New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

the genesis of civilization

Days

Governor
"In the beginning" of what?

Mankind, in our current image and likeness, has been around for 200,000 years. There was a flood as recently as 9000-12,000 years ago. So there is two civilization periods. The book of Genesis starts at somewhere before the first civilization... in the beginning of that time period.

The earth was empty, as in void, as in no land sticking up out of the water. So God had totally flattened the earth, which means the oceans would have covered it to an average depth of 1 1/2 miles. We are not told why he did that, or what pissed him off that time, or if it was just a big mistake. But we are told that God gathered the land together, populated it, then separated the land into continents, and it is terribly obvious that the continents all fit back together. There's a rock cycle, so don't believe any dates in the billions of years for rocks. Maybe believe that dating for stars, but stars aren't rocks, capice?

So God tells man to go "replenish" the earth.

replenish: fill (something) up again. restore (a stock or supply of something) to the former level or condition.

Be fruitful and multiply. So the whole intent in creating man all over again was to reproduce a working civilization. It's a do-over. When a potter goofs up a vase, he smashes the clay down, adds more water, and starts over.

Something like 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, we had some very high tech civilization going on. Which means it was around for another 15,000 years minimum, to reach that point. I'm inclined to believe that the entire 200,000 years played out in the last two civilizations. IOW, there was no cave man bull shit in the past 200,000 years. Man was created intelligent. And there was mankind before this time, but he may not have been made in God's image and likeness. He may have been a cave man... but I doubt it. Even the animals have intelligence, so why would you expect mankind to be less intelligent than the animals? What would be the point in creating animalistic mankind? Again, don't believe any dates in the millions of years for human skeletons. I only believe mankind predates the book of Genesis because the book of Genesis tells me that he did. There is no way a human skeleton survived whatever catastrophe reduced the earth to a perfect sphere covered with water. For that matter, there is no way any skeleton of any creature survived that, except if they were fossilized by it, which they would have, if it was a sudden inundation.

How were the floods created? The land was flattened. Bring down the mountains, bring up the sea floor, and the oceans will cover everything. The first flood was an absolute leveling. The 2nd flood was a partial leveling. The deep trenches in the ocean floor were raised and then dropped, the mountains may have been lowered somewhat and then raised back up, but the water did not cover everything in Noah's flood, it was a docile enough flood for a wooden boat to survive. It would have, no doubt, melted the ice that had formed in North America into the Great Lakes. And it would have created fossils.

So now you see that there was two floods in the Bible. The first one which finished off all mankind and Noah's flood which did not finish off all mankind. The Bible records there were giants before Noah's flood and that they survived the flood, heck, there was still some smallish giants in the land of Canaan in David's time. In Moses' time there was real giants in the land, maybe 12 feet tall, maybe 20 feet tall, before Noah's flood some were 30 feet tall, even 35 feet tall. Figure that was something like 5000-7000 years after the flood, and likely longer. So, there's little doubt that more than Noah's family survived the flood.

Just as there is little doubt that mankind was already on the earth before God created Adam... heck the lands already had names, and already had people in them, so Adam wasn't even the beginning of the civilization before Noah's flood, he was inserted into it. If you think about it, man was created upon the land in chapter one, then God goes back and creates Adam and Eve in a garden he planted eastward in e-den, so civilization was well under way already.
 
Last edited:

Days

Governor
Now, remember, there's three civilizations recorded there, the one before Genesis that was replenished by Genesis, then the 2nd, started after the Genesis chapter one flood, and the 3rd being a recovery after Noah's flood. What we don't know is how many civilizations happened before the first one alluded to in Genesis 1:28? We have no idea where we are at on God's calendar, for this planet alone. And we have no idea if God is doing this with other planets. What we do know is who Adam is, Adam was the beginning of the family tree of Abraham. Those family trees tended to only list the important generations, just like the kings lists in antiquity. Think of it as a dynasty, because that's what it is, only instead of a ruling class, this was a silver lineage of grace, chosen to produce this one man Abraham. The funny part is Abraham seems to be terribly normal, a rather average guy who undergoes an extraordinary journey of faith from the gods of Babylon to the most high God who keeps whispering in his ear.

Now you realize who Noah was, he preserved the lineage of grace through the flood. Only 8 souls were on the boat, everything was riding on those 8 souls, lose that crew and you never get Abraham. That's the whole focal point of the book of Genesis, it is the family history of this one man Abraham. It is not a book of creation, creation is whipped off like a dream long forgotten, you already know God created the heavens and the earth and created mankind upon the earth, the writing assumes you know this, in other words, it was common knowledge at the time the myths were written down. The book of Job predates the book of Genesis and again, it was probably a myth that someone put to pen. I like the way both books open with the reader suspended in heaven watching God and the angels go at it. The book of Enoch suspends you for the entire text, Enoch was translated, caught up in the Spirit, same as John was when he wrote the apocalypse.
 
Last edited:

Jen

Moo
I have always understood that the Bible is the genealogy of Abraham's family and the line that would produce Jesus ultimately. I have found plenty of people who disagree with me, but that's how I read it and understand it.
 

Days

Governor
I have always understood that the Bible is the genealogy of Abraham's family and the line that would produce Jesus ultimately. I have found plenty of people who disagree with me, but that's how I read it and understand it.
You are reading it in period, the only way ancient texts should be read. Genesis begins with Adam and runs fast to Abraham, then slows down and covers his whole life, and his children's lives, ending with Joseph. Abraham was the father of faith, specifically, he was the father of faith in this particular most high God that later made three covenants with his children: the Law of Moses, the Grace of Jesus Christ, and Islam. So it is the story of God's latest do-over. I'm not sure he got it right this time either, but these are the times we live in and this is the grace we have been extended. In the apocalypse, it says there will be yet another do-over.

...you can see why the denominations all hated me.

But hey, I try to make the most sense of the text I can. Gen 1:28 clearly says "replenish" ... so it is a do-over. The 7 days of creation are just a fast recap of the do-over. The text clearly tells you that mankind had been upon the earth before and was wiped out, now the land is restored and man is created upon it again, for why? ... to replenish the earth. Replenish the earth with what? ... with man. Once I saw the picture that created, I started writing this.
 
Last edited:

Days

Governor
You are reading it in period, the only way ancient texts should be read. Genesis begins with Adam and runs fast to Abraham, then slows down and covers his whole life, and his children's lives, ending with Joseph. Abraham was the father of faith, specifically, he was the father of faith in this particular most high God that later made three covenants with his children: the Law of Moses, the Grace of Jesus Christ, and Islam. So it is the story of God's latest do-over. I'm not sure he got it right this time either, but these are the times we live in and this is the grace we have been extended. In the apocalypse, it says there will be yet another do-over.

...you can see why the denominations all hated me.

But hey, I try to make the most sense of the text I can. Gen 1:28 clearly says "replenish" ... so it is a do-over. The 7 days of creation are just a fast recap of the do-over. The text clearly tells you that mankind had been upon the earth before and was wiped out, now the land is restored and man is created upon it again, for why? ... to replenish the earth. Replenish the earth with what? ... with man. Once I saw the picture that created, I started writing this.
The next do-over, predicted in the apocalypse, won't come until after the kingdom age is over; so it is over 1000 years ahead of us. These calamities are scripted from the perspective of the earth's surface. God promised no more floods, so the next do-over is destruction by fire. That's gotta make everyone happier, eh? The living surface is destroyed, but the earth itself is established, it isn't going anywhere. It is the heaven and the earth that we live in, the land and the air, that gets wiped clean again. And the stars in the celestial heaven are folded up like a vesture; that could be how it appeared to the prophet's eyes when he was shown the vision. When it is all finished we get a new heaven (atmosphere) and earth (land to live on) and the stars are bound to appear again; John forgot to say "the stars also."

So put me down for the 4th day (in Gen chap one) being the clearing up of the atmosphere (of gases, mostly water vapor) so that the stars appeared again. The first lights to re-appear in the sky were the big ones, the sun and the moon, then the stars also showed up. It's a cleansing. I guess man has always made a mess of the planet, and hasn't stopped doing that yet. I see 3 global cleansings in the Bible; two by flood in Genesis and one by fire in the apocalypse.
 
Last edited:

Days

Governor
Giving man free choice will always result in everything being screwed up.
If we are to believe the book of Enoch (condensed to a couple verses in Genesis) it is the nature of the spirit world to be free. Angels can choose to sin the same as we can. This idea of "sinning" has been over worked by religionists. Sin is just not obeying a direct order. Our faith is free to follow the spirit any way we please. Religionists would have us believe that our faith is just the following of doctrines, in their view, God is come to restrict our lives. I think it is more a case of the spirit comes and goes as it pleases like the wind, it is a free spirit. Doctrine tends to imprison us, same as the Law restricts us, but the spirit inside us and all the spirits that the most high spirit breathed out, they don't seem restricted in any way. I love when baby Christians tell me God wouldn't do this or that (according to their doctrine) or when atheists tell me there is no God because God would never allow babies to be slaughtered, or because God would never be as stupid as the stupid way they read scripture... my experience with God has shown me that God will do whatever he damn well pleases, he's a free spirit.

The spirit rests upon us as an anointing, the spirit works deep into us as an anointing, and - at times - we can be caught up (raptured) in the spirit. Are we caught away bodily? I would say no. Enoch was raptured but still wrote his book about what he saw. John was raptured but still wrote his book about what he saw. Paul was raptured, but his body was still lying dead on the ground, although he couldn't tell if he was in it or not, Luke gives us record that he was not, because the disciples went to bury him. Ezekiel was sitting before the elders of Israel when he went into a trance and saw the presence of the Lord leaving the ark in the holy of holies. The elders were still sitting there with Ezekiel, but Ezekiel was not still sitting there with the elders, he was caught away. By the way, that was the last the nation of Israel saw of their God until the spirit lighted down upon John in his mother's womb.

So what can we write about this rapture of the man child? 144,000 already anointed with the spirit are following the two witnesses and therefore should be present when they resurrect and ascend into heaven. At that point the ark in heaven is opened and these two are in heaven; in other words, the presence of God has ascended to heaven with the two witnesses; just as it had descended from heaven and lighted down upon them 3 1/2 years earlier. (so Jesus returns right there, but then he leaves again!) Then something happens. The Son descends back to the earthly heaven and orders up the first resurrection. In a moment of time, mankind is resurrected, it is the harvest of all that God has planted upon this earth. And in a twinkling of the eye, the man child on earth is caught up with the Lord in the air; this rapture seems to include receiving their heavenly body, so they are changed... but now the fun part, they are still on earth, and they still live out their earthly lives. The Beast witnesses all this also (it happens on the streets of Jerusalem) and boy is the Beast pissed, he immediately attacks the 144,000 but they now have their heavenly robes upon their earthly bodies so they fly away in the spirit. Just like Phillip did when he baptized the eunuch, I guess the correct way to write that is they are bodily caught away in the spirit to some other place.
 

Jen

Moo
I think I was born understanding that my physical body is just my temporary vehicle. .... a pretty rickety one at that.

And your first paragraphs outline the reason I left organized religion. It stopped making sense.
 

Days

Governor
I think I was born understanding that my physical body is just my temporary vehicle. .... a pretty rickety one at that.

And your first paragraphs outline the reason I left organized religion. It stopped making sense.
I found this old e-mail I had sent justoffal some 4 years ago...
"the" 14 year old refers to my son, who is now 18 yrs old;


Time
I was discussing Genesis with the 14 year old a couple weeks back. He was quick to see the idea that Genesis could be interpreted as having taken place a long time back. But I made an observation of scripture that comes from reading it over and over... the narrative was written in the present tense. So, when God planted a garden eastward in Eden... sure it could have been a name for the land that rose later, but my gut says otherwise, when you know someone inside and out, you know how they talk, you know what they meant; and I passed that on to my 14 year old, this land already had a name (Eden) which means men had already named it. Again, when Cain was driven out of Eden by God, where did he go? He went to the next land east of Eden, the land of Nod... obviously, this was more than an allegory, this took place in history. And the clincher. What was Cain afraid of? He was afraid of being attacked by the men in the land where he was being driven... you would have to torture that verse to get any other meaning, and religion regularly tortures the Bible to maintain their dogma, but the simple reading is obvious; Genesis 4:13-17 describes an earth full of people.

The narrative of Genesis is not fashioned like a fairy tale. It is a history. It is chock full of names, places, dates... it is a history book, plain and simple.

Now, if you read it, exactly the way it is written, Genesis very clearly covers creation in chapter one, and it finishes creation on the sixth day with man. So man is created and seemingly seeded throughout the earth... to "replenish" the earth. Take all that in. Does that sound like it happened in 24 hours?


2Peter 3:
8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Then comes chapter two. Men are already upon the face of the earth. The land has names. And God chooses out some land eastward in Eden.

That's why Genesis follows the lineage of Adam. Man was created in God's image and likeness. Adam was one step better... Adam was God's own son. And that's what the flood is all about... to rid the world of men, and replenish it again, this time with the lineage of Adam.

Then God comes again within the Adamic nature and has a heavenly son... Christ. this is the story of man.

I don't have time to finish this now, and I know there's a lot of atheists out there who are frustrated with the ignorance of religion pushing a young earth... I'm more frustrated with the(ir) distortion of the history of man.




Supposedly the first five books were written by Moses. The idea being, Moses was chatting face to face with God... there is no plausible reason to believe that those stories came from the mystery school of Egypt (although there is every plausible reason to believe Moses was taught in that) and neither is it likely that he received them as handed down word to mouth stories from his brethren... hell, Abraham doesn't go far enough back to receive a tale like the garden of Eden intact. So, the whole idea behind the first ten chapters of Genesis rests upon the hope that Moses received it directly from God... over 3000 years ago. talking snakes... the whole tale is rooted in the supernatural.



reincarnation is in both the old and new testament. It took the dark ages to completely lose everything, and I do mean everything. Even the math of the ancient Greeks was lost; someone had translated them into Arabic and then AFTER the Dark Ages, someone translated them back from Arabic into English. The world of Islam flourished in the sciences, while Europe fell into feudalism. And yeah, that snake was the glory of God, walking up and down in the stones of fire, God's firstborn, the most beautiful, the brightest, the wisest, the pinnacle of perfection... and Lucifer means "light bearer" - nothing evil in that concept. The New Testament changed that, and yet, the idea of Satan wasn't new, it meant a competitor, an opposer... which was around in the old testament, but it was never applied to Lucifer until the New Testament. When Satan stood up against Israel in the old Testament, that satan was God's own wrath, not Lucifer.

But I wanted to return back much earlier. I really rushed that post on Time, but what it was trying to say was that the book of Genesis does not make Adam the very first man. Again, we have the dark ages to thank for that. If you look at the Mayan temple and the rhythms of time, beginning with 16 billion years back and working all the way up to October 2011 and overlap each other, I can't cover fast and thorough both, gotta settle for fast, but that idea works with Genesis. Genesis knocks out creation in one chapter, there's no intelligent reason to decipher that chapter into six 24 hour periods. Every other witness available to compare it against would point to the mystical quality of those first 7 days and even Biblical prophecy would demand such a rendering, again, we have to come out of the dark ages. Jesus himself could not have said it any plainer... "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are alive" ... and Paul said of the words, "the letter killeth, but the spirit brings forth life".

What Genesis does do is lay out a lineage, all the way from Adam to Jesus. That is unique and it serves a purpose. The Gospel of John is a mystical Genesis that overlays Genesis. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God... the same was in the beginning with God. When you lay that transparent over the beginning in Genesis, it starts to make sense of who Adam was. Jesus was very fond of calling himself the son of man... that's not a reference to being born of Mary, it was God's pet name for the prophet Ezekiel. Man was created in God's image and after his likeness... but Adam was born from God's own breath, as the angels were, and the Word was breathed into him, mankind may have existed for thousands or tens of thousands of years, but this ordeal of language and written history can be traced back to Adam. Once you reduce the human race to the offspring of Noah, you have built in oracles inside us... we are all angels, we are all gods, when the Christ tried to explain this to us, he pointed at the 82nd psalm... "I have said ye are gods and all of you are children of the most high" so jesus also referred to himself as the son of God.

What I am driving at is this: when the Bible says "In the beginning" ... what beginning was that? It was the beginning of the word, the beginning of communication between God and man; that's why I call it the story of man... it is his story. Man's story is our story, this is what we call history, because our history begins with God's breath, because we are the children of that breath...

Psalm 82

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
 

Days

Governor
Thank you. This says, basically, what I have always believed.
I had to reread it three times to understand it... but it seems to be saying something wonderful; that the spirit of God is this ability to speak and read; "the word" God didn't just have some good words for us, he was the word, that's what he is, so God made man - much like another animal, but in God's own image and likeness, but still not endowed with God's spirit, still not able to communicate, to read and write and speak ... that came with Adam.
 

Jen

Moo
I had to reread it three times to understand it... but it seems to be saying something wonderful; that the spirit of God is this ability to speak and read; "the word" God didn't just have some good words for us, he was the word, that's what he is, so God made man - much like another animal, but in God's own image and likeness, but still not endowed with God's spirit, still not able to communicate, to read and write and speak ... that came with Adam.
Exactly.
And the breath of God gave us his image: a Spirit which is our Soul......... and the ability to communicate it forward.

I believe that all the changes to what it has always meant are things installed for control of others. It's not easy to read and re-read and get to the heart of what is actually being said by God to Man.
 

Days

Governor
Exactly.
And the breath of God gave us his image: a Spirit which is our Soul......... and the ability to communicate it forward.

I believe that all the changes to what it has always meant are things installed for control of others. It's not easy to read and re-read and get to the heart of what is actually being said by God to Man.
This has been a passion of mine for the past decade, you wouldn't think a couple of pages could be enough to keep me busy for over a decade, but those couple of pages are the best hint we have, and they make you think hard about what they are saying. And I agree, half the thought is necessary just to undo what religion put in us.

As best as I can read it today - so long after the fact - Genesis is like this history book situated in time from Abraham to Joseph, written by Moses (through scribes) that reaches back for Adam and preflood times. So Adam is like the bedtime story your dad told you about your great, great grandfather... only far worse. It is like looking back into the mists of time, into the origins of humanity, and man is talking with a snake? What is that? Is the snake more like man or is man more like the snake? Is man so natural, with the animal instinct, is he so fashioned like the animals that he looks amongst the animals for a mate? It isn't hard copy, it isn't literal history, it is showing us what man was like, you notice Adam was formed from the dirt same as other men were formed from dirt, so it is returning to a time when man was living like an animal, he is naked like an animal, he has no shame just as animals have no shame, we are talking bare survival. At some point, God inserts the ability to communicate with LANGUAGE. Was there really some guy named Adam? Doubt it, but even if there was, the message of the myth, if it was a myth, maybe it was an original story telling directly from God to Moses? Anyway, the message that gets re-emphasized by the Gospel of John is clear: God came as "the word" and breathed himself into man; giving him LANGUAGE.

When this happened in time, it had to have developed in all mankind at roughly the same point in time, otherwise, what good is language if you have no one to talk with? Genesis seems to be telling us, that man received this breath from God and language formed in his mind and it set him apart from the rest of the animals, he was now unique amongst the animals, and this word dwelling in him clothed him and began building civilization... man progressed from living like an animal to living like a god, to live and build and war and organize all from the ability to communicate in thought form and speak and read ... to use that, instead of the animal instinct, for survival, that's a completely different way to live, and when man began to live that way, he recorded it with that same ability and we get "his story" from those records.
 
"In the beginning" of what?

Mankind, in our current image and likeness, has been around for 200,000 years. There was a flood as recently as 9000-12,000 years ago. So there is two civilization periods. The book of Genesis starts at somewhere before the first civilization... in the beginning of that time period.

The earth was empty, as in void, as in no land sticking up out of the water. So God had totally flattened the earth, which means the oceans would have covered it to an average depth of 1 1/2 miles. We are not told why he did that, or what pissed him off that time, or if it was just a big mistake. But we are told that God gathered the land together, populated it, then separated the land into continents, and it is terribly obvious that the continents all fit back together. There's a rock cycle, so don't believe any dates in the billions of years for rocks. Maybe believe that dating for stars, but stars aren't rocks, capice?

So God tells man to go "replenish" the earth.

replenish: fill (something) up again. restore (a stock or supply of something) to the former level or condition.

Be fruitful and multiply. So the whole intent in creating man all over again was to reproduce a working civilization. It's a do-over. When a potter goofs up a vase, he smashes the clay down, adds more water, and starts over.

Something like 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, we had some very high tech civilization going on. Which means it was around for another 15,000 years minimum, to reach that point. I'm inclined to believe that the entire 200,000 years played out in the last two civilizations. IOW, there was no cave man bull shit in the past 200,000 years. Man was created intelligent. And there was mankind before this time, but he may not have been made in God's image and likeness. He may have been a cave man... but I doubt it. Even the animals have intelligence, so why would you expect mankind to be less intelligent than the animals? What would be the point in creating animalistic mankind? Again, don't believe any dates in the millions of years for human skeletons. I only believe mankind predates the book of Genesis because the book of Genesis tells me that he did. There is no way a human skeleton survived whatever catastrophe reduced the earth to a perfect sphere covered with water. For that matter, there is no way any skeleton of any creature survived that, except if they were fossilized by it, which they would have, if it was a sudden inundation.

How were the floods created? The land was flattened. Bring down the mountains, bring up the sea floor, and the oceans will cover everything. The first flood was an absolute leveling. The 2nd flood was a partial leveling. The deep trenches in the ocean floor were raised and then dropped, the mountains may have been lowered somewhat and then raised back up, but the water did not cover everything in Noah's flood, it was a docile enough flood for a wooden boat to survive. It would have, no doubt, melted the ice that had formed in North America into the Great Lakes. And it would have created fossils.

So now you see that there was two floods in the Bible. The first one which finished off all mankind and Noah's flood which did not finish off all mankind. The Bible records there were giants before Noah's flood and that they survived the flood, heck, there was still some smallish giants in the land of Canaan in David's time. In Moses' time there was real giants in the land, maybe 12 feet tall, maybe 20 feet tall, before Noah's flood some were 30 feet tall, even 35 feet tall. Figure that was something like 5000-7000 years after the flood, and likely longer. So, there's little doubt that more than Noah's family survived the flood.

Just as there is little doubt that mankind was already on the earth before God created Adam... heck the lands already had names, and already had people in them, so Adam wasn't even the beginning of the civilization before Noah's flood, he was inserted into it. If you think about it, man was created upon the land in chapter one, then God goes back and creates Adam and Eve in a garden he planted eastward in e-den, so civilization was well under way already.
I could not have made up a better story even with the help of some serious ganja. The only thing you forgot was riding pteradactyls to Australia.
 

Days

Governor
I could not have made up a better story even with the help of some serious ganja. The only thing you forgot was riding pteradactyls to Australia.
The idea is to search for insight into our past, and gain perspective on our future. Did you read the whole thread? You won't find this approach anywhere else, I'm not trying to "re-interpret" scripture, I'm just trying to strip away midieval dogma that hangs over these passages and look at what is written there in context to our best understanding of man's complete history.

I see an evolution in mankind, a huge evolving from an animal like being to a god-like being, that is not the same as an evolution from a monkey into a man; which was always nonsense. But there is an evolution from a man that lived like an animal into mankind as we know him; living together in civilization, surviving by the abstract concepts in his mind and the joint efforts of that orientation. The whole idea in this thread is that the genesis (means "beginning") of civilization is the beginning that the books of Genesis and Gospel of John are talking about. The dark ages complete misread of the texts and their desire to pretend Genesis was the beginning of matter, that there was nothing, and that suddenly God spoke and everything was created from scratch, it isn't accurate to the times and the text doesn't read that way at all. The text picks up in time after a global flood, and starts from there, everything was long created if there was any creation, and actually the Bible doesn't use the word creation for the universe, it uses that word for mankind. We were created, not the universe, and our creation was altogether the result of God sending his word into us, it was the mingling of God's spirit with our spirit that created us. That's the beginning spoken about in the Gospel of John and the book of Genesis.
 
Last edited:

TheResister

Council Member
First, without reinterpreting Scripture, the Bible does not claim to be the book about the world. In Genesis 5: 1 begins by saying "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not account for all of life; it just skims over the major creation to get to the story of Adam.

IF you take the time to read the Bible, you see how many misinterpreted it. For example, you have the entire genealogy of Adam man in Genesis. Sooo...

We have Adam and Eve; Cain and Able. Cain kills Able and then Cain goes to the land of Nod. Cain told God that men would seek to slay him (Cain.) What men? What land of Nod?

The Bible is about Adam and his generations (his offspring.) It sometimes deals with others as they cross paths with Adam man, but the Bible is NOT about the entire history of everybody that ever lived.
 
Last edited:

Days

Governor
First, without reinterpreting Scripture, the Bible does not claim to be the book about the world. In Genesis 5: 1 begins by saying "This is the book of the generations of Adam." The Bible does not account for all of life; it just skims over the major creation to get to the story of Adam.

IF you take the time to read the Bible, you see how many misinterpreted it. For example, you have the entire genealogy of Adam man in Genesis. Sooo...

We have Adam and Eve; Cain and Able. Cain kills Able and then Cain goes to the land of Nod. Cain told God that men would seek to slay him (Cain.) What men? What land of Nod?

The Bible is about Adam and his generations (his offspring.) It sometimes deals with others as they cross paths with Adam man, but the Bible is NOT about the entire history of everybody that ever lived.
The dark age dogmas were never remotely close to what was written in the Bible. That's why I wanted to revisit the scripture with an open mind. We see "creation" and "creature" used by St Paul a lot and it never intends the stars and the planets, it is always about the believers; the firstfruits of God; the first resurrection. "The whole creation groans and travails together, waiting for the resurrection" ... it includes everyone redeemed from the time of Adam, everyone who will participate in the first resurrection. Are we the first fruits of eternity? Heck no, this universe has no beginning or end, it just turns over and over, stars die, galaxies die, and they are reborn, it is like plant life, it just keeps being born, lives, dies, and the material turns over into new life. The idea that Genesis was anything more than the earth coming out of the latest cycle of destruction and regeneration... as if the entire universe was born there and the earth is in the epicenter of all matter... this is dark age thinking.
 

Days

Governor
"Long shadows of Lunar sunrise"... heh... did you catch that? What Lunar sunrise? If the moon doesn't spin, there is no Lunar sunrise. At that time, NASA figured the moon was spinning the exact opposite direction of it's orbit of the earth at exactly the same rate as the lunar cycle... the effect is the same as a moon that doesn't spin; either way you are looking at a moon that is constantly facing the earth, there is no rotation relative to the earth, hence there is no rotation relative to the sun. So there is no "lunar sunrise". At least, there is no lunar sunrise that would be visible to the human eye, had the astronauts actually been circling the moon they would have noticed that. Instead, they were reading a script written by scientists that suggested the moon was spinning and therefore the sun was rising... no it wasn't.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
I know the thread has moved on some from the first post and would have posted this sooner but it took time to do the research...

The word REPLENISH referred to in the first post is in Genesis 1:28, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth." Replenish is the translation of the ancient Hebrew (the original language) word UMILU. That same word, UMILU, is used in Genesis 1:22. There, God commands the fish & birds as He would later command Adam & Eve. 1:22 seems to usually be translated "Be fruitful and multiply and FILL the waters..."
The same word UMILU is translated as "fill" in one place and "replenish" in another.
So God could be telling the fish & birds and then later humans to FILL the waters and FILL the earth, which could mean doing it for the first time, OR to REPLENISH both, which would be re-filling them, which is the thrust of the first post.

I really like the idea behind the replenish translation and think it fits with what we see later with Cain. If the word could be translated as either fill or replenish, though, there are 2 (at least) possible understandings.

People who know a lot more than me did the translating but I'd suggest that if they translated the same word differently in different places, especially when the whole clause and the general context is the same in both places, it might display the kind of bias mentioned in some of the posts here, interpreting things to fit what you already think.

Just something to ponder.

Thanks, Days, for making me think and do some research.
 
Top