other guy with you.you twist every thing my words Gods words.you iisten to no one and you LIE.ENOUGH SAID.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 weeks ago from Texas

      Keith alan,

      Question... what is it that you think my motivation is to, as you seem to think, deliberately lie and mislead people? Is it that you think I'm inspired by the devil to trip up believers? You feel I've turned myself over to evil and am now trying to desroy others? I don't get it. You seem to be convinced that I'm just lying and misleading like some villain, but usually any good villain has a meaningful motivation of some kind.

      What I'm pointing out about the wife-sister narratives in Gen 12/20/26 is not crap. You have, on multiple occasions, referred to the bible as "God's word". And you see to take offense when I read it and reach and different conclusion that you. So, this 'word of God' that you claim is infallible, there are numerous differing translations of the bible. Some, like the bibles used by Catholics, or the Ethiopian version, have books in them that aren't included in the ones you and I read. Are these alternate versions also 'God's word'? Or are they versions changed by humans and not valid bibles?

      There's only one element I do not trust, and that's the human element. I have the utmost faith in God. I've dedicated years of my life pursuing this which tries to legitimize the bible. I'm not disrespecting it. I'm treating each and every word with the utmost respect. I have a responsibility here to be accurate. I don't say what I say lightly.

      And, to be clear, Christian is my real last name. I'm a Christian by name and by faith.

    • profile image

      Keith alan 

      4 weeks ago

      Again with the crap about gen.12,20,26 what are you a one trick pony?to be clear these passages belong. And shows a time line even in the texts themselves.a conection.these textes have many pourposes one to show the genealogy of Israel making very clear that no sons of cain defiled these women.also that the sons of cain would have killed for their woman.and it is clearly stated that it was their practise the whole time among the sons of cain to do this.so of course they told all the sons of cain when entering a new city that their wifes were their sisters.and why? Becouse God told them to.how do i know? Becouse God did interceded on their behalf.and blessed their way in the land of cain.you say becouse these passages are similar that its logical to assume its a mistake and editing of man"what logic is this but one whos agenda is to disprove the word of God and call it lies?"but you sir do lie.you call Joseph the father of Jesus and use his genealogy to trace back to david and claim this to be the reason Jesus is called the son of david.but you leave out the begining of this very verse Joseph as supposed the father of Jesus.this genealogy is given as his adopted father.but Jesus'genealogy is given through mary and nathan son of david.not soloman.you leave out these passages pourposely ti mislead the followers of God.this sir is lieing.to pourposely misslead people from the truth is a lie.and isnt logical to assume you've lied about many things?and by logic who is the father of lies? How is anyone to believe anything you say? You sir have no credibility at all.all you say is to promote your own preconcieved notions and all the saying prove me wrong and i will change my mind.this to is a lie.no truth will you hear.you call yourself a christian,and you are becouse you named yourself christian,but this to is a lie a fake name in order to decieve.between you or the bible i choose the truth.and becouse you are a lier and against the word of God im assured its true every passage

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 weeks ago from Texas

      James,

      I laid out in great detail "what part of this story makes me think that Adam was not the first human". To repeat it here would be redundant. I invite you to keep reading.

      It's not "God's word". God didn't sit down and write it. Humans did. If God had written it there'd be no mistakes.

      For a prime example of a biblical mistake, please read Genesis 12, 20 and 26.

    • profile image

      James Bergquist 

      4 weeks ago

      Genesis tells us that God created MAN and breathed into HIS nostrils and put the MAN in the garden of Eden. What part of this story makes you thing that Adam was not the first human???????????Quit trying to over analyse God's word.

    • profile image

      Jerry Bulla 

      6 weeks ago

      Please consider.

      Gen 1-26 God made heb{asah}male and female.Gen 2-6 God formed {heb] [yatsar] [Adam] Two different words and formations.Notice it doesn't say in Gen-2-3 that there was no man on earth at this time,but rather No man to till the ground.There were men but they were hunters/gathers not farmers.What was Adam to eat since inGen 2-5 No food was planted?I think it came from what was planted in and completed in Gen-2-1.This first creation is were Cain got his woman from.Gen 4-16.And I must say with all Scripture foundation anyone who teaches you any of the following is Mystery Bablon the harlot of revelation.Tithing,walt Disney world heaven ,Hell torture chamber,Free will,Trinity,Immortal soul,will see tribulation of 360 days of revelation tribulation.I say this in love.Nothing worse than a self rightgeous fake Christian whos doctorins can be blown up with the Scripture they are suppose to be going by.And Gods word does just that!Please study yourself approved of God NOT Men.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      6 weeks ago

      As i have said many times i have scientific mathmatical proof that is undeniable in nature.you continually ignore these facts,and speak as if olny a misguided fool wouls believe the bible is the infallible word of God. to say "lt is more logical"to believe patterns in the word of God are from mans editing than God himself is just crazy.what logic is this but that of one with an agenda?predisposed by your own disbeliefe.it is you that will hear no truth or logic concerning the word of God,as your goal is to disproove it.you know as well as myself that your logic comes from the quran.that you pretend to be christian in an attempt to discredit the lord christ and the word of God.none of the scriptures that you quote did you find on your own but are the thrust of the followers of the quran and their logic towards them.if you are not aware of this,then you should know that the orgins of your information comes from them.these are the arguments of the quran.......and myself no emotions can change this truth..and truthfully it does anger me to pretend to be something your not.to attempt to sell lie conjectur and foolish logic as scientic proof and when real evedence comes your way you just ignore it calling the messenger bringing it ignorant that he will not hear your words. in the name of Jesus Christ this i say the chronological order of Christianity begins gen1:1 and by the order of Melchizedec is he priest forever and by his order his proof

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 weeks ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      I don't mean to offend or upset. I give you my honest thoughts so you are able to understand my perception. My intention is not to argue that I'm right and you're wrong. Only why I think what I do. In this case, why I reject your reasoning and conclusions.

      It should also be noted your reaction to what I've said. If you have an emotional response then that should be an indication to you that what you believe is not unbiased. If you emotionally respond to this topic then you're not allowing yourself to truly see things clearly. It skews your perception.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 

      6 weeks ago from Houston, TX USA

      I have read the entire Bible, most of the Q'ran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I do not know what happened in the ancient past because I was not there. We simply do not know what really happened. It is all Theory. I believe God is Good, All Good, Always. God would never curse or torture people, especially children. All stories which depict God as violent, jealous, vengeful or warlike are Blasphemy. It is a projection of a violent human mind.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      7 weeks ago

      I study the word.who are you to tell me why i believe something?you pretend to know me?i have proven by science the truth of God and his word.and your right nothing you say will ever change my mind.but the fact your goal is to disproove the word and all who dont agree with you are "fools just following what lies they are taught"tells volumes.enjoy the quran.stop pretending to be a Christian.you fool no one.you will never read these texts as you dont read the bible.you just read the parts following after what you are told.in an attempt to discredit it.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 

      7 weeks ago from Houston, TX USA

      Here is a different explanation for events reported by the ancients.

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Atlantian...

      What do ya'll think?

    • profile image

      John Washam 

      7 weeks ago

      So, the Earth was populated by a race of sinless people before Adam?

    • profile image

      rherms84 

      7 weeks ago

      So when did Man evolved into Gods image?.....

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Here's the chronological order of the books of the bible for anyone who'd like to do this as well ...

      James - 50 A.D.

      First Thessalonians - 52-53.

      Second Thessalonians - 52-53.

      Galatians - 55.

      First Corinthians - 57.

      Second Corinthians - 57.

      Romans - 57-58.

      Philippians - 62-63.

      Colossians - 62-63.

      Philemon - 62-63.

      Ephesians - 62-63.

      Luke - 63.

      Acts - 64.

      First Timothy - 65.

      Titus - 65.

      Second Timothy - 66.

      Mark - 66.

      Matthew - 67.

      Hebrews - 67.

      First Peter - 67-68.

      Second Peter - 68.

      Jude - 68.

      Apocalypse - 68.

      John - c. 85.

      Epistles of John - 90-95

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Hi Nathan,

      Here's something interesting I found that I'll most likely be doing at some point, but it touches a bit on what you asked about specifically ...

      "In 2012, Jesus scholar Marcus Borg published Evolution of the Word: Reading the Bible in the Order It was Written. Borg encourages readers to explore the 27 books of the New Testament in the order they were written to see how Christian thinking unfolded over time. Ordering the texts as they were written also allows scholars to put the evolution of Christianity in a historical context.

      Read this way, one trend line is that the stories about Jesus become more magical over time. For example, John, the last gospel written, has Jesus making the boldest claims about his own deity." - https://valerietarico.com/2014/12/09/the-not-so-vi...

      Actually this whole article has a lot of interesting bits to dig more into.

      As for Adam's line losing their more godlike qualities ....

      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 speaking of the two lines in existence, naturally evolved humans/homo sapiens (daughters of humans), and Adam's line (sons of God). It explains that in contrast to Adam's line, humans are mortal and only live 120 years just one chapter after laying out how Adam's line lived for centuries. These two lines began to interbreed. Over time the 'godlike' qualities of Adam's line was diluted by the mixing with "mortal" humans, which is why the ages decrease from this point on from generation to generation, with the last of the long-living ancestors dying out during Abraham's time.

      I go into more detail about this in my hub "The Mysterious Unnamed Supporting Cast of Pre-Flood Genesis".

    • profile image

      Nathan 

      2 months ago

      I was reading your comments about Jesus and I was just wondering if you could touch on it a little more. Can you explain some of Christ's more divine moments, for example the Transfiguration? Your perspective on Christ is definitely interesting to me, and I agree with your summary of Adam. Also can you clarify when did Adam's line lose their more godlike qualities (such as the long life) and how did they lose those qualities?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      So, in other words, you're already convinced and it wouldn't matter what it said, you'd deem it the infallible word of God. Because that's what you were taught. No proof of it. Nothing to support this idea. You're just a 'better believer' because you continue to believe it despite the evidence to the contrary. As you said, believe what you will.

      And it should be specified that yes, it happened to Abraham twice AND it happened to the same pharoah, Abimilek, twice.

      The much more likely explanation is that, like many stories told word of mouth, the story structure remained, but the details changed over time like a game of telephone. Then, whoever was doing the editing just put them in chronological order based on if it was during' Abraham's time or Lots.

      "Most controversial is its revision of Isaiah 7:14 to predict that the messiah will be born to a "young woman," not to a "virgin," a characterization that some critics say casts doubt on the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth.

      The conference of bishops explained that it had concluded that the original Hebrew ("almah") more accurately meant "maiden" or "young woman"...."

      - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life...

      And to match up with that prophecy, Jesus must be born of a virgin. Don't you think it's peculuar how Luke in the first chapter speaks of Mary being a virgin and how this signifies Jesus' significance, then in the very next chapter there's this ...

      "When his parents saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.” He said to them, “Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he said to them. (Luke 2:48-50 NRSV)."

      Why would they not understand? It was conclusively explained in a dream what happened. Who Jesus was and how he was convieved. But they don't understand? In fact, other than those mentions when Jesus was first conceived, it's never mentioned again. This miracle that established Jesus as truly significant seems to have been forgotten.

      "The earliest mention of the birth of Jesus comes in Paul’s letter to the church at Galatia, likely written between 49 and 55 C.E, or about half a century before the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Paul’s description makes no mention of a virgin birth. He says simply that, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Galatians 4:4).

      In another letter, Paul seems to imply that Jesus came into the world in the usual way. In Romans 1:1-3 he refers to . . . the gospel of God…concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” The phrase “seed of David” refers specifically to the genealogy of Joseph, the husband of Mary."

      - https://valerietarico.com/2014/12/09/the-not-so-vi...

      Now I'm not downplaying Jesus' significance. Let's get that straight. But in the context of the rest of the story being told, retaining the "holy seed" is a big deal. God gives all these really specific rules to this one particular line of people. He created everyone, right? But these people he gave strict breeding rules. He bred from Abraham just as He said He would. Because Abraham tested well for the characteristics He was looking to produce, this was his chosen human.

      The story just makes more sense if Jesus is born a human. Makes what Jesus did that much more of a big deal. He was human. Like you and me. Had a will and a temper and temptations and all the rest. But unlike us, and unlike Adam, he never behaved outside of, or contrary to, God's will.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      I read gen 12 20 26 and yes i still believe the word is the infallible word of God.these are not "edits"what is wrong with you?these three incedents occurrd.a clear time line is given.2 times with Abraham once with isaac. It was God himself that gave them the words to say of their wives.becouse of the great evil in the land.that the sons of cain had no rrspect for God or life.tbeir for did God bless the good king for his good deeds and also his land.but of the Pharoah cursed.by this did isaac and Abraham live and were not slain for their wives.how is it you say "edits"you cant see the time line clearly given?you dont see Gods hand working?dont you know the evil work of the sons of cain?how they would have slain them?becouse all three times they called their wives their sister their for you say different edits of the same story?all three are different and a clear time line is given.read the chapters in between.did you not read that Abraham said that from the time he entered into the land this was his practice?and it continued becouse it was Gods will.why do you have a problem with this?believe what you will

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      What evidence?you think just becouse you hear a negitive comment its true?many many places it calls mary a virgin. The old testament profitcide of the virgin birth.the holy spirit came to Joseph and confirmed this along with various other passages.you claim to reaserch passages and you claim to use your findings to form conclusions. but thats not what you do.you look for negitive comments and report them without knoledge as if true.you do no work in the word.you get your lies from the quran.and the sons of cain who you revier.you fools.you base the quran on the bible and mosses.as a foundation and then tear it down so your house will fall.becouse as Christians we look for truth.we do our own research.not based on lies and accusation...that olny tends to fool ourselves.but reality.we dont need as the quran followers do to change the truth.i have much evidence that the quran is all lies wtitten by an egotistical fool praying to satan himself.who is the father of lies.its all fake.and it will olny survive if you first destroy the truth.but to do so will destroy its very foundarion.how foolish you are.also you keep saying the word has ben manipulated changed and edited several times.tell me then whare are all these competing texts?you cant tell me every time they changed it they destroyed every coppy of the old texts?if you are saying the hebrew bible evolved then whare is the evolution,the trail of differnt texts?you see not olny do you say this you also know what they were thinking.even though the dead sea scrolls contain the exact same texts the same words.and no discrepancy has ben found.you recieve your knoledge by the scolars of the quran whom you follow without question.Christians do not do as you.we look and study and allways check the hebrew that has remained unchanged for thousands of years.and christ himself who was the word made flesh did know them and approved them.who are you to just make up crap and sell it like its true.do your own work instead of vomiting out lies satan gave mohamads childern.you son of cain and follower of him.ive read your quran.till it just became as a man expounding his opinion. As yourself.just a man not profit of God as you suppose.making his religion for satan from the word of God wich he perverts.saying:Jesus will come before and God wil charge him saying "why did you teach my childern to worship your mother, "and all the apstles will bow on their knees and call themselfs Muslim.this is why they tell lies about Jesus and his origins.why would the creator of all things bow to mohamad?and his apstles?really im supprised you even concidet anything correct in it.oh thats right from christ onward the word keeps changing even though we have scriptures well before that proving no change occured.and your inability to privide actual texts showing a change all you have is accusations.stick to mohamad and stop trying to teach the quran from the bible.explain to me again why the equation that science is looking for that includes all forces of nature is written plainly by God.all throughout each profit the year they were born the time they died the days they lived all part of the mathmatics of time..but you will never know a truth bigger than man for your god is man.not a profit a fool

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Yes, Jesus was His son, His only "begotten" son. Not because He personally empregnated Mary, but because Jesus existing was the result of His interactions with Jesus' bloodline throughout the OT.

      There's actually evidence suggesting the early church manipulated the text where it says Mary was "virgin", where it really only said she was 'young'. To add an ora of mysticim to the story they changed it.

      Genesis 12, 20 and 26 alone should tell you this is not the 'perfect' word of God. This is obviously a mistake in editing. It's man made.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      Not son of Joseph.for God so loved the world that he gave his olny begotten son.different than the apstles and the profits.mary was a virgin and had not had sex at all let alone Joseph.he was God on earth born of woman as ourselfs without memory to conform by nature to his nature.your beliefe that he was just a profit whos birth was for told is just ignoring the word.although as thedecadentone one pointed out,it was the Catholic Church that bound the 66 books of the bible together,and myself am in the same mistrust of them having also added easter at the same time,i know the words were not changed.becouse of the dead sea scrolls and other evidence.if one chooses to read the books that wernt included they are still available.but for myself i know God did bind them together.he created the word and the word became flesh.he would not have his childern without it.even through the device of men he made his porpoise manifest.the 66 books of the bible were selected by him.the proof of the accuracy of these books is easly reaserched...dont be mislead the bible is the perfect word of God.this man seeks to destroy the bible and its perfect nature by unfounded truths.he does this in a selective manner that reviels his agenda.Jesus is just a man profit of God...sons of adam wicked...sons of cain teachers of knoledge..the bible just a book writen by men about a time when God stil interacted with men.just like a history book.not inspired by God just stories.and if you do as God says and give it the benefit of the doubt and search for truths olny a creator would know....he then characterises the work as as being based in missconeptions. and denies the truth.saying the bible is just a collection of stories.he states from preyers his God leads him this way.but i know his agenda is not his own that he would have you believe he recieved his theology by research.this is not true.he first began with a theology and is now in the process of turning the bible into mohamads vision.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      This is a conversation I haven't had the opportunity to have very often. I know the concepts I speak about where Jesus is concerned are not popular. But the way I see it, all the old testament is based on the interactions God had with the bloodline of Jesus. All the commands, all the rules about who to mate with and what to eat, keeping them separated from others through centuries in Egypt or wondering the wilderness. All very much like breeding is done in livestock.

      Yes, Jesus' statement is correct. God's intent was to create Jesus. Even before he was born he existed. All the events in the OT were to make him. He's the second Adam. The second creation by God with free will. Only this one actually could and did live as Adam could not. All of that was to undo the damage done by Adam/Eve.

      But how significant would Jesus' life be if he were half a god? What makes what he accomplished so significant is that he was a human. Born of Mary and Joseph. Born of David and Abraham and Adam.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 months ago

      It's hard to believe anything the Catholic Church decided made up the "true" Bible because they changed the holiness of the Sabath and revere sunday. For all we know they burned the real history of Jesus and just allowed Matthew-John to be included because it fit with their theology.

      "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. " Daniel 7:25

      "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20:28-30

      Yes, long ago God predicted that, from within the church itself, misguided men would arise who would attempt to change His holy law.

      In Daniel, God lists many identifying characteristics of the little horn who would 'think to change' God's law. The Bible's identifying points clearly implicate the Roman Catholic church. Look at the many statements made by the church and its leadership.

      “The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit – or blame – for the change.” This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, p.8, June 1997

      "The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day." ~The Catholic Encyclopedia

      I can only truly believe the attributes of Jesus which the prophets revealed about him. Everything else has no substance other than what faith gives us. But to say Jesus was just a man and is in no way more God than we are is saying too much. Jesus is the angel of the lord, who is also referred to as an incarnation of Yahweh himself more than once in the tanak, aka the old testament as it was known in Jesus' day. Saying he's just a really good and godly inspired prophet, you might as well call yourself as Muslim as it's what they believe. Which is intrinsically wrong as many things Jesus said and claimed makes him a liar and abomination to all that is good and holy and true. Unless he was correct. God did not create him. Jesus always was. He said that before Abraham was, 'I am'.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      "The origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 150 B.C. and 70 A.D., remains the subject of scholarly debate to this day. According to the prevailing theory, they are the work of a Jewish population that inhabited Qumran until Roman troops destroyed the settlement around 70 A.D." - https://www.history.com/news/6-things-you-may-not-...

      Jesus is the son of God in the same way that Joseph/David/Shem/Methuselah/Enoch/Seth/Adam were sons of God (Luke 3).

      Jesus was the son of God in that God interacted and influenced Jesus' bloodline, thus creating him in an environment that was not in His control. What makes Jesus' accomplishments so significant is that he was truly human.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      WHAT?the dead see scrolls date back thousands of years and contain multiple coppies of every book in the old testament.save for 1 i believe ester.the book of enoch is not written by enoch and is not included in the bible becouse it ts mostly unreliable texts.in the book of jude it is said by the profit that enoch spoke profitcy against the fallen ones.this is not a quote from that book of enoch.but is a statement by God as to what enoch did that was good.you say you focus on the book of Genesis but all you do is focus on the parts of Genesis you deem reliable.Genisis 5 being the most unreliable.and whate did you get this idea that from the time of Jesus the texts get more unreliable?really?what are you trying to sell..Jesus son of God or proffit?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Understand, the book of Enoch was written around the time of Jesus, 5000 years after the events of Genesis. The early stories of Genesis were already a mystery by then. Nobody, not the writer of Enoch, not Mohammad, had any sort of informed knowledge of these books beyond anyone else.

      This is why I focus on the books of Moses (Gen-Deut), because these were actually written in that age by people who lived in that age. Well, technically writing wasn't invented for another 1500 years, so these stories were passed down, but from a much more accurate source than those written in Jesus' time.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      But you have changed the word.the dead see scrolls prove it.centuries ago? Yes or no mohamad profit or not. Jesus profit of God or son?you wish to change the word saying with modern knoledge we can correct it and make it right.doesnt that give us today an advantage? You see the problem?and if as you say some texts are incorrect then you should correct them bind the "modern"version together and rename it.by this you can begin your own religion.you have said in your posts the book of jude is plagiarism the book of Genesis also is plagiarism using old stories with added chapters from the lieing evil story telling sons of adam.then if you are so sure remove them.the 5th chapter chief among them..according to you...also every book that contains any refernce to enoch.and then your problems will disappear.you can teach from your newly revised modern corrected version.as mohammad did.this is your theology that the bible is plagiarism and needs correcting..just certain passages and books...not changeing it just correcting it putting it back the way it allways should have ben.so it makes the quran needed and bible usless.tell me then the man who walked with mosses who knew more than him who performed 3 tasks do you revier him you son of cain betray yourself .jesus profit of God or son?mohamad profit or no?adam was not the first man but the first in the line of Jesus Christs the genome of God.but again follow your heart do the work that proves the word of God,or chang the word to reflect the modern truth you sell.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      I've changed nothing. I've merely applied the correct context to the stories and found the truths that were there all along while being totally misunderstood.

      All that's changed is the misunderstood interpretations made centuries ago by people who didn't have the knowledge to know what context the stories were told in. And there interpretations show that to be the case.

      Yours shows signs of not having the proper knowledge as well. From here I can plainly see it's errors. Don't be foolish.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      Modern knoledge you fool teach the quran if thats your choice but stop trying to cahange the bible to suit mohamsds pourpose.no new knoledge modern or otherwise can change the truth of the bible.im not "butt hurt" over your comments i find them very foolish.written by a fallible man pron to lies snd missconeptions brought on by the nature of your free will.and you have changed the scriptures.regardless of reason,that you obviously revier.foolishness is foolishness.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      I haven't revised anything. You're just butt hurt because I pointed out your equation as meaningless. I don't gain anything by being "right". If I'm wrong I want to be shown I'm wrong. But I'm not going to waste my time when that claim of "what's right" is so immediately flawed from the concept up.

      This "version" that I present is simply a reconsideration in light of modern knowledge. I've omitted nothing. What verse is it that you claim I'm ignoring? You're right about Jude, though. And anything that speaks of the book of Enoch, which is obviously a form of fan fiction written around the well known stories of early Genesis.

      I'm simply taking a level headed approach. You being offended by my response to yours is more about your ego being all wrapped up in what you're presenting. I don't mind being wrong. I will be eternal grateful anytime you can show me that I'm wrong about something. Because I value the truth above all else I want to know if I'm wrong about something.

      I'm not wrong about what you're presenting.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      Ya everything you twist as if the truth is perverted.not my equation Gods.the truth you turn to lie for your own porpoise.i gave you the science and direction all you have to do is the work.if your preyers have ben answered and the sons of cain you follow then i know your father

      I believe mr.christian that you should follow after your own heart.this same problem you will run into:people will continue to bring up scripture you choose to delete for various reasons.you then should concider a re-edit of the hebrew bible.removing all Genisis ch.5 all the book of jude any that reference enoch and all others you deem unworthy till you have a complete work exalting the sons of cain and admonishing foolishness of the story tellers aka the dangerous sons of adam.when completed you could call it "the newly enlighten jeremy christian version" then you can teach from that and no answer can prevail against you.if it be your unable to answer then just revise it again and again.the fact you twist the truth and follow the sons of cain and deni Gods glory that he gave to alk men proves your motive.do the work eather the math or the edit follow your own heart.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      What makes an equation meaningful is that the characters and values mean something. F is for force, m for mass. Actual measurements that directly reflect what they represent.

      Years in a man's life and in his son's life has no meaning in regards to the length of a day.

      Besides, what does revealing the characteristics of the Earth have to do with anything? What does this accomplish? Proof? Of God? Of the bible's legitimacy?

      Nothing, including the bible, should be an idol that represents God. God is God and no physical thing can lead you to him. That is not what the bible is. Numbers are going to relate to one another. You're going to find a correlation of some kind between this number and that. Coincidences abound in this kind of thinking. And any one of those coincidences can lead you down pointless and meaningless paths. Because there is no meaning at its core. The values of the equation are irrelevant to the calculation.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      So I do this by faith? Faith in what? Faith in God? Faith in your equation?

      I have done the work through prayer. When I prayed for guidance I got what I've written here. Which you are now rejecting because you believe you already have the answer. Because you found yours through faith and work you assume you're right and I'm wrong. So does that make you a better believer?

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      Not exactly...by faith you do the work.im olny giving direction.first you must concider what is most important to you;to prove your theology or to know the truth.and if its the latter then you will succeed.but by faith you do tbe work..how many days in a year..look at my posts i gave you many things to look up scientifically .by following this path and asking guidence from the holy spirit will you see his glory.it is for this purposes that God gave his olny begotten son,that in this day by his holy spirit, he will guide you.you will find answers that come olny by his knowing of your thoughts.and he will lead you and no knoledge will he keep from you.and blessed is he that believes and still has not seen.faith is an action faith with work is righteousness.as counted by God

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      You say that it's only by faith that this can be seen. Yet you're showing me. If these were legitimate then it would seem that I could come to believe by finding the equations legitimate. It could be proven to me through this, and not through faith. Does that sound right?

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      No problem at all

      GOD created the bible to unfold over time.as our knoledge of science increased,by his revelations,so too our understanding.

      It is olny by faith one can find tbis truth. And as a fact to reaserch the history of science you will find men of God who gave us these truths, isaac newton,the one most readely researched.but the fact is in the completion of this equation you will also find the creation of light by its velocity.and the formation of the cubits.all to the end that the nature of time can be revealed. So then comes the knoledge of a change of time and its new mathmatics.this do i claim

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      So, you claim these equations can reveal the size, weight, density, rotational velocity, and resonate frequency of the Earth. See, here's the problem with that. If these were proofs of the bible's legitimacy then what that means is that people who live in this age where these things can be known and confirmed have an advantage over others who lived in an age when these things were not known. People before this age had to have faith without confirmation. People of this age don't.

      You see the problem?

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      You mean we all need to look through your lens?i completly understand the orgins and context of Gods word.stop making assumptions as to my understanding.do you really believe what you say?if its true you believe the bible is just a collection of stories of man "with added bonus scenes" then whats the point.you sir should read the quran.your theology is of them.becouse you never look for evidence of Gods word believing it from man,then your misconceptions betrays you.your assumptions tells all men of God of your intensions.to pick and choose the words of scripture as you deem important to your arguments. and all other truths you ignore,believing all men do as you do,making wild conclusions without merit.but i sir am not as you.as i have said befour Gods equation continues throughout the bible.every profit wrote of it.you are very unwise to deni a work that proves the word of God,and his existence.you betray yourself.you should study the texts you believe true.and stop wasting your time on the bible.it is true adam was not the first man.thats why i came to this page,but now i understand all you really want to do is prove the bible is not the word of God.and any man that thinks so does so becouse he is mislead without understanding.please stop selling Gods word short and for that matter my words on the subject.i tell no lies.all you have to do is look.and for that mattet what about the new testament?is that too just a collection of stories by men?with free will?prone to lies?as if the lord christ choose them unwisely? without knoledge of their freewill? You should know the new testament completes the equation God began in Genisis.revelation the last book 2nd to the last chapter 21 brings the new earth.12000 ferlongs and i heard the walls theirof 144 acording to the cubit that is of the angel of the lord for he is a man.if you can correctly solve this equation you will know the truth.but if your bible states it to be 1500 miles then throw it away.God gives equaisions over and over allways counting time and genealogy.i dont want to argue any more.if you won't look then dont comment.im well aware of your stance on mathmatics and your misconceptions about the bible.i say these things olny for your edification.to dispell your own preconcieved notions for wich you can never prove.but by this work can the word be proven.and becouse you will say this is the new city and not the new earth if you do the work you will find it to be the size,weight,density,rotational velocity,and resonate frequency,of the earth.do the work i lead you not astray

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      This is why it's important to first understand the texts that makeup the bible as we know it today. For instance, Genesis 2-11, from Adam up through the story of Babel, were found together. Multiple times. This was a popular story in that age.

      Creation was tacked on later. As were the chapters that give the lineages of Adam's descendants.

      This was not written by God. These are not God's words. There's no hidden message to be deciphered. These are humans recording stories that were often told in that age. These are human documentation of a time in history when this God interacted with humanity.

      I don't doubt that God is quite capable of putting some secret message in there knowing what form the bible would one day take, but there's nothing to confirm that these wild speculations are at all correct or relevant.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      The first time God uses the word year is on the 4th day and uses it in the phrase let it be for days and years.The next time is in the 5th chapter..and also uses it in relation to days saying the no.of days of each mans life is equil to so many years.this is an equation.God doesn't play with words to make it more elegant and fancy.God. lives in a time 1 day = 1000 years.this is his dominion and calls us to look for him.in the 5th chapter the script stays the same olny the names and numbers are changed.till enoch the 7th from adam.and he walked with God and talked with God and God took him for he was no more.his son lived 969 years and died the same year as the flood.not in it.tell me then how many days did eacj man live?anf why would God phrase it this way?just for fun?but how can it be then that this is a perfect equaision? just a lucky sly trick? and the 120 year period is also phrased "for their no. Of days shall be as 120 years.that was 120 years before the flood.how many days is that?you who claim science to be the answer.but instead of science you use theroy.we evolved from what apes?we are closer geniticly to pigs than monkeys.and whare is the missing link?from neanderthals to us?or was Gods

      Image liken to neanderthals ?all over the earth is this one truth missing links to animals living in this time.whales and dolfins are a great example.but concider the diversity of life on this earth.the millions upon millions of species living in simbiotic harmony.this represents trillions and trillions of mutations.im not refering to differnt breeds of animals like dogs as God in his wisdom gave each animal the ability to adapt to changing conditions. But just the species themselfs.how many single cell organisms turned into multi cell creatures?and then to spread all over the earth?mankind has never seen just 1 do this in 10,000 years.nor have we seen any new species develop. Even if we say the earth 200 billion years old it is mathmaticly impossible.not by a little but by impossible.in fact if the earth was 10000 trillion years old it still would not be enough time.and yet this is the 2nd creation.100 million years ago dinosaurs lived in a completely differnt world.the species then died and a new creation all missing links from the past how an intelligent person can over look the simple truth that their isnt enough time in the.universe for this earth with its diversity of life to" evolve ".and thats assuming every mutation was perfect.you just see things adapting and call that evidence that we came from single celled organisms.why dont do some real science and research the the mathmatical possibility of evolution.concidering we see no new species in 10000 years.nor have we seen any single cell turning into multi cell.and for that matter whare did the single cell come from anyway?have we ever seen one created from nothing? So if one just poped into existence how long would it take to fill the earth with just that one cell creature?and what are the odds of that creature being able to reproduce.and what would it eat concidering their is no life on earth.and we fall for it cuz that's what they teach in school.but olny a fool thinks he can use the bible to proove evelutuon.have you really ever conciderd the ridiculous nature of it all.or do you just go along with every theroy becouse some so called scientists say so?does it even matter to you that their motivation is money.theory is theory.not science till its proven.when we see new species being created,single celled organisms just popping into existence,and changing into multicell creatures, at a rate consistent with the number of mutations needed for the diversity that exists today by the age of the earth then maby you can call it science.but that this earth is not flat it took hundreds of years to dispel that foolish belief.but how the moor is the foolishness of evolution.does anyone really think about what their told in schools?will anyone ever do the math to see if its even possible?becouse that is real science...you have a theroy and you proove it.a single cell just popping into existence?really?show me whare is the science?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      It does say it. It's not hidden. It's right there. God created humans male and female on day 6, then day 7, then Adam and Eve. It then reinforces it with Cain's concern for others in ch4 and speaking about the two groups, comparing the 'daughters of humans' to the 'sons of god' by saying they're "mortal" and only live 120 years. This comes right after showing Adam and his descendants living for centuries.

      I'm just pointing it out.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      Really when you "find something" its deemed not sly but if anouther "find something"its sly becouse its not stated as clearly as you would like aka you didnt find it...hippocrit and for tbe record.the no of days being equil to x no of years is an equation.you have all these rules as to what the word of God is not.again you will not succeed.you follow lies.this mathmatics continues to perfection.who are you to limit Gods word.and you state as fact things you know nothing of.one can easly use your same arguments against you.whare does it say adam was not the first man?the bible is not a puzzle book.if he wasnt the first why doesnt it say so?you see your main problem is you believe your the olny one that can find hidden truths in the scriptures,as if you be the keeper of truth.your ego is without merit and the truth of Gods word will consume your foolishness.you pretend to tell me not to persue Gods mathmatics as its a dead end.but ive allready completed them.and it is the explaination of creation.how can you even pretend to tell someone whats not in the bible..like you know everything?you say you have a responsibility to God to tell tje truth and yet when the truth is in front of you you then deni it.it is God that opened this door to me and your foolishness and beliefs of God can never close it...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      It's 'sly' because it's not stated as being part of an equation. It's presented as the number of years Enoch lived. And God taking Enoch just being a 'clue' to those who through faith find this little secret. Like you found a decoder ring in a box of cracker jacks.

      Yes, we view the bible differently. In my mind it cannot be the word of God because it was written by human hands, and they could not write the words of God without God overriding their free will to do so. The bible was written by humans with the free will to choose to do so.

      True understanding comes once you begin to put everything into the right context. I found what I found through prayer and faith as well. The last thing I want to do is talk ignorantly out of my ass and mislead someone looking for answers. There's a responsibility in it.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      The text says the no of days of enochs life was 365 yrs.isn't that a call to look? What is sly about that?you suppose wrongly how i found this truth.i did so by prayer and faith.we are two differnt houses on two different foundations.you believe the bible the word of man about God.i believe the bible to be the word of God about man.by this do we build differently.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      Nice concideration God does nothing slyly he does for his childern of faith.its funny becouse this equation continues to perfect conclusuon.this is olny the first line of Gods mathmatics.if as you say its a pattern of numbers then by them the odds of this one line is 1000×1000×1000 to 1 or 1 billoin to one.but this continues.sorry to see you take the path of denial.did you ever look the no of days in a year or not?you see time and Gods place in heaven all begin with this one act of faith.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      I've considered it and have dismissed it as entirely irrelevant. You really think God took Enoch after 365 years just to slyly nod at the number? Ridiculous. You've found a pattern, which often happens in numbers, because they're all related. 365 jumps out to you as the number of days in a year. From there you've obviously just followed erroneous strands in a directionless brain storm.

      There's nothing to tether any of this to reality. Stick to the hard stuff. Don't get distracted with this kind of thing. God didn't create the bible as a puzzle book. It's not a game.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      Their place in heaven is their orbits.the exact no of days in a year is 365.24225 as a fact.if you still say its irrelevant how can that be?is 969/4000 .24225? Did enoch live 365 yrs? Isnt enoch the first one taken by God?didnt he put an exclamation mark on the number by taking him?and you say irrelevant? Irrelevant to who you?these things completely relate and are true.you can ignore them and be ignorant.deni them and be a fool.or concider them carefully

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Rogers,

      Before Adam and Eve humans didn't have free will. They lived as indigenous cultures do to this day. They have no individual will that compels them to build. They're simply content to live in harmony with nature. Technology and buildings and civilizations are all the result of free will.

      Homo sapiens have been on the Earth for roughly 200000 years. Civilization and what you're talking about has only been around for about 7000 years. Which is how long ago Adam was created.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      keithalan,

      You're really reaching. First off, Enoch living 365 years and his son living 969 years is completely irrelevant.

      Day 4 is God positioning the sun and moon in the sky. Look up the drifting continents that you mentioned before. During this time in creation all the planet's landmass was collected around the south pole where light and dark lasts 6 months and the sun and moon just pass in the northern most part of the sky. During this portion those continents drifted up to where they're located now, between the poles. This did exactly what it states. It positioned the sun and moon in the sky to be used as they are. Creation is told from a 'surface of the Earth' point of view, which is why it begins with God's spirit on the surface.

    • profile image

      Rogers 

      2 months ago

      My question is, as some of you guys mention that there were, some living things even thou they were not exactly as humans as Adam but related "

      My question is ' Why there's no evidence of a least Technology, or buildings which proves that. there were human-like thing before Adam was created. .

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      Thedecadentone God is not a God of confusion but of teaching.you do very well in that you keep looking for truth.ive had the same experience loosing my posts just befour posting.and also concidered that perhaps i shouldnt have began to speak on a particular topic.and always it seems the most invested of wrightings is lost.dont believe what man says as to the orgins of the word of God.you are on the right path.Gods word is the bible.he is able to wright it reveal perform it and prove it.but you must first look through the linz that the creator of all things and teacher of the same wrote it.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 months ago

      Sorry, I just studied random Hebrew texts and commentaries, so my knowledge on Melchizedek is subpar at best and almost certainly near nothing more than what I posted here.

      Probably wont be commenting on this again, sorry, as either an angel of light or dark just signaled that i need to shut up about certain things that I very much want to ramble about (had a huge post written up but the page mysteriously reset 2 seconds before I hit enter.)

      The author is probably right. Hebrew importance on time and chronology and sentence structure is much less evolved or important than to us or the Greek. Hebrew of old didn't even care about an afterlife.

      Moses, Asaph, someone named Ethan, and Korah's sons are attributed to many old testament biblical books so correctly, no, the prophets likely didnt personally pen the Bible. That was just me rambling.

      Chapter 1 is the overview, the record of the origin of the ‘heavens and earth’ (2:4)—whereas chapter 2 is concerned with Adam and Eve, the detailed account of Adam and Eve’s creation (5:1,2). The wording of 2:4 also suggests the shift in emphasis: in the first part of the verse it is ‘heavens and earth’ whereas in the end of the verse it is ‘earth and heavens’. Scholars think that the first part of the verse would have been on the end of a clay or stone tablet recording the origin of the universe and the latter part of the verse would have been on the beginning of a second tablet containing the account of events on earth pertaining particularly to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:4b–5:1a).

      Let us apply this understanding to another objection: some also see a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9. We have already realized that Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct import to Adam and Eve, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general.

      Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

      Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation. God has done miracles and defied science more than once in the bible, and has probably again done so an innumerable amount of times that aren't described in the biblical books which is exactly what is said of even Jesus' miracles, that no library could contain them. I have no doubt one or more so called scientific facts of today, God has only made appear that way to confound us.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      How many days in a year? Look closely at the 4th day.. this is not the creation of the sun and moon but the mathmatics of the orbits.let them be for sighns and seasons and days and years.this is the first time the word years is used.the next time in gen.5 concider enoch taken after 365 years his son lived 969 years.to look up no.of days in year you will find that their are 969 leap years in 4000 4000/969=.24225+365=365.24225 no of days in a year.this is the beginning.the line God put on this earth comes from this.and is in such a complete state thatolny a fool could deni it.look it up how many days in a year?

    • profile image

      Kane 

      2 months ago

      Great article, very insightful. I'm always happy to see others who challenge the traditional interpretations of the bible, especially when the challenge is made in accordance with scripture. Contemporary society often seems content to rest with our current general understanding of scripture, however, the past (the reformation) clearly shows a great evolution of theological understanding related to scripture; there's no reason to assume that this evolution will stop with todays church's widely accepted or more popular understanding of scriptural knowledge.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      When you say you know God's equation I get skeptical. I've seen numerous claims of mathematical discoveries found in the bible and elsewhere and each and every time it's been delusional bullshit. Until I see something convincing my immediate assumption is going to be this is bullshit too.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      Yes, the 'wod of God' existed. But that's not the bible, thought he bible is often called "God's word". The bible is a collection of human writings during a time when this God interacted with humans. It's a piece of our history. If it's not read and understood for what it is then a lot of misconceptions can be drawn from it that are ultimately just distractions in search of the truth.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 

      2 months ago

      It is not possable for you to succeed.you have been deceived. I dont say this lightly.in the begiging was the word.read Psalms 139.untill you realise that the word of God existed before it was made known on this earth you will succeed in nothing.it is from this understanding that one begins to search for knoledge olny a creator could know.hidden truths...for example how big is the earth?God not olny gives us its size but also the units of measure used.read job 38.the first question posed to man.also the velocitys of nature.all in the same equation.this i say is true as i know Gods equation. But first i believed or else i wouldnt have looked.how then could anything you revile be above this? The proof of God and his word?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      I went and checked to make sure. I've only ever deleted two comments. And both of those were double postings, so I only deleted the duplicates.

      I haven't stopped learning. What I've published here is only the beginning. The tip of a really large iceberg. This gives you the information that sets the stage for the rest of it. It establishes the correct context to read the rest of the story in. Many new insights come to light as you do so. But until this part of it is understood, you can't even begin to discuss all the rest of it.

      What I've published here is enough to correct some key misconceptions that has caused a lot of confusion over the centuries. Once this has been established we can begin to address the rest of it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Oyeteju,

      "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden;"

      This portion is speaking about a specific place. And yes, in the age Adam was created this region was indeed desert, and did indeed transition to a lush green area.

      "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"

      If he's speaking of the whole world, why just create the one man to 'work the ground'? Just the one Adam can only work the ground in a relatively small region.

      "So Adam is still the first man except if you don't want to agree or you're probably angry about something in the bible"

      Not just these specific verses, but all the rest of the story, makes more sense if there are two groups of people. Others that Cain feared. The fact that Cain left and built a city. Not a homestead. Not a farm. A city.

      Re: Evolution / homo sapien

      Evolution is how God creates. Everything starts in a simple form and evolves into something greater. Seeds become trees. God populated the world by commanding life live. Physical bodies formed and evolved. The natural world became what God commanded.

      Homo sapiens are simpler forms of what we are now. We had to start somewhere. We share commonality with the animal world, and specifically with primates for a reason. We all have blood and lungs and breathe air and have arms and legs because we all share common traits. We are all related. We are all God's creation. Same source. Same origin.

      Genesis 2 starts with the seventh day because the text is incorrectly broken up into chapter/verse. Adam was not created during the course of creation. He was created after. God called all He created in chapter 1 "good". Adam was not "good". God gave Adam one rule and he broke it. Would God call this "good"?

    • profile image

      Oyeteju 

      2 months ago

      Also supporting The decadent one's comment, no homosapien was created before Adam because the bible clearly states Adam was the first man also supported by Genesis chapter one verse 2.

      Homosapiens are chimps for Christ sake!! God created animals in the sixth day !! This stupid theory of evolution really annoys me, and I have to support the shit to pass my exams, fossils of dead animals(monkeys and gorrilas??) are what I originated from?? God Forbid. Adam was the FIRST man and the bible tells us so.

    • profile image

      Oyeteju 

      2 months ago

      Jeremy

      I actually see no mistake in the verses you pointed out, maybe you should state them.

      Okay,if you say Genesis 2 vs 4 is an outro of chapter one, I agree because some verse 1s are sometimes the last verse of the previous chapter in some other translations(Hebrew or Greek).

      But go back to that same Genesis chapter 2 vs 4, towards the middle there is a paragraph which symbolizes another "topic or subject" just like in letter writing, " These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. (Oh fullstop, truly the outro, agreed. But wait what? Paragraph! )

      In the day that the lord GOD made the earth and the heavens, (vs 5) when no plant of the field was yet in the earth (clearly stating it is the whole earth which is before third day of creation)

      Check again (read it well)

      Thedecadentone is Right, moses and other prophets wrote the bible . it was only translated by scholars.

      And I'll suggest you get a Revised standard version of the bible and read the preface.(if you haven't)

      So Adam is still the first man except if you don't want to agree or you're probably angry about something in the bible

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      "Are you even a Christian?"

      Yes

      "Please tell me what mistakes the Bible makes so I can set you on the correct path."

      Genesis 12, 20 and 26. Did this same series of events happen three three times, twice to Abraham and his wife, once to Lot and his wife. Abimilek is the Pharaoh in two of the versions. Did this happen to this Pharaoh twice? Or did three versions of the same story get edited together?

      Understand, just because I say the bible is fallible doesn't mean I'm saying it's all nonsense. There's a big difference and a huge separation of time between the people who actually wrote these texts and the ones who edited it all together in the book you and I know now.

      There's a lot that can be learned and gained from the stories of the bible. You just have to know what you're reading. What's what.

      "The bible was written by Moses and other prophets"

      How do you know that?

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, owlcation.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://owlcation.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)