The Ultimate Challenge To Creationists

[Etritonakin]

FYI


What came first, the chicken or the egg? The definitive answer

What came first, the chicken or the egg? The definitive answer | Science | The Guardian

That technically answers the question -but the real question is one of the first instance of gender pairs (and the process by which they came to exist).

---------------------

"Evolution" is thought by many to be a process which happened step by step without any creative influence -until it produced creative influence -which could then influence evolution.

It is only now -because we can be a creative influence -that we might understand what sort of evidence (if any) might be left of creative influence -or what is possible by creative influence.

Some creationists believe that God instantaneously made a pair of chickens which were ready to reproduce. This would require a map/blueprint of a male and female chicken -and a process similar to a replicator from Star Trek (maybe map the foul with a transporter and send the info to a replicator?).

In the book of Genesis, it actually states that the earth BECAME formless and void after its initial completion -and what followed was a resurfacing/renewal.

If we look at our own abilities and possibilities..... and assume that life evolved without creative influence.... is it possible (given the ability) for man to map a life form and reproduce it after its extinction?

Are we not actually attempting it ourselves?

6 Extinct Animals That Could Be Brought Back to Life

Are we not also causing leaps in evolution? What evidence would there be of such in the future?

Are we able to create DNA from "scratch" (no chicken pun intended -but still worth a chuckle)?

Scientists create "artificial life" - synthetic DNA that can self-replicate

Then -if we replicated a chicken somehow -how might one in the distant future distinguish it from a non-replicated chicken without records or direct evidence of our influence?

We see that things do evolve (and cannot yet say it is without initial or continued creative influence) -but it is conceivable that a new life form -even with reproductive capabilities -can be designed and then produced without the lengthy process of evolution.

~:>

 

[Skwim]

That technically answers the question -but the real question is one of the first instance of gender pairs (and the process by which they came to exist).

---------------------

"Evolution" is thought by many to be a process which happened step by step without any creative influence -until it produced creative influence -which could then influence evolution.

A tantalizing, but confusing comment. Just what form does this "creative influence" take? Are you speaking of a god or some other supernatural force? Then there's the question of what you mean by "it" Obviously this can't be the "creative influence" you first mention (this would be a self-identity). Please clarify.

In the book of Genesis, it actually states that the earth BECAME formless and void after its initial completion -and what followed was a resurfacing/renewal.

Yeah that's a real puzzler. How could a physical object, i. e. earth, not have a form, and be "void" after having been created?

Genesis 1: 1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
​

It's nonsensical. But note, it doesn't say the earth became formless and void, but simply "was
without form, and void."

If we look at our own abilities and possibilities..... and assume that life evolved without creative influence.... is it possible (given the ability) for man to map a life form and reproduce it after its extinction?

If we have the ability, I would think so.

Are we not actually attempting it ourselves?

Not that I know of.

6 Extinct Animals That Could Be Brought Back to Life

Are we not also causing leaps in evolution?

I don't regard resurrecting an extinct life form to its previous state to be evolution.

Are we able to create DNA from "scratch" (no chicken pun intended -but still worth a chuckle)?

Scientists create "artificial life" - synthetic DNA that can self-replicate

Yup.

Then -if we replicated a chicken somehow -how might one in the distant future distinguish it from a non-replicated chicken without records or direct evidence of our influence?

No idea.

We see that things do evolve (and cannot yet say it is without initial or continued creative influence) -but it is conceivable that a new life form -even with reproductive capabilities -can be designed and then produced without the lengthy process of evolution.

So it would appear.

 

[Etritonakin]

A tantalizing, but confusing comment. Just what form does this "creative influence" take? Are you speaking of a god or some other supernatural force? Then there's the question of what you mean by "it" Obviously this can't be the "creative influence" you first mention (this would be a self-identity). Please clarify.

Yeah that's a real puzzler. How could a physical object, i. e. earth, not have a form, and be "void" after having been created?

Genesis 1: 1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
​

It's nonsensical. But note, it doesn't say the earth became formless and void, but simply "was
without form, and void."

If we have the ability, I would think so.

Not that I know of.

I don't regard resurrecting an extinct life form to its previous state to be evolution.

Yup.

No idea.

So it would appear.

I meant to say that some believe (our) creative influence to be a product of evolution alone -which in turn allows us to change the course of evolution.

As with many words, the words in Genesis can have several meanings.
Became is just as correct a translation as was according to the definition, and became is more correct given the context of all scriptures.

Formless and void can also be translated otherwise -waste and ruin, for example.

I don't regard resurrecting an extinct life form to be evolution, either.

Perhaps we aren't "attempting" to resurrect an extinct life form -but are working toward doing so -and aren't far from it.

I don't always express myself clearly -I'll work on that

 

[Skwim]

I meant to say that some believe (our) creative influence to be a product of evolution alone -which in turn allows us to change the course of evolution.

As with many words, the words in Genesis can have several meanings.
Became is just as correct a translation as was according to the definition, and became is more correct given the context of all scriptures.

Formless and void can also be translated otherwise -waste and ruin, for example.

I don't regard resurrecting an extinct life form to be evolution, either.

Perhaps we aren't "attempting" to resurrect an extinct life form -but are working toward doing so -and aren't far from it.

I don't always express myself clearly -I'll work on that

To tell the truth, I've never seen the "was" as in "And the earth was without form, and void" ever translated as "became." So, I have to ask where you came by the notion that "Became is just as correct a translation as was according to the definition, and became is more correct given the context of all scriptures". Moreover, because "was" and "became" express two very different concepts I fail to see how both are just as "correct a translation." Then there's your assertion that "became is more correct." Now, I recognize that many Christians like, even need, to bend words so as to support their beliefs, sometimes giving the most outlandish reasons, but this is hardly justifiable, and I'm afraid this is what you're doing.

In the 46 Bible versions I checked, 94% (43 out of 46) used the word "was" in this passage, and those that didn't use "was" used terms such as "had no." None used "became.".

 

[Etritonakin]

To tell the truth, I've never seen the "was" as in "And the earth was without form, and void" ever translated as "became." So, I have to ask where you came by the notion that "Became is just as correct a translation as was according to the definition, and became is more correct given the context of all scriptures". Moreover, because "was" and "became" express two very different concepts I fail to see how both are just as "correct a translation." Then there's your assertion that "became is more correct." Now, I recognize that many Christians like, even need, to bend words so as to support their beliefs, sometimes giving the most outlandish reasons, but this is hardly justifiable, and I'm afraid this is what you're doing.

In the 46 Bible versions I checked, 94% (43 out of 46) used the word "was" in this passage, and those that didn't use "was" used terms such as "had no." None used "became.".

You're free to see things that way.

 

[shawn001]

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken ... - TED.com

"Renowned paleontologist Jack Horner has spent his career trying to reconstruct a dinosaur. He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vessels and soft tissues, but never intact DNA. So, in a new approach, he's taking living descendants of the dinosaur (chickens) and genetically engineering them to reactivate ancestral traits — including teeth, tails, and even hands — to make a "Chickenosaurus"."

 

[Skwim]

You're free to see things that way.

Gee, Thanks for your permission.

 

[Etritonakin]

Gee, Thanks for your permission.

It was just a statement -not a decree.

It is interesting to note, however, that even the scriptures say that what is written will not be apparent to all.

Daniel was not supposed to be understood until the end times, the "mystery of God" is said to be finished in the end times, elsewhere it is stated that scripture was written here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept, that they might go, fall backward, be broken, snared, and taken (forgot exactly how it is worded), Christ said that only those who were given and had "an ear" would hear and understand -and spoke in parables that his meaning would not be understood by all. They state that not all are even called in this life.

They also say that we will eventually be given a pure language by God.
As our human languages reflect our limited understanding and allow such confusion about words, it is a fascinating idea.

 

[Etritonakin]

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken ... - TED.com

"Renowned paleontologist Jack Horner has spent his career trying to reconstruct a dinosaur. He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vessels and soft tissues, but never intact DNA. So, in a new approach, he's taking living descendants of the dinosaur (chickens) and genetically engineering them to reactivate ancestral traits — including teeth, tails, and even hands — to make a "Chickenosaurus"."

He had finished his pie. What else was he to do as he sat in his corner?

Hehehehehehe -It needed to be said.

 

[Skwim]

It was just a statement -not a decree.

It is interesting to note, however, that even the scriptures say that what is written will not be apparent to all.

So, if the words in the Bible don't mean what they normally do, conforming to their definitions, how does one know that the recasting them with some other meaning is correct? I ask this because I have encountered others who have done the same as you do with Genesis 1:2, but with hardly any agreement. In all, it comes across as a vain and capricious enterprise that appears to say "I'm right whereas no one else is." And to tell the truth, in the Genesis 1:2 incident where every Bible version I looked at used "was" or words to that effect, to come up with a translation that denotes a much different state of being begs rejection.

They also say that we will eventually be given a pure language by God.
As our human languages reflect our limited understanding and allow such confusion about words, it is a fascinating idea.

So, you feel that you've been given this "pure language?"

 

[Etritonakin]

So, if the words in the Bible don't mean what they normally do, conforming to their definitions, how does one know that the recasting them with some other meaning is correct? I ask this because I have encountered others who have done the same as you do with Genesis 1:2, but with hardly any agreement. In all, it comes across as a vain and capricious enterprise that appears to say "I'm right whereas no one else is." And to tell the truth, in the Genesis 1:2 incident where every Bible version I looked at used "was" or words to that effect, to come up with a translation that denotes a much different state of being begs rejection.

So, you feel that you've been given this "pure language?"

"WAS" =

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.


No -I still speak English.

The pure language is yet future.....

Zep 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.
Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

It's not that the words don't mean what they normally do -but that many words have more than one normal meaning.
Also, popular ideas often shape translations.

It's like war. It's not a matter of who is right -but who is left.

Those who claimed and enforced authority after the persecution of the new testament church told people what to believe -and even discouraged them from reading scripture.

That's why we sometimes see Easter where it should say Passover, etc....

There is no vanity to it -it's just a matter of in-depth study -comparing many verses with an open mind.

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

For example.... Some believe that the abomination of desolation in the end times to be a destruction of a new physical temple which must first be built -because they believe the taking away of the daily and the abomination of desolation to be the same event.

"The daily" is often translated "the daily sacrifice" -but sacrifice is usually in italics or in parentheses because it isn't original -it is assumed.....
Dan 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
and...
Dan 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

So -because it is assumed that the daily means literal sacrifices, it is also assumed a temple must first be built -because that's where sacrifices would me made.
Also -because the taking away of the daily and the abomination of desolation are spoken of in the same sentence, it is assumed they are the same event.

However, if you add these verses, it is clear that they are two separate end-time events separated by 1,290 days.
Dan 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
....Dan 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Then -if one reads the new testament -it is made clear that the priesthood which does the daily after Christ's sacrifice -and so in the end times -does not need to do so by physical animal sacrifice.
Daniel would not necessarily have known this would come to pass -but God would.

Heb 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
.......Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
.......Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Heb_7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

So -it is the doing of the spiritual daily -which includes preaching the gospel of the kingdom before the end, and ministering to God's church in the end times -which will be taken away.
It is a taking away of the spiritual temple -those who do the will of God. Though their work is ceased at that time, they will be kept from the trouble to follow.

1Pe_2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ

The taking away of the daily is also the casting of the truth to the ground...
Dan 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.


Then, 1,290 days later is the abomination of desolation -so what is that?

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto

So -the abomination is not a destruction of a temple -it is a destruction of/attack on Jerusalem itself.

The forces of the beast (Assyrian, etc.) and those of the kings of the east (and allies) will have been gathered to Megiddo to fight each other -then turn toward Jerusalem

Rev 16:12-16, Ezek 38 & 39

The taking away of the daily happens just before the one called the beast (Assyrian, king of fierce countenance, last king of the north) begins his 3 1/2 year (1,260 day) reign.

Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

The abomination is at the end of his reign -just before Christ returns. This is what happens as those in Judea flee...........

Zec 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Zec 14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains

I might list the verses relating to Genesis 1 later -just had that example in mind.

 

[JamesYaqub]

So, if the words in the Bible don't mean what they normally do, conforming to their definitions, how does one know that the recasting them with some other meaning is correct? I ask this because I have encountered others who have done the same as you do with Genesis 1:2, but with hardly any agreement. In all, it comes across as a vain and capricious enterprise that appears to say "I'm right whereas no one else is." And to tell the truth, in the Genesis 1:2 incident where every Bible version I looked at used "was" or words to that effect, to come up with a translation that denotes a much different state of being begs rejection.

So, you feel that you've been given this "pure language?"

One of the biggest mistakes Christianity makes is to include the Hebrew "bible" as a part of their own scriptures. Christianity would be much better off sticking to the message of Jesus which is what the New Testament is all about. Complicating this is the inclination for some to cite the King James versions while ignoring the original Greek. Now we find people on sites like this one arguing about words while concepts are ignored.

Moses did not originate the stories which appear in the Old Testament. He simply put in his own writing stories which were already ancient in his day. Example: The story of creation which we call Genesis had pe-existed for thousands of years before Moses (who by the way was not a Jew but a sundered child of a pharaoh. Moses was an Egyptian (Arab) through and through, only adopted and raised by Jews.

So here we sit in these times arguing about this and that never bothering to start by examining history to discover exactly where all the old stories really came from. King James tried to do this. Shall we now rely on the opinions of this one man when so much is at stake? This is where the protestant versions of Christianity makes a big mistake.

God did not dictate the Bible to man. God sent to men ideas and influential thoughts only. The Bible, all of it, is the product of men no different than us except that they lived a long time ago.

Ignore KJV and learn the old Greek language. Then find out what the OT REALLY says.

Another example: Are there ten commandents? No. The truth is that there are more than 600 but along the way KJ or some pope decided to simplify the business by making it ten. And we all go along with it not questioning. We just accept whatever it put in front of us. Wake up Christians. Learn old Greek and see that the OT stories came to us from Adam, verbally, for a very long time and that the earliest middle eastern records of these are in Sumerian (the origin of the Egypt that everyone considers so foundational. Discover that peoples around the world continue to relate these ancient tales. None of them are Christians yet they have a degree of truth.

Wake up Christians.... Your Bible is not the ultimate source of God's wisdom.

 

[Etritonakin]

One of the biggest mistakes Christianity makes is to include the Hebrew "bible" as a part of their own scriptures.

................

Discover that peoples around the world continue to relate these ancient tales. None of them are Christians yet they have a degree of truth.

Wake up Christians.... Your Bible is not the ultimate source of God's wisdom.

Those in the NT make many references to the OT, so it would be difficult to simply ignore the OT.

Also -there are commandments, statutes and judgments.

Only the Ten Commandments were written on the stone tablets by the Lord -and the rest are based on the ten.
Some judgments have changed over time -dietary laws, for example -those given in the Mosaic law were a change from what God allowed in Eden and then afterward.

While those who wrote the bible were people like us, not all are used by God for specific purposes. That is why one who prophesies is called a prophet, and one who does not is not.

There are some parts of the scripture which are direct quotes of God -as specified -and some which are not.
Some were told to write specific things in a book or tell specific things to specific people, for example.

Otherwise, God has a hand in which words are before which people -and whether or not people understand them.

There are truths in many things -and untruth, but God causes truth to be separated from untruth.

It is also said that the things of God are apparent in what was made by him -so some truth is apparent to all -but the finer points are not so readily apparent -and are important.

 

[JamesYaqub]

Those in the NT make many references to the OT, so it would be difficult to simply ignore the OT.

Also -there are commandments, statutes and judgments.

Only the Ten Commandments were written on the stone tablets by the Lord -and the rest are based on the ten.
Some judgments have changed over time -dietary laws, for example -those given in the Mosaic law were a change from what God allowed in Eden and then afterward.

While those who wrote the bible were people like us, not all are used by God for specific purposes. That is why one who prophesies is called a prophet, and one who does not is not.

There are some parts of the scripture which are direct quotes of God -as specified -and some which are not.
Some were told to write specific things in a book or tell specific things to specific people, for example.

Otherwise, God has a hand in which words are before which people -and whether or not people understand them.

There are truths in many things -and untruth, but God causes truth to be separated from untruth.

It is also said that the things of God are apparent in what was made by him -so some truth is apparent to all -but the finer points are not so readily apparent -and are important.

I believe that the authors of the NT considered the Torah in their work but that this was a great mistake. Since Jesus was a Jew who seemed to defy the expectations of the day the scriptures for the emerging religion should have done likewise. Too bad those men could not see into the future at the results of their work. In a sense Christianity is a corruption of Judaism. I've always thought so and this is the reason I say Christianity should stick to the teachings of Jesus and divorce itself finally from the Jews. It is a foundational belief of Christians that Jews should come, finally, to the new faith. How can we expect them to do this when we, ourselves, remain so closely associated with it?

My opinion is that Jesus meant to reform the Jews not to replace them. Humanity, being as it is, saw too many threats in this. If a new religion is to be easily accepted by man it must contain essential elements of the old so that people find acceptance through familiarity. This is the way we, as a species, are. We move forward a little at a time. The result though was the divisiveness which is to typical of humanity. It continues unabated now. Everywhere we look in every area of life we find people camped behind their favorite ideas, refusing to budge. Another example is this: When something appears in the Koran which agrees with both Judaism and Christianity, and much does just that, the Christians are quick to say that Muhammad copied their ideas. The Jews couldn't care less. The don't compete with other religions. The idea that God, through Gabriel, could actually bring the same ideas to both groups is something the Christians will never accede to. To do so would compromise their stated belief in the supremacy of their set of beliefs over any others. Religious authority is much too self centered and stubborn for that sort of thing. One thing is for sure... When we return to the spirit world (heaven) we will find, happily, that there are no religions at all and no scripture. No divisiveness because we cannot take personalities to heaven. Only our souls survive death. And the human soul is of a much higher consciousness, so high that we finally realize how frail and fragile men are while on the planet below. In our true and eternal home there is only the loving influence of the creator. And God has never in history made a religion. Only men do that.

Search history and find that the ten commands also appear in the Egyptian book of the dead which long predates the time of Moses. Note also, scholars will agree, that anything Egyptian has it's origins in earlier times. The ten commandments also appear, in almost exact format, in Sumerian writings. Don't forget that Abraham was a product of this influence. His land, Akkad, (Aqqad) was a political part of the larger, to the north of Sumer, surviving it in many social ways. The set of languages which we call Semitic are: Akkadian, Aramaic and Arabic (in it's many forms). All three of those groups are Semitics, not just Jews. Today we say that "anti-Semitics are those who do not like Jews but that is not correct. An anti-Semitic would have to also be one who disdained Arabs. This is important because it reminds us of how silly we can be... and how ignorant and stubborn as well.

Yes, it would be difficult to ignore the OT but If I had the authority to re-write the NT only the teachings of Jesus would appear. They are beautiful, simple, elegant and incontrovertible. That anyone should agree is probably too much to ask. Jesus taught inclusiveness. We teach divisiveness by insisting that everyone become a Christian. God is doing major eye rolls at this idea.

 

[outhouse]

Since Jesus was a Jew who seemed to defy the expectations of the day the scriptures for the emerging religion should have done likewise.

He defied nothing, he was a typical Israelite.

Christianity is a corruption of Judaism.

Yes.

So what? Judaism was a corruption of Canaanite mythology, influenced by Mesopotamian religions.

I've always thought so and this is the reason I say Christianity should stick to the teachings of Jesus and divorce itself finally from the Jews.

Christianity was the Hellenistic divorce from cultural Judaism.

Its foundation is the one god of Judaism, thus it can never be fully divorced.

My opinion is that Jesus meant to reform the Jews not to replace them.

He did not such thing. He was a Jew that taught Johns version of typical apocalyptic Aramaic Judaism.

He did not start the movement away from Judaism in Hellenistic communities, that ALL happened after his death and martyrdom.

 

[outhouse]

Ignore KJV and learn the old Greek language. Then find out what the OT REALLY says.

How about, learning Canaanite mythology and seeing how early Israelites evolved from Canaanite cultures using their mythology trimmed down.

How about learning how the Hebrew text were compiled and edited for hundreds of years, before monotheistic redactions?

Really for someone complaining about the Hellenistic corruption of Judaism, and you refer someone to the Hellenistic OT?

 

[JamesYaqub]

How about, learning Canaanite mythology and seeing how early Israelites evolved from Canaanite cultures using their mythology trimmed down.

How about learning how the Hebrew text were compiled and edited for hundreds of years, before monotheistic redactions?

Really for someone complaining about the Hellenistic corruption of Judaism, and you refer someone to the Hellenistic OT?

The Greeks are relative newcomers and don't really count for much when considering ancient history.

What about your own intuitive processes? Do they provide insight?

 

[outhouse]

What about your own intuitive processes? Do they provide insight?

No they do not.

Education on the topic gave me insight

Intuition amounts to imagination, in this field, in may places.

 

[Etritonakin]

How about, learning Canaanite mythology and seeing how early Israelites evolved from Canaanite cultures using their mythology trimmed down.

How about learning how the Hebrew text were compiled and edited for hundreds of years, before monotheistic redactions?

Really for someone complaining about the Hellenistic corruption of Judaism, and you refer someone to the Hellenistic OT?

I am interested in the time from Adam until Abraham.
After Seth, it is said that men began to call upon the name of the Lord -and I have read verses alluding to God dealing with them before Abraham -but have not researched it much in the bible or otherwise.

"...Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD"

We tend to think everything began with Abraham -but there was certainly some background.

 

[outhouse]

I am interested in the time from Adam until Abraham.

According to all credible historians, there were both literary creations.

Each was created at different times and concepts evolved. Abraham was have a clear picture of how and why he was created.

Adam is a concept that evolved for a much longer period. Many claim based on Mesopotamian mythology as one of their first men from dirt was Adamu, long before Israelites existed.