Genealology of biblical characters

[tumbleweed41]

So while your study leads you to believe Adam was created (or existed) 6000 years ago, others who study the Bible come to the conclusion that the story of Adam, in fact the entire creation story, is allegorical and contains no historic, biological, geological or cosmological literalistic facts.
Many come to this conclusion based on current biological, geological and cosmological evidence that is in direct conflict with a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.

 

[T-Dawg]

you should understand by now that religion, including the biblical creation story is a FAITH BASED belief. its not very feasable to ask for "proof", although folks continue to.

my connection of christianity AND science is also FAITH BASED.

And this is exactly why Christianity is an Evil religion and must be destroyed. You admitted it yourself - Christianity is FAITH BASED, which of course is a euphemism for being against any sort of evidence or logical reasoning that contradicts your dogma, which is, therefore, Evil. "Faith" is an inherently Evil concept.

What's even more disturbing is that many Christians are actually PROUD of their refusal to accept evidence that contradicts their "faith."

 

[sniper762]

you say: So while your study leads you to believe Adam was created (or existed) 6000 years ago, others who study the Bible come to the conclusion that the story of Adam, in fact the entire creation story, is allegorical and contains no historic, biological, geological or cosmological literalistic facts.

tumbleweed, please site these people, if they are truly bible studiers, not critics

t-dawg, evil to anti-christians, im sure

 

[fallingblood]

i have been studying the genealogy of the biblical characters for over 20 years. everything that ive seen dates adam back to about 4000bc. although many on this board try to place adam at much earlier dates in order to accept the toe.

can anyone provide any solid historical evidence that substanciates adam's existence before 4000bc?

I've read the thread, and I think everything comes back to this part. The answer to your question is no. There is no historical evidence that substantiates Adam's existence before 4000 B.C.E. There is no historical evidence that substantiates Adam even existing in the first place. If there is no historical evidence for Adam, there can be any historical evidence of this nonexistent person before 4,000 B.C.E.


Now, if you want to believe that the creation story is true based on faith, that is fine; however, you will not get very far with a logical debate. This is what you are seeing right now.

 

[gnostic]

adam's existence is only biblical, however his genealogy of his offspring, such as king david, solomon even up to king herod in the nt is substanciated by historical evidence as well as recorded in the bible.

So you think that there are historical evidences from everything from David and downward.

There are plenty of evidences of Herod the Great being real, because we have a number of historians listing as contemporary of Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) and Octavian (Augustus Caesar). So, that's not problem.

That doesn't prove the Bible's validity in any way, especially when you consider Matthew stated the massacre of male infants right up to 2-year-old at Bethlehem. There are no evidences such things took place, except in Matthew's gospel alone. Still, that not the issue.

But let us begin at the start. You've stated David as being the top one of the biblical genealogy as having historical substances.

Can you provide evidences of David's historical existence with archaeological or historical evidences, other than the Bible?

 

[fallingblood]

adam's existence is only biblical, however his genealogy of his offspring, such as king david, solomon even up to king herod in the nt is substanciated by historical evidence as well as recorded in the bible.

google "kings of israel" for one

King Herod was in no way in part of the genealogy of the offspring of Adam. There is not a connection from King David to King Herod. Two very separate lines, especially considering that Herod's line did not intersect with King David. Herod's family had just recently converted to Judaism, and many during that time even labeled him as a half Jew.

 

[sniper762]

yes herod is offspring of adam. so are you and i

 

[fallingblood]

yes herod is offspring of adam. so are you and i

Not at all. There is no evidence that Adam existed, thus there is no reason to assume I'm an offspring of his at all. More so, the Bible even suggests that there were more people than just Adam and his family (the story of Cain being exiled).

And even if Adam did exist, there is no evidence to suggest that any of us are his offspring, much less that Herod was.

 

[tumbleweed41]

tumbleweed, please site these people, if they are truly bible studiers, not critics

Theistic Evolution - Perspectives
Genesis As Allegory - My Jewish Learning
Augustine of Hippo
Origen

and
Paul of Tarsus...
"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. The child of the slave was born according to the flesh; the child of the free woman was born through the promise. Now this is being allegorized: for these women are two covenants. One, indeed, is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. This is Hagar, for Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is a slave with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother."
Galatians 4:22-26

 

[sniper762]

the very first thing i read in your posts was that it was "theoretical". the rest of the posts are similar. these posts provide no more proof of adam's nonexistence than christians present using biblical texts in support of his existence. ITS ONLY SOMEONES THEORETIC OPINION.

i present my views that i concider to substanciate a valid reason as to my belief, that you dismiss as allegoric or theoreticle (non-proof). then you present the same (non-proof) views in attempt to substanciate your views.

for every con article there exists a pro one. this could go back and forth forever just like any religious subject.

the bottom line is that i choose to respect ones reeligious beliefs and have accepted the possibility that they could fit in with scientific toe claims. you, on the other hand are too close minded to even contemplate that possibility.

i dont intend to attempt to convert you from your atheism but merely explain the reason for my belief. maybe you are doing the same in opposition. "debating christianity" is the intent of this forum. im beginning to see a trend that its purpose is one sided (leaning toward rebuking christianity)

as it is with other forums concerning theists and atheists, neither side will budge. you continue to discredit christianity any way you choose and i will continue to support it. i, like many, struggled with accepting both creation and evolution theories. i have reached a conclusion which accepts both and am serene with it.

if any others have difficulty putting the two together and are OPEN to another's views, i would gladly DEBATE the issue but i will not ARGUE the issue with those who take a closed ended negative view of the subject. eistic Evolution becomes a highly probable theoryTheistic Evolution becomes a highly probable theory

 

[tumbleweed41]

you say: So while your study leads you to believe Adam was created (or existed) 6000 years ago, others who study the Bible come to the conclusion that the story of Adam, in fact the entire creation story, is allegorical and contains no historic, biological, geological or cosmological literalistic facts.

tumbleweed, please site these people, if they are truly bible studiers, not critics

Theistic Evolution - Perspectives
Genesis As Allegory - My Jewish Learning
Augustine of Hippo
Origen

and
Paul of Tarsus...
"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. The child of the slave was born according to the flesh; the child of the free woman was born through the promise. Now this is being allegorized: for these women are two covenants. One, indeed, is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. This is Hagar, for Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is a slave with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother."
Galatians 4:22-26

the very first thing i read in your posts was that it was "theoretical". the rest of the posts are similar. these posts provide no more proof of adam's nonexistence than christians present using biblical texts in support of his existence. ITS ONLY SOMEONES THEORETIC OPINION.

Dude, you asked for information on Theistic Evolutionists and those who see much of the OT as allegory. I gave it to you.
"Proof of Adams non-existence"? Really?
You made a claim in the OP that Adam existed 6000 years ago. Your only evidence is Biblical chronology and the Genesis account. You have presented no other historical evidence.
You see, it is up to the claimant to provide evidence, not the skeptic to provide evidence to the contrary. Especially if you are going to make your claim in a section of the forums reserved for theological events versus scientific events.

i present my views that i concider to substanciate a valid reason as to my belief, that you dismiss as allegoric or theoreticle (non-proof). then you present the same (non-proof) views in attempt to substanciate your views.

I am not supporting Theistic Evolution, just pointing out that many Christians can and do justify their belief that the OT is mostly allegorical.

for every con article there exists a pro one. this could go back and forth forever just like any religious subject.

Religious subject. You hit the nail on the head there.

the bottom line is that i choose to respect ones reeligious beliefs and have accepted the possibility that they could fit in with scientific toe claims. you, on the other hand are too close minded to even contemplate that possibility.

On the contrary, I have shown that there are those who are able to accept historical, geological, and biological evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis while still being able to keep their faith in Christianity. They do this by understanding that the authors of the OT did not have our knowledge of how the world works. They realize that they can take the OT as allegory of mans relationship with God, rather than as an historic truth.

i dont intend to attempt to convert you from your atheism but merely explain the reason for my belief. maybe you are doing the same in opposition. "debating christianity" is the intent of this forum. im beginning to see a trend that its purpose is one sided (leaning toward rebuking christianity)

You would have a hard time converting me from Atheism, since I am not an Atheist.
And when did I "rebuke Christianity"? I have presented a differing Christian view.

as it is with other forums concerning theists and atheists, neither side will budge. you continue to discredit christianity any way you choose and i will continue to support it. i, like many, struggled with accepting both creation and evolution theories. i have reached a conclusion which accepts both and am serene with it.

Again, I have said nothing against Christianity. I have, in fact, shown that many Christians can rationally accept the full tenets of science without fearing a weakening of their faith.

if any others have difficulty putting the two together and are OPEN to another's views, i would gladly DEBATE the issue but i will not ARGUE the issue with those who take a closed ended negative view of the subject. eistic Evolution becomes a highly probable theoryTheistic Evolution becomes a highly probable theory

Nice rant, but go back and read the actual posts.

 

[fallingblood]

the very first thing i read in your posts was that it was "theoretical". the rest of the posts are similar. these posts provide no more proof of adam's nonexistence than christians present using biblical texts in support of his existence. ITS ONLY SOMEONES THEORETIC OPINION.

i present my views that i concider to substanciate a valid reason as to my belief, that you dismiss as allegoric or theoreticle (non-proof). then you present the same (non-proof) views in attempt to substanciate your views.

for every con article there exists a pro one. this could go back and forth forever just like any religious subject.

the bottom line is that i choose to respect ones reeligious beliefs and have accepted the possibility that they could fit in with scientific toe claims. you, on the other hand are too close minded to even contemplate that possibility.

i dont intend to attempt to convert you from your atheism but merely explain the reason for my belief. maybe you are doing the same in opposition. "debating christianity" is the intent of this forum. im beginning to see a trend that its purpose is one sided (leaning toward rebuking christianity)

as it is with other forums concerning theists and atheists, neither side will budge. you continue to discredit christianity any way you choose and i will continue to support it. i, like many, struggled with accepting both creation and evolution theories. i have reached a conclusion which accepts both and am serene with it.

if any others have difficulty putting the two together and are OPEN to another's views, i would gladly DEBATE the issue but i will not ARGUE the issue with those who take a closed ended negative view of the subject. eistic Evolution becomes a highly probable theoryTheistic Evolution becomes a highly probable theory

You wouldn't gladly debate this issue. I offered a debate, you had a cop out.

You offered an idea that is alright if you claim that you have faith that it happened. However, once you try to prove it, then you need to rely on evidence. You've posted none.

Your initial question was answered, and explained as to why a negative answer. You have yet to prove anything except that you can dodge the debate and that you have a close-minded faith on something that has absolutely no evidence supporting it. Maybe now you would like to debate instead of whining.

 

[gnostic]

sniper.

I think you are confusing evidence with faith or opinion.

All you have offered us in this debate so far, is just the later (faith and opinion).

Faith is never considered to be evidence. It is merely you trusting that your belief is REAL FOR YOU. Nothing more.

If you are using the bible, like that of the biblical genealogy as your stance that they are real, and that people like Adam, Abraham, Moses or David as being real historical figures, then if you need to convince us with your opinion and logic, then you have to supply us more than the bible as evidence.

You have stated in the OP that you believe that Adam existed about 4000 BCE or more, and then in your 1st reply (to Caladan), you said that everything from David onward can be be substantiated with historical evidences.

You are getting frustrated with the argument with others, because thus far, you have provided no such evidences, either historically or archaeology, to support your claims. All you have done, is just stated your opinion. This is why we are getting no where in this thread you've started.

So let me ask you a basic question:

Do you know what "evidence" is?
​

Until you understand what evidence is, you are failing to impress us with your opinions, so far.

Can you provide us with links or book titles that we should look up with genuine historical data or evidences?

 

[sniper762]

i will say this ONE time for everyone

religion (in my case, christianity) is FAITH BASED

the evidence that many seek to PROVE its validity or falsehood DOES NOT EXIST

SO STOP ASKING

 

[fallingblood]

i will say this ONE time for everyone

religion (in my case, christianity) is FAITH BASED

the evidence that many seek to PROVE its validity or falsehood DOES NOT EXIST

SO STOP ASKING

So you admit then that you have no credible case then? Great.

 

[kai]

MOD POST

This thread has been moved to Scriptural Debates​

 

[sojourner]

i have been studying the genealogy of the biblical characters for over 20 years. everything that ive seen dates adam back to about 4000bc. although many on this board try to place adam at much earlier dates in order to accept the toe.

can anyone provide any solid historical evidence that substanciates adam's existence before 4000bc?

There is no solid historical evidence that substantiates Adam's existence. The Bible is not an historical text. It's a theological text.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Here are some major problems with "Adam" at 4000 BCE.

Fixed human settlements in Mesopotamia in 9000 BCE.
Use of copper in Mesopotamia around 9000 BCE.
Wheat, pea and olive cultivation in Mesopotamia around 8500 BCE.
First known instance of a walled town (Jericho) around 8500 BCE.
Pig domestication in China around 7500 BCE.
Banana cultivation in New Guinea around 7000 BCE.
Domestication of cattle in the Indus Valley around 7000 BCE.
Weaving in the Middle East 6500 BCE.
Cat domestication in Egypt around 6000 BCE.
City States and Nations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus Valley and China around 4400 BCE.
Apple cultivation in what is now Kazakhstan around 4000 BCE.
Arithmetic invented (or discovered) by Mesopotamians around 4000 BCE.


Now how can the first modern man, Adam, being "created" in 4000 BCE, fit into the actual known history of the world?

 

[sniper762]

my belief is that adam was the first "man created in god's image" at the time of the creation story (about 4000 bc).

i dont doubt that their were humans that existed before adam, but they were NOT "created in god's image".

i perceive those civilizations that you posted to have all been destroyed by god BEFORE his assembling of the new earth and introduction of adam around 4000 bc for whatever reason.

the bibllical story tells of the age of THIS dispensation. many times, i believe, did god destroy all of mankind and started over again.

 

[tumbleweed41]

my belief is that adam was the first "man created in god's image" at the time of the creation story (about 4000 bc).

i dont doubt that their were humans that existed before adam, but they were NOT "created in god's image".

i perceive those civilizations that you posted to have all been destroyed by god BEFORE his assembling of the new earth and introduction of adam around 4000 bc for whatever reason.

the bibllical story tells of the age of THIS dispensation. many times, i believe, did god destroy all of mankind and started over again.

That does not take into account the continuous Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Chinese (among others) civilizations that were around before 4000 BCE and long after.
(BTW, this also discounts any later 'worldwide flood' claims.)
Nor the uninterrupted settlements of Europe and the Americas.