Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis: is it to be taken literally?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 301 (106523)
05-08-2004 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by almeyda
05-08-2004 12:28 AM


Earth only 6-10,000yrs old.
Which part of Genesis does that literally come from, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 12:28 AM almeyda has not replied

almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 301 (106533)
05-08-2004 4:43 AM


...
Following the chronology of the Bible of course. Remember that book is a historical document , a extremely reliable one. Following the chronology in the Bible gives us a earth date of about 6,000 or so yrs. But definately no more than 10,000.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 4:58 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 141 by ramoss, posted 08-14-2004 1:51 PM almeyda has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 301 (106536)
05-08-2004 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by almeyda
05-08-2004 4:43 AM


Following the chronology of the Bible of course.
Does that chronology give ages? Or is someone just making ages up?
If someone's making stuff up, that's not a literal position, now is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 4:43 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 6:34 AM crashfrog has replied

almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 301 (106544)
05-08-2004 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
05-08-2004 4:58 AM


...
Go to the book of Chronicles and see the intricate tracing of the history of Israel. This is a true historical document of Israel history. Go to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. It stands alone in ancient literature without a remote parallel to even the Greeks. From Samuel 1 through II Chronicles one finds the history of Israel covering 5 centuries. Professor Albright in his essay "Biblical Period" writes "Hebrew national tradition excels all others in its clear picture of tribal & family origins. In Egypt & Baylonia, in Assyria & Phoenicia, in Greece & Rome, we look in vain for anything comparable. There is nothing like it in the tradition of the Germanic peoples. Neither India or China can produce anything similar, since their earliest historical memories are literary deposits of distored dynastic tradition, with no trace of the herdman or peasant behind the demigod or king with whom their records begin. Neither in the oldest Indic historical writings nor in the earliest Greek historians is there a hint of a fact that both Indo-Aryans & Hellenes were once nomads who immigrated into their later abodes from the north. The Assyrians to be sure, remembered vaguely that their earliest rulers, whose names they recalled without any details about their deed, were tent dwellers, but whence they came from had long been forgotten"
We can trust the Bible to give us a source of when and how the earth came to be. None of us were there but we know someone who was and we have is word and we can test it and theres lots of evidence are you interested?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 4:58 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 6:56 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 21 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-08-2004 8:33 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 27 by Brian, posted 05-08-2004 11:40 AM almeyda has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 301 (106546)
05-08-2004 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
05-08-2004 6:34 AM


That didn't really answer my question, though. How can you claim you have a literal account when you're basing it on an extra-Biblical estimation of the ages of the people in your chronology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 6:34 AM almeyda has not replied

BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 21 of 301 (106561)
05-08-2004 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
05-08-2004 6:34 AM


Good job
Since I chided you in another topic, I want to commend you here, Almeyda (and spell your name correctly). This is a great post!
You might tell Crashfrog that, just as the theory of evolution has the right to claim constancy with several lines of science, the Bible may claim constancy with several lines of history.
The Bible does not stand alone; but it can and will when the Creator returns. At that point in time the Bible will be established as an honest attempt by the Creator to warn His children of his pending return. In the meantime, keep on keeping on.
To those who view part (or all) of the Bible as confusion, I invite you to make a direct connection to Him and ask Him to explain it. He wants to do that and He can - in a more clear way than any fact of science can be interperted by the senses. No religionist is required. To those of you who have tried, remember that Edison made 31 attempts at the light bulb.
Can Genesis be taken literally? Ask Him. Does Genesis have a purpose? Ask Him.
Very best wishes,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 6:34 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 8:44 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 301 (106563)
05-08-2004 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by BobAliceEve
05-08-2004 8:33 AM


You might tell Crashfrog that, just as the theory of evolution has the right to claim constancy with several lines of science, the Bible may claim constancy with several lines of history.
Is that all you guys have? Non-answers to my question?
Again, if the claim is that a literal reading of the Bible means the Earth (or life) is only 6k years old, then where is that to be literally read in the Bible?
It's not a difficult question. You just have to point me to chapter and verse in the Bible where it says, literally, "and lo, all that happened 6,000 years ago."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-08-2004 8:33 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 12:39 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 30 by cromwell, posted 05-08-2004 1:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 301 (106567)
05-08-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by almeyda
05-08-2004 12:28 AM


almeyda
There are two records out there that GOD left for you to read. One was written by men, changed, modified, parts added, parts thrown out, translated, and revised. It's called the Bible.
The other is the world around you. It is the Universe. It was certainly not written by men. It was not modified by men. No part of it has been added by men, or thrown out by men.
You have two places you can look. You have the Bible that is certainly the product of men, or the Universe that certainly is NOT the product of men.
This message has been edited by jar, 05-08-2004 08:56 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 12:28 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 10:21 AM jar has replied
 Message 138 by lfen, posted 08-13-2004 4:25 PM jar has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 24 of 301 (106570)
05-08-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
05-08-2004 9:55 AM


More succinctly ...
God wrote the rocks, Man wrote the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 9:55 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 10:28 AM JonF has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 25 of 301 (106571)
05-08-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by JonF
05-08-2004 10:21 AM


Re: More succinctly ...
A big Amen Brother.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 10:21 AM JonF has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 301 (106577)
05-08-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by almeyda
05-08-2004 12:28 AM


So let's begin looking at Genesis.
Chapter One
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Okay so far if the term HEAVEN includes everything in the Universe.
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.
The first sentence is okay, but it starts falling apart in the second sentence.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And from this point on, NOTHING works.
If GOD created the Heavens, then light was already there. In fact, the Sun came long before the Earth and so light certainly preceeded the creation of the Earth.
So if you read the Book of Genesis, by line three you are already running into things that cannot be taken literally and still correlate with the other record, the one that was NOT written by men.
The other thing that happens in these three lines is that it makes a 6000 year old universe impossible. If GOD created the Heavens, then we can see directly that "In the Beginning" happened far more than 6000 years ago.
If we go out on a clear night we can see the Heavens that GOD created. There are stars in the sky. The majority, the VAST majority of those stars lie more than 6000 light years away.
If we just look at a couple close neighbors, the Large and Small Magellanic Galaxies, they are both well over 150,000 Light years away from us.
So if we can see those two Galaxies, the age of the universe has to be atleast 150,000 years (the time it took for the light from those Galxies to get here). But rememeber, those are only the two closest neighbors. They are the kid next door and actually part of our local system.
The most distant Galaxy that we have seen so far, is more than 13,000,000,000 light years away.
So we are faced with two sets of data. There is the Bible that was written by men and the Universe that was NOT written by men.
Which has the greater AUTHORITY, what was written by men or what was written by GOD?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 12:28 AM almeyda has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 27 of 301 (106583)
05-08-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
05-08-2004 6:34 AM


Re: ...
Professor Albright in his essay "Biblical Period" writes "Hebrew national tradition excels all others in its clear picture of tribal & family origins.
Of course, most of Albright’s theories about the origins of Israel have been totally refuted, he still casts a giant shadow over ‘biblical archaeology’ but his ‘conquest model’, for example, is now 100% rejected.
Albright suggested that the Israelites never totally left Palestine, (Albright, W. F., 1939 The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in Light of Archaeology. BASOR 74: pp11-23.) He argued that the settlement of Israel in Palestine had actually begun in the age of the Patriarchs, and that Abraham had been a part of a group known as the ‘apiru, a semi-nomadic people who were well attested to in various sources during the 15th and 14th centuries BCE. Some of the ‘Israelite’ element in the ‘apiru settled in the marginal land of the hill country, and when their countrymen returned from Egypt in the Exodus, they then joined together and mounted a military campaign across the whole of Palestine. Albright also explains that this was why the later traditions could no longer differentiate the various groups.
Albright’s assertion that Abraham was a wandering nomad was based entirely on his faulty premise that the Israelites were part of the group named ‘apiru in the Amarna Letters (and elsewhere), however, Mendehall (Mendenhall, G. E. 1962 The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BA 25: pp 66-87.) demonstrated that the ‘apiru depicted in contemporary sources were anything but nomads, they were bandits, mercenaries, people who rejected authority. The link between the Israelites/’apiru is irreparable, Albright’s theory died 40 years ago because he could not provide any convincing evidence that the early Israelites were nomadic or semi nomadic.
This essay you are citing is claiming that the early Israelites were a nomadic people, its basic premise has not been entertained for decades, you really need more up to date information.
I wonder if you actually have any idea how much of the ‘intricate history’ in the Books of Genesis through to II Kings has been falsified, I urge you to do some serious reading. If you have a decent university library near you, take out an external reader membership and look for some of these:
Albright, W.F., 1935 Archaeology and the Date of the Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BASOR 58: pp.10-18.
Albright, W.F., 1937 Further Light on the History of Israel from Lachish and Megiddo. BASOR 68: pp. 22-26
Albright, W. F., 1939 The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in Light of Archaeology. BASOR 74: pp11-23.
Alt, A. 1966 The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Oxford: Blackwell: pp135-69.
Coote, R.B. and K.W. Whitelam, 1987 The emergence of early Israel in historical perspective. The social world of Biblical antiquity; 5., Sheffield: Almond.
Dever, W., How to tell an Canaanite from an Israelite In Shanks The Rise of Israel
Dever, W., 1995 Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel's Origins. BA, 58: pp. 200-213.
Eickelman Dale, F., 1989 The Middle East : an anthropological approach., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Finkelstein, I., 1995 The Great Transformation: The 'Conquest' of the Highlands Fronteirs and the Rise of the Territorial States in Levy 1995..
Finkelstein, I. 1988 The archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem
Frick, F.S., 1985 The formation of the state in ancient Israel : a survey of models and theories. The Social world of Biblical antiquity; 4., Sheffield: Almond.
Gottwald, N.K., 1979 The tribes of Yahweh : a sociology of the religion of liberated Israel 1250-1050 B.C.E., London: SCM Press.
Gottwald, N.K., 1983 The Bible and liberation : political and social hermeneutics : revised edition of a 'Radical religion' reader., Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Gottwald, N.K. 1992 Response to William Dever in Shanks H The Rise of Ancient Israel.
Hopkins D. 1993 Pastoralists in Late Bronze Age Palestine: Where Did They Go?, BA 56: p200-211
Ibrahim, M., 1978 'The Collared Rim jar of the Early Iron Age' in Moorey and Parr 'Archaeology in the Levant’
Lang, B., 1985 Anthopological Approaches to the Old Testament., London: SPCK.
Levy, T.E., 1995 The archaeology of society in the Holy Land., London: Leicester University Press.
Mendenhall, G. E. 1962 The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BA 25: pp 66-87.
Moorey, P.R.S., M. Kenyon Kathleen, and P. Parr, 1978 Archaeology in the Levant : essays for Kathleen Kenyon., Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
Noth, M., 1960 The history of Israel., London: A. & C. Black.
Orme, B., 1981 Anthropology for archaeologists: an introduction., London: Duckworth.
Shanks, H. 1992 The Rise of Ancient Israel Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington.
Vansina, J., 1985 Oral tradition as history., London: James Currey.
Weippert, M., 1971 The settlement of the Israelite tribes in Palestine: a critical survey of the recent scholarly debate. Studies in Biblical theology. 2nd series; 21., London: SCM Press.
Yigal, S., The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City. IEJ, 1970. 20: p. 180-90.
If you wanted to read as few books as possible, I would recommend Weippert’s book and Levy’s. These would at least give you a better idea than an isolated, outdated Albright quote.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 6:34 AM almeyda has not replied

almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 301 (106599)
05-08-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
05-08-2004 8:44 AM


...
Genesis 1:1-2:4 --- Creation ,6 days --- Age of Earth 0
Genesis 5:3 --- Adam 130yrs, Seth born --- 130yrs
Genesis 5:6 --- Seth 105yrs, Enos born --- 235yrs
Genesis 11:10 --- Noah 502yrs, Shem born --- 1558yrs
Genesis 11:26,32,12:4 --- Terah 130yrs, Abraham born --- 2008yrs
Genesis 12:4 --- Abraham leaves haran ,75yrs --- 2083yrs
Genesis 12:10,Exodus 12:40,Galatians 3:17 --- Israelites live in Egypt for 430yrs --- 2513yrs
1 Kings 6:1---Solomon builds the temple after reigning 3yrs--- 2992
1 Kings 11:42 --- Solomon dies --- 3029
Ezekial 4:4-6 --- Ruled by Kings,Jerusalem destroyed --- 3417
...This last event is known to have occurred around 588 bc. Our current calender assumes that Jesus was born in AD 1 - 2004 yrs ago . Since the calender has no yr zero, we can add the numbers to get a rough date of Creation. Age of the earth: 2,004 + 588 + 3,417 = 6,009 (give or take a few yrs). So basically we are living in the God of the Holy Bibles time clock as if we are just another generation no different from these earlier ones who experienced God alot more first hand. Seems like we are just more history unfolding. We got our "weeks" from his 7 day creation...Reminds me of a passage in the Bible..
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?, For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant, of that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed withwater, perished: But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men. But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long suffering toward us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repetance. 2 Peter 3:3-9

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 8:44 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Brian, posted 05-08-2004 1:19 PM almeyda has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 29 of 301 (106607)
05-08-2004 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by almeyda
05-08-2004 12:39 PM


Which version of Genesis?
I think what Crashfrog was getting at is that you do not know if these ages are accurate or not, they may be entirely fictional.
As an example of the unreliability of these ages, here are the ages from Adam to Noah in three early biblical texts; The Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint.
MT first: (AM = Anno Mundi)
Adam 1-930 AM
Seth 130- 1042 AM
Enosh 235-1140 AM
Kenan 325-1235 AM
Mahalalel 395-1290 AM
Jared 460-1422 AM
Enoch 622-987 AM
Methuselah 687-1656 AM
Lamech 874-1652 AM
Noah 1056- 2006 AM
MT gives date of the Flood as 1656 AM
Now the Samaritan Pentateuch:
Adam 1-930 AM
Seth 130- 1042 AM
Enosh 235-1140 AM
Kenan 325-1235 AM
Mahalalel 395-1290 AM
Jared 460-1307 AM
Enoch 522-887 AM
Methuselah 587-1307 AM
Lamech 654 - 1307 AM
Noah 707- 1657 AM
The SP gives the date of the Flood as 1307 AM
The same people in the Septuagint
Adam 1-930 AM
Seth 230- 1142 AM
Enosh 435-1340 AM
Kenan 625-1535 AM
Mahalalel 795-1690 AM
Jared 960-1922 AM
Enoch 1122-1487 AM
Methuselah 1287-2256 AM
Lamech 1454-2207 AM
Noah 1642- 2592 AM
The LXX gives the date of the Flood as 2242 AM.
You can imagine that the different dates of the early biblical characters would have a knock on effect, making the dating of all subsequent events problematic. If Genesis is to be taken literally, you then have the problem of which version of Genesis is to be taken literally and then which versions should be rejected. You would, of course, have to give fairly detailed reasons why one version of the Bible is preferred to any other.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 12:39 PM almeyda has not replied

cromwell
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 301 (106608)
05-08-2004 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
05-08-2004 8:44 AM


Measuring stick
Crashfrog...You required literal reading from the bible showing that life began 6000 years ago.The bible doesn't state that life,or that the age of the earth is only 6000 years old,however it does state that human history is only 6000 years old.
To obtain the chronological dating you need pivotal dates.
A pivotal date is a calendar date in history that has a sound basis for acceptance from both camps,one that corresponds to a specific event recorded in the Bible. It can then be used as the starting point from which a series of Bible events can be located on the calendar with certainty.Once this pivotal point is fixed, calculations forward or backward from this date are made from accurate records in the Bible itself.
One such date in the Greek scriptures,harmonizing with both Biblical and secular history, is the year 29 C.E.,the early months of which were in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar,who was named emperor by the Roman Senate on September 15 14 C.E. Gregorian calendar).It was in the year 29 C.E.that John the Baptizer began his preaching and also when,perhaps about six months later,he baptized Jesus.-Lu 3:1-3, 21, 23; 1:36.
The pivotal date for the Hebrew Scriptures... A prominent event recorded both in the Bible and in secular history is the overthrow of the city of Babylon by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. The Bible records this event at>> Daniel 5:30.<< Various historical sources (including Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy, and the Babylonian tablets) support 539 B.C.E. as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus. The Nabonidus Chronicle gives the month and day of the city’s fall (the year is missing). Secular chronologers have thus set the date for the fall of Babylon as October 11, 539 B.C.E., according to the Julian calendar, or October 5 by the Gregorian calendar.
29 Following the overthrow of Babylon, and during his first year as ruler of conquered Babylon, Cyrus issued his famous decree permitting the Jews to return to Jerusalem. In view of the Bible record, the decree was likely made late in 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would give ample opportunity for the Jews to resettle in their homeland and to come up to Jerusalem to restore the worship of God.
Looking at the following dates.(You will need to refer to the bible to verify the dates.)gives an indication of how the biblical chronology works.
This is only a brief outline.I can go into detail if you wish,but it will probably bore the frog legs off of you.
Event Calendar Date Time Period
Between Events
From the creation of
Adam 4026 B.C.E.
To the start of the
Flood 2370 B.C.E. 1,656 years
To the validating of
the Abrahamic
covenant 1943 B.C.E. 427 years
To the Exodus from
Egypt 1513 B.C.E. 430 years
To the start of the
temple construction 1034 B.C.E. 479 years
To the division of
the kingdom 997 B.C.E. 37 years
To the desolation of
Judah 607 B.C.E. 390 years
To the return of the
Jews from exile
( 2 years from the
pivotal date) 537 B.C.E. 70 years
To the rebuilding of
Jerusalem’s walls 455 B.C.E. 82 years
To the baptism of
Jesus 29 C.E. 483 years
To the present 2004 C.E. 1,975 years
Total time period
from Adam’s creation
to 2004 C.E. 6,029 years
From Adam’s creation to the Flood.The 1,656 years of this period are set out in Genesis 5:1-29; 7:6,
Of course there are many that don't agree with the chronology of the bible as at times the dates don't fit in with the archaeological findings.But can one truly outwardly declare that archaeological findings and the subsequent dates attached to the findings are infallible? However when looking at the biblical chronology,(and it needs to be looked at in detail) it at least is accurate within its own internal chronology.
,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 8:44 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rick Rose, posted 05-13-2004 12:44 PM cromwell has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024