Possible Bible theory of Evolution?

[jagerthorn]

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

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

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 !!

[Rufio85]

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...

[Hmm]

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 October 20, 2005 by Hmm

[SilverCougar]

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

[Hmm]

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 October 20, 2005 by Hmm

[jagerthorn]

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

[draconic chronicler]

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 October 20, 2005 by draconic chronicler

[mako]

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.

[Adren]

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

[jagerthorn]

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

[Hmm]

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.

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.

[Yelekiah]

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.

[jagerthorn]

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 ...

[Yelekiah]

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"

[jagerthorn]

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.

[Hmm]

What if man became man when god placed a soul into an evolved ape? Therefore god created man by crafting his soul. Adam was the first ape to receive the human soul.

Not saying I believe this, mind you

[Rufio85]

What if man became man when god placed a soul into an evolved ape? Therefore god created man by crafting his soul. Adam was the first ape to receive the human soul.

Not saying I believe this, mind you

I think it distinctly says in the Bible that man was made from dust/dirt (something like that anyways)

We could come up with thousands of theories if parts of the Bible are beleived and parts are cast away. But carry on, it's rather interesting

[draconic chronicler]

Satan is also mention in the Book of Jubilees leading the dragons (destroyers) that would destroy the Egyptian first born in the Exodus. But this is just more proof that he had not offended God or fallen from heaven over the Eden incident. But how can we even accept the Eden story when it is simply a partially forgotten version of a Sumerian story written down 1000 years before the Bible? We can find historical proof for many of the later occurences in the Bible, but it would be naive to accept the Flood and Eden stories as completely accurate, when we know the much earlier Sumerican versions WERE the original stories the Hebrews knew, for this was their own culture before their migratgions, but in the course of hundreds of years of illiterate, nomadic, oral storytelling tradition, we can see how elements of the stories have changed a bit. But if we have the original 3,5000 year old stories, before they were distorted after hundreds of years of passing the stories down with changes, shouldn't they be given more credence? It is only common sense, but unfortunately, common sense and religion do not seem to be very compatible.

Edited October 20, 2005 by draconic chronicler

[jagerthorn]

But how can we even accept the Eden story when it is simply a partially forgotten version of a Sumerian story written down 1000 years before the Bible? We can find historical proof for many of the later occurences in the Bible, but it would be naive to accept the Flood and Eden stories as completely accurate, when we know the much earlier Sumerican versions WERE the original stories the Hebrews knew, for this was their own culture before their migratgions, but in the course of hundreds of years of illiterate, nomadic, oral storytelling tradition, we can see how elements of the stories have changed a bit.

draconic chronicler, I agree with most of what you say. Can you please give me some refrences of the Sumerian stories that the Hebrews learned, that seemed to turn into some of the stories in the Bible itself? Thanks

[jagerthorn]

Well, you have to know that actual 'men' wrote the Bible, and being that it was hundreds of years ago written, who knows what they thought of how long it took to evolve? I have a feeling some estimation of numbers or dates in the Bible are either exaggerated, or made up. Hope that cleared some things up

Edited October 21, 2005 by TheThirdAngel

[mako]

Ah no, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans belong to the family Hominidae, all of which are apes

You are right, thanks for the correction, they evidentially changed the designations since I studied this in college (back in the old stone age), but the fact remains that we are not descended from apes (the ancestor of apes was not considered an ape) and even under the new classifications, the pongids are a subfamily and we are another.

[draconic chronicler]

Obviously, Adam and Eve were not the only humans in the world. This is supported by both the scientific/historical evidence AND the Bible itself. When Cain killed Abel he fled to live "with other men". So is there any way to acknowledge this apparent gross contradiciton in the Bible?

Yes, if we recognize that Adam and Eve were not the first humans, which of course had been evolving millions of years before that moment, but instead were the first, so-called "Chosen People" of God.. This said, one could recognize the creation of man in an evolutionary process, which Genesis does suggest, remarkably stating life began in the sea, fish, later great monsters (dinosaurs), birds, mammals, and finally humans, in a fairly scientifically chronological order. (What are the chances of that if it were all a complete myth?). This would also explain the "Cain's people" analomy, and also why the Old Testament God unflinchingly allowed, and even induced the wholesale extermination of of anyone who wasn't one of the "Chosen"who to him, which he regard with no more worth than any animal. As modern scholars now know, the "fallen Angel Lucifer' was just a translators's error, and never existed in the Old Testament, which reconfirms what the Bible actually said, that from his creation, Satan and the "Heavenly Host" of additional "fiery and flying serpents" (Seraphim) were perfect, purposely designed, winged reptilian, "weapons of mass destruction" created for the wholsale destruction of certain "non-chosen" elements of mankind as many Biblical texts, and indeed, world-wide "dragon" legends confirm. For example, consider in the book of Job, the same Satan and other seraphim "destroyers" who liquidated the Egyptian firstborn (recorded in Jubilees), is not allowed to harm Job, and must have God's specific permission to harm one of the "Chosen" people.

The real purpose of Jesus then, wasn't some nonsensical requirement to "die for man's sins", but essentially to give the rest of mankind the same "status" (right to live) as God's original "chosen people", which understandably may have disappointed Satan and the other Seraphim previously allowed to consume and terrorize them, as Jesus once warned his disciples, (and might explain the somewhat adversarial climate, when the highest heavenly servant creature came to test Jesus' fidelity to God in the wilderness). There is no evidence however that this induced a "War in Heaven" for this is merely an invention to give Christianity and post-exile Judasism a then popular, pagan dualistic slant based on exposure to Persian Zorastrianism.

Edited October 22, 2005 by draconic chronicler