Nope.
Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape.
Moreover, breakthroughs in DNA over the last 10 years totally destroys the theory of evolution.
The Late Great Urantia Revelation
- Thread starter Caino
- Start date
- Status
Man became corrupt through sin from his original created state—he did not evolve that way from an ape.
Moreover, breakthroughs in DNA over the last 10 years totally destroys the theory of evolution.
Not by a long shot. Evolution is a fact outside of religious dogma. The proof is in the fossil record.
The Crafty Beast was fallen and already evil when he went to tempt Eve. So even if Genes is accurate, sin entered the world through the devil, not Adam.
There are just so many problems with the Genesis story for me, that’s why I never believed it entirely.
Obviously Adam and Eve were not perfect to begin with, they sinned. Lucifer was a son of God who embraced sin himself, so sin isn't just confined to earth.
And even if Eve and Adam didn't sin, among the billions of other human beings born since then we would find people sinning.
Last edited:
The Life -dawn Era
58:4.2 (667.6) "550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas." UB 1955
58:4.2 (667.6) "550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas." UB 1955
We now have some understanding of where the 6 day creation legend came from.
74:8.2 (837.1) The legend of the making of the world in six days was an afterthought, in fact, more than thirty thousand years afterwards. One feature of the narrative, the sudden appearance of the sun and moon, may have taken origin in the traditions of the onetime sudden emergence of the world from a dense space cloud of minute matter which had long obscured both sun and moon.
74:8.3 (837.2) The story of creating Eve out of Adam’s rib is a confused condensation of the Adamic arrival and the celestial surgery connected with the interchange of living substances associated with the coming of the corporeal staff of the Planetary Prince more than four hundred and fifty thousand years previously.
74:8.4 (837.3) The majority of the world’s peoples have been influenced by the tradition that Adam and Eve had physical forms created for them upon their arrival on Urantia. The belief in man’s having been created from clay was well-nigh universal in the Eastern Hemisphere; this tradition can be traced from the Philippine Islands around the world to Africa. And many groups accepted this story of man’s clay origin by some form of special creation in the place of the earlier beliefs in progressive creation—evolution.
74:8.5 (837.4) Away from the influences of Dalamatia and Eden, mankind tended toward the belief in the gradual ascent of the human race. The fact of evolution is not a modern discovery; the ancients understood the slow and evolutionary character of human progress. The early Greeks had clear ideas of this despite their proximity to Mesopotamia. Although the various races of earth became sadly mixed up in their notions of evolution, nevertheless, many of the primitive tribes believed and taught that they were the descendants of various animals. Primitive peoples made a practice of selecting for their “totems” the animals of their supposed ancestry. Certain North American Indian tribes believed they originated from beavers and coyotes. Certain African tribes teach that they are descended from the hyena, a Malay tribe from the lemur, a New Guinea group from the parrot.
74:8.6 (837.5) The Babylonians, because of immediate contact with the remnants of the civilization of the Adamites, enlarged and embellished the story of man’s creation; they taught that he had descended directly from the gods. They held to an aristocratic origin for the race which was incompatible with even the doctrine of creation out of clay.
74:8.7 (837.6) The Old Testament account of creation dates from long after the time of Moses; he never taught the Hebrews such a distorted story. But he did present a simple and condensed narrative of creation to the Israelites, hoping thereby to augment his appeal to worship the Creator, the Universal Father, whom he called the Lord God of Israel.
74:8.8 (837.7) In his early teachings, Moses very wisely did not attempt to go back of Adam’s time, and since Moses was the supreme teacher of the Hebrews, the stories of Adam became intimately associated with those of creation. That the earlier traditions recognized pre-Adamic civilization is clearly shown by the fact that later editors, intending to eradicate all reference to human affairs before Adam’s time, neglected to remove the telltale reference to Cain’s emigration to the “land of Nod,” where he took himself a wife.
74:8.9 (838.1) The Hebrews had no written language in general usage for a long time after they reached Palestine. They learned the use of an alphabet from the neighboring Philistines, who were political refugees from the higher civilization of Crete. The Hebrews did little writing until about 900 B.C., and having no written language until such a late date, they had several different stories of creation in circulation, but after the Babylonian captivity they inclined more toward accepting a modified Mesopotamian version.
74:8.10 (838.2) Jewish tradition became crystallized about Moses, and because he endeavored to trace the lineage of Abraham back to Adam, the Jews assumed that Adam was the first of all mankind. Yahweh was the creator, and since Adam was supposed to be the first man, he must have made the world just prior to making Adam. And then the tradition of Adam’s six days got woven into the story, with the result that almost a thousand years after Moses’ sojourn on earth the tradition of creation in six days was written out and subsequently credited to him.
74:8.11 (838.3) When the Jewish priests returned to Jerusalem, they had already completed the writing of their narrative of the beginning of things. Soon they made claims that this recital was a recently discovered story of creation written by Moses. But the contemporary Hebrews of around 500 B.C. did not consider these writings to be divine revelations; they looked upon them much as later peoples regard mythological narratives.
74:8.12 (838.4) This spurious document, reputed to be the teachings of Moses, was brought to the attention of Ptolemy, the Greek king of Egypt, who had it translated into Greek by a commission of seventy scholars for his new library at Alexandria. And so this account found its place among those writings which subsequently became a part of the later collections of the “sacred scriptures” of the Hebrew and Christian religions. And through identification with these theological systems, such concepts for a long time profoundly influenced the philosophy of many Occidental peoples.
74:8.13 (838.5) The Christian teachers perpetuated the belief in the fiat creation of the human race, and all this led directly to the formation of the hypothesis of a onetime golden age of utopian bliss and the theory of the fall of man or superman which accounted for the nonutopian condition of society. These outlooks on life and man’s place in the universe were at best discouraging since they were predicated upon a belief in retrogression rather than progression, as well as implying a vengeful Deity, who had vented wrath upon the human race in retribution for the errors of certain onetime planetary administrators.
74:8.14 (838.6) The “golden age” is a myth, but Eden was a fact, and the Garden civilization was actually overthrown. Adam and Eve carried on in the Garden for one hundred and seventeen years when, through the impatience of Eve and the errors of judgment of Adam, they presumed to turn aside from the ordained way, speedily bringing disaster upon themselves and ruinous retardation upon the developmental progression of all Urantia. UB 1955
74:8.15 (838.7) [Narrated by Solonia, the seraphic “voice in the Garden.”]
8. The Legend of Creation
74:8.1 (836.14) The story of the creation of Urantia in six days was based on the tradition that Adam and Eve had spent just six days in their initial survey of the Garden. This circumstance lent almost sacred sanction to the time period of the week, which had been originally introduced by the Dalamatians. Adam’s spending six days inspecting the Garden and formulating preliminary plans for organization was not prearranged; it was worked out from day to day. The choosing of the seventh day for worship was wholly incidental to the facts herewith narrated.74:8.2 (837.1) The legend of the making of the world in six days was an afterthought, in fact, more than thirty thousand years afterwards. One feature of the narrative, the sudden appearance of the sun and moon, may have taken origin in the traditions of the onetime sudden emergence of the world from a dense space cloud of minute matter which had long obscured both sun and moon.
74:8.3 (837.2) The story of creating Eve out of Adam’s rib is a confused condensation of the Adamic arrival and the celestial surgery connected with the interchange of living substances associated with the coming of the corporeal staff of the Planetary Prince more than four hundred and fifty thousand years previously.
74:8.4 (837.3) The majority of the world’s peoples have been influenced by the tradition that Adam and Eve had physical forms created for them upon their arrival on Urantia. The belief in man’s having been created from clay was well-nigh universal in the Eastern Hemisphere; this tradition can be traced from the Philippine Islands around the world to Africa. And many groups accepted this story of man’s clay origin by some form of special creation in the place of the earlier beliefs in progressive creation—evolution.
74:8.5 (837.4) Away from the influences of Dalamatia and Eden, mankind tended toward the belief in the gradual ascent of the human race. The fact of evolution is not a modern discovery; the ancients understood the slow and evolutionary character of human progress. The early Greeks had clear ideas of this despite their proximity to Mesopotamia. Although the various races of earth became sadly mixed up in their notions of evolution, nevertheless, many of the primitive tribes believed and taught that they were the descendants of various animals. Primitive peoples made a practice of selecting for their “totems” the animals of their supposed ancestry. Certain North American Indian tribes believed they originated from beavers and coyotes. Certain African tribes teach that they are descended from the hyena, a Malay tribe from the lemur, a New Guinea group from the parrot.
74:8.6 (837.5) The Babylonians, because of immediate contact with the remnants of the civilization of the Adamites, enlarged and embellished the story of man’s creation; they taught that he had descended directly from the gods. They held to an aristocratic origin for the race which was incompatible with even the doctrine of creation out of clay.
74:8.7 (837.6) The Old Testament account of creation dates from long after the time of Moses; he never taught the Hebrews such a distorted story. But he did present a simple and condensed narrative of creation to the Israelites, hoping thereby to augment his appeal to worship the Creator, the Universal Father, whom he called the Lord God of Israel.
74:8.8 (837.7) In his early teachings, Moses very wisely did not attempt to go back of Adam’s time, and since Moses was the supreme teacher of the Hebrews, the stories of Adam became intimately associated with those of creation. That the earlier traditions recognized pre-Adamic civilization is clearly shown by the fact that later editors, intending to eradicate all reference to human affairs before Adam’s time, neglected to remove the telltale reference to Cain’s emigration to the “land of Nod,” where he took himself a wife.
74:8.9 (838.1) The Hebrews had no written language in general usage for a long time after they reached Palestine. They learned the use of an alphabet from the neighboring Philistines, who were political refugees from the higher civilization of Crete. The Hebrews did little writing until about 900 B.C., and having no written language until such a late date, they had several different stories of creation in circulation, but after the Babylonian captivity they inclined more toward accepting a modified Mesopotamian version.
74:8.10 (838.2) Jewish tradition became crystallized about Moses, and because he endeavored to trace the lineage of Abraham back to Adam, the Jews assumed that Adam was the first of all mankind. Yahweh was the creator, and since Adam was supposed to be the first man, he must have made the world just prior to making Adam. And then the tradition of Adam’s six days got woven into the story, with the result that almost a thousand years after Moses’ sojourn on earth the tradition of creation in six days was written out and subsequently credited to him.
74:8.11 (838.3) When the Jewish priests returned to Jerusalem, they had already completed the writing of their narrative of the beginning of things. Soon they made claims that this recital was a recently discovered story of creation written by Moses. But the contemporary Hebrews of around 500 B.C. did not consider these writings to be divine revelations; they looked upon them much as later peoples regard mythological narratives.
74:8.12 (838.4) This spurious document, reputed to be the teachings of Moses, was brought to the attention of Ptolemy, the Greek king of Egypt, who had it translated into Greek by a commission of seventy scholars for his new library at Alexandria. And so this account found its place among those writings which subsequently became a part of the later collections of the “sacred scriptures” of the Hebrew and Christian religions. And through identification with these theological systems, such concepts for a long time profoundly influenced the philosophy of many Occidental peoples.
74:8.13 (838.5) The Christian teachers perpetuated the belief in the fiat creation of the human race, and all this led directly to the formation of the hypothesis of a onetime golden age of utopian bliss and the theory of the fall of man or superman which accounted for the nonutopian condition of society. These outlooks on life and man’s place in the universe were at best discouraging since they were predicated upon a belief in retrogression rather than progression, as well as implying a vengeful Deity, who had vented wrath upon the human race in retribution for the errors of certain onetime planetary administrators.
74:8.14 (838.6) The “golden age” is a myth, but Eden was a fact, and the Garden civilization was actually overthrown. Adam and Eve carried on in the Garden for one hundred and seventeen years when, through the impatience of Eve and the errors of judgment of Adam, they presumed to turn aside from the ordained way, speedily bringing disaster upon themselves and ruinous retardation upon the developmental progression of all Urantia. UB 1955
74:8.15 (838.7) [Narrated by Solonia, the seraphic “voice in the Garden.”]
Lon
Well-known member
No, it is just that I was alive at that time. The 'hippy' movement is the 'New Age' movement. The movement is fraught with sentiment first, truth later, as is the UB. Jesus told the Samaritan woman she needed to Worsip in truth AND Spirit, not just reject out of sentimentality. The UB (Dr. Sadler and you) rejected the Bible, and then either wrote or joined in on 'a new sentiment of a kinder gentler god in my image.'
I don't care to have to do so. That isn't my hang-up. That is your and other's hang up. I simply believe God and know for a fact it isn't man-made like your book is. It is obvious as that.
Not at all. I don't pick and choose, you do. All I said is "Love isn't ALL you need!" Jesus said it too: Spirit AND Truth. Love without truth, isn't love. The truth cuts like a knife. Jesus brought not to bring 'peace, but a sword.' You only like the parts that you like and so joined with Dr. Sadler who thought a lot like you, without the Spirit of God involved. It is simply man-made sentiment, Caino.
Let me tell you again, just to make sure you didn't miss it: The UB demands nothing of me. If I don't follow it? Nothing. No consequence. Not true vise versa. There are big consequences. Truth is like that, it has consequences if not followed. We all KNOW this. It is part of our existence. Love covers a multitude of sins, but sins are still heinous and need taken care of. We don't need or want child, or any other abuse in this world.
There is nothing about your hard heart that says that had you been an equally zealous Jew in the times of Jesus that you wouldn't have rejected Jesus on the same grounds. Jesus was seen as "new age" and "Liberal" in the eyes of the proud scripture worshipers. They hated Jesus' Love.
Is it any wonder that your own concept of God fits your own image while you accuse others of the same thing? A deeper dive into self honesty could do wonders for you.
Last edited:
This completely ignores everything the Bible says regarding the Jews alive during Jesus' earthly ministry...
Yawn.
Maybe your undo reverence for the the Israelites blocks your mind from your Bible???? The Jews almost completely rejected Jesus, he was adopted by Gentile nations.
"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,[f] whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Lament over Jerusalem
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”, ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, don’t be weeping over me. No – weep for yourselves and for your children. Because, look! Days are coming when they will be saying, “Congratulations to the women who are barren, and the wombs that have not given birth, and the breasts that have not suckled”. Then they will start saying to the mountains, “Fall on us”, and to the hills, “Cover us”. Because if they do these things when the wood is green – what might happen when it’s dry?’
No, its the sound of the Bible debunking your claim. Scant few Jews believed in Jesus then or now. The ones that did were persecuted by their fellows.
Go read my point again. Then go read what the Bible says, especially what Paul said. You might find something interesting. Because you're still completely missing my point.
Then make your point more clear. Jesus chose common men who were not well versed in the scripture books to start his new religion. The common people were more open to Jesus, it was the theology lawyers that were the most opposed to his Liberal teachings.
Lon
Well-known member
What an accusation! How many kids are alive today because you exist on the planet? I'm not trying to do comparisons, just trying to get you to stop your 'business as usual' knee-jerk reaction and actually contemplate another's view. Too introverted for that? You aren't going to listen, Caino, but please give the accusatory a rest and desist until you've walked a mile in another's shoes and loaned them your coat.
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. - Matthew 7:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:6&version=NKJV
Ok, you didn't have a point to begin with.
I did, but it's not worth sharing with you, someone who rejects the scriptures anyways.
I ask myself the same question and the truth is that had I been a thoroughly indoctrinated Jew, maybe a Pharisee or member of the Sanhedrin, prior to the spirt birth I may well have hated Jesus myself. I was always annoyed and uncomfortable with the term "born again"... until I was born again.
I'm somewhat sympathetic with the Jewish people. They had been faithfully taught that keeping Gods statutes which are found in their scriptures is the way of salvation. Nowhere in all of the history of the Israelites were they interpreting God having a Son in heaven who was coming down to be a voluntary sacrifice to pay a sin debt! That's been forced into their scriptures by atonement theorists.
I don't reject all the scriptures and you should have the courage to defend your beliefs.
That you reject any portion of the scriptures is enough.
You should pay more attention to when I post then. Because you clearly aren't if you are saying that.
Still waiting for you to explain this?
"This completely ignores everything the Bible says regarding the Jews alive during Jesus' earthly ministry..."
- Status