Oldest religion in the world

[Boult]

in the bible, it spoke about adam and eve. it portrayed them as upright being that can see and talk. not those who dwelled in caves as we have facts of finding such artifacts but no artifacts of adam and eve's belongings. and you see when god exiled them from garden of eves for eating the tree of knowledges then both met another humans.. *gasp* okay... who were first around?

think about that! bible is not 100% truth. just full of holes. it is just verses and chapters that Christians of 5 CE wants you to believe in and it has been going for 2000 yrs! come on wake up! are we amazed when we met indians and they don't have same god as we do. they believed in something else. ???

you know there's stories going on around that Americans may have been visited by asians long before indians and pilgrims ever walked there.

It is just that we developed our own religions but not imposed on by someone. Moses wrote the tablets, the ten commandments and imposed on his followers when they escaped from slavery of egyptians.

I am glad I haven't been brainwashed yet.. whew! I love to be free from all those religions rituals that they impose on their followers.

anyway.. oldest religions in the world? it would be "worshipped the volcano" or "worshipped the sun" and did sacrificial rituals and created customs that worked for us. it is called "law" or "rules" Bible are like rules to believers.

 

[hottiedeafboi]

I thank the Lord, as He is real. No other religion is the same as christians. Bec I asked many religions which does not have the same way chrstians have. The reason? All does not have the filling and living inside or I say God breathes in the soul. Its freshing experience. Many said, they don't want to leave the traditons of their family. God is not a forcible person, so we can't force either. My experience of serenity is awesome in many ways. God loves us all, and broke Gods heart to see people finding other way than what God gives.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Yep. Though pretty much not statistically likely in the social environment and timeframe of one particular living hominid. But still possible, and still reconcilable with most religious outlooks.

Additionally, you could also say that the human race evolved several times. What I'm thinking of is this: Bob N. Humanus, resident of Pangaea and chronic nose-picker is the first human. As it turns out, Bob has an unfortunate encounter with a large-footed animal. Fortunately for humanity, Corinne B. Lucky crosses the evolutionary line (wherever this line is is highly subjective) and lives long enough to pop out Jake B. Lucky and Sarah B. Lucky, humans extraordinare. Unfortunately, all three become lunch three weeks later. And so on . . .

I wonder how that could reconcile with your belief. An interesting intellectual excercise, maybe.

I would think the human race only evolved once, even though hypothetically it could've happened many times. Since I believe the evolutionary process was guided and conditions arranged to allow for the rise of humanity (I believe very strongly that God takes great interest in humans), there's no reason that the "statistically unlikely" scenario couldn't have happened...like Adam and Eve both becoming sentient and meeting each other.

"Encounter with a large-footed animal"...are you thinking of that FedEx commercial they played during the Super Bowl?

I misread you. My bad. Sentience has long predated humanity, but I'm thinking of crab-like sentience or big beastly monster with few brain cells sentience (also known as "the inconsiderate oaf who sits next to me on the plane who happens to be the source of loud, funny sounds").

Or maybe I used the wrong word to describe the kind of spirit and mind that humans have?

Though I suspect that since we shared many common features, and following my previous post's logic with "first to cross the line, many just behind" we come to a different conclusion. The differences between brain capacity of the last of one species and the next are remarkably small. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many of our ancestors shared many similar emotions and feelings (but were not raised in environments that allowed for cultural sophistry--Dear Hungry Predator, sir. Could you be as kind to please digest my cave neighbor's left Gastrocnemius with slightly less noise? Thank you, you're such a gentleman).

I think of it in terms of speech. If I remember right, our ancestors certainly had the tools to make the sounds we humans do. What says they didn't have the ability to feel as well? I ask that especially since we were already social creatures long before we were human.

Then there's the craniometry of human evolution. Our nearest ancestors had skull sizes that didn't differ that much from ours. But that's really very circumstantial and the way I presented it doesn't do much justice.

There's a line where you start to see cultural artifacts--I read it in a book my parents gave me when I was 5 or so, but there was a point where, if you look at the things they left behind, you see evidence of ceremonies to bury the dead. One other thing that was very striking was when the oldest evidence was found of a tribe caring for a person who had been born with a physical disability, instead of just abandoning him to the elements and wild animals. The first art, in cave paintings and statues, seems to be another marker. I may be totally wrong, but those kinds of things seem like the first clear evidence of humanity becoming more than just another primate (I mean, chimps use sticks as tools sometimes, but don't have our sophistication of society or communication).

But I think dividing line, even though we probably can't prove it, would in my opinion be when the first person was able to formulate the question, "WHY?"

 

[Reba]

...If Lilith existed prior to Eve, then Adam and Eve were not the first humans, Adam and Lilith were, and, indeed, there were other religions.

"IF" if happened--but it didn't. There was no "Lilith", so I'll stick with my original answer.

No, I don't know your answer, which is why I asked.

Sorry, I thought you did know; I have stated it soooooo many times. I figured people at AD were sick of my repetitions.

 

[Reba]

You know, I might agree if someone just simply said "Adam and Eve were the first identified Jews" and leave it at that. ..

Except they weren't Jews then; they were humans. There were no ethnic, political or religious divisions at Creation. There were no Jews until many generations later. Jews and Gentiles have common ancestory in Adam and Eve.

However, Adam and Eve and many of their descendants worshipped the same God that the Jews and Christians later worshipped.

 

[Reba]

...when god exiled them from garden of eves for eating the tree of knowledges then both met another humans..

Reference please. I can't find anything in the Bible about Adam and Eve meeting other humans.

 

[Boult]

Reference please. I can't find anything in the Bible about Adam and Eve meeting other humans.

ahh I see my typos which should be "garden of eden" not eves whoops..

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/4.html#17

4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

I am like WTH! so same site gave me answer why:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/4_17.html

interesting.. I bet the red sea scroll (the first bible which everyone claims it to be) would not say HOW Cain met his wife! so where did she come from? LOL

That's why I said *gasp* Adam and Eve were not the first to walk the earth!

Edit:

You see Adam met Eve then bore Cain as first son then

Cain meet his wife <<---- where did she come from?? interbreeding? is that why bible said that God said "be fruitful and multiply" ??

OR were there already other human of kinda different spieces.. there were proofs already out there.. you know fossils.. hmm..

still Africa is the cradle of the birth of human race. not garden of eden

have a nice sunday!

 

[Reba]

...HOW Cain met his wife! so where did she come from? LOL

His wife would have been either a sister or niece.

That's why I said *gasp* Adam and Eve were not the first to walk the earth!

Until Adam and Eve had children there were no other people on earth.

Adam met Eve then bore Cain as first son then Cain meet his wife <<---- where did she come from?? interbreeding?

See above.

 

[Boult]

His wife would have been either a sister or niece.



Until Adam and Eve had children there were no other people on earth.



See above.

but still read this: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/preadamites.html

at this timeline site: http://atheism.about.com/library/chronologies/blchron_bce.htm

it shows that agriculture (8000 BCE) appeared before creation (between 5500 to 3600 BCE) occurred according to calculations made by many researchers of different era. then you click "creation" you will see different years for supposed of the start of creation.

and this...
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p87.htm
read the chapter named "Adam, Eve, and Human Origins"

ok bedtime for me...

 

[web730]

ahh I see my typos which should be "garden of eden" not eves whoops..

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/4.html#17

I am like WTH! so same site gave me answer why:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/4_17.html

interesting.. I bet the red sea scroll (the first bible which everyone claims it to be) would not say HOW Cain met his wife! so where did she come from? LOL

That's why I said *gasp* Adam and Eve were not the first to walk the earth!

Edit:

You see Adam met Eve then bore Cain as first son then

Cain meet his wife <<---- where did she come from?? interbreeding? is that why bible said that God said "be fruitful and multiply" ??

OR were there already other human of kinda different spieces.. there were proofs already out there.. you know fossils.. hmm..

still Africa is the cradle of the birth of human race. not garden of eden

have a nice sunday!

What do you expect from those skeptics and athiests? I even don't bother to go to their websites only because they are anti-christians and skeptics. Ofc, ... what else do yo expect?

They are NOT believers that don't give God's Word (Bible) much a thought or research for its truths.

By the way God didn't have to tell you and us everything but only necessarities. If so, there cannot be a book fittable to gather all this that gigantic information. It would be much useless. Or say it better ... the Library of Congress won't be able to fit all that, either.

Adam and Eve may have had more than 3 children actually. Adam and Eve lived many, many, many years like around 900 years. Therefore they must have known their 30 generations (thousands of grandkids) or something like that.

Remember that .. and yes, they did interbreed only in the earliest era. Their blood was so much fresher and stronger. Evil whacked all that up and shorten the human lifespans. It's in your blood and all ours as well.

 

[Teresh]

What do you expect from those skeptics and athiests? I even don't bother to go to their websites only because they are anti-christians and skeptics. Ofc, ... what else do yo expect?

When you quote Christian sources, the non-Christians here go to read because we're intelligent enough to consider what you're saying even if we disagree with it. You, however, do not consider thoughts that you don't agree with. What do you think that says about your degree of intelligence?

They are NOT believers that don't give God's Word (Bible) much a thought or research for its truths.

Point being? You're not giving it much thoughtto the Bible or researching its truths either.

 

[Reba]

but still read this: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/preadamites.html

at this timeline site: http://atheism.about.com/library/chronologies/blchron_bce.htm

it shows that agriculture (8000 BCE) appeared before creation (between 5500 to 3600 BCE) occurred according to calculations made by many researchers of different era. then you click "creation" you will see different years for supposed of the start of creation.

and this...
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p87.htm
read the chapter named "Adam, Eve, and Human Origins"

ok bedtime for me...

OK, I read them and the further links.

I gave a more detailed post before about the so-called two "different" Genesis accounts. In a nutshell, they are two different literary treatments of one same event.

The timeline is only as accurate as the "sources" behind it. I don't know this guy or his sources.
"Austin Reed Cline is actively involved in educating people about atheism and secular humanism on the Internet. This site exists to provide people with information on atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, philosophy and religion.
...Austin is a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance."

I do agree with the authors of "Adam, Eve, and Human Origins" that God did not give us the Bible to use for a science textbook. However, there is nothing scientifically inaccurate in anything that God told us about His creation.

 

[Reba]

...By the way God didn't have to tell you and us everything but only necessarities.

True. He gave us only as much as we need.

Adam and Eve may have had more than 3 children actually. Adam and Eve lived many, many, many years like around 900 years. Therefore they must have known their 30 generations (thousands of grandkids) or something like that.

Yes, they absolutely had many more children. God names only a few of them because they were important to specific events and genealogy. They rest just did their job of being fruitful and multiplying.

 

[MorriganTait]

Remember that .. and yes, they did interbreed only in the earliest era. Their blood was so much fresher and stronger. Evil whacked all that up and shorten the human lifespans. It's in your blood and all ours as well.

Human genetics is not carried by blood, and it realy doesn't matter at all if it's fresher or stronger. All we can observe - in the past, in the present, and in the forseeable future - points to genetic diversity being the source of the strength of any species.

 

[MorriganTait]

However, there is nothing scientifically inaccurate in anything that God told us about His creation.

I completely, totally, 100% agree with you there...but for far different reasons than you think.

 

[web730]

Human genetics is not carried by blood, and it realy doesn't matter at all if it's fresher or stronger. All we can observe - in the past, in the present, and in the forseeable future - points to genetic diversity being the source of the strength of any species.

Didn't the Word of God say sins in your blood?

 

[Teresh]

Didn't the Word of God say sins in your blood?

I've never examined any real human blood (not a doctor or a biologist) but as far as I recall, none of my biology text books said anything about a component of blood called sin. Which means either sin being in your blood is a metaphor (ie not to be taken literally) or many generations of biologists haven't been able to find sin in people's bloods.

Now, believe whatever you want, but I'm inclined to believe the statement that "sin is in your blood" is a metaphor.

 

[Reba]

I think maybe a couple of concepts are being confused together.

The sin nature (tendency towards sinning) is in the man's seed (sperm), and has been passed down, generation to generation thru human conception. That is the reason Jesus didn't have the sin nature because there was no human sperm involved in His conception.

God requires blood sacrifice for the atonement of sin--that is, to pay the debt that is incurred by sin. The only blood pure enough for full atonement of sin was and is the blood of Jesus Christ. He shed that blood on the cross at Calvary.

The blood of sheep and goats and other animals was used for sacrifices prior to the crucifixion of Jesus. The blood of the animals did NOT actually atone for sin. The animal blood represented the future sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus' sacrifice was the final sacrifice necessary.

Just a suggestion.

 

[web730]

I've never examined any real human blood (not a doctor or a biologist) but as far as I recall, none of my biology text books said anything about a component of blood called sin. Which means either sin being in your blood is a metaphor (ie not to be taken literally) or many generations of biologists haven't been able to find sin in people's bloods.

Now, believe whatever you want, but I'm inclined to believe the statement that "sin is in your blood" is a metaphor.

I did recheck the Bible search and couldn't find it. Oops! I think that I was wrong saying it's in the blood. It must be in the genes, I assume.

I will retrieve the Bible's Genesis verse regarding to Adam and Eve and their ascendents next.

 

[Beowulf]

The animal blood represented the future sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus' sacrifice was the final sacrifice necessary.

Just a suggestion.

Sounds rather Satanic, doesn't it?
Glad to see you agree those B.C. folk had their uses after all.