-
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!
Genesis 2
- Thread starter dgirl1986
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
Remember that is only your personal interpretation. Most people do not see it that way.
Not only that, with such a personal view, it leaves you open to take messages out of context.
What utter nonsense.
My lack of belief has nothing to do with these text, historically, metaphorically, or allegorically.
gnostic
The Lost One
This post is in regarding to sincerly's claim that there are "zero evidence" of any civilisation existing prior to Genesis Flood.
"A strict literalist" give his or her own interpretation, which is really a matter of opinion, regardless if he or she realize it.
But I don't think he that "strict" a literalist that he think he is.
A strict literalist would not only take any given passage literally, but will not try to change it. As shown, in a couple of threads about verse Isaiah 7:14, he will take Matthew's verse (Matt. 1:23), strictly literal, but when quizz about Isaiah 7:14, he has demonstrated that he doesn't take it literally, but would change Isaiah's passage, by twisting the verse out of context; so he's not literal there.
He is only literal when it suit him.
Then that would mean, 2350 BCE.
Prior to 2350 BCE, there are evidences of Sumerian civilisations, Sumerian culture & arts, Sumerian language & writings, Sumerian law, Sumerian religion - existing, as far back as 3100 BCE. And one of the cities that Genesis (10:10) claimed was founded by Nimrod, after the flood - Erech (in KJV) - known as Uruk in Sumerian - actually has history, dating back to 5000 BCE, but reached its height in the mid-4th millennium BCE. Clearly, Genesis is not a history book.
Egyptian civilisation (including hieroglyphic writing), particularly it's dynastic periods, date as far back as 3100 BCE as well. But Egyptian cultures go far back as 4000 BCE, when Egypt was divided into two - Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt - two kingdoms. But according Genesis, Egypt didn't exist until Ham's son was born - Mizriam (Egypt), Genesis 10:6.
The Elamite kingdom (now known as Iran) is just as old, and with language that dated back 3200 BCE.
My knowledge on Indian and Chinese civilisations, but I think you have got that covered, predate both the Flood and the Tower of Babel, as well as that of Egyptian, Sumerian and Elamite civilizations, actually debunk sincerly's notions of the bible's historical accuracy or that there were no evidences of civilisations before the flood. Clearly, Genesis is not history textbook, to get so many errors.
There were definitely far more civilisation and culture prior to the flood, and there were more than one language spoken prior to both babel and flood, showed the flaws in the bible in the history and archaeology departments.
Then again, sincerly is no historian or archaeologist or anthropologist. Add that he is unwilling to look at real physical evidences that contradict or challenge his belief or faith, then I see no hope of convincing him to look at cold, hard truth and fact objectively.
outhouse said:
"A strict literalist" give his or her own interpretation, which is really a matter of opinion, regardless if he or she realize it.
But I don't think he that "strict" a literalist that he think he is.
A strict literalist would not only take any given passage literally, but will not try to change it. As shown, in a couple of threads about verse Isaiah 7:14, he will take Matthew's verse (Matt. 1:23), strictly literal, but when quizz about Isaiah 7:14, he has demonstrated that he doesn't take it literally, but would change Isaiah's passage, by twisting the verse out of context; so he's not literal there.
He is only literal when it suit him.
outhouse said:
Then that would mean, 2350 BCE.
Prior to 2350 BCE, there are evidences of Sumerian civilisations, Sumerian culture & arts, Sumerian language & writings, Sumerian law, Sumerian religion - existing, as far back as 3100 BCE. And one of the cities that Genesis (10:10) claimed was founded by Nimrod, after the flood - Erech (in KJV) - known as Uruk in Sumerian - actually has history, dating back to 5000 BCE, but reached its height in the mid-4th millennium BCE. Clearly, Genesis is not a history book.
Egyptian civilisation (including hieroglyphic writing), particularly it's dynastic periods, date as far back as 3100 BCE as well. But Egyptian cultures go far back as 4000 BCE, when Egypt was divided into two - Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt - two kingdoms. But according Genesis, Egypt didn't exist until Ham's son was born - Mizriam (Egypt), Genesis 10:6.
The Elamite kingdom (now known as Iran) is just as old, and with language that dated back 3200 BCE.
My knowledge on Indian and Chinese civilisations, but I think you have got that covered, predate both the Flood and the Tower of Babel, as well as that of Egyptian, Sumerian and Elamite civilizations, actually debunk sincerly's notions of the bible's historical accuracy or that there were no evidences of civilisations before the flood. Clearly, Genesis is not history textbook, to get so many errors.
There were definitely far more civilisation and culture prior to the flood, and there were more than one language spoken prior to both babel and flood, showed the flaws in the bible in the history and archaeology departments.
Then again, sincerly is no historian or archaeologist or anthropologist. Add that he is unwilling to look at real physical evidences that contradict or challenge his belief or faith, then I see no hope of convincing him to look at cold, hard truth and fact objectively.
Last edited:
HOGWASH
1 Corinthians 2:13-15 (Amp) 13And we are setting these truths forth in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the [Holy] Spirit, combining and interpreting spiritual truths with spiritual language [to those who possess the Holy Spirit].
14But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.
15But the spiritual man tries all things [he [a]examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him].
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
using scripture to protect scripture is circular thing, and has no basis in reality when dealing with real history.
Sure they do, you are a non believer and do not see it
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
It has nothing to do with believeing.
In your case "believing" somehow gives you the right to pervert context which ever way you like without any thought what so ever to the reality of history.
gnostic
The Lost One
outhouse said:
benoni said:
I don't think outhouse is a Jew, but I think the Jews understand their own (Hebrew) scriptures (Tanakh, Torah or the Christian OT) far better than the Christians do.
Christians have to twist the OT verses in order to fit Jesus into prophecies or signs of a messiah. That's not understanding the OT - :no: that's deception or misinformation.
I think you are confusing belief with understanding. They are not the same things.
gnostic
The Lost One
Adam seemed to be first farmer and Abel to be the first shepherd. But animal husbandry and agricultural farming have existed about 8000-9000 BCE, in early Neolithic period, clearly predate Adam's creation. So clearly, Genesis is again, not historically or archaeologically accurate.
outhouse
Atheistically
From the pope on this topic of Christians perverting text.
Pope Francis Says Right-Wing Christians Have An Illness
In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh
Pope Francis Says Right-Wing Christians Have An Illness
In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’ The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements. The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens, ideology chases away the people, distances, distances the people and distances of the Church of the people. But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh
outhouse
Atheistically
That's about as old as the oldest evidence of beer.
Some have hypothesized beer settled them down from a nomadic lifestyle
after a grain storage container might have been rained on and fermented.Makes sense
You are right, chapter two is a carnalizing of Adam
greentwiga
Active Member
It is only historically inaccurate if you interpret the ages using modern reckoning. If they meant something different, then Adam lived about 9,000 BC