No Adam = no Original Sin - right?

[gnostic]

3760 BC (for the Flood) would also means that Moses didn't lead the Israelites out of Egypt until 2748 BC. Again too early.

It would also make the list of kings (of Israel and Judah) and the Fall of Jerusalem out of phase with the supposed timelines of other kingdoms, because it would put these event in the 2nd millennium BC instead of the 1st millennium BC.

 

[Arlanbb]

Any way you look at the biblical history and real world history there is nothing that matches at all. So without a real biblical creation you have no Adam, no Original sin, no biblical deluge and no need for Jesus to save us from the 'original sin' that never happened, therefore Christianity is in shambles. arlan

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Any way you look at the biblical history and real world history there is nothing that matches at all. So without a real biblical creation you have no Adam, no Original sin, no biblical deluge and no need for Jesus to save us from the 'original sin' that never happened, therefore Christianity is in shambles. arlan

I agree.....

 

[Muffled]

3760 BCE is the year of the creation, according to the Jewish calendar.

There is something terribly wrong for this date to be the year of the Flood. For one, there is only 367 years between the time of the Flood to the time Abraham left Haran (so that means 3393 BCE), and 467 years between Flood and Abraham's death (which is 3293 BCE).

Those are not really good dates for Abraham, because he would exist in the Neolithic period. Also Genesis 10:10-11, the cities of Babylon, Asshur, Akkad and Nineveh didn't exist.

Historically, Eresh, or more precisely Uruk, is the oldest of those listed in 10:10-11, but it is only dated as early as about 2950 BCE. Babylon only began historically around 2300 BCE, as a minor city; it was governed by governors. It was until the First Babylonian Dynasty, when it was ruled by Amorites that Babylon began to prosper, beginning in the 19th century BCE.

So the Flood being 3760 BCE is an incorrect date. it's way too early.

I don't know where you get this from. Jacob is in Egypt sometime around 1400 BCE and Abraham couldn't have been born more than a century earlier. Remember the genealogy (Abraham, Isaac Jacob). There is only 52 years between me and my oldest grandchild.

My Bible has it this way: Egypt 1875 BCE, Flood 2400 BCE and Adam 4056 BCE. These people have studied it more assiduously than I but that doesn't guarantee that they are right. Exodus 12:40 says that Israel was in Egypt 430 years so my 1400's date must be for the Exodus.

 

[herushura]

I don't know where you get this from. Jacob is in Egypt sometime around 1400 BCE and Abraham couldn't have been born more than a century earlier. Remember the genealogy (Abraham, Isaac Jacob). There is only 52 years between me and my oldest grandchild.

My Bible has it this way: Egypt 1875 BCE, Flood 2400 BCE and Adam 4056 BCE. These people have studied it more assiduously than I but that doesn't guarantee that they are right. Exodus 12:40 says that Israel was in Egypt 430 years so my 1400's date must be for the Exodus.

Creation = 6380BC - Age of Gemini
Adam/Eve = 4220BC - Age of Taurus
Abraham = 2160BC - Age of Aries
Jesus = 1AD - Age of Pisces

Astrology has the true answers

 

[Muffled]

Any way you look at the biblical history and real world history there is nothing that matches at all. So without a real biblical creation you have no Adam, no Original sin, no biblical deluge and no need for Jesus to save us from the 'original sin' that never happened, therefore Christianity is in shambles. arlan

Sin isn't going to disappear because you say so. There is still a God who judges sin and the wicked will perish. We know where our bread is buttered but it isn't much consolation to say I told you so.

 

[herushura]

Sin isn't going to disappear because you say so. There is still a God who judges sin and the wicked will perish. We know where our bread is buttered but it isn't much consolation to say I told you so.

Sin is the Moon

 

[herushura]

What Sin means is that, If You are commited to the Moon , or your in Darkness you wont recieve the Benifits of the Suns Light.

 

[gnostic]

A good date for the flood would be 3760 BCE. I don't know on what Jews base their calendar.

My Bible has it this way: Egypt 1875 BCE, Flood 2400 BCE and Adam 4056 BCE.

First you say that the Flood happened in 3760 BCE, but now you say 2400 BCE. The 2nd date (2400 BCE) is more reasonable, and I can agree with this estimate, but not with your first estimate of 3760 BCE.

There is still problem with 2400 BCE, however, historically.

2400 BCE is around the time of the 5th dynasty of Old Kingdom period in Egypt. To be more precise, in the reign of the 2nd last king of the 5th dynasty - Djedkare Isesi (2414 – 2375 BCE). Had the Flood happened then, then his reign would have been cut short, since he should be dead during the Flood. And his dynasty would have ended then and there.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

First you say that the Flood happened in 3760 BCE, but now you say 2400 BCE. The 2nd date (2400 BCE) is more reasonable, and I can agree with this estimate, but not with your first estimate of 3760 BCE.

There is still problem with 2400 BCE, however, historically.

2400 BCE is around the time of the 5th dynasty of Old Kingdom period in Egypt. To be more precise, in the reign of the 2nd last king of the 5th dynasty - Djedkare Isesi (2414 – 2375 BCE). Had the Flood happened then, then his reign would have been cut short, since he should be dead during the Flood. And his dynasty would have ended then and there.

That's because the flood didn't happen. It was a story that has been passed down and can be found in the sumerian record. Names have been changed to protect the innocent. It's mythology.....The dates given are in conflict with other civilizations history, timeline and archeology.

 

[gnostic]

That's because the flood didn't happen. It was a story that has been passed down and can be found in the sumerian record. Names have been changed to protect the innocent. It's mythology.....The dates given are in conflict with other civilizations history, timeline and archeology.

Which is what I am pointing out to muffled. Regardless of the time frame, the Flood happening in any time of the 3rd millennium BCE, would have seriously disrupted civilisation.

I've picked Egypt, because there are records of Djedkare Isesi being king at the time of 2400 BCE. He and all his subjects would have died if there was a Flood in 2400 BCE.

 

[herushura]

Which is what I am pointing out to muffled. Regardless of the time frame, the Flood happening in any time of the 3rd millennium BCE, would have seriously disrupted civilisation.

I've picked Egypt, because there are records of Djedkare Isesi being king at the time of 2400 BCE. He and all his subjects would have died if there was a Flood in 2400 BCE.

That because the Flood never happened on Earth.

The Great Flood of the bible happenes in the Sky.

The Night Sky is the Earth (Circle of the Earth) the Stars are the Animal.

When the Sun(ark) rises. the Star disappear becasue the blue sky(water) drowned them (too bright to see stars) and at Sunrise the Ark(Sun) releases the animals(stars) from the Suns Light(ark)

The Sun(ark) travels along the waters(blue sky)

The Ark is the curved path of the sun throught sunrise to sunset

 

[gnostic]

That because the Flood never happened on Earth.

The Great Flood of the bible happenes in the Sky.

The Night Sky is the Earth (Circle of the Earth) the Stars are the Animal.

When the Sun(ark) rises. the Star disappear becasue the blue sky(water) drowned them (too bright to see stars) and at Sunrise the Ark(Sun) releases the animals(stars) from the Suns Light(ark)

The Sun(ark) travels along the waters(blue sky)

The Ark is the curved path of the sun throught sunrise to sunset

Ok, now you're tripping. Can I take or smoke whatever you are doing?

 

[Arlanbb]

I thought that our thread was "NO Adam = No Original sin - right" I don't understand how the ark and sky got in the way of our original OP? arlan

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I thought that our thread was "NO Adam = No Original sin - right" I don't understand how the ark and sky got in the way of our original OP? arlan

I agree. I think the the other poster is approaching it from another angle to show that this mythology stems from other or a combination of other beliefs and is rot with symbolism.....

Regardless. There was no real Adam and Eve nor is there any such thing as original sin. The two are synonymous and the bible is clear that Adam and Eve are to be taken as real persons and later in the NT, even with Paul, Adam was the one that sinned and this is where the supposed concept comes from.

We know today that Adam could not have been the first man nor Eve the first women. Archeology refutes that claim. Adam and Eve, Lilith, The Flood and a few others are myths.......stories past down with some names being changed and the stories reworked

 

[Arlanbb]

SO TRUE arlan

 

[Muffled]

I agree. I think the the other poster is approaching it from another angle to show that this mythology stems from other or a combination of other beliefs and is rot with symbolism.....

Regardless. There was no real Adam and Eve nor is there any such thing as original sin. The two are synonymous and the bible is clear that Adam and Eve are to be taken as real persons and later in the NT, even with Paul, Adam was the one that sinned and this is where the supposed concept comes from.

We know today that Adam could not have been the first man nor Eve the first women. Archeology refutes that claim. Adam and Eve, Lilith, The Flood and a few others are myths.......stories past down with some names being changed and the stories reworked

On the contrary Adam doesn't have to be the first man on the earth to be the first created man of his time. I am after all the first man in my family all my brothers were born after me. It is more likely though that Adam was one of many created people and the only claim to first is that of being the first to father children.

When there is eternal life no children are born because there is no need to replenish the earth. When there is death there is a need for children to be born to replenish the earth or vice versa if children are desired then death must come so that the earth will not become overpopulated.

 

[Arlanbb]

MUFFLED ~ There are two problems with your ideas. first God told man and woman to "have sex and fill the earth with children" Gen. 1:28 on the sixth day of creation before sin entered the world. So your idea of only having children after sin is void. Secondly - If only Adam sinned of all his brothers and sisters then they should be alive today because they didn't sin.

 

[gnostic]

The problem with creationism is that they failed to realise that human, or the Homo sapiens, have existed far back of at least 200,000 BP (before present). That's roughly 140,000 years before the supposed Adam and Eve have come into existence.

After the Ice Age, a new culture existed, known as Neolithic period (New Stone Age), where man learned to grow their own food through agriculture and domesticating animals, and have more settled lifestyle, building huts, making pottery etc.

The Neolithic period came about 10,000 BP, but it really depends on the areas. Egypt's Nile and the Mesopotamia knows of these technology as early as 10,000 BP. For example, there were no evidence of Neolitic period, until 8000 BP (or 6000 BCE). Depending on the region, some people continued to be hunter-gatherers, not only not knowing how to farm, but didn't know metallurgy until alot later, like in the Roman period. For example, there are tiny pockets of regions, where the regions are so isolated that they still lived a primitive lifestyle as far back mid-20th century (in Brazil rainforests and Papua New Guinea).

In any case that several thousand years before the supposed existence of Adam.

 

[Muffled]

MUFFLED ~ There are two problems with your ideas. first God told man and woman to "have sex and fill the earth with children" Gen. 1:28 on the sixth day of creation before sin entered the world. So your idea of only having children after sin is void. Secondly - If only Adam sinned of all his brothers and sisters then they should be alive today because they didn't sin.

This belongs to the first creation story which goes back to the very beginning. The second creation story begins with Gen 2:4. There is no indication given as to how much time elapsed between the two.

In the beginning it is quite possible that Lucifer had not fallen yet and the progeny would not be evil. At the time of Adam and Eve having children meant bringing back into the world those who were not allowed to enter the Garden of Eden.

It is not a sin to have children but the lack of knowledge about sex shields Adam and Eve from having evil children and keeps the population from exploding.

Just because Adam and Eve were the first to sin does not preclude the others from following in their footsteps and with sin comes death.