| Author |
The first man on earth? |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-09-12 13:57:17, SaLiH wrote:
@max_wedge
But the Bible was changed by the people, there are hundreds of versions of Bible and only one version of Quran, that's why I said that Quran stayed the same. The Qur'an is the last of the Divine Books, and it contains the ''Bible'' in it too, all the prophets before Muhammed (pbuh) were Muslims and believed in one and only God, it's just that some people didn't accept him as the last and final prophet and stayed with Bible (changed it as they liked and became Christians) and didn't accept the Quran as the final Book.
I didn't say the Bible was never changed, it's been changed thousands of times. I said the scriptures, the ancient documents that all versions of the bible are based on have never changed since they were written, these are claimed by Christians to also have been "handed down" by God. The various versions of the bible, are attempts by different Christian sects to interpret the true meaning of the original scriptures.
The "bible" you say is included in the Quran, is because the Quran was based in part on the early hebrew scriptures. In other words, Muhammed borrowed some of his ideas from the hebrew scriptures (not "the bible"). It was hardly direct from God, since the hebrew scriptures were written well before Muhammed's time. God may have inspired Muhammed to combine the ancient hebrew teachings with his own, but the words from the hebrew scriptures were written by hebrew rabbi's hundred of years earlier.
The quran itself is just another attempt to interpret the ancient scriptures. What proof or even persuasive evidence do you have that shows that the Muslim interpretation is any more accurate than the christian one? The answer is none. So you see, I will never follow a religion that asks me to believe on faith alone - if I'm not moved by it then as far as I'm concerned it has no special power. That goes for the Quran, the Bible, the Hindu Scrolls, etc etc. None of them make me succumb to exalted revelation  And I have investigated them all.
And I'm still agnostic. There is no special truth in any one religion over any other. They are all just an attempt by man (and woman!) to explain the things that science hasn't quantified yet. I'm not saying there is no God, but if there is "it" does not care if you are jewish, christian, muslim, buddhist, wiccan or whatever. Surely a man's good works are far more important to a loving God than which religion you follow or which name you call God.
| |
|
KingBooker5
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: London, England
PM |
Not so fast!
We havnt asked Max_wedge's grandmother! |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
|
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
It looks we are being drawn away from the centre of disscussion here. As I said this is an open interpretation.
@joebmc just like one mate said, [u]if you are less intereste in this topic you are not forcxed to make contribution because i dont want this to be a fire thread.[/u]
As far as I see it this is mostly debatable between Christianity and Islamic. Okay, as I have quoted in the first three accounts of this thread from the holy bible as far as who I think yhe first man was. May you also do the same so that we can keep a close relevence and track of this topic.
_________________
Please help me find a signature of the
The firtst man on earth
[ This Message was edited by: Twometre on 2008-04-23 13:24 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Twometre on 2008-06-25 02:29 ] |
KingBooker5
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: London, England
PM |
On 2007-09-13 14:16:23, comfort mdu wrote:
It looks we are being drawn away from the centre of disscussion here. As I said this is an open interpretation.
@joebmc just like one mate said, if you are less intereste in this topic you are not forcxed to make contribution because i dont want this to be a fire thread.
As far as I see it this is mostly debatable between Christianity and Islamic. Okay, as I have quoted in the first three accounts of this thread from the holy bible as far as who I think yhe first man was. May you also do the same so that we can keep a close relevence and track of this topic.
So this thread is now about religion soley, and not the first man on earth? |
joebmc
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Kent
PM |
On 2007-09-13 17:23:36, KingBooker5 wrote:
On 2007-09-13 14:16:23,
So this thread is now about religion soley, and not the first man on earth?
Or the other way around?
|
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
As a Christian, I follow the Bible's teaching that Adam was indeed the first man. Then came Eve, formed from one of Adam's ribs.
I'd like to correct some misconceptions in this thread if I can.
Interbreeding was not only Ok in the 'early days' but also necessary. It was outlawed later. Why? Take a picture and photocopy it. Then photocopy the copy. And again, and again. Each time the image worsens. So it is with our DNA. After a certain point, interbreeding was no longer viable.
The other people Cain was talking about were all decendants of Adam and Eve. As already pointed out, humans commonly lived over 900 years (for the above reason). There may have been many around by the time Abel was murdered.
and finally... The Bible was written so that Man may better understand God, his will, and our part in his plan. It was never intended to be the answer to every internet debate, but IMO it does a pretty good job of that too. 
|
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
Let me put it like this mates and the references are in my first three posts. At first the bible says that God said let there there be people, and so itp was male and female. That is chapter one in the book of Genesis and it was before he created Adam from dust or earth in chapter two. Adam was not a result of a word of mouth. Then the bible tells us of Cain and abel the sons of adam. Cain talks abou people who wil slain him in the east of the garden of Eden. Now where did these come from if Adam was indeed the first man.
|
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
Genesis 1:18 - The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." NIV
According to the above verse, Adam was alone. Therefore he was the first man.
Also Genesis 3:20 - Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
Adam and Eve were the only people at this point. 'All the living' have decended from them.
And finally Genesis 4:13-14 - Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
Cain could be referring about one person not many. He must also be talking about persons not yet born or still currently children because Genesis 4:1 states Cain was the first born- Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."
Case closed.
With a little research it is easy to put misquotes & misunderstandings to rest. The Bible is the most heavily researched document in history, after all.
_________________
SE and Vodafone sponsor Motorsport in OZ
If a man speaks in the woods and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-09-15 00:21 ] |
Brightspark
Joined: Aug 19, 2007
Posts: 326
From: UK
PM |
@carkritter
"Take a picture and photocopy it. Then photocopy the copy. And again, and again. Each time the image worsens. So it is with our DNA."
not if they're digital.
[ This Message was edited by: Brightspark on 2007-09-15 02:10 ] |
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
On 2007-09-15 03:08:50, Brightspark wrote:
@carkritter
"Take a picture and photocopy it. Then photocopy the copy. And again, and again. Each time the image worsens. So it is with our DNA."
not if they're digital.
 Yes it's an old analogy, but you get what I mean.
|
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
On 2007-09-12 13:57:17, SaLiH wrote:
@max_wedge
But the Bible was changed by the people, there are hundreds of versions of Bible and only one version of Quran, that's why I said that Quran stayed the same. The Qur'an is the last of the Divine Books, and it contains the ''Bible'' in it too, all the prophets before Muhammed (pbuh) were Muslims and believed in one and only God, it's just that some people didn't accept him as the last and final prophet and stayed with Bible (changed it as they liked and became Christians) and didn't accept the Quran as the final Book.
The style of the Bible has changed to suit different times, cultures and purposes, but the content and message has not changed. The variations in the Bible reflect the variations in Western Culture and the non-Western cultures that the Gospel has been taken to.
So the Quran hasn't changed eh? Is that because of what might happen to anyone who would try?
And your explanation of the origins of Christianity is way off...
|
amnesia
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Doha, London, Tokyo, Shanghai
PM, WWW
|
Adam was the first person on earth it doesn't MATTER what you believe.
If you are a Christian or Muslim you'll believe God created Adam first.
If you don't have a religion, then for arguments sake, the first man on earth is called Adam.
edit:
@Carkritter, not true, my mother is a Christian and even she says that the Bible has changed to 'suit' the Kings of their time.
Alcohol for example is a sin. However at one time King Edward changed the Bible to omit that point because of his love for red wine.
_________________
The Cheapest UK Mobile Contracts Guaranteed! | Compare all mobile deals on the net.
áÇÝä ÈäÛÍÈÉ - Razor Ramon HG
[ This Message was edited by: amnesia on 2007-09-16 03:21 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
listening to Christians and Muslims argue about how much proof they have, just by quoting scriptures, really proves to me that no one religion has a monopoly on truth.
Hell I can write my own book and say "it's divinely inspired". How could I prove it is? How do you know it isn't?
These books and scriptures were all written by imperfect humans, with egos, political objectives, and all sorts of hidden agendas. To put your faith entirely in another person's words is folly imho.
If you were there when Buddha, Muhammed, Christ or any of the great master's spoke, then you may have a right to claim they had divine insiration (even then how do you know they weren't just exceptionally convincing orator's?)
No one knows for a fact any of the books (quran included) are untouched since the day they were inspired or that the message that was given by the great master (who ever you follow) is actually what's in words today.
You can only take the word of the book itself. It's circular logic. You can never use the book to prove it's own truth. You might as well say "I am not lying because I said I am not lying".
God is so much more than muslim or christian or jew or buddha. If God is a word that means the omnipotent entity responsible for all creation, do you really think all of creation is limited to mecca or jerusalem? Do chinese farmers go to hell because they don't know of the existance of Mecca? Do Arabs go to hell because they don't accept Jesus as their lord and saviour?
I mean, at what point do you throw all common sense out the window to believe in a fairy tale?
The fact is, people go to war over such trivial human issues as what name to call God or who God's chosen people are. How pathetic.
|
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
@Max
Very well put. Chinese civilistation stretches back thousands of years and are believers of Pagan culture also to burn in hell as non-believers too?
Also, one could argue that sciences such as Genetics and other modern sciences might never need to be reconciled with scripture, simply because it would have been impossible to explain such complex concepts to the culture at the time it was written.
I mean, how would one explain the concepts of Genetics and Evolution to cultures where the masses were unfamiliar with even the less advanced sciences of mathematics and Astronomy, which were still in their infancy?
Holy scriptures version of the First Man and Woman and creation arguably would be the most acceptable and easily understood version, would it not?
Just a thought.
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2007-09-16 05:34 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2007-09-12 18:09
