Genesis,where did the other Guys come from

[outhouse]

you did not post one shred of evidence that the bible is literal truth.

we all know the fables are loosely based on the geographic location.

from the same article you posted

These discoveries and theories, and many more, are vigorously contested on all sides by archaeologists, religious scholars and historians.​

Read more: Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries - TIME​

In 1990, Harvard researchers working in the ancient city of Ashkelon, north of the Gaza Strip, unearthed a small silver-plated bronze calf figurine reminiscent of the huge golden calf mentioned in the Book of Exodus. In 1986

there is no proof this is the same cow, as a matter of fact if it is,,, it would show the bible lied again. As the bible states it was a huge golden calf.

either way no proof the bible is literally correct, if anything it is proof the bible lied

In 1986, archaeologists found the earliest known text of the Bible, dated to about 600 B.C. It suggests that at least part of the Old Testament was written soon after some of the events it describes

there is alot of OT biblical material that goes back further then 600BC. many of the bibles fables go back for thousands of years. The bible is not limited to 600BC

the oldest ancient hebrew writing that is religious in nature goes back to a pottery shard dated at 1000BC

either way no proof the bible is literally correct

In what may be the most important of these discoveries, a team of archaeologists uncovered a 9th century B.C. inscription at an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, in 1993. Words carved into a chunk of basalt refer to the "House of David" and the "King of Israel."

although the Tel Dan stele may record the existence in the mid-9th century of a Judean royal dynasty called the "House of David" although this is disputed.

David - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is plenty more but i doubt you will listen anyway.

I already know the article and have read it before. real history is a hobby.

Nothing in that article makes claim that the bible is the literal truth.

much of the bible is not historically accurate this is a fact.

your reaching into fantasy land again twisting words and turning them into sonething they do not say or mean due to your faith blinding you

 

[KnightOwl]

The talking serpent isn't just far fetched because of the talking... it is the fact that he is supposed to be a shape shifted version of Satan or at the very least speaking as a ventriloquist doll for him. I am going from memory here, but isn't there a two way conversation? And fairly involved?

Even if the serpent were as smart as say an African Grey, the chances of it being able to carry on a conversation like that would be astronomically small. Wait a second... I forgot my self-imposed rule never to use that term again after seeing how big the national debt has become... The chances of it being able to carry on a conversation like that would be economically small. It makes much more sense that the talking snake represents that Satan had powers that were god-like and this was meant to scare the people reading into thinking they had dang well better follow that good guy's rules lest they end up tricked by such a powerful creature into being evil. And not because it was true but because it served their purpose - benevolent or not.

I picture like the scene in "The Invention of Lying" where the Ricky Gervais character tells his mum that she shouldn't be afraid of dying because he had seen the other side of death and it consisted of a place without pain etc. -- basically a description of the popular concept of heaven.


And at the risk of speaking for outhouse, I believe what he meant was the Bible being literally 100% true historically. For instance one might way there is zero proof that And at the risk of speaking for outhouse, I believe what he meant was the Bible being literally 100% true historically. For instance one might way there is zero proof that The Wizard of Oz is a true story. That doesn't mean Kansas does not exist. (edit: looks like he posted while I was typing and more eloquently I might add)

 

[outhouse]

And at the risk of speaking for outhouse, I believe what he meant was the Bible being literally 100% true historically. For instance one might way there is zero proof that And at the risk of speaking for outhouse, I believe what he meant was the Bible being literally 100% true historically. For instance one might way there is zero proof that The Wizard of Oz is a true story. That doesn't mean Kansas does not exist. (edit: looks like he posted while I was typing and more eloquently I might add)

close enough

i liked the wizard of ozz analogy

 

[iholdit]

The talking serpent isn't just far fetched because of the talking... it is the fact that he is supposed to be a shape shifted version of Satan or at the very least speaking as a ventriloquist doll for him. I am going from memory here, but isn't there a two way conversation? And fairly involved?

Even if the serpent were as smart as say an African Grey, the chances of it being able to carry on a conversation like that would be astronomically small. Wait a second... I forgot my self-imposed rule never to use that term again after seeing how big the national debt has become... The chances of it being able to carry on a conversation like that would be economically small. It makes much more sense that the talking snake represents that Satan had powers that were god-like and this was meant to scare the people reading into thinking they had dang well better follow that good guy's rules lest they end up tricked by such a powerful creature into being evil. And not because it was true but because it served their purpose - benevolent or not.

I picture like the scene in "The Invention of Lying" where the Ricky Gervais character tells his mum that she shouldn't be afraid of dying because he had seen the other side of death and it consisted of a place without pain etc. -- basically a description of the popular concept of heaven.


And at the risk of speaking for outhouse, I believe what he meant was the Bible being literally 100% true historically. For instance one might way there is zero proof that And at the risk of speaking for outhouse, I believe what he meant was the Bible being literally 100% true historically. For instance one might way there is zero proof that The Wizard of Oz is a true story. That doesn't mean Kansas does not exist. (edit: looks like he posted while I was typing and more eloquently I might add)

The snake being satan isnt literal scripture it is a metaphorical interpretation. The conversation is a few sentences long, nothing an intelligent african grey couldnt pull off.

Outhouse seems to mean none of scripture is literal. Yet the article i posted stated most people archeologists believe from solomon on is at least somewhat historical. My comment was there is some arceological evidence that some of the bible is literal. He said there is NO evidence not that there is no proof.

 

[KnightOwl]

As far as the snake vs parrot. I've seen the parrots in action. They can't pull off a non-scripted conversation unless its with their trainer who knows what to say to get them to parrot their next line which would seem to make sense. They don't know of what they speak.

I'll let outhouse speak for himself -- I was just surmising to begin with. I'm not gonna pile on.

 

[iholdit]

Outhouse, you forgot 2 of the quotes from that article.

"The bible version of Israelite history after the reign of Solomon, for example, is generally believed to be based on historical fact because it is corroborated by independant accounts of Kings and battles in Egyptian and Assyrian inscription of the time"

This shows that there is historical evidence from other cultures to back up at least some of the bibles accounts. You are now saying that most of historians are wrong and there is no evidence, when most historians believe there is at least some evidence.

The second showed 2 people in the bible who there is historical evidence existed. Baruch, son of Neriah and Yerahme`el son of King Johoiakims son.

The only claim you have is that the bible used actual historical people and used actual historical places and actual historical events and wrote it at around the same time frame these events,people,places existed, but according to you they must have changed the story around.
Lmao!!!

If history is your hobby then you need a new one.

 

[outhouse]

the reign of Solomon, for example,

is not historical fact in any sense, its more proof of the bibles inaccuracy.

first I already know you have little historicaL KNOWLEDGE

second we barely know if there was even a kind solomon, there have been some copper mines that have recently been dated to his time. Not exactly the gold mines that are reported.

we also know the amount of wives or whores he had are inaccurate as well as barely 900-1000 people lived in the area at that time.




I have never stated the bible is %100 wrong, your inability to read shows this. I have already stated """"we all know the fables are loosely based on the geographic location. """


There are no eyewitnesses to these fables and most took place anywhere from 300 to 2000 years previous, the story's were told orally and have no historical accuracy other then location. If the storys were not taken from sumerian or egyption cultures.



You state the fables are literally accurate, this has never been the case.

the bible has been proven to be inaccurate.

there was no world wide flood thisis fact
man evolved, this is as fact as gravity
adam and eve is a fable as the flood
there is no proof at all a man named moses existed
the exodus story has almost no proof at all

and on and on and on

 

[iholdit]

Outhouse,
Your claim "there is no proof this is the same cow, as a matter of fact if it is,,, it would show the bible lied again. As the bible states it was a huge golden calf."

Lmao!!! Of course it isnt the same golden calf, have you ever even read the bible ?
Ex 32:20- "And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt [it] in the fire, and ground [it] to powder, and strawed [it] upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink [of it]."

Unless the calf found was made of human urine and/or feces it wasnt the same calf Lol!!!

How can you compare history to scripture if you dont even know scripture Lol!!!

 

[outhouse]

you the one that claims these discoveries make the bible the literal truth.

they do not

like a typical creationist you keep going sideways instead ofbacking your statements

 

[iholdit]

you the one that claims these discoveries make the bible the literal truth.

they do not

like a typical creationist you keep going sideways instead ofbacking your statements

Lmao!!! What are talking about?

Your claim "no ,there is no evidence anywhere pointing to the bible being literal"
Most historians disagree with you.

 

[iholdit]

As far as the snake vs parrot. I've seen the parrots in action. They can't pull off a non-scripted conversation unless its with their trainer who knows what to say to get them to parrot their next line which would seem to make sense. They don't know of what they speak.

I'll let outhouse speak for himself -- I was just surmising to begin with. I'm not gonna pile on.

Have you ever seen koko the gorilla in action? She could carry on a conversation, although she couldnt talk, she used sign language. [youtube]Pmuu8UEi2ko[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmuu8UEi2ko&feature=related

Also the serpent could have been repeating what someone else said. Havent you ever heard a parrot appear to be carrying on a couple of sentence conversation, even though you knew they were just repeating things they heard often. Remember other people would have existed at the time of adam and eve who could have said these things in front of the serpent and the serpent just repeated them. The point is we are not talking about something impossible here.

 

[outhouse]

there was no world wide flood this is fact
man evolved, this is as fact as gravity
adam and eve is a fable as the flood is as well
there is no proof at all a man named moses existed
the exodus story has almost no proof at all
the world was not created in 1 day
the heavens and stars as it stands were not created in 1 day 6000 years ago
homo sapiens have lived 200,000 years
there is no talking snake
there is no ark with all the animals
woman did not come from a mc'rib lol
the earth is not 6000 years old
the sun does not revolve around the earth
man did not live 900+ years or over 150 for that matter.

all ofthe above is fact, if you dont like it to bad

your welcome to refute these with facts not guesses, proved links and sources

 

[outhouse]

Have you ever seen koko the gorilla in action? She could carry on a conversation, although she couldnt talk, she used sign language. [youtube]Pmuu8UEi2ko[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmuu8UEi2ko&feature=related

Also the serpent could have been repeating what someone else said. Havent you ever heard a parrot appear to be carrying on a couple of sentence conversation, even though you knew they were just repeating things they heard often. Remember other people would have existed at the time of adam and eve who could have said these things in front of the serpent and the serpent just repeated them. The point is we are not talking about something impossible here.

you dont get it

this just proves how close we are to primates, we share a common ancestor 7-8 million years ago

thanks for helping prove evolution and how close we really are to our long lost cousins


your talking snake comparisaon is laughable at best

 

[KnightOwl]

as far as intelligence... human > gorilla > african grey > snakes
As outhouse said, the things that have to be in place in order for the talking snake story to be true as told are statistically staggering. And IF it were all possible.. i.e. a super smart snake with the ability to vocalize where discovered to exist or the fossilized remains of such a snake were found even though extinct, we don't have any evidence beyond the Bible to say that such a snake actually participated in a conversation with the first humans. Then in order for the story to be true, there has to be a god as described in the Bible, and the evolution of humans has to be wrong.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all we have are feeble attempts to introduce a glimmer of hope that all this could have actually happened as described. Instead, Occam's razor should be our guide. The simple answer that the story was made up by people is much more likely and until significant evidence is brought to bear disproving this explanation and supporting that the Bible is in fact what Christians claim it to be, we should probably go with the made up story explanation... in my humble opinion.

 

[iholdit]

as far as intelligence... human > gorilla > african grey > snakes
As outhouse said, the things that have to be in place in order for the talking snake story to be true as told are statistically staggering. And IF it were all possible.. i.e. a super smart snake with the ability to vocalize where discovered to exist or the fossilized remains of such a snake were found even though extinct, we don't have any evidence beyond the Bible to say that such a snake actually participated in a conversation with the first humans. Then in order for the story to be true, there has to be a god as described in the Bible, and the evolution of humans has to be wrong.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all we have are feeble attempts to introduce a glimmer of hope that all this could have actually happened as described. Instead, Occam's razor should be our guide. The simple answer that the story was made up by people is much more likely and until significant evidence is brought to bear disproving this explanation and supporting that the Bible is in fact what Christians claim it to be, we should probably go with the made up story explanation... in my humble opinion.

Im not sure scripture is actually completely against evolution. The talking snake wouldnt really have to be intelligent it would just have to have a vocal system like an african grey. I respect your opinion but i think we have gotten off topic as this all started with who the other people were during the time of cain.

 

[outhouse]

who the other people were during the time of cain.

there were many different races of homo sapiens at that time. The same as there is now.

it would just have to have a vocal system like an african grey

well snakes dont and never did.

The talking snake wouldnt really have to be intelligent

that is in direct contradiction with what the bible states

Im not sure scripture is actually completely against evolution.

it is completely against evolution, ancient hebrews didnt have a clue about evolution. They thought magic man said "poof" there it is" and man magically appeared as written.

 

[Pegg]

Ok,when i was a Kid i was puzzled by Genesis,especially the part after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree,what puzzled me then was where did certain people come from,i'll explain as i go.

Genesis Chapter 4 (New International Version)
Where did his Wife come from and why was Cain building a City for two adults and a Child?

If you look at Gen. 5:3, 4 it says “Adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name Seth. And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters.”

During 900 years, Adam was having children and those children were having children and so there were actually many people who came from Adam and Eve... Cain was the first son and would have married one of his sisters. Seth was born 130yrs later (but he is just one of many not mentioned) and so begins the family line that traces to Abraham...that would be why only Seth is mentioned. Other kids would have been born before Seth, but Seths line is the important one for it leads to Abrahams ancestry.

Cain was a grown adult when he murdered Abel and he would have already had many other brothers and obviously sisters too... so his fear would have come from the fact that his deed was known by everyone, and his family were all angry with him...and whats to stop any one of them, or their kids to come, from murdering Cain.

 

[outhouse]

During 900 years, Adam was having children

im sorry pegg no man ever lived 900 years

we are not all inbreed from adam, and we know for a fact if there was a adam he was not the first man. All the races of current homo sapiens existed at that time.

 

[Thief]

Ok,when i was a Kid i was puzzled by Genesis,especially the part after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree,what puzzled me then was where did certain people come from,i'll explain as i go.

Genesis Chapter 4 (New International Version)

1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.
OK so far thats 3 people

She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
Thats 4
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD.
4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
OK we now are back to 3

9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."
13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
At this time there is only 3 people so who's going to find him?

15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
There is still only 3 right

17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

Where did his Wife come from and why was Cain building a City for two adults and a Child?

From a thread I posted a long time ago....

Genesis. Real quick...here is the list in Chapter One.
Day One...Light
Day Two... Heaven
Day Three...everything that is green and bears seed.
Day Four...the seasons are set into order....the sun, moon, and stars
Day Five...everything that swims or flies.
Day Six...everything that walks...including Man

Obviously, there are some discussions to make about which items are out of order...some things need be in position before others.
But, we can do that portion later. For now, the list continues.

Day Seven...all is created...God rests...no more will be created.

Chapter Two.
God takes a man and places him into ideal living conditions.
His life is greatly extended, as the conditions allow it to be so.
Nothing will harm him. He is sheltered.

This isolated living is terminal.
Without a mate, the man is doomed to a solitary life.
A deep sleep is administered.
A rib is removed.
The rib is increased to full stature as a woman.

This is the basic structure of Scripture...Chapter One, and the intro of Chapter Two.

From this post I continue.

Man as a species...Day six.
Man as we now think of him....after Day Seven.

There were plenty of people on this earth by the time the garden
was used to alter the course of Man.

 

[Pegg]

im sorry pegg no man ever lived 900 years

we are not all inbreed from adam, and we know for a fact if there was a adam he was not the first man. All the races of current homo sapiens existed at that time.

if i didnt think people could live forever i might have to agree with you

however....