• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

No Bible Cavemen

Logicman said:
My theory on Adam and Eve and their descendants is that they were the first hominids who were created in the image and likeness of God with an eternal spirit (Genesis 1:26; 3:22, etc.) - that Neanderthals, etc. - were separate lines of beings who were not created in God's image and likeness.

My theory is supported IN THE BIBLE by the fact that Adam and Eve - the "first man and woman" - had a developed language from their earliest existence. In addition, the Bible says this in Genesis 4:17 about their son Cain:

"Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch."

So already, in the 2nd generation, we have the earliest known Biblical figures speaking a developed language and endeavoring to build a city. This requires a higher level of intelligence than can be found in evolution's early hominid species. I would argue from a Biblical standpoint that it's God-given intelligence.

Certainly, if Genesis is accurate, the earliest Biblical figures were not cavemen.

Discussion...
Click to expand...

1) No empirical evidence that this "god" concept exists.

2) Bible = Ancient people's opinion/anecdotal evidence which is not sufficient for claiming that omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent deities exist.

3) There are factual data about caveman irrelevant of claims in Genesis.
 
Logicman said:
Because I don't feel at ease in that forum. Neither do some other folks I've heard talk about it.
Click to expand...

That's because there, you can't insult beliefs that are different from yours.
 
Logicman said:
My theory on Adam and Eve and their descendants is that they were the first hominids who were created in the image and likeness of God with an eternal spirit (Genesis 1:26; 3:22, etc.) - that Neanderthals, etc. - were separate lines of beings who were not created in God's image and likeness.

My theory is supported IN THE BIBLE by the fact that Adam and Eve - the "first man and woman" - had a developed language from their earliest existence. In addition, the Bible says this in Genesis 4:17 about their son Cain:

"Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch."

So already, in the 2nd generation, we have the earliest known Biblical figures speaking a developed language and endeavoring to build a city. This requires a higher level of intelligence than can be found in evolution's early hominid species. I would argue from a Biblical standpoint that it's God-given intelligence.

Certainly, if Genesis is accurate, the earliest Biblical figures were not cavemen.

Discussion...
Click to expand...

I find it very frightening that in the year 2016 there are adults who swallow this kind of mythology hook, line, and sinker.
 
laska said:
Well there are aspects of it that is obviously symbolic and metaphor such as Eve coming from Adam's rib. If you interpret that point to be literal then it is easy to dismiss it.
Click to expand...
How do we determine which elements are metaphorical and which are literal? After all, it seems perfectly possible for the all-powerful God to create Even from Adams rib and that’s no harder to accept than some of the elements you are presenting as literal truth.
 
Logicman said:
Probably Adam and Eve.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, states that "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters." Add to those all the grandchildren and great grandchildren, etc., and you've got one hell of a lot of people.

You guys really ought to do some research once in a while.
Click to expand...

Just like the events of the Illiad really took place because Homer said so and Grendel was really a monster who fought beowulf. Cultural myths are just that, myths
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
My theory on Adam and Eve and their descendants is that they were the first hominids who were created in the image and likeness of God with an eternal spirit (Genesis 1:26; 3:22, etc.) - that Neanderthals, etc. - were separate lines of beings who were not created in God's image and likeness.

My theory is supported IN THE BIBLE by the fact that Adam and Eve - the "first man and woman" - had a developed language from their earliest existence. In addition, the Bible says this in Genesis 4:17 about their son Cain:

"Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch."

So already, in the 2nd generation, we have the earliest known Biblical figures speaking a developed language and endeavoring to build a city. This requires a higher level of intelligence than can be found in evolution's early hominid species. I would argue from a Biblical standpoint that it's God-given intelligence.

Certainly, if Genesis is accurate, the earliest Biblical figures were not cavemen.

Discussion...
Click to expand...

Your username is Logicman :D
 
Logicman said:
Probably Adam and Eve.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, states that "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters." Add to those all the grandchildren and great grandchildren, etc., and you've got one hell of a lot of people.

You guys really ought to do some research once in a while.
Click to expand...


The Hebrew bible was written hundreds of years before Josephus was born. He simply interpreted it with a Hellenistic twist for his Gentile patrons....

"...Antiquities of the Jews contains an account of history of the Jewish people, written in Greek for Josephus' gentile patrons. In the first ten volumes, Josephus follows the events of the historical books of the Hebrew Bible beginning with the creation of Adam and Eve. The second ten volumes continue the history of the Jewish people beyond the biblical text and up to the Jewish War...."​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews



What if Eve hadn't taken a bite of the apple from the tree of knowledge? Would people still run around naked in blissful ignorance...and live in caves?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebaran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_the_Levant
 
Logicman said:
You'd love to be able to prove that, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

It has been proven. We have photographs of cave drawings, we find the camp sites and graves (i.e. bodies, you know, phyiscal evidence) for prehistoric man, who, sometimes (not most of the time), lived in caves.

You have yet to show that Genesis has anything more than allegory.
 
Logicman said:
Probably Adam and Eve.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, states that "The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters." Add to those all the grandchildren and great grandchildren, etc., and you've got one hell of a lot of people.

You guys really ought to do some research once in a while.
Click to expand...

So, he married his full sister?
 
HonestJoe said:
How do we determine which elements are metaphorical and which are literal? After all, it seems perfectly possible for the all-powerful God to create Even from Adams rib and that’s no harder to accept than some of the elements you are presenting as literal truth.
Click to expand...

You either have to have discernment and a good feel for the scriptures or read them with with the spirit that enlightens understanding. My views here as far as what is literal and what is metaphorical in the Genesis account are more my own personal discernment and I am always open to being wrong when this is the case. It is more like 99% confidence in my own mind and heart as I feel I have a solid sense of the scriptures. For example when I read about the miracles Jesus performed deep down I just feel it is literal and when I read about the rib and Eve deep down I have a feeling it is metamorphical.
 
laska said:
You either have to have discernment and a good feel for the scriptures or read them with with the spirit that enlightens understanding.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that just sounds like fancy words for blind faith to me. You’re entitled to it of course but you can’t expect anyone else to accept it as a rational way in which to assess these questions.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes, and lets see you support the 'exact day' that it happened, and for that matter, it actually happened and isn't merely an allegory or just so story.
Click to expand...

John Pratt's article/s does a much better job then I can of presenting evidence for the date but you seem to dismiss him. I can go over the evidence that he has pointed out for his belief that Passover 4001 BC was likely the date Adam and Eve left the Garden. First, I started a thread awhile back on the birth date of Christ http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/204638-birth-date-christ-w-61-a.html?highlight=birthdate+of+Christ that you participated in which gave all the evidence that supports Passover 1 BC as the birthdate of Christ. On April 6 , 1830 when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was officially organized the prophet Joseph Smith stated that it was 1830 years to the day from the birth of Christ. Later LDS prophets have confirmed that this was indeed Christ's birthdate. Exactly 1830 years from this date was Passover 1 BC on the Hebrew Calendar. Now i have no idea how hard it would be without computers to know on April 6, 1830 that Passover on the Hebrew calendar would be exactly 1830 years from that date but it is. The date of Passover 1 BC is also the only date that matches all the criteria found in the New Testament to fit the birthdate of Jesus as I showed in the thread. But this is not all, the stars in the sky on that date testify it is the correct date. In the New Testament Jesus is called the bright morning star which refers to Venus. The point of following stars anciently is for calendars and calendars are used to keep up with say the arrival of things like the seasons, or in this case maybe Christ. Venus has a 584 day cycle as it travels in the evening or morning sky. On one morning out of it's 584 day cycle is the birthdate of when it is born in the morning sky as a bright morning star. This Venus birthdate aligned with Passover 1 BC. Further, Mercury is known also as a morning star and it has, I believe, something like a 286 day cycle. On Passover 1 BC it also was on it's birth date of being a bright morning star. So they aligned on this date. Add that the fixed calendars of these stars also align with the bright morning star birth date and the odds of all of these alignments as well as aligning with Passover are astronomical. This is a very special date in the stars of the Heavens.

LDS scriptures teach that the family of Adam has a 7000 year temporal existence here on earth, that a thousand years is a day to the Lord, and that Christ would come during the meridian of time. If a day cannot be divided then the meridian of 7 days is after 4 full days. So with this logic 4000 years after Adam comes Christ. It is Hebrew tradition that "The world is to exist 6000 years. The first 2000 are to be void; the next 2000 are the period of the Torah; and the following 2000 years are the period of the Messiah." -(The Talmud, B. Abodah Zarah 9a (Soncino ed. p. 43) quoted by Barr, p. 581 (see fn. 28). Thus, there would be 4,000 years from Adam to Christ, the Messiah. They also believed that during the subsequent seventh thousand years that the earth will rest during the Millennium."

So if the birth date of Christ is Passover 1BC on the Hebrew calendar and there is exactly 4000 years to the day to Adam, then we get Passover 4001 BC. "The day Sun, 9 Apr 4001 BC, was Passover on the Hebrew calendar, Easter on the Enoch calendar, and 1 Creation on the Venus calendar." So there is also an unusual alignment of the stars on this date and it ties nicely symbolically with how the stars align on Christ's birth date. "The Passover symbolism helps us to understand just what event occurred at the Beginning of Mortality. Passover is the traditional time to "go into the wilderness." Israel went into the wilderness for 40 years at their exodus from Egypt at Passover, and Lehi most likely went into the wilderness at Passover[27]. This symbolism implies that the Beginning of Mortality occurred when Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden into the wilderness."
 
Last edited:
laska said:
John Pratt's article/s does a much better job then I can of presenting evidence for the date but you seem to dismiss him. I can go over the evidence that he has pointed out for his belief that Passover 4001 BC was likely the date Adam and Eve left the Garden. First, I started a thread awhile back on the birth date of Christ http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/204638-birth-date-christ-w-61-a.html?highlight=birthdate+of+Christ that you participated in which gave all the evidence that supports Passover 1 BC as the birthdate of Christ. On April 6 , 1830 when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was officially organized the prophet Joseph Smith stated that it was 1830 years to the day from the birth of Christ. Later LDS prophets have confirmed that this was indeed Christ's birthdate. Exactly 1830 years from this date was Passover 1 BC on the Hebrew Calendar. Now i have no idea how hard it would be without computers to know on April 6, 1830 that Passover on the Hebrew calendar would be exactly 1830 years from that date but it is. The date of Passover 1 BC is also the only date that matches all the criteria found in the New Testament to fit the birthdate of Jesus as I showed in the thread. But this is not all, the stars in the sky on that date testify it is the correct date. In the New Testament Jesus is called the bright morning star which refers to Venus. The point of following stars anciently is for calendars and calendars are used to keep up with say the arrival of things like the seasons, or in this case maybe Christ. Venus has a 584 day cycle as it travels in the evening or morning sky. On one morning out of it's 584 day cycle is the birthdate of when it is born in the morning sky as a bright morning star. This Venus birthdate aligned with Passover 1 BC. Further, Mercury is known also as a morning star and it has, I believe, something like a 286 day cycle. On Passover 1 BC it also was on it's birth date of being a bright morning star. So they aligned on this date. Add that the fixed calendars of these stars also align with the bright morning star birth date and the odds of all of these alignments as well as aligning with Passover are astronomical. This is a very special date in the stars of the Heavens.

LDS scriptures teach that the family of Adam has a 7000 year temporal existence here on earth, that a thousand years is a day to the Lord, and that Christ would come during the meridian of time. If a day cannot be divided then the meridian of 7 days is after 4 full days. So with this logic 4000 years after Adam comes Christ. It is Hebrew tradition that "The world is to exist 6000 years. The first 2000 are to be void; the next 2000 are the period of the Torah; and the following 2000 years are the period of the Messiah." -(The Talmud, B. Abodah Zarah 9a (Soncino ed. p. 43) quoted by Barr, p. 581 (see fn. 28). Thus, there would be 4,000 years from Adam to Christ, the Messiah. They also believed that during the subsequent seventh thousand years that the earth will rest during the Millennium.

So if the birth date of Christ is Passover 1BC on the Hebrew calendar and there is exactly 4000 years to the day to Adam, then we get Passover 4001 BC. "The day Sun, 9 Apr 4001 BC, was Passover on the Hebrew calendar, Easter on the Enoch calendar, and 1 Creation on the Venus calendar." So there is also an unusual alignment of the stars on this date and it ties nicely symbolically with how the stars align on Christ's birth date. "The Passover symbolism helps us to understand just what event occurred at the Beginning of Mortality. Passover is the traditional time to "go into the wilderness." Israel went into the wilderness for 40 years at their exodus from Egypt at Passover, and Lehi most likely went into the wilderness at Passover[27]. This symbolism implies that the Beginning of Mortality occurred when Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden into the wilderness."
Click to expand...

Yes, that does seem to be a total fantasy. Honestly, it takes symbolism, and the arbitrarily assigns an exact date. I do not see anything more than fluff and nonsense, and making things up there.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes, that does seem to be a total fantasy. Honestly, it takes symbolism, and the arbitrarily assigns an exact date. I do not see anything more than fluff and nonsense, and making things up there.
Click to expand...

No surprise there. You dismissed everything in the Christ's birth date thread and it was shown in that thread that your responses were full of errors and bias. Yet you could never even admit your errors when they were clearly shown to you.
 
HonestJoe said:
Sorry but that just sounds like fancy words for blind faith to me. You’re entitled to it of course but you can’t expect anyone else to accept it as a rational way in which to assess these questions.
Click to expand...

It is what it is. I've always stated people should read the scriptures and pray about them and not just believe anyone's interpretations including mine.
 
laska said:
It is what it is. I've always stated people should read the scriptures and pray about them and not just believe anyone's interpretations including mine.
Click to expand...

I have read the BOM. It is a fantasy.
 
laska said:
No surprise there. You dismissed everything in the Christ's birth date thread and it was shown in that thread that your responses were full of errors and bias. Yet you could never even admit your errors when they were clearly shown to you.
Click to expand...

For a very good reason. People can't support their claims. As for claiming 'my errors', perhaps it is your errors instead. When people use the kind of techniques that John Pratt (oh, the irony of his last name), it should be dismissed. That is the same method that so many people used to predict the end of the world.

And we know how much success they had.
 
RAMOSS said:
For a very good reason. People can't support their claims. As for claiming 'my errors', perhaps it is your errors instead. When people use the kind of techniques that John Pratt (oh, the irony of his last name), it should be dismissed. That is the same method that so many people used to predict the end of the world.

And we know how much success they had.
Click to expand...

Well I agree there are a lot of nuts in this realm but I have my reasons to take this Pratt guy seriously. But each their own.
 
laska said:
Not Logicman but just because the Bible only mentions Cain and Abel doesn't mean Adam and Eve didn't have more sons and daughters. The LDS Book of Moses clarifies this:
1 And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him.

2 And Adam knew his wife, and she bare unto him sons and daughters, and they began to multiply and to replenish the earth.

3 And from that time forth, the sons and daughters of Adam began to divide two and two in the land, and to till the land, and to tend flocks, and they also begat sons and daughters.
Click to expand...

So it was clarified because a fraud from modern times claimed that he corrected the original version? Because apparently god didn't get it right the first time?

Please. If this was a book that was guided by an all knowing and all powerful being, then I'm not impressed.And that's the reality. There is nothing in the bible that at it's best couldn't have come from a fairly literate, average intelligence and not completely immoral mortal human being.
 
laska said:
Well I agree there are a lot of nuts in this realm but I have my reasons to take this Pratt guy seriously. But each their own.
Click to expand...

And, when I look at it, I see many many reasons not to take him seriously at all. For example, he assumes a 1 BC birth date for Jesus, when is it known that Herod the king died in 4 BC, and the census that is mentioned in Luke happened in 6 C.E.
 
If you believe in the Adam and Eve scenario, then you can't deny that our entire existence is based solely on incest.

Hmmm, I thought buggering your sister/brother was frowned upon in the bible?
 
RAMOSS said:
And, when I look at it, I see many many reasons not to take him seriously at all. For example, he assumes a 1 BC birth date for Jesus, when is it known that Herod the king died in 4 BC, and the census that is mentioned in Luke happened in 6 C.E.
Click to expand...

Did we not go over this in my birth date of Christ thread? Go re-read it sometime and carefully follow the points I make. I went over those issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom