Did humans descend from other primates?otseng wrote: Man did not descend from the primates.
Are humans primates or should there be special biological taxonomy for humanity?
Please cite evidence.
Moderator: Moderators
Did humans descend from other primates?otseng wrote: Man did not descend from the primates.
Fair enough. A few decades ago I stepped through the same exercise. You and I agree on this. The writers of the Bible wrote as if they believed that the first humans were created directly by God about six thousand years ago.sniper762 wrote: This is "my" interpretation of the Bible, the way that "I" perceived it after sincere prayer and diligent investigation.
I have done the genealogy from Christ to Adam per biblical scriptures (? begot ?) and have compared the dates with those of historical records (kings of Israel), etc.
google "king David", "Solomon", or "Saul" and you will see
Most scientists and many theologians disagree that such a literal reading of the Biblical record accurately portrays what really happened. Take your pick, either the writers of the Bible were mistaken or they were writing figuratively. One of these two positions is the one taken by almost all scientists and very many theologians.sniper762 wrote: The generation of man can be accurately traced back to Adam, by historical data and Biblical record to approximately 6000 years ago. All scientists and theologians alike agree to this.
Did you intentionally leave out the first verse?sniper762 wrote:The Bible states in the book of genesis, written by Moses between 1500-1600 BC, that (GEN 2), in the beginning, the earth was VOID and WITHOUT FORM and on the first day ....
THEN comes verse twoIn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
And 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.
ONLY if you ignore the first verse!sniper762 wrote: It appears that within these three days, God merely manipulated what was already here, not creating it all from NOTHING.
We know for a fact that the sun and stars preceded the earth's formation. So, that statement, like many others, is completely false, as is the authorship and provenance of the book itself. Moses could not have written it.sniper762 wrote: Then, on the fourth day, (GEN 1: 14-19), he set the sun, moon and stars, all called lights, in the firmament called heaven, (which was between the waters below and the waters above).
That's my point. In reality, the sun existed first, only then were the planets formed. The sun was not formed after the earth was formed as genesis falsely asserts.sniper762 wrote:
duh, the sun wasnt even mentioned until the fourth day.
inspiration from god.sniper762 wrote:then moses or who ever mortal man you perceive that wrote genisis didnt know what we know today, therefore how could he intelligently explain the origin of anything?
Why?i believe in god
This makes no sense without context. What origin of earth and man?and the origin of the earth and man but as i wrote earlier, not as mainstream traditional "christians" do.
why not what? Believe in god? If you are going to believe in anything, you must first have a reason. The default isnt belief.sniper762 wrote:why not?
This didnt answer my question as to what your beliefs are about the origin of the earth and man.the origin of earth and man religiously as well as scientifically as discussed here.
lets hear yours..........if you have anything
Because the writer of Genesis doesn't explain our origins. The Genesis fable was discounted hundreds of years ago as the origin of the universe/earth/humanity. It doesn't fit with any of the observable data.sniper762 wrote:then moses or who ever mortal man you perceive that wrote genisis didnt know what we know today, therefore how could he intelligently explain the origin of anything?
i believe in god and the origin of the earth and man but as i wrote earlier, not as mainstream traditional "christians" do.
there is much more.........quiz me