I really don't know how to respond to your comments, Mike. Taken out of context they are very conflicting...
Don't worry about that, Andreas. Almost all of Mike's statements are conflicting even when taken in context, which is expected when you consider he is an atheist who believes in god.
Or a theist who doesn't!
Lois
Lois, I don’t believe in deities. To follow my thinking is simple. I am trying to understand what our ancestors have passed down to us. Nothing more than basic history. And I have found that our ancestors were just as smart as or smarter than we are. And Andreas is correct, taken out of context the ideas are confliction. And Andreas seems to be able to keep the ideas in context. Where I am going with this is to get Andreas opinion on Adam. So don’t scare Andreas away. As history shows most religions evolve from older religions. And even though Adam and Eve was most likely put together in Babylon and should have evolved from religions of those areas. Mashya, Mashyana and Ask, Embla were formed from trees and not red earth. There seems to be a new theory that Akhenaton and Nefertiti were the base for Adam and Eve. I have put the subject on hold as new data about the Middle Kingdom of Egypt is coming out. The understanding of Avaris will also be a great help. I still don’t understand the time lines of that theory. The Red Ochre burials in Upper and Lower Egypt predate the OT Adam by 2,000 years. The question is, was the Red Ochre burials used in the Middle Kingdom. And when Akhenaton and Nefertiti tried to change the religions of Upper and Lower Egypt to the older religions with a Hyksos twist was Adam based on stories from the Middle Kingdom. Or did the Judea religion pick up on the older Genesis stories of man being made from red earth as facts that were good enough to use in the new OT religion from Babylon?
I'm not scary enough scare Andreas away. I'm a little but scary but not THAT scary! ;)