Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Possible Bible theory of Evolution?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1    jagerthorn

jagerthorn

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In the pantry.

  • A product of the demented imagination of a lazy drunken hillbilly with a heart full of hate who has found a way to live out where the real winds blow.

Posted 19 October 2005 - 11:40 PM

Well, I'm not sure if this has already been covered, but I'm new around here so have pity on my unaware soul wink2.gif .

I'm writing a book at the moment (I've been writing it four about three years now) on this certain idea of man.

   Some of you may be familiar with the Adam and Eve Evolution theory of ape turning into man. When Eve had talked to the snake, he said: "For God doth know when you eat from the tree your eyes shall be opened and you shall be like God, knowing good and evil." Eve immediatly clothed herself because she realized she was naked.
  Well, to me this says one word: Evolution. When Eve at the fruit, she became Man, not ape. She was naked like an ape, so she clothed herself because she evolved into man. She evolved into a stronger and smarter being than the primate, knowing good and evil (just like the snake said). Her eyes were opened so she realized she was naked, and she needed to help Adam realize this. So, according to this theory, this was all a metaphor for evolution. Some of you that believe the bible has nothing to do with evolution - think again. This may just be your passport to more ideas  wink2.gif
   Which comes to another thought: The bible also said that it was Satan who was the snake. Well, did he do such an evil thing? All that he did was make us evolve, and why did God really not want us to evolve and eat from the tree? What was the big deal? Was it because he knew if we evolved we would become sinful creatures and destroy his Earth and creations? If some of you have a slight idea, please inform my brain! It would be much appreciated  thumbsup.gif !!

--clickie clickie--
I'm feelin' like a monster truck at the botanical garden.


#2    Rufio85

Rufio85

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 195 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others.

Posted 19 October 2005 - 11:57 PM

I'm not totally sure about this, but aren't humans supposed to share the same ancestors as apes etc. Not actually having evolved from apes themselves?

It might makes sense if adam and eve were to be the ancestors of mankind and apes. Hmm...pondering on this idea, but not too convinced at the moment...

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

#3    Hmm

Hmm

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 195 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Prove it.....with FACTS!

Posted 20 October 2005 - 02:41 AM

Quote


I'm not totally sure about this, but aren't humans supposed to share the same ancestors as apes etc. Not actually having evolved from apes themselves?

It might makes sense if adam and eve were to be the ancestors of mankind and apes. Hmm...pondering on this idea, but not too convinced at the moment...



Nope, the theory states we evolved from apes, and the current apes evolved from more primitive apes.  and if you go far enough back, we've the same ancestor ape that evolved from the primates.

Edit:  Oh, it is an interesting theory.  Keep us posted on the release of your book.  It is kind of antithetical to intelligent design

Edited by Hmm, 20 October 2005 - 02:44 AM.


#4    SilverCougar

SilverCougar

    All hail the gods of Rum

  • Member
  • 10,873 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kirkland, WA *strikes a pose*

  • The origonal Damneddirtytreehugging-
    paganhippiewerecougarrum pirate.

Posted 20 October 2005 - 02:44 AM

No... we didn't evolve from apes.  Apes and humans are primates.. we evilved from a common ancestor primate.

Doctor_Strangelove: If only I lived in a world with no risk of piss tests. Then I could just sit here and
watch videos on angelfish and become one with nature.

#5    Hmm

Hmm

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 195 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Prove it.....with FACTS!

Posted 20 October 2005 - 02:46 AM

Quote


No... we didn't evolve from apes.  Apes and humans are primates.. we evilved from a common ancestor primate.



Hehe, no, according to the theory we are still apes.  An ancestor ape split from the primate tree, and each of the current apes split off the ape branch.

Edited by Hmm, 20 October 2005 - 04:30 PM.


#6    jagerthorn

jagerthorn

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In the pantry.

  • A product of the demented imagination of a lazy drunken hillbilly with a heart full of hate who has found a way to live out where the real winds blow.

Posted 20 October 2005 - 03:42 AM

I'm not sure here, but some of you might have read Jarred Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee. It's quite informal as well as pretty straight-foward. Anyways, it's one of my favorite books on the evolution of man.

BTW - That's not just the whole theory; I've got a lot more in my pocket, but I'll be sure to inform you on the progress of my book  original.gif

--clickie clickie--
I'm feelin' like a monster truck at the botanical garden.


#7    draconic chronicler

draconic chronicler

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Banned
  • 6,229 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2005 - 11:23 AM

Third Angel,  I agree, actually Satan could very well have been helping in the Garden of Eden, and not hurting, if he was even there at all.   In the earlier Sumerian version of this story, there is a "good" dragon-servant of God who acts as an intermediary between God and Adam.  Even in the original Genesis story in the Bible, there is absolutely no evidence of Satan in the Garden of Eden, only an anonyous trickster serpent just like in the similar Epic of Gilgamesh.  In those early Biblical texts, Satan is certainly not portrayed in a negative light, for in the book of Job, he is still counted as a loyal servant of God, and requires His permission to do anything harmful to Job.

The role of Satan was essentially "rewritten" to become an "evil" entity only after the Jews returned from their Babylonian captivity, and new "apochryphal" books of the bible were added to reflect the dualistic struggle between good and evil spirit creatures in a direct imitation of Persian Zorastrianism.  The Christains expanded on this further, so much so that Satan shares the exact same fate as the evil dragon Ahriman of Zorstrianism, stolen almost verbatim by St. John from perisan religious texts.

I have just finished writing a book that may have some similar ideas to yours, explaining the role of the dragon-like heavenly creatures in the early Jewish and Christian theologies, and how the were erroneously changed in later Christian dogma from good to evil.  The creation of mankind is included, as are all major Biblical events, but you cannot overlook the obvious fact that the Eden story is clearly based on a much early Sumerian story which the Hebrews took with them in their migrations.  It would be unrealistic to say that the Hebrew story, probably somewhat distorted after hundreds of years of oral tradition, would be more accurate than the most ancient version, written down over 1000 years earlier in their original homeland.  Like your story, apparently, this book tries to recognize both Biblical accounts and the latest ideas of evolution and an earth billions of years old.

You will see some of my ideas in my other posts here on UM.  It should be out by Christmas, hopefully, but will mention it here when it is.

Edited by draconic chronicler, 20 October 2005 - 11:37 AM.


#8    mako

mako

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,770 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2005

Posted 20 October 2005 - 12:29 PM

Just to correct an apparent misconception.  When Darwin published his first book (“On the Origin of Species”), which set the theory of evolution, he did not address the specific question of human evolution.  It wasn’t until he published his second book (“Descent of Man”) that he addressed that subject, but by then several others had already published very similar theories.  So to say that Darwin’s theory of evolution states that man descended from apes is erroneous, Darwin postulated that all life is descended from a common ancestor following a purely naturalistic (undirected) descent with modification.  Modern Primatologists have evidence that the lesser apes (Orangs and Gibbons) diverged from the human evolutionary branch 10 million years ago, Gorilla diverged about 8 million years ago and our closest relative, Chimpanzee diverged about 5 million years ago.  By about 3 million years ago, our ancestral stock had developed a bipedal gait, thus freeing the hands and corresponding aiding to the development of the brain.  We are related to the apes and share a common ancestor, we are NOT descended from the apes -  we are Hominids, they are pongids. yes.gif

Our earth is degenerate in these latter days.  There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end.  Bribery and corruption are common,   Children no longer obey their parents.  Every man wants to write a book, and the end of the world evidently is approaching.
                    Assyrian tablet circa 2800 BCE

#9    Adren

Adren

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 57 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2005

Posted 20 October 2005 - 01:22 PM

I belive the bible is telling us we did evolve.   devil.gif vs innocent.gif


#10    jagerthorn

jagerthorn

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In the pantry.

  • A product of the demented imagination of a lazy drunken hillbilly with a heart full of hate who has found a way to live out where the real winds blow.

Posted 20 October 2005 - 01:45 PM

Well, friends, let's say this:

Say at the time we were created as some of you may believe, God gave us the power of Order, Rule, and Choice. No other being had a higher rate of intellegence as us, and no other was given these three gifts. Now, creating Adam (man) and Eve (woman) he wanted to see if these gifts could be used wisely and they could obey God.
   God told them strictly not to eat from the tree in the middle, but they can eat from the other trees. God was testing us; but we used these gifts wrongely - we disobeyed his commands because we were curious and tempted. Now, I don't necessarily believe this is what actually happened, but I suppose it may be an idea that could open new ones.

PS. draconic chronicler, I await to read your book and I'm glad that you think along the same lines as myself. I too am particuarly interested in the Sumerian culture (specifically
Ningizzida). It's fun to see that someone has my relative interest in ancient serpents and dragons  thumbsup.gif

--clickie clickie--
I'm feelin' like a monster truck at the botanical garden.


#11    Hmm

Hmm

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 195 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New England

  • Prove it.....with FACTS!

Posted 20 October 2005 - 07:11 PM

Quote


Just to correct an apparent misconception.  When Darwin published his first book (“On the Origin of Species”), which set the theory of evolution, he did not address the specific question of human evolution.  It wasn’t until he published his second book (“Descent of Man”) that he addressed that subject, but by then several others had already published very similar theories.  So to say that Darwin’s theory of evolution states that man descended from apes is erroneous, Darwin postulated that all life is descended from a common ancestor following a purely naturalistic (undirected) descent with modification.  Modern Primatologists have evidence that the lesser apes (Orangs and Gibbons) diverged from the human evolutionary branch 10 million years ago, Gorilla diverged about 8 million years ago and our closest relative, Chimpanzee diverged about 5 million years ago.  By about 3 million years ago, our ancestral stock had developed a bipedal gait, thus freeing the hands and corresponding aiding to the development of the brain.  We are related to the apes and share a common ancestor, we are NOT descended from the apes -  we are Hominids, they are pongids. yes.gif



Ah no, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans belong to the family Hominidae, all of which are apes.  Let me clear up your misconception, the term ape refers to the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans.  This superfamily group is further broken into two families of apes, the "lesser apes" are in the family Hylobatidae, while our branch is stated above.  Orangutans isn't considered a lesser ape as you stated, but the gibbon is.  Our family's ancestor was an ape, our superfamily's common ancestor was an ape.  We are still apes, we are descendent from apes.  
Also, Darwins theory, while revolutionary at the time, is not the current theory of evolution.  so when we speak of evolution, it is not of Darwins simplified vision of it.


#12    Yelekiah

Yelekiah

    Calcinatio des Königs

  • Member
  • 10,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2005

Posted 20 October 2005 - 07:25 PM

Quote


Was it because he knew if we evolved we would become sinful creatures and destroy his Earth and creations?

Love this portion of the theory, and it makes a lot of sense.
Satan wasn't the serpent originally, so I don't consider it evil.

Posted Image

#13    jagerthorn

jagerthorn

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In the pantry.

  • A product of the demented imagination of a lazy drunken hillbilly with a heart full of hate who has found a way to live out where the real winds blow.

Posted 20 October 2005 - 07:34 PM

When the writers of the Bible had said it was Satan who was the snake, maybe they used the term 'Satan' in a different way then we imagine. Possibly, they stated Satan rather as just plain evil, than a seperate entity. Suppose it was just an evil snake?

Although, like I said before, I do not really believe the snake was evil at all. And in conclusion, the snake really gets no justice, nor credit for doing this. It's kind of pitiful and sad  dontgetit.gif ...

--clickie clickie--
I'm feelin' like a monster truck at the botanical garden.


#14    Yelekiah

Yelekiah

    Calcinatio des Königs

  • Member
  • 10,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2005

Posted 20 October 2005 - 07:37 PM

No, Satan definitely makes his first appearance in the Book of Job (Christian Bible to avoid confusion). It was added later for the serpent to be the "devil"

Posted Image

#15    jagerthorn

jagerthorn

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In the pantry.

  • A product of the demented imagination of a lazy drunken hillbilly with a heart full of hate who has found a way to live out where the real winds blow.

Posted 20 October 2005 - 07:39 PM

Quote


Don't have my Bible handy, but how old did Adam live to be? Humm..... less than a thousand years for sure huh? So.. IF he was an 'ape' to begin with, evolution sure moves fast!



My bible says 130 years, others may say differently.

--clickie clickie--
I'm feelin' like a monster truck at the botanical garden.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users