How about factual science and history.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?
- Thread starter CG Didymus
- Start date
How about factual science and history.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Doesn't magically make you right. It's a debate section. Get over yourself.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I don't mind dealing with atheists.....
Why not go find an atheist's forum?
Or maybe you ARE here to learn of better things!
My leaving wouldn't magically make you right
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I would love to. I love you and every once else here. Hugs.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
The Bible is historical. You see how easily I can claim my rights. I don't need evidence to make my claims. I have received evidence that supports my claims. I experience God, the God that is written of in the Bible, the Bible I believe is true as a result of the evidence I've received. I will proclaim it from the rooftops, and no one can stop me. It is my right. Whether you believe me doesn't bother me too much. Maybe one day, someone will. And the hope of that happening is enough to keep me on the roof.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Plus the fact that the temple was indeed torn down in their generation 70AD.
It will be interesting if we should see that temple rebuilt in three days.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I try not to speculate as to the degree of embellishments that may have occurred through the years. But I believe that these "mythological" stories are directly related to what we see in Genesis 6.
allfoak
Alchemist
Last edited:
greentwiga
Active Member
In Sumeria, The king had his queen(s). There was also the high priestess. Usually once a year, the king prayed for the local god to inhabit him. The high priestess prayed for the goddess to inhabit her. The old Greek term for her was the heirodule, because the king and her had sex, reenacting the sex between the gods that they thought brought fertility to the soil, animals, and women. The passage preaches against breaking the marriage covenant, covenant with God, and "demon" possession. The heroes of old born to them might be exemplified in Sargon (son of such a priestess) and Nimrod, who seems to be the same man. His deeds were certainly heroic.
It just says, that's when Nephilim walked the earth. They seemed to be a tribe of unusually tall men. Goliath was one. If you use a 1 1/4 foot cubit, he was 7 1/2 feet tall. If you use the Septuagint measurement, he was about 7+ feet tall. To a five foot tall man, 7 1/2 feet tall would be gigantic.
outhouse
Atheistically
Unsubstantiated.
Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
J. C. Greenfield mentions that "it has been proposed that the tale of the Nephilim, alluded to in Genesis 6 is based on some of the negative aspects of the apkallu tradition".[43] The apkallu in Sumerian mythology were seven legendary culture heroes from before the Flood, of human descent, but possessing extraordinary wisdom from the gods, and one of the seven apkallu, Adapa, was therefore called "son of Ea", despite his human origin
greentwiga
Active Member
Num 13:33 There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
Josh 11:22
There were no Anakim left in the land of the sons of Israel; only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod some remained.
1 Sam 17:4
Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (Septuagint: four cubits and a span, cubits could be 20 or 21 inches depending on the country. So his height could be 7'4" max according to the Septuagint.)
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Numbers 13:33
Josh 11:22
There were no Anakim left in the land of the sons of Israel; only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod some remained.
1 Sam 17:4
Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (Septuagint: four cubits and a span, cubits could be 20 or 21 inches depending on the country. So his height could be 7'4" max according to the Septuagint.)
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Numbers 13:33
outhouse
Atheistically
Mythology and pseudo history covers most of this, as the authors were far removed from any actual events
gnostic
The Lost One
sonofason said:
Anyone can make claim, sonofason, but you had stated earlier that the bible was historical "FACT".
Let re-quoted that reply again:
sonofason said:
This...
sonofason said:
...is faith, not evidences, and certainly not history.
You are proclaiming your faith in your belief here, not fact, and certainly not historical facts. Fact required evidences, faith and belief don't require evidences.
Facts required evidences, to back what you have claim. If you think have facts, then you need evidences. Historical facts are history that have been verified to be true, like through archaeological evidences, or by independent written sources. Otherwise, it is not "fact".
And a large part of Genesis is based on pseudo-history, not real history.
If you were to believe the creation myth to be factual history, then you required evidences to support that the Earth is 6000 years young, to support that everything was created within 6 days. You would need evidences to support that man can be made from dust or soil. You would need evidences to support a global flood had occurred 4300 years ago, on every location on earth.
And according to Genesis 10, the city of Uruk and the kingdom of Egypt didn't exist prior to the Flood, which is utter rubbish.
Egypt, including the pyramids all existed, before, during and after the calculated time of the Flood. Egypt existed centuries before this Genesis' Flood, even before dynastic period started in 3100 BCE. There are many artifacts that existed during the predynastic period (4th millennium BCE).
And the city of Uruk, which King James Version called Erech, have been around since 6000 BCE, but began to flourish in 3500-3000 BCE, that's a 1000 years before the supposed Flood. Uruk was flourishing at the time before the Sumerian civilisation began in 3100 BCE. And yet, Genesis 10 claimed that Nimrod, the great grandson of Noah, built this city, after the Flood.
There are physical evidences that support the existence of Egypt and Uruk.
Can you provide evidences that neither exist before the Flood?
Last edited:
greentwiga
Active Member
The problem is that, if the Bible is historically accurate, that doesn't mean that Luther's, Calvin's or sonofason's interpretation is right. Their interpretation can be historically inaccurate. Then everyone is arguing, not over the Bible but over the interpretation.
We have a similar problem in the opposite direction. Some on this sight believe that the Bible was written late, say 300-500 BC. They insist that this is historically accurate and don't have to justify their position.
I studied the flood account. I tried to apply the flood to real historical floods. The flooding of the Black Sea, the flooding of the land around the European ice sheets, the flood occurring when the ice dams broke, the flooding of the oceans as the ice melted (including the flooding of the Persian gulf), great river floods, but all didn't fit the description. The only fit was a flood plain or swamp flood. The best fit was a floodplain flood in an unreliable climate. The word translated world is better translated region. The whole region was flooded. Furthermore, according to the Septuagint, the flood occurred near 3,000 BC, at the same date the Sumerians recorded a great flood.
Thor Heyerdahl showed that the Sumerians made great ocean going reed boats. The traded with the Indus valley on them. Later ocean going wood boats became better and replaced them. By 300 BC, all knowledge of the oceanic reed boats seemed to have disappeared. Any mythologist writing then would have used a wooden boat in his description.
BTW Careful when you quote the Bible. The translation is an interpretation. The Hebrew describes reed, not wood.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Yes sir, i understand them as well as i understand myself.
ok....and I want to give you credit for serious introspection.
but so far....here in this forum....
Lots of people seem very sure....of themselves.
Myself included.
allfoak
Alchemist
it is easy for me to be sure of myself regarding scripture.
I don't tell anyone else what it means to them and i certainly have no problem understanding what it means to me.
That makes for absolute certainty.
