Thread: Mankind before the Bible

I have a question. Im not making any statement or any remark of any kind. Just asking a simple question.

What does the Bible say about life on earth before Jesus and before the Bible was written. Why did God choose to create his religion many many years (and many different believes) after man was 'created'

Try this link, and look for the "Primeval history" sub-heading.

The Bible Says:

John 1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

--------------------------------
The beginning here is the beginning of earth, mankind, etc. Not the beginning of God. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed before the earth was created. Biblically there were no pre-adamite human civilizations.

In the beginning God dealt with people individually. He didn't just write the book and let them read it but he spoke to them as he did with Adam and Eve. God gave the Law Through Moses when he chose His people. Up to this point and beyond God spoke to the people through prophets. They brought the "Word of God" and let people know the will of God.

In an effort to not post a book i'll fast forward thru Bible History.

Religion was part of what Jesus came to dispell. Religion is mans interpretation of what God wants from us. In a vast majority of cases religion is flawed and problematic as people being people tend to be easily mislead or self-decieving.

In short. God was active in the lives of mankind from the moment he created us. We didn't need it written down until he gave it to us as the Law. Now we are not under the law as Jesus freed us from the constraints of that law. This is not to say we can do whatever we please. We must follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our lives. If a person is truly a christian the rules are followed not out of obligation but out of love for Jesus. (If you love Me you will keep My commandments). Jesus commandments were not the same as the old testiment commandments. That is why we don't stone disobedient children, or adulterers etc. We now are under the grace of God not the Law given to Moses.

In the first eon God created light, on the second yada yada yada

In the first eon, God created the heaven and the earth. On the second, He reconstructed it....

Now we are not under the law as Jesus freed us from the constraints of that law...We now are under the grace of God not the Law given to Moses.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:17-20.

According to Matthew then, Jesus wasn't exactly ready to let us loose under the guidance of the holy spirit. The commandments he refers to are the OT ones as received on Mount Sinai, are they not?

Jesus you guys. There has been a metric fuckton of arguments done on the internet regarding whether or not the "old laws" were abolished when jesus died. Mythology wise, I'd say it makes sense for that to happen (Kind of like an "end story").

The interpretation of the word "fulfill" seems simple enough to me. He did not simply abolish them, he fulfilled their use. In other words, they're no longer useful nor do they apply. This INCLUDES laws like stoning people to death, circumcision, and other such tripe people pick-and-choose to believe.

http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

There's a half-good argument along the same lines. You can google "jesus and the law" to get half a zillion links on the topic.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

You can google "jesus and the law" to get half a zillion links on the topic.

I prefer to read books, but still you are correct that there's been much debate. A bit like the debate in the fourth century about the trinity. Personally I don't have a horse in either race, but when a religious person claims to have the truth it needs to be pointed out that the “truth” is the result of debate, and sometimes of war, and remains a matter of disagreement, and is not the revealed truth from some supernatural entity. That’s all.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

...stoning people to death, circumcision, and other such tripe people pick-and-choose to believe.

It amazes me how even though in the New Testament Jesus gets rid of those old 'laws' people still tick to them, poor souls.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

I prefer to read books [...]

You know, with statements like that you can piss a lot of autodidacts off. Including myself. The internet has a wealth of opinions and facts that you are hard pressed to find in a book. Or any paper-written material. The age of information lies on the internet, not a large collection of paper with writing on it that you can't search through efficiently.

Furthermore, just because it's in a book doesn't make it any more accurate. I don't think because you cut down a few trees it's more valid than what others have to say.

Note: This doesn't mean I don't read books. I just generally find the information I need online faster than I would reading a book.

I am really looking forward to Bunbury's reply. I know it is going to be good. (Please don't disappont me bunbury. I am expecting a tightly reasoned argument addressing the validation inherent in the printed method, versus the free for all of the internet.)

I’m trembling at the thought of a legion of pissed off autodidacts, and therefore unable to compose a thoughtful rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I am really looking forward to Bunbury's reply. I know it is going to be good. (Please don't disappont me bunbury. I am expecting a tightly reasoned argument addressing the validation inherent in the printed method, versus the free for all of the internet.)

Haha. Since bun took the lulz way out, let me just address the argument I _KNOW_ you're thinking of. My statement was a simple clarification that all data can be inaccurate. With the internet, there's a large amount of information, but you have to take more care to verify it than with your average book. This I admit.

Besides, so far I have happened upon nothing that would sneak a lie like that. Most of it's pretty clear cut. Unless, of course, you WANT to believe it.

It's really a weighing of pros and cons. The internet can return data in much larger amounts much sooner, but you have to use your brain to sift through it. With books, you can trust them a bit more, but good gods can it be slower.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

I’m trembling at the thought of a legion of pissed off autodidacts, and therefore unable to compose a thoughtful rebuttal.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I like this interweb thingy, but, like you, tend to refer to books rather than websites. Possibly for no good reason (in the sense of an evidence-based argument) I tend to trust them more. But as Jeremy points out, it might simply be a prejudice.

I am really looking forward to Bunbury's reply. I know it is going to be good. (Please don't disappont me bunbury. I am expecting a tightly reasoned argument addressing the validation inherent in the printed method, versus the free for all of the internet.)

Why are you expecting that? I merely stated a preference for books. I didn’t make any claim about the relative merits of books versus Internet as sources of accurate information. My personal preferences do not constitute a theory and I feel no compulsion to defend them.

Nevertheless, the seeds of the rationale against the Internet are in your bracketed exhortation, and I’m sure that all that is necessary for a fuller exposition is a quick Google.