Adam and Eve? Not really, and here is the real story... (myth, marriage)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually they had the historic accounts of how the earth was created and the heavens and all life on earth were created. 2000 years removed just goes to prove how stupid people have become in our present day.
There is no creation account even close to equaling the historic account as found in the Sacred Scriptures.
They are not historic accounts Eusebius, they are creation myths. No different to any of the other creation myths.
Actually they had the historic accounts of how the earth was created and the heavens and all life on earth were created. 2000 years removed just goes to prove how stupid people have become in our present day.
There is no creation account even close to equaling the historic account as found in the Sacred Scriptures.
Yes we can see that but our question is why? In this modern day and age of science and reason, why or how can anyone be so .... well .... not very logical? Or is irrational a better word?
Anyway, you go on to ask for proof that the creation myth is a fairy tale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I asked for proof it is not historic, and proof it is just a fairy tale.
So far no one has proven such.
Well, the fact that it has talking snakes, a tree with fruit that imparts knowledge of good and evil. This could be straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
Let's not forget the part about forming a man from clay and breathing life into it and that's our first human. I remember reading children's tails with themes like that to my one and two year old's. One was about a witches cat that could make sparks and it could talk too, or not. Doesn't matter, it was a children's story. No one is going around believing that Alice in Wonderland is a historic document or even a modern document. It was a children's story inspired by a magic mushroom trip.
Here is the KJV:
Isa_34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.
Here is a properly translated Bible:
Isa 34:14 And falcons shall encounter each other in arid places, and the hairy goat shall call to its associate. Yea, there shall lull the hoot owl, and find for itself a rest."
H8163
satyr
saw-eer', saw-eer'
From H8175; shaggy; as noun, a he goat; by analogy a faun: - devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr.
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
So, yes, the hairy goat did make it onto the ark. Do you have any more stupid comments?
Why do christians allow all the error laden bibles to exist eusebi? How many centuries has the KJ version been studied?
Now how about that crockaduck I mean the cockatrice?
So all those wandering desert tribes could have goats to herd, of course.
It ALL makes sense now.
What do you expect them to do as they wondered in the wilderness for 40 odd years? build sky scrapers?
Do you think they only took goats with them into the wilderness?
Once they settled in the promised land, do you they they only raised goats?
You see cupper3, it is posts like yours that make it so tiresome to have to respond to trite posts such as yours.
Would these not be vestigial legs? Clearly these serpents used to have legs.
No, God created that snake like that. Why do you ask?
And no, it doesn't prove serpents used to have legs. It just proves some serpents have small legs and some have no legs.
They are not historic accounts Eusebius, they are creation myths. No different to any of the other creation myths.
Actually the historic account of the creation in Genesis is accurate as to what actually occurred. And that historic account is vastly different from all the other creation accounts.
Yes we can see that but our question is why? In this modern day and age of science and reason, why or how can anyone be so .... well .... not very logical? Or is irrational a better word?
We have lost a lot of knowledge the ancients had.
This video is not religious. It shows the ancient knowledge we are just beginning to understand just how advanced they were:
Anyway, you go on to ask for proof that the creation myth is a fairy tale.
Okay, I will.
Quote:
Well, the fact that it has talking snakes, a tree with fruit that imparts knowledge of good and evil. This could be straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
It actually has one talking serpent which may have communicated with Eve by other means other than just a voice.
It is not said the fruit of that tree is what imparted a knowledge of good and evil. However, the resultant effect of eating it was that death began its insidious work once they ate it. This is straight out of the non-fictional historic account of Genesis.
Quote:
Let's not forget the part about forming a man from clay and breathing life into it and that's our first human.
The historic account doesn't mention Adam and Eve were made of clay. Rather it states it was soil.
Quote:
I remember reading children's tails
I didn't know children had tails. Did they have hair on them? Did those tails have words on them? That is so interesting. Maybe you meant "tales"?
Quote:
with themes like that to my one and two year old's. One was about a witches cat that could make sparks and it could talk too, or not. Doesn't matter, it was a children's story. No one is going around believing that Alice in Wonderland is a historic document or even a modern document. It was a children's story inspired by a magic mushroom trip.
That is correct. Alice in Wonderland is not an historic document and everyone knows that. The historic account in the Scriptures concerning the creation account was not written as fiction. Thanks for pointing that out.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
We have lost a lot of knowledge the ancients had.
This video is not religious. It shows the ancient knowledge we are just beginning to understand just how advanced they were:
Very biblical. Why? It's archaeocryptography. From Wikipedia:
Archaeocryptography is not a recognized branch of archeology or of any other academic discipline. It is an example of pseudoscience or pseudoarchaeology that employs contrived calculations involving many free parameters to achieve an impressive-looking result.
You seem to be engrossed by these type of situations.
Actually the historic account of the creation in Genesis is accurate as to what actually occurred.
And that historic account is vastly different from all the other creation accounts.
What makes you think that Genesis is as accurate as to what actually occurred? We're you there? It's just a story Eusebius.
The Genesis creation myth shares traits with many of the other creation myths, usually this involves some sort of divine power fashioning humans and animals out of some natural substance. In the Mayan myth for example, humans were first fashioned from mud, but the mud crumbled, so god tried wood but these humans were destroyed by rain. Finally he found success by making man from maize.
In Norse Mythology a giant was formed from the ice, and from the sweat from his armpits formed two more people.
Lots of the creation myths involve the earth being formed out of some kind of chaos, ocean or void.
The Genesis creation myth is just one of many similar myths. Almost every civilisation throughout history has had its own creation myth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.