157 replies to this topic

[Ryz05]

This might be interesting to you, and the following link is to an article by Paul Phelps titled "Oriental Origins in the Bible." He seems to have done extensive research for many years, and this is what he wrote. If you are interested, please click on the following link below.

http://www.antioch.c...030504102718782

The website includes a chinese version as well.
He also wrote many other articles pretaining to Chinese and the Bible, and his main website is

http://eifiles.cn/

Some more articles are found on that website include

"The Garden of Eden" (indicates that it is in China)
http://eifiles.cn/ge.htm

"CHINESE AND JEWISH CALENDAR SIMILARITIES"
http://eifiles.cn/cjc.htm

and "THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL" (are they in China?)
http://eifiles.cn/tt.htm

This is all speculative, but I found them interesting. There are more articles, but it is up to you to go through them if you are interested. Well, please read them and tell us what you think.

[TMPikachu]

It seems iffy.

But ... since it's all faith based anyways, if you really wanted to believe it, then it's as valid as anything else in the bible


BTW, have you heard that Jesus learned Buddhist teachings in his lost years?
http://reluctant-mes...er.com/issa.htm

[Mok]

i think this is what i was trying to pin in my topic "Ancient COnfucianism monotheistic?": http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=3234

my conclusion is that unless someone comes up with more constructive evidence even I, as a Christian, finds this hard to believe.

[TMPikachu]

i think this is what i was trying to pin in my topic "Ancient COnfucianism monotheistic?": http://www.chinahist...?showtopic=3234

my conclusion is that unless someone comes up with more constructive evidence even I, as a Christian, finds this hard to believe.

well, all you really need to do is believe. It's religion after all, faith.

[Chris Weimer]

Any take on the Chinese origins of the Bible are ludicrous and deny the Middle Eastern context of Judaism which it originates. There was no Gan Eden, as Genesis basically serves as the mythology to develop the Judah/Israel split and exclaim Judah to be the greater.

[Mei Houwang]

I read the garden of Eden one. That was baseless. In short he's saying that Eden was in China because
1) it had trees
2) a variety of animals
3) A river that flowed toward the sea.
4) It's in the East.
That could be a lot of countries...

[Chris Weimer]

Then you have to explain why there are people in China if it was guarded by flaming angel swords.

[Yun]

There was no Gan Eden, as Genesis basically serves as the mythology to develop the Judah/Israel split and exclaim Judah to be the greater.

You may take Genesis as figurative myth, but there are many Christians who take it literally. I'm one of them. Genesis was written by Moses, way before there was any Judah/Israel split. Unless you question that authorship too.

I read the garden of Eden one. That was baseless. In short he's saying that Eden was in China because
1) it had trees
2) a variety of animals
3) A river that flowed toward the sea.
4) It's in the East.
That could be a lot of countries...

I find it strange too that he would think that. Genesis clearly states that Eden was in the area of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

[DaMo]

"Nu Wa" is cognate with "Eve", according to these Biblical theorists.
However, Nu Wa's role in Chinese myth is substantially different from that of Eve's in Biblical myth. Nu Wa created men out of earth, whereas Eve was created from a man who was created out of earth.

On another note, these folks have also apparently found "Lost Tribes of Israel" among the Japanese and the Hmong.

[Chris Weimer]

You may take Genesis as figurative myth, but there are many Christians who take it literally. I'm one of them. Genesis was written by Moses, way before there was any Judah/Israel split. Unless you question that authorship too.

There's no point to believe that Genesis was written by Moses. Do you know Hebrew? Those that are actually familiar with the Hebrew language would realize that late Aramaic is found in Genesis, the competing JEPD theories surrounding the language, the constant anachronisms in Genesis, and the fact of evolution should be enough to take Genesis for what it is: mythology.

[Yun]

The last I checked, evolution was still a theory and not a fact. Of course, an idea can become so dominant and accepted that people assume it is a fact. For example, the idea that God does not exist.

[Chris Weimer]

The last I checked, evolution was still a theory and not a fact. Of course, an idea can become so dominant and accepted that people assume it is a fact. For example, the idea that God does not exist.

Incorrect. You might be thinking of The Evolutionary Theory, which yes, is indeed an theory. A theory is defined as a working description of scientific facts. Evolution i.e. the genetic mutation in living things over time is indeed a fact and has indeed been observed as such: that no one can deny (why do you think HIV can't be blocked by immunization?). And for your second example of "God does not exist", that is not a theory but a hypothesis, and the default state of all beings to begin with. If you wish to set forth your ideas of God, the burden of proof is on you to show that God indeed does exist.

Clarify some things?

[Yun]

Well. Some things that you might want to clarify.

1. How does the "genetic mutation of things over time" prove that creation is a myth?

2. If you think it does, what difference is there between this and "The Evolutionary Theory"?

3. What makes you say that atheism is the "default state of all beings to begin with"?

4. I have seen things happen that could only be done by God - what in religious speak are referred to as "signs and wonders". You could of course suggest all kinds of scientific explanations for them - but then wouldn't the burden of proof be on you?

[Chris Weimer]

1. Because the Genesis account states that everything was created as is, why evolution states otherwise. In and of itself it does not prove that creationism is mythological, but taken in with everything else, pretty much nails the coffin in it.

2. As I said before, the Evolutionary Theory is the description of the innumerable instances of evolution throughout terrestrial history.

3. Because God is something that must be taught, which is why there were no Christians in America before the European settlement, why you don't see Christian writings in Ancient Chinese, why the Aboriginal Australians aren't all Christian, etc... ad infinitum. Christianity can only spread through teachings about it. If you take a newborn child and never mention "God" that child will never know what God is until someone gives it that name. Thus atheism is the default state of man.

4. No, you have seen things. It's up to you to prove that they could have only been done by God. I haven't seen anything, so I have nothing to prove.

[Yun]

Because God is something that must be taught, which is why there were no Christians in America before the European settlement, why you don't see Christian writings in Ancient Chinese, why the Aboriginal Australians aren't all Christian, etc... ad infinitum. Christianity can only spread through teachings about it. If you take a newborn child and never mention "God" that child will never know what God is until someone gives it that name. Thus atheism is the default state of man.

A belief in the Christian God isn't the only form of religious belief in history. There were no Christians among the Native Americans before the Europeans came, but there were probably very few atheists too. They had lots of creation myths of their own. Same with the Chinese and the Aborigines, they were all generally religious people. If you had asked them if they believe that spirits exist, or even that a Great Spirit exists, they would mostly have said yes.

2. As I said before, the Evolutionary Theory is the description of the innumerable instances of evolution throughout terrestrial history.

Did you say this before? You only said: "A theory is defined as a working description of scientific facts." Genetic mutation is a scientific fact, yes. But "innumerable instances" of genetic mutation leading to the evolution of fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, and reptiles into birds and mammals is something that can only be proposed based on the interpretation of a number of fossils.

4. No, you have seen things. It's up to you to prove that they could have only been done by God. I haven't seen anything, so I have nothing to prove.

Go visit a Pentecostal church sometime. You might see something that would inconvenience you. As it is, you seem to be claiming there is no such thing as light because you've never tried to open your eyes.