Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Thief]

STOP do not pass go.


They are factually not traceable There is your huge problem.






You can stand by a pile of garbage, but don't try and tell me it does not stink.

Posted by someone using an outhouse as a avatar and podium

 

[outhouse]

Reference to a scientific paper showing this. You're saying with confidence and without doubt that A&E have been traced to SE Turkey about 9,000 BC. I'd like the references for the who, how, what, where, when for the scientific research.

His only connection is the bible says they harvested wheat.

And wheat grew there and then, so adam and eve existed

 

[Ouroboros]

His only connection is the bible says they harvested wheat.

And wheat grew there and then, so adam and eve existed

Really. I haven't heard that claim before.

Basically, we know agriculture began some 9-10,000 years ago, therefore Adam and Eve... :areyoucra

 

[outhouse]

Really. I haven't heard that claim before.

Basically, we know agriculture began some 9-10,000 years ago, therefore Adam and Eve... :areyoucra

And ignoring gobekli tepe is even older


He basically is quote mining the bible to recreate what he wants out of the text

 

[Thief]

Someone had to be first to walk with God.....that man would be Adam.

 

[greentwiga]

Reference to a scientific paper showing this. You're saying with confidence and without doubt that A&E have been traced to SE Turkey about 9,000 BC. I'd like the references for the who, how, what, where, when for the scientific research.

This is my research. I base this on the clues that the Bible gives.

I do refer to various scientific studies to support things like the location of the invention of agriculture, the end of the Younger Dryas, and the location of wild figs.

I was replying to Outhouse's statement about mankind originating in Africa. Once I concluded that Adam and Eve of Gen 2 were in SE Turkey, then I saw that the Adam of Gen 1 didn't seem to be the same person. With a statement about generations being between the two, I concluded that the Bible allowed for mankind to have originated in Africa. There are no clear statements for this, as there are for Adam and Eve. I have stated my use of the Bibles clues. Ouroboros wants to believe it is only myth, but doesn't state clearly what I have stated wrong.

I can give you the various sources for the scientific papers on the location of the domestication of plants, or I can give you some of my reasoning on the Bible, but that would be a repeat of previous posts, which you can go back and look at.

 

[outhouse]

This is my research. .

That is not responsible research.

Its not credible research.

I base this on the clues that the Bible gives.

And focus on literal mythology, instead of anthropology trying to understand the people that compiled the collections of this book that took hundreds of years for this book to reach its final stage.


You are using pseudo history, as a tool to get clues to a conclusion that is pseudo history.

And you leave way to many unexplained details that are not logically even possible.


Fanaticism and fundamentalism is all your playing with at this point. If you need help we can point you in the right direction.

 

[gnostic]

Very good. Humans originated in East or Southern Africa to the best of our knowledge. If Adam and Eve are traceable to SE Turkey about 9,000 BC, then The Adam of Gen 1 (which refers to both male(s) and female(s)) must be a separate event. It is just our interpretation that make the two refer to the same person. In Gen 2:4, the Bible indicates that there might be many generations between Gen 1 and Gen 2. Thus I don't have a single objection to what you say, and I still stand by my statements.

You do realise, greentwiga, that if the creation of Adam & Eve in 9000 BCE, that everything that supposed to be date to the Bronze Age, like Abraham, Moses and David, and to the Iron Age, like temple of Solomon, fall of Jerusalem, and even Jesus, would ALL BE DATED TO THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD????

This would mean jesus would be born before the great pyramids of Giza, before the Sumerian civilisations, before the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, before Rome. Jesus would have to be born at least 5000 years before Herod the Great and Augustus.

You can't move the time of Adam & Eve so far back, without moving every single dates in the bible, back before the Bronze Age.

You said you did your own research, on the basis of sniffing out clues in the bible. I would say that both with history/archaeology and with biblical scholarship are totally out of touch with reality. It seriously need a lot of work and reality check.

 

[Thief]

You do realise, greentwiga, that if the creation of Adam & Eve in 9000 BCE, that everything that supposed to be date to the Bronze Age, like Abraham, Moses and David, and to the Iron Age, like temple of Solomon, fall of Jerusalem, and even Jesus, would ALL BE DATED TO THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD????

This would mean jesus would be born before the great pyramids of Giza, before the Sumerian civilisations, before the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, before Rome. Jesus would have to be born at least 5000 years before Herod the Great and Augustus.

You can't move the time of Adam & Eve so far back, without moving every single dates in the bible, back before the Bronze Age.

You said you did your own research, on the basis of sniffing out clues in the bible. I would say that both with history/archaeology and with biblical scholarship are totally out of touch with reality. It seriously need a lot of work and reality check.

Does the lineage listed in the new testament work for you?

 

[gnostic]

Does the lineage listed in the new testament work for you?

Hell, no.

I think the bible is a poor reference to anything history, so I wouldn't take any year or date given at its face's value. However, they (meaning the OT & NT) are only source(s) that we have to work with.

The lineages between David and Jacob, according to Luke and Matthew are piece of ****. Neither are worth a spit between the two.

But we have the approximate date of the Fall of Jerusalem, which is 587 or 586 BCE, and Jesus allegedly being born before the death of Herod the Great (death at 4 BCE, give or take 1 or 2 years). So that give approximate or estimated time of how much time have passed.

 

[Thief]

Hell, no.

I think the bible is a poor reference to anything history, so I wouldn't take any year or date given at its face's value. However, they (meaning the OT & NT) are only source(s) that we have to work with.

The lineages between David and Jacob, according to Luke and Matthew are piece of ****. Neither are worth a spit between the two.

But we have the approximate date of the Fall of Jerusalem, which is 587 or 586 BCE, and Jesus allegedly being born before the death of Herod the Great (death at 4 BCE, give or take 1 or 2 years). So that give approximate or estimated time of how much time have passed.

So...striking all of lineage for evidence......
Someone had to be first to walk with God.

Could you be inclined to call him?....Adam.

 

[gnostic]

So...striking all of lineage for evidence......
Someone had to be first to walk with God.

Didn't read my reply?

I said the lineages between David and Jacob were rubbish, because Luke's and Matthew's conflict against or contradict with each other.

The Genesis genealogy, is ridiculous for different reasons to the NT genealogy, with that those years of the patriarchs, living over 130 years, which make hard for anyone to take seriously.

Nevertheless, they are the only sources that we work with.

Greentwiga attempting to put Adam and Eve as far back as 9000 BCE is ridiculous because it then showed that it doesn't work with the biblical timeline.

 

[Thief]

Didn't read my reply?

I said the lineages between David and Jacob were rubbish, because Luke's and Matthew's conflict against or contradict with each other.

The Genesis genealogy, is ridiculous for different reasons to the NT genealogy, with that those years of the patriarchs, living over 130 years, which make hard for anyone to take seriously.

Nevertheless, they are the only sources that we work with.

Greentwiga attempting to put Adam and Eve as far back as 9000 BCE is ridiculous because it then showed that it doesn't work with the biblical timeline.

yeah,yeah.....

Someone had to be first to walk with God.
Care to leave a name?

 

[gnostic]

yeah,yeah.....

Someone had to be first to walk with God.
Care to leave a name?

blah, blah....

The bible is your scriptures, not mine. So why do you want me to name name?

 

[outhouse]

No one was "first", factually first to worship the 4 or 5 gods Israelites worshipped in the beginning when parts of genesis were in oral tradition.

That is flat refusing to accept facts out of severe ignorance.

being the one god concept did not even take hold as orthodox in Judaism until roughly 200-400 BC

That's about a 1000 years of multiple gods, not one god.

 

[outhouse]

So why do you want me to name name?

Im quite sure he wants you to tell him all about the Mesopotamian mythology the Israelites plagiarized to even get the name adamu for their mythology.

 

[outhouse]

This is my research. I base this on the clues that the Bible gives.

.

And its sloppy, poor, and pathetic work based on your imagination.

Ohalo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ohalo is the common designation for the archaeological site Ohalo II in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee, and one of the best preserved hunter-gatherer archaeological sites of the Last Glacial Maximum, having been radiocarbon dated to around 19,400 BP.[1] The site is significant because of the numerous fruit and cereal grain remains preserved therein, (intact ancient plant remains being exceedingly rare finds due to their quick decomposition).

 

[Thief]

blah, blah....

The bible is your scriptures, not mine. So why do you want me to name name?

Not real good at question/answer games......are you?
You're not the only one at this forum, who baulks as the question will lead, where you won't follow.

Someone had to be first....in mind and heart.
I call Him God.

In regression.....someone had to be the first Man.
I call him Adam.

I suspect the two of them got together and had a conversation.

Or perhaps you would prefer to talk to yourself....forever.....
Seems to me, the grave is solitary confinement.

Or perhaps again....you're not hoping.....for anything.

 

[Shad]

So you believe in a species directly giving birth to another spaces. A wolf gives birth to a dog... This is not how evolution works so you idea is misplaced.

 

[greentwiga]

You do realise, greentwiga, that if the creation of Adam & Eve in 9000 BCE, that everything that supposed to be date to the Bronze Age, like Abraham, Moses and David, and to the Iron Age, like temple of Solomon, fall of Jerusalem, and even Jesus, would ALL BE DATED TO THE NEOLITHIC PERIOD????

This would mean jesus would be born before the great pyramids of Giza, before the Sumerian civilisations, before the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, before Rome. Jesus would have to be born at least 5000 years before Herod the Great and Augustus.

You can't move the time of Adam & Eve so far back, without moving every single dates in the bible, back before the Bronze Age.

You said you did your own research, on the basis of sniffing out clues in the bible. I would say that both with history/archaeology and with biblical scholarship are totally out of touch with reality. It seriously need a lot of work and reality check.

Well, you are basing your conclusions on the Masoretic text. Look at the Septuagint text. The septuagint was translated from a Hebrew text much earlier than the Hebrew text we have. It puts the Exodus at ~1406 BC, Joseph and the entrance into Egypt at ~1625 BC, the Birth of Abraham at 1915 BC, and Noah's flood at ~2,980 BC. These numbers fit history much better than the Masoretic text numbers. It looks like someone, after the Septuagint was translated, tried to correct the numbers.

I grant you that the Septuagint puts Adam about 5,500 to 6,000 BC, not 4,000 BC of the Masoretic text, or the 9,000 BC I have suggested. I am researching the numbers to see what I can find. I have theories, but I don't trust my theories. My only point is that is there is some problem with the numbers, which seem the most likely to change, then we should look at all the other clues. They fit the end of the Younger Dryas, ~9,000 BC.