-
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!
Thoughts on the Fall of Adam
- Thread starter Katzpur
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, Moses knew such thing. That is like claiming that Luke Skywalker new something.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The end of the Earth is one of the Bible's worst failed prophesies. Let's leave out the myths of the Bible for a while and work on the science a bit first.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I think you have that confused. I'm not sure what you think the end of the world means. Because it's not the end of the earth.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The extant copies of the scriptures have been available long before telescopes and modern science came about. Yet Genesis indicates that the earth was similar to the moon in that it was without vegetation and animal life until - these things (life) began in those forms on the earth. Do you think this was just clever thinking on the Bible writer's part thousands of years ago? How would he know that there was nothing of that type of life on the earth when he wasn't there to see it? You think perhaps it was a good guess?
(Genesis 1:2) "Now the earth was formless and void," After that (a time period) sea life and flying creatures were developed. Verses 20,21. And God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.” So God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and every bird of flight after its kind.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, but then when the Bible fails you have problems. Honest Christians see it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The extant copies of the scriptures have been available long before telescopes and modern science came about. Yet Genesis indicates that the earth was similar to the moon in that it was without vegetation and animal life until - these things (life) began in those forms on the earth. Do you think this was just clever thinking on the Bible writer's part thousands of years ago? How would he know that there was nothing of that type of life on the earth when he wasn't there to see it? You think perhaps it was a good guess?
So what?
You need to come up with some better than this garbage. You are reinterpreting the Bible after the fact. If You could find a discovery made using the Bible then you might have something.
And besides that we known the creation story is a myth.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry I got a bit short. I have a bug and my patience is reduced. The problem with this is that you are interpreting after the fact. Muslims do this all of the time. If you think that is a valid way to evaluate a holy book you really should be a Muslim and not a Christian. But this sort of reinterpretation is worthless. One could use this to "prove" that they knew the Earth was flat (which the writers appeared to believe, not that the Earth was a sphere). With all of the poetic and vague verses in the Bible it can be used to support any scientific claim.The extant copies of the scriptures have been available long before telescopes and modern science came about. Yet Genesis indicates that the earth was similar to the moon in that it was without vegetation and animal life until - these things (life) began in those forms on the earth. Do you think this was just clever thinking on the Bible writer's part thousands of years ago? How would he know that there was nothing of that type of life on the earth when he wasn't there to see it? You think perhaps it was a good guess?
This is just an ad hoc explanation. If you had learned what is and what is not evidence you would realize that it is not evidence for your beliefs. So why even bring it up? Instead of grasping at straws you should be tying to learn the basics so you would not keep repeating these errors.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'll be honest with you. I was trying to keep the conversation decent, in terms of you explaining your side of things,and me explaining my side. But I see it can deteriorate quickly and that is not the way I want to have a conversation. So have a nice evening. If there is something I'd like to comment on in the future, I will.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The problem is that you will not stick to the conversation. Your last attempt at an ad hoc claim is an example of that.
Why are you so afraid to learn the basics? Is it because that you do know that if you learned what is and what is not evidence that you could not in good conscience repeat the lie of "No evidence"?
aurisadhibeo
Member
I do not think any of those questions have anything to do with how we live life today. Why do you think these stories mean anything and apply to how you live life today?
gnostic
The Lost One
The Genesis, particularly Genesis 1 & 2, are not original, nor unique.The extant copies of the scriptures have been available long before telescopes and modern science came about. Yet Genesis indicates that the earth was similar to the moon in that it was without vegetation and animal life until - these things (life) began in those forms on the earth. Do you think this was just clever thinking on the Bible writer's part thousands of years ago? How would he know that there was nothing of that type of life on the earth when he wasn't there to see it? You think perhaps it was a good guess?
And you have quoted Genesis 1:2, “partially”. Where is the rest of the verse?
Here is the whole verse:
“Genesis 1:2” said:
It stated that the Earth was created covered completely in water, and in some translations, abyss was used instead of “the face of the deep”, like in King James Version.
I asked you this question, because there are only physical evidences that the Torah, which is the 5 books of Moses (in whic Christians called the Torah - “Pentateuch”) were only written during 7th and 6th centuries BCE.
The Silver Scrolls were discovered in the cave that served as a tomb, called Ketef Hinnom, just outside of what was old city, was written before the fall of Jerusalem (587 or 586 BCE), not earlier than King Josiah (reign c 649 - 609 BCE).
The Silver Scrolls is currently the oldest evidence that the Torah existed.
But the Silver Scrolls doesn’t contain the whole Torah. The only part that survived, related to the scriptures is partial passage concerning the Priestly Blessings in Numbers 6 (the Priestly Blessings, Numbers 6:24-26).
There are no earlier textual or literary evidences that the Torah existed, and certainly not written by any Bronze Age Lawgiver named Moses.
If the 1 Kings 6:1 is correct and historical, Moses’ exodus (Exodus 37-41) took place 480 years before Solomon’s 4th year as monarch (reign c 970 - 931 BCE. This 4th year would have been 967 BCE:
“1 Kings 6:1” said:
This would mean Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt - 1447 BCE (eg 967 BCE + 480 years = 1447 BCE).
1447 BCE would mean that Moses would be born in 1527 BCE and died in 1407 BCE.
But there are no writing of any Hebrew Scriptures in the Bronze Age, let alone in Hebrew in 1447 1407 BCE by this Moses guy, who was traditionally said to be the author of the Torah.
There are no evidences that Hebrew writings existed before the 10 century BCE (look up the Gezer Calendar and the “Zayit Stone”, these are earliest Hebrew writings that we know of, which was based on 11th century BCE Proto-Canaanite alphabet).
The 2nd millennium BCE Canaanites originally wrote in Canaanite cuneiform before adopting the alphabet, like most kingdoms in the Levant. Cuneiform were invented by the pre-Sumerian city of Uruk around 3400 BCE.
More likely Genesis and other books of the Torah were written in the time of King Josiah and later.
There are no Genesis or Exodus written in 2nd millennium Bronze Age, not in Egyptian hieroglyphs or hieratic, not in Canaanite cuneiform or the later Proto-Canaanite alphabet.
But what does any of this have to with Genesis 1:2, where the Earth was narrated to be covered in water, before the earth’s atmosphere (eg firmament in 1:6-8), and before dry land (eg1:9-10, followed by land vegetation in 1:11-12); all before the creation of sun, moon and stars (thus 1:14-18).
Do you remember when I said Genesis 1:2 not being a original idea of Judaea-Christian creation?
The earth being covered in water, come from the ancient myth of the sun god Ra, where the primeval water was known as Nu or Nun. While from Sumer, myth where the primeval water was called Abzu or in Akkadian and Babylonian as Aspu, have covered the Earth.
My points are that these Egyptian and the Sumerian-Akkadian creation stories predated those found in Genesis 1 & 2.
Even the creation of first man in Genesis 2, from the dust of the earth isn’t a original concept, since Ra’s tears falling on the sand, created people (Legend of Creation, Destruction of Mankind), and there are various versions from Sumerian and Akkadian-Babylonian myths of humans being created from clay mixed with primeval water (Enki and Ninmah) or even blood of dead god (Epic of Atrahasis).
The order of creation in Genesis 1 is similar to that of Ra, creating air or atmosphere (Shu) and rain (Tefnut), creating land (Geb) from the primeval ocean, the sky (Nut), while his eyes were the sun and moon, and the tears that fall on the land, became humans.
The Babylonian myths provided similar order of creation.
So really, there not that original or unique from Genesis creation.
Genesis wasn't written by any man named Moses, since there were any written record until much later than Moses supposed life in the late 15th century BCE. There are no Genesis and the Exodus written in Hebrew cuneiform or alphabet from the Bronze Age.
The oldest extant Bible, is the Greek translation Septuagint, and the oldest extant version written in Hebrew is the incomplete Genesis from Dead Sea Scrolls.
All you are doing is believing in book that wasn't at its setting, and written by no man named Moses.
Sources:
E A Wallis Budge, Legends of the Egyptian Gods: Hieroglyphic Texts and Translations, 1912:
R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Oxford University Press 1998
R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts (v. 1-3), Aris & Phillips, 2004
Andrew George, The Epic Of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Penguin Classics, 1999
Stephanie Daley, Myths From Mesopotamia, Oxford World’s Classics 1991:
Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps That Once...Sumerian Poetry In Translation, Yale University Press 1997
Legend of Creation
Destruction of Mankind
Destruction of Mankind
R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Oxford University Press 1998
R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts (v. 1-3), Aris & Phillips, 2004
Andrew George, The Epic Of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Penguin Classics, 1999
Stephanie Daley, Myths From Mesopotamia, Oxford World’s Classics 1991:
Epic of Gilgamesh, p 50-125; Old Babylonian Version, p 136-151
Epic of Atrahasis, p 9-35
The Epic of Creation, p 233-274 (known as Enuma Elis)
Epic of Atrahasis, p 9-35
The Epic of Creation, p 233-274 (known as Enuma Elis)
Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps That Once...Sumerian Poetry In Translation, Yale University Press 1997
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You wrote a long post and I try to pay attention to one or two points at a time. Obviously Moses had to get knowledge from a source other than himself with regard to knowing about God creating the heavens and the earth. The Genesis account of creation is in harmony with the notion of creation by science's standards, meaning that there was no vegetation or anjimal life on the earth, and eventually it came about. Moses could have written the account in a different way, how did he know there was no animal or vegetation to begin with? However, it makes sense to me that he wrote an account of what happened to him and his sojourn in the wilderness, as well as a history of his ancestors, including Abraham.
Another point I keep in mind is the history of writing. We can possibly discuss that another time., but in brief, I'll say that with all mankind's achievements, and supposed hundreds of thousands of years of existence as humans, writing has not been around for that long.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Adam, as the first new human, is not about DNA. It has to do with psychology and temperament. As an analogy, wolves and poodles are both dogs wth both having canine DNA. Fossil DNA evidence would see each as different types of dogs.
Even with dog DNA, they are very different in terms of their instincts and their temperaments. The poodle and wolf can cross breed, since they are of the same species, but experiments have shown, the offspring will lose the sweet domesticated nature of the poodle, and become a difficult to manage hybrid. Adam was the first domesticated human who loss his instincts or wolf nature, so to speak.
This is why the creation of Adam was not done by traditional breeding. Adam is formed from the dust of the earth. In a loose sense, Adam is not based on organic, but on silicates or sand; silicon equals computer memory. Eve is cloned from Adam using bone marrow from a rib bone; cloned hard drive. Like today, the computer and the internet is something outside you, that can think for you. It does no need internal nature of instinct.
The time frame of Adam, occurs at a time when the pre-humans=wolf, were herders and understood breeding. The symbolism of forming Adam and then Eve, is not from breeding, but rather by a non-biological method of forming, molding and copying; domesticated dog.
The fall from paradise symbolized the loss of the natural human instincts of the pre-humans, in exchange for willpower and choice. The worse choice Eve and then Adam made was connected to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is law. Instead of continuing to rely on their internal instincts; tree of life, which evolved over millions of years, they chose to use law, which was very new, and is imposed from the outside. It can never internally integrate humans as well as did instinct; fall from paradise. The virtual reality of a computer or cell phone can never replace the imagination from natural instinct.
A domesticated animal; poodle, is shaped from the outside, whereas the wolf is driven by the beat of his own drum. Genesis discusses this pre-human to human transition and the many problems it created. The physics and biology aspects of Genesis; creation, discusses the collective knowledge that was taught and learned. These were among the first published theories in science, by the poodle man who looked outside himself to find the questions to the answers within.
Even with dog DNA, they are very different in terms of their instincts and their temperaments. The poodle and wolf can cross breed, since they are of the same species, but experiments have shown, the offspring will lose the sweet domesticated nature of the poodle, and become a difficult to manage hybrid. Adam was the first domesticated human who loss his instincts or wolf nature, so to speak.
This is why the creation of Adam was not done by traditional breeding. Adam is formed from the dust of the earth. In a loose sense, Adam is not based on organic, but on silicates or sand; silicon equals computer memory. Eve is cloned from Adam using bone marrow from a rib bone; cloned hard drive. Like today, the computer and the internet is something outside you, that can think for you. It does no need internal nature of instinct.
The time frame of Adam, occurs at a time when the pre-humans=wolf, were herders and understood breeding. The symbolism of forming Adam and then Eve, is not from breeding, but rather by a non-biological method of forming, molding and copying; domesticated dog.
The fall from paradise symbolized the loss of the natural human instincts of the pre-humans, in exchange for willpower and choice. The worse choice Eve and then Adam made was connected to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is law. Instead of continuing to rely on their internal instincts; tree of life, which evolved over millions of years, they chose to use law, which was very new, and is imposed from the outside. It can never internally integrate humans as well as did instinct; fall from paradise. The virtual reality of a computer or cell phone can never replace the imagination from natural instinct.
A domesticated animal; poodle, is shaped from the outside, whereas the wolf is driven by the beat of his own drum. Genesis discusses this pre-human to human transition and the many problems it created. The physics and biology aspects of Genesis; creation, discusses the collective knowledge that was taught and learned. These were among the first published theories in science, by the poodle man who looked outside himself to find the questions to the answers within.
gnostic
The Lost One
You are ignoring the points that there are no literary evidences exist before 7th century BCE.
No written records whatsoever about Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Joshua in the 2nd millennium Bronze Age (2000 - 1001 BCE).
All writings seemed to centre around between late 7th century and 4th century BCE.
The most common writings among the Near East, especially in the Levant, the 2nd millennium BCE, were like that of contemporary Babylonians, using clay tablets and writing their own versions of cuneiform.
Outside of Mesopotamia, writings flourished at Mari, Ugarit, and even Megiddo was important literary centre during the mid-2nd millennium BCE (c 1700 - c 1450).
If Moses wrote anything during 15th century BCE, it doesn’t exist. There are also no evidences to support Israelite invasion in Canaan. During much of 2nd half of 15th century, Syria and Canaan was at the hand of Egypt, more specifically that of Thutmose III (reign 1479 - 1427 BCE) and then of his son Amenhotep II (1427 - 1397 BCE).
If Canaan was in Amenhotep’s control, I don’t see how Joshua could have invaded Canaan after Moses’ death. Both Amenhotep and his father were at war, on and off, with the Mitanni in Syria. Had Joshua actually being around that time, Egypt would have intervene.
Egypt was strong throughout the early 18th dynasty, from Ahmose I (who drove out the Hyksos) to Amenhotep III (1391 - 1353 BCE). The first weak king in Egypt was Amenhotep’s son who was also named Amenhotep (IV), but who changed his name who everyone know him by, Akhenaten, the king who tried to reform Egypt into monotheistic state.
The rest of the 18th dynasty, after Akhenaten, were ineffectual rulers until a new dynasty arose, 19th dynasty starting with Ramesses I (1292 BCE), then Seti I (reign 1290 - 1279 BCE) and his son Ramesses II (reign 1279 - 1213 BCE).
If you don’t know much about Egyptian history, then you should know that it was Ramesses II who had the city Pi-Ramesses (“House of Ramesses”), the city Exodus called “Rameses” in Exodus 1:11 and 12:37.
There are no possible way for the Exodus’ Rameses to exist in 1527 BCE, the supposed date of Moses’ birth, if this city was actually built by Ramesses II.
There are no independent records of any Moses or Joshua in Egyptian history.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Nope.
Egyptian hieroglyphs began around 3100 BCE, and hieratic shortly after that.
Pre-Sumerian cuneiform began in Kish around 3600 BCE and Uruk around 3450 to 3300 BCE, as proto-Sumerian cuneiform. From around 3100 BCE, Sumerian became more or less developed and uniform throughout the 3rd millennium BCE.
Uruk was the most powerful city throughout the 4th millennium BCE, which was Chalcolithic period (using both stone and copper tools), reaching its zenith in mid-4th millennium BCE to 2600 BCE, rthe end of 1st dynasty of Uruk.
Archaeological evidences showed that Uruk existed as far back as 5000 BCE, but only started to become important in the 4th millennium.
You would know this Uruk as “Erech”, a city that Nimrod supposedly built after the Flood (Genesis 10), a city that supposedly didn’t exist before the Flood.
Clearly, the author of Genesis was completely clueless about the long history of Uruk.
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, I am not. But this does not prove that there were no copies of the original documents before the 7th century BCE. Plus Moses was reciting what he knew from others, either written or verbally passed.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I didn't quote all of it because I felt that some would misunderstand the phrases used, such as abyss instead of face of the deep, etc. And divert from the main point, which is that Moses knew that the earth was devoid of the greenery, ocean masses as separate from land, and animal life. Kind of like the same reckoning that some scientists (evolutionists) agree with. (Nothing in the form of life as we know it.) So why not explain what you think is the emergence of life as we see it on the firmament known as as the Earth, as opposed to, let's say, the moon (devoid of life as we know it on the earth).
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Do any of the writings you give reference to have dates on them?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The tree of knowledge of good and evil represented, as you seem to say, God's right to determine right from wrong. The whole subject is interesting because it also goes into God's right to rule (His sovereignty). And of course, Jesus prayed, "Let your kingdom come."