Adam and Eve as a Myth

[McBell]

... ...Wise counsel, I think.

Yet you choose to ignore it...

 

[camanintx]

While Babylonian myths have been relegated to the dust bin of history, the Bible's logical account of Creation has stood the test of time and countless attempts to discredit it. The historicity of the Bible record has never been successfully challenged.

So can you point me to an egyptian engraving from the 15th century BC saying that all of the Israeli slaves were set free?

 

[Agnostic75]

Your choice to follow the shifting theories of men instead of the evidence is, of course, your right. And as you mentioned, you certainly are not alone in being led along by the ceaseless evolutionary propaganda being disseminated by ToE advocates. Millions of people believe this baseless theory, not because they have examined the evidence, but simply to not appear different from the popular course. History is filled with the sad results of such blind acceptance of propaganda, supposedly from an authoritative source. The Bible, on the other hand, urges us to "make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) It also warns: "Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you of as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world." (Colossians 2:8) Wise counsel, I think.

But what is your academic background in biology, and geology? Are you merely preaching, or are you also an expert in biology, and geology? Is faith in the Bible your only evidence that creationism, and the global flood story, are true, or do you know enough about biology, and geology, to defend creationism, and the global flood story, without using the Bible?

Do you believe that it is acceptable for people who know very little about science to accept creationism, and the global flood story?

I have asked you to answer the last question many times for many months, and I do not think that you have ever answered it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The historicity of the Bible record has never been successfully challenged.

By successfully you no doubt mean to the complete satisfaction of those who obstinantly reject science.

One is reminded of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King: Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

 

[Agnostic75]

And as you mentioned, you certainly are not alone in being led along by the ceaseless evolutionary propaganda being disseminated by ToE advocates. Millions of people believe this baseless theory, not because they have examined the evidence, but simply to not appear different from the popular course.

But you are arguing against a topic that you do not adequately understand, which can easily be proven by the fact that you are not able to adequately critique and refute Dr. Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun, and I mean based upon your own knowledge, not by copying someone else's work. Isn't it true that right now, you would not even be able to pass the first test in a first year college biology class, or the first test in a first year college geology class?

If a God exists, he is free to create life any way that he wants to, including slowly, over time.

 

[javajo]

why are there no breaks in Egyptian records during this time?? with written records to back it.

why are there no breaks in ANY culture in China at this time, NONE! with written records to back it

why are there no breaks in any culture in the whole world at this time?


why is there no geologocal evidence from 4200 years ago ????

My beliefs are: Of course I believe the Flood predated Egypt and China, so it may have been a few years more than 4200. Its an approximate date. As far as geological evidence, I posted a link, but, historic science or origins is subjective, like I asked the farmer after helping him free a calf from a large cow, "Just how fast was that calf running to get stuck in that cow?" Of course the cow was the mama who just gave birth to the calf. So, like I see the Grand Canyon as evidence for a catastrophic flood (as Mt. St. Helen's will attest), and someone else sees thinks that river carved that huge canyon over time. So, it all in the worldview, as one evolutionist turned creationist said, "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it. Illogical as it may sound, its what I believe, just my beliefs, that's all, not asking anyone to accept them. My beliefs sound crazy to most, even to many Christians, but, hey, with the economy the way it is and all, I'm entitled to them. Peace.

So your stance is, just believe, the why's will come later. Do you think thats a good way for determining fact from fantasy?

My beliefs are: Pretty crazy, huh? But that is what I experienced, the deep conviction of the Holy Spirit for a week, telling me I needed to get saved. Of course I learned way, way back to trust God's Word and his promises above feeling, but the conviction was definitely real for me. Now I have the assurance of God's Word that I have been freely and wonderfully saved to the uttermost by God and am kept by God forever, and he will never leave me nor forsake me nor cast me out nor allow anyone or anything to pluck me from his hand, not even myself. I have the promise of God, who cannot lie that I, who was dead in sin have been made alive, I have eternal life, I have the eternal and I have the life, never again to go back into condemnation, but am passed from death to life, to the glory of Jesus Christ the Lord.

Does faith need scientific evidence for support?

Don't guess so, but it helps. Historical and archeological evidence is nice, too.

Do you accept creationism, and the young earth theory? If so, did science have anything to do with your acceptance of those things?

Yes, I believe God created the world and I believe in a fairly young earth, although I am not dogmatic about the latter. Science did have a lot to do with the belief in the young earth and flood for me, but belief in God came from the Holy Spirit convicting me. Also, the Bible says God created everything and from the wonder of creation and my conscience, I believe in God.

Any follower of any religion can say that their religion feels good for them. Merely stating that a religion feels good does not help discussions lead to helpful conclusions. You mentioned science. Science does not reach conclusions based upon how people feel, but on testable hypthoses.

My beliefs: Oh, there are things about my 'religion' (I don't call it that, nor am I religious), that don't 'feel good' for me at all, that I just trust God about, and as far as coming to 'helpful conclusions', I'm probably the wrong person for that, as my beliefs are pretty crazy to most people. I'm more or less just sharing my beliefs. As far as science, I am all for science that tests thing in the here and now, but origins is more subjective, looking at something and trying to figure out how it came about and when and all, very different than the science that gave us our computers. Ok, peace!

 

[gnostic]

My beliefs are: Of course I believe the Flood predated Egypt and China, so it may have been a few years more than 4200. Its an approximate date.

A few years wouldn't make any different to historical Egypt or China.

Just how much "a few years" are you talking about?

A few centuries?

A few millenniums?

A few centuries or few millenniums, wouldn't count as "a few years"; to think otherwise, then you're just fibbing.

If you think it is more than between 2340 BCE and 2100 BCE (the supposed occurrence of the biblical Flood), then the whole timeline of the Bible would be completely out of alignment with history.

Since my knowledge on historical and prehistorical China is very limited, I'll just concentrate on Egypt, as an example.

The dynastic Egypt began in 3100 BCE, which is over 5000 years. Predynastic Egypt (6000 BCE - 3200 BCE) did exist before this time, but this was when Egypt was divided into 2 separate kingdoms: Upper Egypt (southern kingdom) and Lower Egypt (northern kingdom). There are too many evidences to support Egypt existing before Egyptian writings (hieroglyphs). What we called "Egyptian culture", actually predated dynastic Egyptian by some centuries, in what anthropologists and archaeologists called the Gerzean culture (or Naqada II), from about 3500 to 3200 BC.

All indication that Abraham and Moses lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, not the 3rd millennium. And according to the Masoretic Text, which most English language Bible are based on, there is only 367 years between Noah boarding the Ark and Abraham leave Harran for Canaan at age 75.

So for you to suggest that the Flood to occur before the 1st dynasty in Egypt, would be ridiculous because then Abraham and Moses would to live in the 1st half of 3rd millennium BCE, or very early Bronze Age in Egypt. And that's the other thing. If the Flood predate Jesus, then Jesus would have been born in the Bronze Age, when Rome (and its empire) didn't exist.

Instead of Jesus being born in the time of Augustus Caesar's reign, he (Jesus) would have been born in the time of Alexander the Great (or earlier) if you're talking about a few centuries, or in the late Neolithic period or early Bronze Age if you're talking about a few millenniums.

So can you be more specific on how many few years you're really talking about?

Seriously, I don't think you know what you're talking about when you made that statement. You don't know how seriously stupid this statement of yours is.

 

[Agnostic75]

This if from a Christian source:

Noah’s Flood Not World-wide

A reasonably accurate history of China begins around 3000 B.C. Valuable information on this culture has been obtained from the Chinese sacred book known as Shu King. According to the chronology of this text, and verified by archaeological finds, China was undergoing a prosperous period during the Yao Dynasty (between 2400 - 2200 B.C.) with no record of a cataclysmic interruption of its civilization.

The creationist movement began as a reaction to the teaching of evolution in public schools. The movement was thus set in motion to counter the spread of anti-Bible thinking and humanist philosophy. The creationists saw the credibility of the Bible being drastically threatened. Thus by their concept of creationism they attempted to explain all events and conditions by the Bible—something the Bible was never intended to do.

If the fundamentalists and creationists are so concerned about the rise in skepticism, disrepute and disbelief surrounding the Bible, they need not point to the atheists, anti-Christs, evolutionists or a mystical devil; for through their fictitious doctrines they have been the greatest contributors to such skeptic trends. They have continually accepted that which is inconsistent, illogical and non-biblical while denying or rejecting the obvious, the provable and the biblical. In so doing their credibility has been brought down into the mud, and by claiming their authority from the Bible, they have dragged the Bible and Christianity down along with them.

As a result fewer people today regard the Bible as a credible source of truth. But can we really blame any scientist or lay person for rejecting the Bible when those who are recognized as the so-called experts in the Bible, relate myth and fantasy as being "the word of God?" The fundamentalists and creationists have done more to discredit the validity of the Bible than the atheists and evolutionists they speak against. Unfortunately, all too many people have blindly rallied behind these "experts" without analysing what they are saying.

We should be more like the brethren at Berea, who, after hearing Paul and Silas preach the word of God on certain matters, "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). In other words, when we hear something spoken about the Bible, we should learn to check and research it for accuracy. The Bible does not teach blind obedience in men, even if they are respected leaders, ministers or have a "Ph.D." after their name.

The creationists and fundamentalists do not want people searching the Scriptures to see if their literal interpretation is true. Like the Baal priests of old, they want everyone to think as they do and read and interpret the Bible the way they do.

Now these same people are preaching about a universal flood, and they will continue to support their theory with arguments and denials no matter how absurd they might be. All of this is actually counterproductive to their very aim of promoting and supporting the Bible.

 

[Agnostic75]

This is from another Christian source, Davis Young, who is an evangelical Christian geologist:

History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

From the mid-seventeenth (c. 1650 AD) to the mid-eighteenth century (c. 1750 AD), a range of British mathematicians, naturalists, and clerics from the Church of England attempted to demonstrate that belief in a global biblical deluge was perfectly compatible with extrabiblical knowledge and the latest theoretical developments in mechanistic science. They maintained that the fact that such a deluge had occurred could now be established not only on the basis of biblical authority but also on mathematical and scientific grounds. Their various theories reflected different conceptions of natural theology, the roles of science and theology, and the bearing of Scripture on the interpretation of nature. Their diluvial cosmogonies provided a mainstream scientific paradigm that stimulated hard thought, biblical exegesis, widespread geological observation, and some of the earliest geological experiments.


But if these seventeenth-century cosmogonies were on the whole plausible given the limitations of the geological science of the day, they were nevertheless seriously flawed in other ways -- perhaps most notably by the fact that their proponents based them on relatively small bodies of favorable evidence and tended to ignore damaging evidence. The cosmogonists generally avoided the insurmountable problems of animal distribution and migration, for instance, and resisted determinations that geological strata are not arranged in order of specific gravity. On the other hand, the theorists were for the most part committed to providing honest scientific accounts of physical processes associated with the flood, and they resisted making appeals to miracle in order to resolve difficulties in those accounts.
In the end, the old diluvial cosmogonies fell victim to their own success. The genuine spirit of scientific inquiry that they engendered and stimulated gradually produced a wealth of geological discoveries that undercut the premises of diluvialism. All manner of different field observations indicated that geological strata could not be the remains of layers of soft sediments deposited together at the same time. Furthermore, the plethora of exegeses of the deluge account raised doubts in many scholarly minds about whether the Bible was being properly used in trying to settle questions of geological history. By the middle of the eighteenth century, few competent proponents of diluvialism remained.


The basic pattern of the attempts to accommodate extrabiblical information during this period is by now familiar. Scholars began with the assumption that the biblical flood narrative describes a literal universal deluge and then sought evidence of that event using the best scientific tools and evidence available to them. As evidence accumulated, however, their theories became increasingly untenable, and when that happened, all those who were dedicated to the truth of the matter -- scientists and theologians alike -- abandoned the discredited hypotheses and began to look elsewhere.

Of particular interest is "scholars began with the assumption that the biblical flood narrative describes a literal universal deluge and then sought evidence of that event using the best scientific tools and evidence available to them." That is an example of using science as a convenience only when it is believed to agree with the Bible. True science does not use religious presuppositionalism.

 

[javajo]

A few years wouldn't make any different to historical Egypt or China.

Just how much "a few years" are you talking about?

A few centuries?

A few millenniums?

A few centuries or few millenniums, wouldn't count as "a few years"; to think otherwise, then you're just fibbing.

If you think it is more than between 2340 BCE and 2100 BCE (the supposed occurrence of the biblical Flood), then the whole timeline of the Bible would be completely out of alignment with history.

Since my knowledge on historical and prehistorical China is very limited, I'll just concentrate on Egypt, as an example.

The dynastic Egypt began in 3100 BCE, which is over 5000 years. Predynastic Egypt (6000 BCE - 3200 BCE) did exist before this time, but this was when Egypt was divided into 2 separate kingdoms: Upper Egypt (southern kingdom) and Lower Egypt (northern kingdom). There are too many evidences to support Egypt existing before Egyptian writings (hieroglyphs). What we called "Egyptian culture", actually predated dynastic Egyptian by some centuries, in what anthropologists and archaeologists called the Gerzean culture (or Naqada II), from about 3500 to 3200 BC.

All indication that Abraham and Moses lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, not the 3rd millennium. And according to the Masoretic Text, which most English language Bible are based on, there is only 367 years between Noah boarding the Ark and Abraham leave Harran for Canaan at age 75.

So for you to suggest that the Flood to occur before the 1st dynasty in Egypt, would be ridiculous because then Abraham and Moses would to live in the 1st half of 3rd millennium BCE, or very early Bronze Age in Egypt. And that's the other thing. If the Flood predate Jesus, then Jesus would have been born in the Bronze Age, when Rome (and its empire) didn't exist.

Instead of Jesus being born in the time of Augustus Caesar's reign, he (Jesus) would have been born in the time of Alexander the Great (or earlier) if you're talking about a few centuries, or in the late Neolithic period or early Bronze Age if you're talking about a few millenniums.

So can you be more specific on how many few years you're really talking about?

Seriously, I don't think you know what you're talking about when you made that statement. You don't know how seriously stupid this statement of yours is.

Here is a brief article in which the Flood is dated to around 3,000 bc. which I believe coincides with the beginnings of civilization and Egypt. Ancient Days :: The Date of Noah's Flood: Literary and Archaeological Evidence :: by Dr. David Livingston

Here are concluding remarks of another of his articles: Ancient Days :: A Universal Flood: 3000 BC :: by David Livingston

Conclusion: The Flood Occurred 5000 years ago

1. C14 is not useful in dating before 5000 B.P. according to the discoverer of the method.
2. River deltas suggest a recent (ca. 3000 BC?) flood.
3. All written history begins ca. 3000 BC.
4. Foundations of cities began then.
5. Families of mankind began then. Geneologies date back to it.
6. A 10,000 BC (or earlier) flood wreaks havoc with geneologies.
7. There is no record of a 10,000 BC flood in ANY of the literature.
8. The Gilgamesh Epic (and other epics) fit well into a 3000 BC date.
9. The biblical account did not derive from other literature. It is eyewitness testimony.
10. It is clear from the biblical account that there was a universal flood about 3000 BC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have read articles for and against the Flood. One can come up with arguments either way, although I think the 'for' arguments make more sense. In the end, I believe the Bible is God's (who cannot lie) Word, and when (origins) science and the Bible conflict, with more advancements, the Bible is proven right. For example, in the 1800's many scholars asked where all the cities of the OT were, but as archeology advanced, they began to find them. Only a couple hundred years ago a doctor was scorned and kicked out of one hospital for suggesting that they wash their hands between patients and operations, yet we now know about germs. God told the Israelites to wash their hands in running water if they touch a dead person or animal etc. The Bible says the earth hangs on nothing and so it does. Not that the Bible is a science, medical or archeological, etc. book, but its something to consider. Just sayin'.

 

[camanintx]

Here is a brief article in which the Flood is dated to around 3,000 bc. which I believe coincides with the beginnings of civilization and Egypt. Ancient Days :: The Date of Noah's Flood: Literary and Archaeological Evidence :: by Dr. David Livingston

We know that these civilizations consisted of thousands of people. How can so many people be descended from the few that survived the flood in so little time?

 

[javajo]

We know that these civilizations consisted of thousands of people. How can so many people be descended from the few that survived the flood in so little time?

Same way Adam and Eve did, I reckon. They lived a long time and popped out babies much longer than women can today. And they didn't have the internet, i phones or tv, so what else was there to do?

 

[camanintx]

Same way Adam and Eve did, I reckon. They lived a long time and popped out babies much longer than women can today. And they didn't have the internet, i phones or tv, so what else was there to do?

And all their children procreated with who? Each other? Besides being a sin, do you know how much damage incest does to the gene pool?

 

[gnostic]

Can I ask you, javajo, which bible do you read?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can I ask you, javajo, which bible do you read?

I'd be more concerned about the glasses than the text.

 

[javajo]

And all their children procreated with who? Each other? Besides being a sin, do you know how much damage incest does to the gene pool?

Hi, Here's my beliefs: I believe they did. The Bible says where no law is, there is no sin, for sin is disobeying the law, and that law was not given until Moses. I also believe that Adam and Eve's gene pool was perfect but as time went on, as a result of the Fall, sin bringing forth death and disease and etc., it took a toll on the gene pool so the law had to be given. Even now one can marry a 3rd cousin with no ill effects on offspring.

Can I ask you, javajo, which bible do you read?

I study many versions and compare verses online from several at once to get a full clear understanding. I enjoy reading the KJV, not just for the beauty, but the ease of memorization.

I'd be more concerned about the glasses than the text.

Bifocals. Here's my beliefs. Please read from this passage in Romans 5. I have highlighted the part that is significant:

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which isby one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Here it says that by one man, sin entered the world and death by sin so death was passed to all of us. Basically Adam passed the sin-nature to all mankind. So, the Bible clearly teaches that God created Adam and Eve and they sinned and sin was passed to all of us, so we all came from Adam and Eve. But God promised the serpent, whom I believe was indwelt by Satan, that he would bruise the heal of the seed of the woman (Jesus Christ) but he would crush his head. Interestingly, the only artifact we have of Roman crucifixion is of a nail through a heel bone. The sin nature was passed down by Adam's seed, but Jesus was conceived not of the seed of man, but of the Holy Ghost and the seed of a woman, so he did not have this sin-nature, yet was tempted but he did no sin. So, this is the theology. If one dismisses Adam and Eve as myth, one must dismiss the entire Gospel. Because of the lie of evolution and disbelief of Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood, many have rejected God's only plan of salvation.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen. 3:15

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor. 5:21

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2 Peter 3

 

[camanintx]

Hi, Here's my beliefs: I believe they did. The Bible says where no law is, there is no sin, for sin is disobeying the law, and that law was not given until Moses. I also believe that Adam and Eve's gene pool was perfect but as time went on, as a result of the Fall, sin bringing forth death and disease and etc., it took a toll on the gene pool so the law had to be given. Even now one can marry a 3rd cousin with no ill effects on offspring.

So you're suggestion is that every woman past puberty was perpetually pregnant for a century or more after the flood? This was well after the fall so disease and birth defects would have been a big problem.

Still, you would have to push the flood back to at least 5,000 BC to account for Egyptian civilization, 6,000 BC to account for Chinese civilization and 7,000 BC to account for Indian civilization.

 

[rusra02]

But what is your academic background in biology, and geology? Are you merely preaching, or are you also an expert in biology, and geology? Is faith in the Bible your only evidence that creationism, and the global flood story, are true, or do you know enough about biology, and geology, to defend creationism, and the global flood story, without using the Bible?

Do you believe that it is acceptable for people who know very little about science to accept creationism, and the global flood story?

I have asked you to answer the last question many times for many months, and I do not think that you have ever answered it.

I have answered your question, but you apparently didn't understand the answer or simply didn't like it.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe we should accept without question what a scientist says about evolution? If so, should we also accept what scientists tell us, who do not accept evolution as scientific? Do you believe only scientists can think and reason on the evidence? That they are a priesthood endowed with special authority that must be believed and obeyed?

 

[McBell]

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe we should accept without question what a scientist says about evolution? If so, should we also accept what scientists tell us, who do not accept evolution as scientific?

Nope.

Do you believe only scientists can think and reason on the evidence?

Nope.

That they are a priesthood endowed with special authority that must be believed and obeyed?

Nope.

Now let me ask you a question: Why do you not hold your beliefs to the same standards you hold science?

 

[javajo]

So you're suggestion is that every woman past puberty was perpetually pregnant for a century or more after the flood? This was well after the fall so disease and birth defects would have been a big problem.

Still, you would have to push the flood back to at least 5,000 BC to account for Egyptian civilization, 6,000 BC to account for Chinese civilization and 7,000 BC to account for Indian civilization.

I don't know about 'perpetually pregnant', but I believe they were to be fruitful and multiply. As far as accuracy of the age of those civilizations beyond 3-4,000 bc, it gets a little vague. I do believe the Flood happened before those civilizations whatever time it had to be, and I believe that instead of spreading across the earth as God told them, they built the Tower of Babel in the plain of Shinar and worshiped Baal (Osiris and Nimrod, mother-son and all that), so that God confused their languages and scattered them across the earth and from there we get the nations, tribes, tongues and people of the world. Just my beliefs. Just sharing.