No Bible Cavemen

[zyzygy]

You have no facts that the Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve did not exist. You have faith, just as I have faith in the scriptures. Now I believe what geologists say about the age of the earth and evolution, so do not try and make it a debate on that, I just also believe there was a Adam and Eve.

You can believe what you like but there never was an Adam and an Eve. You cannot have the true history of the Earth and Biblical nonsense co-existing.

 

[laska]

You can believe what you like but there never was an Adam and an Eve. You cannot have the true history of the Earth and Biblical nonsense co-existing.

You easily can if you do not set up a strawman on misinterpreting Genesis.

 

[zyzygy]

You easily can if you do not set up a strawman on misinterpreting Genesis.

How can one misinterpret Genesis. It's a myth written by ignorant Bronze Age tribesmen and the myth has no basis in reality. Do you believe that Hindu myths have any basis in reality? We have hominid fossils that are millions of years old. Where do Adam and Eve fit into that story? Eight thousand years ago?

 

[laska]

How can one misinterpret Genesis. It's a myth written by ignorant Bronze Age tribesmen and the myth has no basis in reality.

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. If you do not understand the Hebrew word for "day" also means an age or epoch of any duration, then the creation being literally six days can easily be dismissed. If you think it was meant to be a detailed scientific account on how God created the earth then again you can use another strawman to dismiss it.

 

[zyzygy]

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. If you do not understand the Hebrew word for "day" also means an age or epoch of any duration, then the creation being literally six days can easily be dismissed. If you think it was meant to be a detailed scientific account on how God created the earth then again you can use another strawman to dismiss it.

The Hebrew word for day means day. That is an old canard, day really means eons. Odd that the only places you can find on the net that claim that day does not mean a day are creationist sites. You are avoiding my questions. How do Adam and Eve fit into the hominid fossil record and when did Adam and Eve appear on Earth?

 

[_Sal]

I've been long curious why Cain was even motivated to build a city. Where were, what 5 people on earth at that time?

Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, Enoch

well and apparently they married...figure that one out

 

[zyzygy]

well and apparently they married...figure that one out

The writers of that fiction didn't think it through.

 

[_Sal]

The writers of that fiction didn't think it through.

well it becomes complex because: So the LORD said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him. 16Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

if they are all one big family why the need to mark Cain in order to keep him safe?

to me, much if not all of the bible is valuable from an allegorical perspective...literal translation and the need for it, boggles my mind

then again, if someone has the need for literalism and it works for them, it's all good as long as they don't expect me to adhere to acquiescing and being forced into their belief system

 

[zyzygy]

well it becomes complex because: So the LORD said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him. 16Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

if they are all one big family why the need to mark Cain in order to keep him safe?

to me, much if not all of the bible is valuable from an allegorical perspective...literal translation and the need for it, boggles my mind

then again, if someone has the need for literalism and it works for them, it's all good as long as they don't expect me to adhere to acquiescing and being forced into their belief system

Same here. But even taken allegorically it has nothing do to with the real history of the Earth and Homo Sapiens.

 

[_Sal]

Same here. But even taken allegorically it has nothing do to with the real history of the Earth and Homo Sapiens.

agreed

 

[Goshin]

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...

Why put this in Philosophy? It would be perfectly at home in the RDF.

 

[Manc Skipper]

He prefers bait threads.

 

[jet57]

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...

Cavemen came much later.

 

[RAMOSS]

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...

Since we have plenty of archelogical evidence of Cavemen, and none that Genesis is historical , then it seems Genesis is not historical.

 

[RAMOSS]

On a side note, Passover 4001 BC is likely the date Adam and Eve left the garden(ancient sacred calendar expert John Pratt has provided evidence in support of that date Beginning of Mortality). I started a thread awhile back that gave what i think is overwhelming evidence that Passover 1 BC was the birth of Christ. i believe there is a Jewish tradition that states from Adam to the Messiah is 4000 years. These dates are exactly 4000 years to the day apart.

Gosh, isn't it amazing that you can make claims when you can't show any evidence, so you can't be shown it to be false.

The Jewish tradition is that the Messiah should have come at the earliest in 4000 (the year 240 CE in the Christian Calendar, and no later that 6000 (according to some interpretations of some Talmud passages)... so some Jews think he'll be back in the year 2240... (I personally don't)

Jon Pratt is incorrect about 'Passover 4001 bc'. That is before the supposed time of the Exodus, although it does appear that Passover was a holiday that predated the exodus when it comes to a springtime festival of the Canaanites.

Mr Pratt makes lots of claims, but it does not appear he has the capab8ility to back those claims up.

 

[laska]

The Hebrew word for day means day.That is an old canard, day really means eons. Odd that the only places you can findo on the net that claim that day does not mean a day are creationist sites. You are avoiding my questions. How do Adam and Eve fit into the hominid fossil record and when did Adam and Eve appear on Earth?

Try looking up the Hebrew word "yom" in a Hebrew dictionary
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom
Most creationsists do not know this or they would not try so hard to argue for a young earth. And I stated earlier in the thread that I believe adam and eve left the garden on passover 4001 bc.

 

[laska]

Gosh, isn't it amazing that you can make claims when you can't show any evidence, so you can't be shown itotogether be false.

The Jewish tradition is that the Messiah should have come at the earliest in 4000 (the year 240 CE in the Christian Calendar, and no later that 6000 (according to some interpretations of some Talmud passages)... so some Jews think he'll be back in the year 2240... (I personally don't)

Jon Pratt is incorrect about 'Passover 4001 bc'. That is before the supposed time of the Exodus, although it does appear that Passover was a holiday that predated the exodus when it comes to a springtime festival of the Canaanites.

Mr Pratt makes lots of claims, but it does not appear he has the capab8ility to back those claims up.

The date is for the day that adam and eve left the garden which obviously predates the exodus. It matches the symbolism of passover of the day israel entered into the wilderness ie adam and eve entered into the wildernesss, their mortal journey on earth. Ill add more tomorrow as I'm stuck to responding off my phone tonight. The freaking boonies.

 

[RAMOSS]

The date is for the day that adam and eve left the garden which obviously predates the exodus. It matches the symbolism of passover of the day israel entered into the wilderness ie adam and eve entered into the wildernesss, their mortal journey on earth. Ill add more tomorrow as I'm stuck to responding off my phone tonight. The freaking boonies.

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.

 

[winston53660]

Where's your evidence Jesus is a fictional person? IMO the only people who believe that bs are those who haven't done their homework.

Seriously you are talking about a mythological book where your god floods the entire world to kill everybody and then his supposed son turns water into wine as well as walks on water and heals lepers by a simple touch? And you want proof of what? Well prove to me people can raise from the dead heal lepers with a touch and turn water into wine.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Seriously you are talking about a mythological book where your god floods the entire world to kill everybody and then his supposed son turns water into wine as well as walks on water and heals lepers by a simple touch? And you want proof of what? Well prove to me people can raise from the dead heal lepers with a touch and turn water into wine.

WHy would this fanciful god need a human to prove its existence to you? FFS a god could do anything, including just proving to the non believers that its real and not just some old story told by slave people in a far off desert.

 

[Logicman]

Because he lived over 2000 years ago and did not know we evolved from ape like creatures we have now found fossils of. He also thought the Sun revolved around the Earth I'm sure.

I don't believe any of that.

Both bibles are nothing but records of the primitive beliefs of an ancient world before science and technology found the real answers to these questions. Even the Pope agrees with this and has warned us not to take it literally when it comes to creation especially. You do know that he Pope is infallible don't you?

The Pope only speaks for Catholics, and not the rest of us.

 

[Logicman]

I've been long curious why Cain was even motivated to build a city. Where were, what 5 people on earth at that time?

Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, Enoch

Tsk tsk.

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.

 

[Logicman]

Riddle me this Logicman. If Adam and Eve were the first people and Cain was their son, where did Cain's wife come from?

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.

 

[Logicman]

Why put this in Philosophy? It would be perfectly at home in the RDF.

Because I don't feel at ease in that forum. Neither do some other folks I've heard talk about it.

 

[Logicman]

Since we have plenty of archelogical evidence of Cavemen, and none that Genesis is historical , then it seems Genesis is not historical.

You'd love to be able to prove that, wouldn't you?