WHAT ARE WE?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rolosam

Guest
FIRST, WE ARE ONLY ANOTHER SPECIE ON THE EARTH, IT IS TRUE THAT WE ARE THE MOST INTELLIGENT CREATURES, BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE RULE THE EARTH OR HUMANS ARE THE PURPOUSE OF THE EARTH EXISTANCE. AS A MATTER OF FACT WE ARE VERY DEPENDANT BEINGS. QUESTIONS LIKE "WHY HUMANS ARE HERE" DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. WE ARE ONLY TEMPORARY BEINGS. WE ARE A NEW SPECIE OVER THE EARTH. WE WERE NOT HERE BEFORE, THERE WERE OTHER ANIMALS (BECAUSE WE ARE ANIMALS TOO!) AND WHEN WE ARE GONE, THERE WILL STILL BE OTHERS.<br />PERHAPS, IS NOT THAT THE UNIVERSE IS SO BIG, WE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE TOO SMALL. MAYBE WE ARE ONLY AN ACCIDENT. A VERY LUCKY STRIKE. IF THE EARTH WOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE SUN, MAYBE WE WOULD NOT BE HERE. <br />PEOPLE ASKS OR SAY THINGS LIKE "THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE", "THERE WAS NOTHING BEFORE THE BIG BANG" AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THINK IF WE PUT A BACTERIA IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN AND IT COULD ASK ITSELF "WHAT AM I?" "WHAT IS ALL THIS LIQUID UNIVERSE?" "I GUESS IT IS INFINITE", FOR THIS BACTERIA ALL THIS, IS AS IT BELIEVES, AND IT IS EXACTLY WHAT HUMANS ASK ABOUT UNIVERSE. THE BACTERIA IS SO SMALL, THAT IT WILL NEVER, IN ITS LIFE, WILL FIND OUT THE ANSWERS. <br />IS NOT THAT BIG... YOU ARE THE SMALL ONE.
 
G

glutomoto

Guest
Thank you for <font size="5">SHOUTING</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jindivik

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> THINK IF WE PUT A BACTERIA IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN AND IT COULD ASK ITSELF "WHAT AM I?" "WHAT IS ALL THIS LIQUID UNIVERSE?" "I GUESS IT IS INFINITE", FOR THIS BACTERIA ALL THIS, IS AS IT BELIEVES, AND IT IS EXACTLY WHAT HUMANS ASK ABOUT UNIVERSE. THE BACTERIA IS SO SMALL, THAT IT WILL NEVER, IN ITS LIFE, WILL FIND OUT THE ANSWERS<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />we all learn about that stuff in high school, plus to the quote..the bacteria wont have a brain to think with....and they don't know as much as we do about the universe because they don't have telescopes hehehe
 
A

Astrosag

Guest
Congrats on your first post (I think- kidding). Regular font (as in not all CAPS) do just as fine. But good post, nice thinking. Good day.
 
G

geetpurwar

Guest
Nice post!I could understand what u are thinking,coz i also think so.....and i m alos writing a book on this matter,The title of the book is 'SELF-DISCOVERY'....and what do u think human should do.....my opinion is that they should keep searching coz the universe is not alone there,there is multiverse too....and also we must understand the realtion between zero and infinity...as it is zero that gives birth to infinity......A question for all of u....."Have u ever played a game named,'ROLLER-COASTER' by Chris Sawer,its a lovely game ...play and u all(perhaps who have played),must get the feeling,if somehow we could give a person in this,some bit of intelligence then what will happen,he start thinking<br />where he is?,who is he,where is he? etc etc,Mr. Einstein also get the same thinking....and what did he get.....to be concluded in the next part......Do not think more otherwise the world will be ILLUSION 2 u,u will get the feeling we are also programmed or we are in the MATRIX.......Keep Thinking..................
 
M

mooware

Guest
If you're going to write a book, be sure you use the word "You" in place of "u".<br /><br />Apart from the above, I have no idea what you are rambling about. I hope your book makes more sense
 
N

newtonian

Guest
rolosam- Since you asked the question, I assume you want answers, so here goes:<br /><br />1. We are not just another species. We are humans and humans are unique in many ways:<br /><br />1A. Only humans post on space.com. No other species posts on space.com . <br /><br />1A(1) - This is not just because we are conscious. All souls (Latin anima), all animals, are conscious. <br /><br />Er- except when unconscious.<br /><br />However, animals are more sentient than plants, which is why the Bible calls animals souls, but not plants.<br /><br />1B - Only humans, not any other animals, were created in God's image:<br /><br />(Genesis 1:26) "26 And God went on to say: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.. . ."<br /><br />Being in God'simage involves our having qualities God has such as: <br /><br />(a) Love (greek agape, not eros)<br />(b) a sense of Justice<br />(c) power (e.g. we were given dominion over all animals - it was supposed to be a loving dominion), <br />(d) wisdom.- such as the wisdom to seek answers to why we are here and where we are going - i.e. the purpose of life (which, btw, involves love).<br /><br />And much more, but then my post would become a book.<br /><br />You are correct that in some ways we are similar to all animal species, such as in how we die:<br /><br />(Ecclesiastes 3:18-20) ". . .I, even I, have said in my heart with regard to the sons of mankind that the [true] God is going to select them, that they may see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. 20 All are goi
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<i>"Being in God's image involves our having qualities God has such as: <br /><br />(a) Love... <br />(b) a sense of Justice... <br />(c) power... <br />(d) wisdom..."<br /><br /> -- Newtonian</i><br /><br />So if other beings possessing these qualities exist in the universe, although they would not resemble humans physically, they also have been created in the image of God? <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

the_masked_squiggy

Guest
Nice post, Newt. Although I disagree on a couple of points:<br /><br />Okay, first, since I'm a bit anal about Latin--a more correct translation of "animus" in English is "mind". Or "anima", "minds". The back of a Bible will probably list it as "soul" because when they translated it into English somebody thought "soul" would sound better than "mind". And indeed it does, in my opinion. And we're not just talking about animal consciousness, but the significance of being the only species known to us that is capable of asking such questions--which makes them more worth asking, more intriguing. Because hey, we're the only philosopers that we know of so we better get philosophising. Nice loop.<br /><br />Ack, late for class!
 
F

finaldeathh

Guest
Hm.... a little off topic but did God creat us? or did we create God?
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
Where do you get the Latin from? The source languages for the bible are Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek (NT).
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
Steve,<br /><br />If any source scripture was ever written in Aramaic, none of it survives today. Hmmm, unless you mean the Qumran manuscripts, but that was an unusual case.<br /><br />Hebrew tended to be used as a sacred written language and Aramaic was the lingua franca of the area. Aramaic is a Semitic language similar to Ancient Hebrew and Akkadian before that. <br /><br />You mean Proto-Caananite (or proto-Siniatic) script is a precursor to Phoenician script. It actually first arose around the 17th Century BCE.<br /><br />Egyptian and Hebrew are not closely related, They are not even both Semitic languages. Egyptian is however Afro-Asiatic, but Coptic and Ancient Egyptian are in their own branch. Don't worry, people have often classed Berber as Semitic too.<br /><br />As you can see by my personal website, ancient history is also a major interest of mine.
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
" The other source language, is Coptic, which is the earliest surviving Bible, about 100 years before the earliest known Greek Testaments. The Copts created most fo the structure, theology and Bibles of the early church, right there in Alexandria, Egypt, Where St. Mark founded the patriarchy of the church about 62 AD."<br /><br />Yes, I always find the Copts interesting. The Coptic language has considerably influenced the form of Arabic spoken in Egypt today. You're right, it is another source language, but pretty unique to the Coptic Church. The percentage of Coptics in Egypt is officially about 6%, but unofficially, it's estimated at around 20%, mainly because of lost-standing persecution.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
centworth_II - Good question, you posted:<br /><br />So if other beings possessing these qualities exist in the universe, although they would not resemble humans physically, they also have been created in the image of God? <br />Yes, exactly correct.<br /><br />And there were other sons of God who applauded the creation of earth according to Job 38:7.<br /><br />They were also created in God's image, though they are apparently mostly energy based, not matter based, life forms.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - You are correct, Latin is not an original source language.<br /><br />However, the Latin Vulgate translation is quite ancient and is translated from even older copies so it has some value in Bible manuscript research.<br /><br />The original languages are Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.<br /><br />Coptic was also ancient, but not original in Bible writing.<br /><br />You may have missed the portions of the Bible written in Aramaic since it has the same alphabet as Hebrew.<br /><br />Here is some basic information about Aramaic:<br /><br />ARAMAIC<br /><br />(Ar·a·ma´ic).<br /><br />An ancient Semitic language having a close relationship to Hebrew and originally spoken by the Aramaeans. (See ARAM No. 5.) With the passing of time, however, it came to embrace various dialects (some of them viewed as separate languages) and enjoyed wide use, especially in SW Asia. Aramaic was employed particularly from the second millennium B.C.E. to about 500 C.E. It is one of the three languages in which the Bible was originally written. The Hebrew word ´Ara·mith´ occurs five times and is translated "in the Syrian language" or "in the Aramaic language."-2Ki 18:26; Isa 36:11; Da 2:4; Ezr 4:7 (twice).<br /><br />Biblical Aramaic, formerly called Chaldee, is found in Ezra 4:8 to 6:18 and 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11; and Daniel 2:4b to 7:28. Aramaic expressions also appear in other parts of the Bible, but many of the attempts of scholars to identify Aramaic sources for Hebrew words are simply conjectural.<br /><br />The use of some Aramaic expressions is not surprising, for the Hebrews had close contact with the Aramaeans and with the Aramaic language for a long time. Among the earliest renditions of the Hebrew Scriptures into other languages were the Aramaic Targums, though they were not put into writing until several centuries after the production of the Greek Septuagint commenced, about 280 B.C.E.<br /><br />The Language. Aramaic and Hebrew are both classified as being in the Northwest Semitic family o
 
N

newtonian

Guest
the_masked_squiggy - Nice post also squiggy!<br /><br />Yes, translations are not always synonyms. <br /><br />What I meant was that in the Latin Vulgate translation when the Hebrew (nephesh) and Greek (psyche) words for soul are used, the latin word anima is the translation, as I will document.<br /><br />And the English word animal is derived from the latin word anima.<br /><br />And the Bible does call animals souls.<br /><br />Another loop!<br /><br />Documentation for the above:<br /><br />NW footnote on Numbers 9:6 <br /><br />"By a human soul," that is, by a dead soul. MSam(Heb.), lene´phesh ´a·dham´; Gr., psy·khei´ an·thro´pou; Sy, "soul of a man"; Lat., a´ni·mam ho´mi·nis.<br />[Sy is Syriac]<br /><br />Footnote on Ezekiel 47:9 <br /><br />"Living soul." Heb., ne´phesh chai·yah´; Gr., psy·khe´ ton zoi´on; Lat., a´ni·ma vi´vens. See Ge 2:7 ftn, "Soul"; App 4A<br />Ftn. Luke 1:46 <br /><br />"My soul magnifies." Lat., Ma·gni´fi·cat a´ni·ma me´a.<br />See Genesis where animals are called souls.<br /><br />Your point is well taken as the Greek word for soul, psyche, can also mean mind.<br /><br />And Biblical usage of soul, both in Hebrew as nephesh and in Greek as psyche, does have more than one definition.<br /><br />The basic definition is everything that makes you you - including your mind.<br /><br />The human mind and brain is really a major way humans are a higher creation and are special on this planet.
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
Interesting. I had no idea that whole sections of the OT were written in Aramaic, and neither did an acquaintance of mine who is a doctor of theology! <br /><br />We learn something new every day. <br /><br />Actually the Qumran (Dead Sea) manuscripts are even older sources, and these were written entirely in Aramaic, though they were not directly used in modern translations. I wonder if the full content of these manuscripts will ever be released.<br /><br />You know of course that a form of Aramaic is still spoken in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria.<br /><br />Sorry about the OT digression, mods.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
finaldeathh - Actually, that is on topic, as worship of a god is unique to humans. No animals have religions or worship God like humans do.<br /><br />Most gods were created by man. <br /><br />However some gods were not created by man nor did they create man.<br /><br />Jehovah, from the Hebrew hawah in the causative sense and meaning He causes to be, is the Creator of heavens and earth and man.<br /><br />You failed to specify which god you were referring to.<br /><br />As my namesake, the apostle Paul, noted:<br /><br />(1 Corinthians 8:5-6) ". . .For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him."<br /><br />- Paul
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - I also keep learning.<br /><br />I did not realize some dead sea manuscripts were in Aramaic - are you sure? <br /><br />I will research that and get back to you.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
We're a race of impassioned, after-dinner speech-makers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
stevehw33 - We disagree on which came first, paleo Hebrew or other languages, and which derived from which.<br /><br />Remember an older thread where we discussed Rameses?<br /><br />Do you wish to compare notes and discuss this again?<br /><br />On thread theme, no other species on planet earth can research which language came first.<br /><br />Let alone considering whether totally different languages exist beyond earth, as the Bible alludes to:<br /><br />(1 Corinthians 13:1) ". . .If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding [piece of] brass or a clashing cymbal."<br /><br />Linqustics, like the other sciences, is unique to humans on this planet. <br /><br />And so is the type of love signified by the Greek word agape, love based on principle:<br /><br />(1 Corinthians 13:4-6) ". . .Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth."
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
So you're equating the Pelasgians (Sea People) with the Philistines?<br />The Sea People were probably a mixture of peoples as attested by the inscription at Medinet Habou. They probably included the Siceles, and a number of other tribes including the Tyrrhenians (Trsh). This is by no means cut and dried. <br /><br />The Phillistines basically became military enforcers for the Egyptians, and they were settled in Judea and Canaan. They are thought to have been responsible for the breakdown of the Hittite empire, and the dissemination of iron smelting technology outside that empire. <br /><br />It's a complex history. The Pelasgians or Sea People had a decisive victory against the Egyptians and settled part of the Nile Delta until they were finally beaten back by Ramses III. <br /><br />The Phoenicians are believed to be a result of the Philistines and the Sea People who settled in part in Canaan.<br /><br />The Phoenician alphabet was the precursor of the Greek Alphabet, and the chronology is not entirely defined. The Euboean Greek alphabet is the precursor of the Etruscan circa 750 BCE, and from there it spread to the Romans. There is good evidence for this, some of which I explore on my section on Etruscan language at the end of this post. Note the section on the alphabet.<br /><br />Going back to the earliest alphabet, the Proto Canaanite is the Earliest, and is the grand-daddy of all alphabets. It is thought to be drived from Egyptian hieroglyphs, but each symbol acquired a single sound.<br /><br />http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/language.html
 
X

xmo1

Guest
bipedal primate mammals (Homo sapiens). We are an organization of organisms. We are living, as opposed to non-living.<br /><br />If we over-thought about what we are the list could go on for a long time. Our status in the universe is another matter. Our planet flies through space at about a million miles per hour, and it is a wonder that we have not met the same fate as the bug on the windshield, having traveled so fast for so long.<br /><br />Never-the-less, if you go into a cave without light, and talk to people, it is soon realized that they are more than a consolidation of facial features and cool clothes.<br /><br />Many of us believe that the voice that is speaking in the darkness is more than a bundle of highly specialized nerves, but rather each of us has a spiritual essence that is in a growth and realization stage of understanding the universe, and it is from that essence that our vocalizations emanate.<br /><br />If that is not the case, then we are little more than the slime on a cold pipe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
xmo1 - Yes, language does make humans unique.<br /><br />Although there is a surprising amount of communication in lower forms of life, even plants and bacteria (e.g.: quorum sensing, bacterial esperanto, etc.).<br />However, no other earthling life form has the degree of communcation we possess.<br /><br />We are tiny, even like an unreality compared with our universe - See Isaiah 40:22 and context [e.g. we are like "dust on the scales (Is.40:15), as something nonexistent, as nothing, as an unreality (Is. 40:17), etc.] <br /><br />Here is an interesting excerpt documenting how the human brain is hard-wired for language:<br /><br />HUMANS' DISTINCTIVE ABILITIES<br /><br /> Specialized areas of the brain known as language centers equip humans with remarkable skills of communication. What we want to say appears to be organized by the region of the left brain hemisphere known as Wernicke's area (1). This communicates with Broca's area (2), which applies grammatical rules. Impulses next arrive at nearby motor areas that control facial muscles and help us form appropriate words. Additionally, these areas connect with the brain's visual system so that we can read; with the hearing system so that we can hear, understand, and respond to what others tell us; and, not to be neglected, with our memory bank to store worthwhile thoughts. "What really sets humans apart from other animals," comments the study guide Journey to the Centres of the Brain, "is their ability to learn an astonishing variety of skills, facts and rules, not just about physical things in the world around them, but especially about other people and what makes them tick." quoted in "Awake!," 5/8/99, p. 9
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - I agree that there is come uncertainty as to origins and descent and derivations and mixing of ancient languages.<br /><br />Here is another excerpt from our Bible dictionary, "Insight on the Scriptures," which does link Aramaic, Canaanite and Hebrew languages, under the heading Canaanite:<br /><br />"Language. Although the Bible record clearly shows the Canaanites to be Hamitic, the majority of reference works speak of them as of Semitic origin. This classification is based on the evidence of a Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites. The evidence most frequently appealed to is the large number of texts found at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) written in a Semitic language or dialect and considered to date from as far back as the 14th century B.C.E. However, Ugarit apparently did not come within the Biblical boundaries of Canaan. An article by A. F. Rainey in The Biblical Archaeologist (1965, p. 105) states that on ethnic, political, and, probably, linguistic bases "it is now clearly a misnomer to call Ugarit a 'Canaanite' city." He gives further evidence to show that "Ugarit and the land of Canaan were separate and distinct political entities." Hence, these tablets provide no clear rule by which to determine the language of the Canaanites.<br /><br />Many of the Amarna Tablets found in Egypt do proceed from cities in Canaan proper, and these tablets, predating the Israelite conquest, are written mainly in cuneiform Babylonian, a Semitic language. This, however, was the diplomatic language of the entire Middle East at that time, so that it was used even when writing to the Egyptian court. Thus, it is of considerable interest to note the statement in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 1, p. 495) that "the Amarna Letters contain evidence for the opinion that non-Semitic ethnic elements settled in Palestine and Syria at a rather early date, for a number of these letters show a remarkable influence of non-Semitic tongues." (It
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts