Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[greentwiga]

Oh that works. Instead of looking at the story's facts, just sling mud.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes, When I stated ~4,000 BC, I was using a method similar to what you did, the years of birth. Imagine, though, if you read Amenhotep was born in 1540 BC and was 20 when Akhenaten was born. Studying this, you would realize that Amenhotep I was born in 1540, and Amenhotep III was the father of Akhenaten who died in 1334 BC. This confusion would have made Amenhotep sound like he lived for 200 years.

I am not saying that this is what happened in the Bible. I am just saying that studying Biblical genealogies, such as that of David, shows that they dropped people out of genealogies. This made sense in their reckoning of the terms father and son, which don't always agree exactly with our American definition. Therefore, I looked at both extreme possibilities and anywhere in between. If the evidence of Eden would have pointed at 4,000 or 5,000 BC, I would have gone there.

I also had problems with the age of Joseph. Calculating the ages of his descendents that sat on his knee, and the ages of Judah's progeny when they entered Egypt gave me about 65 (+/-5) for Joseph at the entrance. I had a similar problem with Samuel, and again had to look at genealogies to get an Idea of how long he judged.

The time in Egypt has 3 statements leading to 215 years in Egypt, and one statement that typically is read 430 years in Egypt, but has an alternate reading that gives 215 years. 215-80-45= about 90 years from Joseph's death to Moses' birth.

I think that it does fall into the 215-430 date range, simply because it states that the new pharaoh did not know of Joseph. This is hard to believe that in 90 years an individual who had so much standing and power would end up lost in history, especially because he was clearly influential to the saving of not only Egypt but Canaan as well. The only explanation I could have for that would be the establishment of a new Dynasty.

 

[greentwiga]

I think that it does fall into the 215-430 date range, simply because it states that the new pharaoh did not know of Joseph. This is hard to believe that in 90 years an individual who had so much standing and power would end up lost in history, especially because he was clearly influential to the saving of not only Egypt but Canaan as well. The only explanation I could have for that would be the establishment of a new Dynasty.

Yep, Joseph's 3rd year of famine was 1624, after the Santorini eruption. He died about 1580. The Hyksos were kicked out by Ahmose ~1550-1530. Moses was born about 1488.

 

[outhouse]

Well we seem to be diverging into a whole mess of threads. Maybe a moderator ought to split them up into an Eden thread, a Flood thread and an Exodus thread.

.

Why? all three are considered myth by credible scholar's.

All 3 lack any evidence what so ever.

Scholars state Israelites factually formed and evolved after 1200 BC from displaced Canaaites when their culture collapsed.

 

[greentwiga]

The scholars seem to ignore Deborah's statement about the conditions around 1200 BC. They also want to ignore the Amarna Tablets use of 'Apiru and how it matches the Bible's use of "Hebrew" as a derogatory word used by foreigners. They don't want to admit that we have a record of the Israelites invading Canaan.

 

[outhouse]

The scholars seem to ignore Deborah's statement about the conditions around 1200 BC. They also want to ignore the Amarna Tablets use of 'Apiru and how it matches the Bible's use of "Hebrew" as a derogatory word used by foreigners. They don't want to admit that we have a record of the Israelites invading Canaan.

False, your so lost im not sure where to start with you.

Apiru are lacking connecting evidence.

Habiru - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Habiru and the biblical Hebrews

Habiru is not an ethnic identification and is used to refer to both Semites and and non-Semites, adding that "the connection, if there is any, remains obscure."[10]

Anson Rainey has argued that that "the plethora of attempts to relate apiru (Habiru) to the gentilic ibri are all nothing but wishful thinking

If Deborahs ignored there is a reason


Let me tell you what isn't up for debate.

Fact. The highlands of Israel grew from a handful of settlements to thousands from 1200BC -1000BC

Fact. These people worshiped some of the same deities as the Cananite religion.

Fact. There is almost no difference between Canaanite pottery and the early proto Israelite pottery.


So Isarel did not exist before 1200 BC, at that time they were a semi nomadic to nomadic people who's seed was laid to waste as noted on the Merneptah Stele, known as proto Israelites.

The highlands of Israel only existed as people migrated there after 1200 BC.

You have some reading too do.

 

[greentwiga]

False, your so lost im not sure where to start with you.

Apiru are lacking connecting evidence.

Habiru - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Habiru and the biblical Hebrews

Habiru is not an ethnic identification and is used to refer to both Semites and and non-Semites, adding that "the connection, if there is any, remains obscure."[10]

Anson Rainey has argued that that "the plethora of attempts to relate apiru (Habiru) to the gentilic ibri are all nothing but wishful thinking

If Deborahs ignored there is a reason


Let me tell you what isn't up for debate.

Fact. The highlands of Israel grew from a handful of settlements to thousands from 1200BC -1000BC

Fact. These people worshiped some of the same deities as the Cananite religion.

Fact. There is almost no difference between Canaanite pottery and the early proto Israelite pottery.


So Isarel did not exist before 1200 BC, at that time they were a semi nomadic to nomadic people who's seed was laid to waste as noted on the Merneptah Stele, known as proto Israelites.

The highlands of Israel only existed as people migrated there after 1200 BC.

You have some reading too do.

I am so totally aware that 'apiru is not an ethnic identification. I never claimed it was. I insist that the OT does not use it as an ethnic identification. It uses the idea similar to how Americans hear someone speak spanish and call them Mexicans, though they might be from Argentina. Hebrew was a term foreigners used. They lumped Israelites (The ethnic identification) with other Semitic speakers. Thus the use in the Amarna tablets is at the perfect time, and can be the Israelites that are being referred to. I am pointing out that the typical Biblical interpretation that the Israelites identified themselves as Hebrew doesn't stand up to an indepth Biblical study. I will grant you that by the time of the NT, they do, but the change might have been 700 BC, 400 BC or even as late as 100 BC

As for the Israelites behaving like Canaanites? A. They brought other Semites with them out of Egypt who had their own Gods. B. The Israelites brought other Gods with them according to the Bible. C. Also according to the Bible, they had a major problem with worshipping the Canaanite Gods during the time of Judges. D. The Israelite population was very low, according to Deborah until after 1200 BC. So- the vast majority of evidence should look Canaanite from 1400 to 1200 BC.

 

[outhouse]

As for the Israelites behaving like Canaanites? A. They brought other Semites with them out of Egypt who had their own Gods. B. The Israelites brought other Gods with them according to the Bible. C. Also according to the Bible, they had a major problem with worshipping the Canaanite Gods during the time of Judges. D. The Israelite population was very low, according to Deborah until after 1200 BC. So- the vast majority of evidence should look Canaanite from 1400 to 1200 BC.

There is no evidence a single Israelite ever came out of Egypt.


You keep mentioning "according to the bible" that is of no use. The bible was not, nor has it ever been a history book. It is however theology written in mythology, poem, song, legends, with some history included.

Yahweh was a Canaanite deity before Israelites existed, so was El, and Asherah and Baal.

There is no evidence of Israelites prior to 1209 BC and at that time they were proto Israelites.


Stop mentioning Deborah. Who ever she is. She knows nothing of the ethnogenesis of Israel.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There is no evidence a single Israelite ever came out of Egypt.


You keep mentioning "according to the bible" that is of no use. The bible was not, nor has it ever been a history book. It is however theology written in mythology, poem, song, legends, with some history included.

Yahweh was a Canaanite deity before Israelites existed, so was El, and Asherah and Baal.

There is no evidence of Israelites prior to 1209 BC and at that time they were proto Israelites.


Stop mentioning Deborah. Who ever she is. She knows nothing of the ethnogenesis of Israel.

Actually I don't think it is known where Yahweh has come from, Unlike El who has the canaanite background, I think Yahweh is hypothesized to have developed among the Midianites.

 

[outhouse]

TRy and understand this.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Israelite ethnic identity had been created, not from the Exodus and a subsequent conquest, but from a transformation of the existing Canaanite-Philistine cultures.

"These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel. The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages — all apparently established within the span of few generations — indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE.

This last sentence is not up for debate

Modern scholars therefore see Israel arising peacefully and internally from existing people in the highlands of Canaan



The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[

 

[outhouse]

Actually I don't think it is known where Yahweh has come from, Unlike El who has the canaanite background, I think Yahweh is hypothesized to have developed among the Midianites.

Somewhat correct but not complete.

Yahweh has a Canaanite background, and El was said to be his father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)

Yahweh, prior to becoming Yahweh, the national god of Israel, and taking on monotheistic attributes in the 6th century BCE, was a part of the Canaanite pantheon in the period before the Babylonian captivity.

Pay attention to this below as it relates to a literal Genesis not holding up as a literal story.

Archeological evidence reveals that during this time period the Israelites were a group of Canaanite people.

 

[Muffled]

1. I would love to see a missionary today explain that to potential converts of the Amazonian Nukak tribe.



2. The average person today doesn't understand atomic structure. So does that mean only the Einstein's of the world could understand it?



3. The bible uses two different terms to describe liquid [mayim] and ice [qerach]. If there was no sun during the Gen 1:2 narrative, any liquid [mayim] on earth would have been a block of ice {qerach]. No sun=no water or no sun=ice. Simple, logical and no physicist required.



4. It matters quite a bit as it would imply God made the sun (which is a star) twice. Once in Gen 1:3:

Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
​

and again in vs 14:

Gen 1:14-15 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
​

Light does not require a star to exist. As a matterof fact I get my light from a light bulb excited by electrons sent over power lines to my house.

 

[Muffled]

Somewhat correct but not complete.

Yahweh has a Canaanite background, and El was said to be his father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)

Yahweh, prior to becoming Yahweh, the national god of Israel, and taking on monotheistic attributes in the 6th century BCE, was a part of the Canaanite pantheon in the period before the Babylonian captivity.

Pay attention to this below as it relates to a literal Genesis not holding up as a literal story.

Archeological evidence reveals that during this time period the Israelites were a group of Canaanite people.

I believe that appears to be total speculation and not uncommon among scientists to fantasize things that don't really exist.

I beleive the evidence reveals that archeologists make things up as they go along.

I believe there is nothing in the Bible to support this notion and the blurb from Wikipedia shows how far they had to stretch to make a connection that isn't there. I tend to think the scintists trying to make this connection are doing so because they don't want to believe the Bible account that Abraham came from Ur.

 

[Muffled]

Of course not. I fear for the sanity of those who take any religious writing literally.

I believe myself quite rational, thank you.

 

[Ouroboros]

I believe that appears to be total speculation and not uncommon among scientists to fantasize things that don't really exist.

I beleive the evidence reveals that archeologists make things up as they go along.

I believe there is nothing in the Bible to support this notion and the blurb from Wikipedia shows how far they had to stretch to make a connection that isn't there. I tend to think the scintists trying to make this connection are doing so because they don't want to believe the Bible account that Abraham came from Ur.

So what are your thoughts about the Ugarit tables with references to Yam and Yaw (Yw)? It's becoming more accepted that the Ugarit had influence on the prose in the OT. Also Ugarit talks about El, Elohim, Ba'al, and many other gods, and the struggles and wars they go through. Yaw was the son of El if I understand it right. And they were in Canaan before Israel.

I find it very fascinating that there's a "Legend of Danel." Even if it's not the same Daniel as in the Bible, just that they had the same religious language and naming of characters. (Ugarit Dn'il, "God is the judge," or Hebrew Daniel, "God is my judge." Something like that.)

You do know that these tables aren't fantasized but real tables.

 

[outhouse]

I believe that appears to be total speculation and not uncommon among scientists to fantasize things that don't really exist.

I beleive the evidence reveals that archeologists make things up as they go along.

I believe there is nothing in the Bible to support this notion and the blurb from Wikipedia shows how far they had to stretch to make a connection that isn't there. I tend to think the scintists trying to make this connection are doing so because they don't want to believe the Bible account that Abraham came from Ur.

Your unsubstantiated opinion means nothing against credible facts and sources.



Your also ignorant about many topics here to the point of embarrassment. Scientist have nothing to do with what I posted. That is the job of scholars and historians, many of which are devoted Christians.

 

[outhouse]

I believe myself quite rational, thank you.

Really?


Ok so what exact date did the mythical global flood happen? If it really happened, you should have a exact date we can attribute to said flood.

 

[james2ko]

Light does not require a star to exist. As a matter of fact I get my light from a light bulb excited by electrons sent over power lines to my house. [/B][/COLOR]

Really?? So what you are telling me is God used a giant space bulb to illuminate the earth in Gen 1:3, 14-15?

 

[Ouroboros]

If I remember right, the big bang didn't really light up until the first stars were born. One interesting thing is that our star wasn't one of the first stars but came about later. Our star is part of a star cluster that came from a previous star material. (If I remember right.)

 

[outhouse]

If I remember right, the big bang didn't really light up until the first stars were born.

Not sure about that one.

All of space that was being created was at such extreme temps, the light would have been blinding.