People don't realize that evolution says nothing at all about the origin of life. Only its development. They are separate issues. Science has no solid explanation for how life actually began. "God did it" is not an answer. It's a decision to stop seeking an answer.
Now, instead of using this space to debate evolution (which is not abiogenesis and does not claim to be), let's stick with the topic of whether there are errors in Genesis. If you would like to discuss evolution in further detail, please start another thread.
I raised the issue of the order of development of life on earth to show that Genesis conflicted with scientific consensus, which it absolutely does.
I wanted to clarify this earlier post: The discussion of whether there are errors in Genesis covers a LOT of ground. A whole lot of ground. You could stick with Genesis 1 alone and spend the rest of your life exploring the implications of whether this verse is true, whether it conforms to our understanding of the world through science, whether our understanding of the world through science is true, etc. All of those questions and discussions would be ON TOPIC for a thread called "Actual Errors in Genesis."
The only problem is, we'd never get past chapter 1. At some point, we have to agree to move on, not because the discussion is off-topic, but because it stops the progress of the conversation.
In THAT light, I would ask that further discussion of evolution be moved to another thread. I did not mean to imply that evolution was off-topic for this thread. It is not.
***
Secondly, I want to thank T-Bone for a vigorous debate on the Flood. If I understand our arguments correctly, we are leaving that discussion with neither of us having persuaded the other. Fair enough.
I am not going to jump on the “who was Cain’s wife?” bandwagon in the sense of there being no other women around. I agree that Genesis 4 says Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel, but it does not rule out their having other children, including daughters. I would have to argue that it is implied they had no other sons until Seth was born, after Abel’s murder.
So, going strictly by what the Bible says and doesn’t rule out, Cain’s wife was his sister. And I guess God was OK with that.
Miscellaneous question: Why don’t we know the names of ANY of Adam and Eve’s daughters? I mean, what’s a girl gotta do to get her name in the Bible? So far, get fooled by a talking snake with feet and instigate the fall of the human race qualifies for a mention. Let’s put a marker there and wait until the author of Genesis finally finds a woman worth mentioning by name again, shall we? Not that it’s an actual error, but it’s just fun.
By itself, Genesis says absolutely nothing about why God looked with favor on Abel’s offering of fat portions from the firstborn of his flock, but He did not look with favor on the fruit of Cain’s soil. Ever notice that? If you lived in a time when the first book of the Bible was the ONLY book of the Bible, you would have no way of knowing why God accepted Abel’s offering but dissed Cain’s.
Is it fair to argue that, according to the Bible at least, Adam, Eve and their progeny were the only human beings on earth? I mean, the notion that Cain married his sister is predicated on the idea that there were no other women available (ruling out his mom, of course. But why of course? I would have ruled out his sister “of course.” Where did the topic go? Oh, yes, there it is…). If there WERE other women available, then Cain’s wife was not his sister. Must have been some soulless woman-looking-thing that was not human in the same way Adam and Eve were human.
If she was not Cain's sister, but she was fully human in every way that Adam, Eve and Cain were human, where did she come from? She wasn't descended from Adam and Eve. Was she fallen? WHY? HER parents didn't eat from the "don't eat from that" tree that God ordered Adam and Eve not to eat from before leaving them alone with it.
So either Cain married his sister, or he married something similar to but not quite the same as a human woman. An animal, in other words.
No? Well, what would YOU call it? .
The notion of Cain building a city was covered in an earlier thread. It’s a fascinating thread in its own right. You can find it here.
In Genesis 5, we begin some detailed chronological information.
Earlier, there seemed to be some confusion about time, and I wanted to make my position clear. I do not believe Genesis presents a historically accurate account of things that actually happened. There may have been murders, but Cain never killed Abel because both are fictional characters (that’s my position). Cain never married his sister or an animal because Cain is a fictional character (that’s my position). Cain never built a city because… you get the idea.
However, just because I don’t believe something does not mean I won’t acknowledge the Bible says it.
For some reason, this was not clear earlier. T-Bone wrote about some scholars who tried to get an accurate date for the creation of Adam and Eve (post 86). I responded that those scholars were justified in treating the Genesis genealogies as complete specifically because of Genesis 5. In other words, I believe the Bible presents those genealogies as complete (post 90).
My answer confused T-Bone, who wrote: “your view is inconsistent; in post #3 you declare Genesis is NOT history. But in post # 90 you argued the genealogies were a complete listing so the amount of time is fixed by the number… I don't follow your reasoning – if it's not history, in other words a myth then how can you say the genealogy lists are complete and fixes the time? And in post # 97 you go back to saying it's history… so is it history or myth?”
Answer: It’s myth. That’s my position. And I am most certainly not saying that the accounts of Genesis are true. I am simply saying what I believe Genesis says and means. If you can understand my posts and accurately convey my opinions, without agreeing with me, then I can understand the Bible and accurately convey what it says without agreeing with it.
We may disagree on how particular verses should be interpreted. But it should not be difficult at all to agree on what it SAYS. What it says is not a matter of opinion.
Genesis 5 gives us names and ages that permit us to construct a timeline and calculate the “creation of Adam.” The ages in Genesis 5 are either accurate or they are not. If they are accurate, then we can date the creation of the first man (assuming Adam was the first man). If they are not accurate, then it is an error.
Honest people can disagree, as T-Bone did earlier, but that’s where we stand. And with that, we look at Genesis 5.
Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. It doesn’t say how old Eve was. How long did Adam live without Eve? A year? 90 years? Because we don’t know how old Eve was when she gave birth to Seth. Also 130? Do you believe that? Really?
Adam goes on to live another 800 years. Eve went on to live another [who gives a crap. She’s just a woman, so the Bible doesn’t bother telling you, because it’s not like she was an important figure in the history of mankind].
Seth was 105 years old when he became father of Enosh. Enosh was born when Adam was 235 years old. That’s the Bible talking, not me. Seth goes on to live another 807 years.
Enosh is 90 years old when his son, Kenan, was born. If Enosh was 90, Seth was 195. Adam was 325. Kenan was born 325 years after the creation of Adam.
70 years later, 395 years after the creation of Adam, Mahalalel is born.
65 years later, 460 years after the creation of Adam, Jared is born. No indication of where he buys his lunch.
162 years later, 622 years after the creation of Adam, Enoch is born.
65 years later, 687 years after the creation of Adam, Methuselah is born.
What happened to Enoch? To say Genesis is a little vague is an understatement. You guys can keep arguing about it all you want. I think the same thing happened to Enoch that happened to Frodo at the end of Lord of the Rings – nothing. It’s just a story.
But it’s the Bible’s story!
Adam is 687 years old when Methuselah is born.
Adam is 874 when Lamech is born.
When Lamech is 56 years old, Adam, the first man, dies.
Now it gets interesting.
1,056 years after the creation of Adam, Noah is born.
A couple of other calculations will make life interesting.
Lamech dies at age 777. He was 182 when Noah was born. Methuselah was 369 years old when Noah was born. And Methuselah, we all know, died at the age of 969. Well played, Genesis writer! Because you later write that Noah was 600 years old when there was this rainstorm.
So Methuselah either died in the Flood or on Floodmas Eve. The movie got it right! Anthony Hopkins' character DID belong in the story. Anyone see the movie? Did it mention that Metuselah was Noah's grandfather?
The Flood was 1,656 years after the creation of Adam. [Caveat: months are not part of this calculation, so we COULD have a variance of up to 8 or nine years (for example, if Adam were 130 years and 11 months and 27 days old when Seth was born, etc).] By being SO precise about how old this person was when that person was born, Genesis undercuts the "it's not a complete genealogy" argument. It's either 1,656 years between the first man and the Great Flood, or Genesis is in actual error. Spoiler alert: it's B.
Okay, but what about the women? Oh yeah, that’s right, who cares.
Aside from fiction and legend, I don’t think you’re ever going to find any evidence that people lived to be these fantastic ages. Legends are not evidence. If legends are evidence of people living for centuries, they have to be allowed as evidence for all sorts of magic and nonsense.
Genesis 9 gives the distinct impression that prior to the Flood, mankind did not eat meat. In reality, mankind has been eating meat for at least 1.5 million years (including man's ancestors: by the time we get to cro magnons about 35,000 years ago, meat is a major part of man's diet.
Am I wrong about what Genesis says? If I'm right, this is a fairly obvious error.
Genesis 9: 1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
Once again, the Bible gives the distinct impression that Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives, are the only humans on earth who survived the flood. When you consider the flood story, this makes sense. After all, God could very easily have said to Noah, "There's a huge regional flood coming. You've got 120 years. I strongly suggest you move far away, where the flood won't affect you." That's not what He says. Some of us WANT the Flood to be regional, because you MIGHT make an argument for a regional flood. But the Bible itself doesn't give the slightest inkling that it's talking about less than the whole earth.
Did fear and dread of man fall on all the beasts of the earth? No. All the fish? No. Given into man's hands? Not really, no. EVERYTHING that lives and moves about will be food for man? That's some pretty bad dietary advice right there.
4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
Ok, drain the blood. Check. Still bad dietary advice.
"I will demand an accounting FROM EVERY ANIMAL?" What? Have there been some bear trials that we're not aware of? Is God holding animals accountable for the animals that they kill? I mean, isn't it his fault for making them carnivores? Did they have a vote? What does that verse even mean?
I haven't said very much on this thread, partially because I agree very, very much with Raf that the Bible is not "true" in the sense of the fundamentalist "inerrancy," which is put on most spectacular display by the idiocy of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum...
That being said, I don't think the product of the writers and editors of Genesis can be accurately assessed using post-Enlightenment standards for what it means to express "truth".
While studying for my Old Testament class tomorrow, I came across a wonderful quote I want to share, "It is clear that... narrative in the Old Testament, in its many variations, is offered as an alternative, a contradiction, and a subversion of the dominant narrative that was all around Israel, variously as 'Canaanite religion' (in the case of Elijah) or the imperial imposition of a series of superpowers. Mutatis mutandis, the apostolic witness of the New Testament was an alternative to various narrative offers, notably that of Roman power legitimized by Roman religion." (Walter Brueggemann, The Practice of Prophetic Imagination: Preaching an Emancipating Word, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012, p. 6)
If we're going to judge what are and what are not "actual errors" in ANY writing, we have to look at the original intent of the writers and the editors. That is as true in a seminary as it is in a newsroom!
I confess, this thread approaches (and refutes) the Answers in Genesis type of interpretation of the book. I think broadening the scope to include multiple interpretations would quickly make the thread unwieldy, but I suppose it would not be off-topic.
According to Genesis 3, snakes crawl on their bellies and eat dust in retaliation for the serpent's role in the temptation.
Why?
If it was "Satan," and not a literal snake, why punish snakes? (Never mind that snakes don't eat dust).
If this "curse" is not really being directed at snakes but at Satan, it makes no flipping sense. Satan doesn't crawl on his belly or eat dust. And there's nothing in the narrative to indicate that we're talking about anything other than the animal.
So again, why punish snakes?
Because we are a prey animal.
Our evolutionary ancestors had to fear snakes. It's genetic wiring.
Our ancestors didn't know why snakes made such a great symbol, just that it did.
Kudos to you Raf, for being ballsy enough to speak freely about your atheism and to question "Da Word".
The derailment of this thread is one of the reasons I gave up on GSC several years ago...anytime I even thought about questioning the underlying assumptions of Christianity, or was skeptical about some miraculous event, I was assailed with personal attacks and a chorus of "I just know it's true"
I think there is a good point though. We DO know things we can't explain.
I am not going to jump on the “who was Cain’s wife?” bandwagon in the sense of there being no other women around. I agree that Genesis 4 says Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel, but it does not rule out their having other children, including daughters. I would have to argue that it is implied they had no other sons until Seth was born, after Abel’s murder.
So, going strictly by what the Bible says and doesn’t rule out, Cain’s wife was his sister. And I guess God was OK with that.
Miscellaneous question: Why don’t we know the names of ANY of Adam and Eve’s daughters? I mean, what’s a girl gotta do to get her name in the Bible? So far, get fooled by a talking snake with feet and instigate the fall of the human race qualifies for a mention. Let’s put a marker there and wait until the author of Genesis finally finds a woman worth mentioning by name again, shall we? Not that it’s an actual error, but it’s just fun.
By itself, Genesis says absolutely nothing about why God looked with favor on Abel’s offering of fat portions from the firstborn of his flock, but He did not look with favor on the fruit of Cain’s soil. Ever notice that? If you lived in a time when the first book of the Bible was the ONLY book of the Bible, you would have no way of knowing why God accepted Abel’s offering but dissed Cain’s.
Is it fair to argue that, according to the Bible at least, Adam, Eve and their progeny were the only human beings on earth? I mean, the notion that Cain married his sister is predicated on the idea that there were no other women available (ruling out his mom, of course. But why of course? I would have ruled out his sister “of course.” Where did the topic go? Oh, yes, there it is…). If there WERE other women available, then Cain’s wife was not his sister. Must have been some soulless woman-looking-thing that was not human in the same way Adam and Eve were human.
If she was not Cain's sister, but she was fully human in every way that Adam, Eve and Cain were human, where did she come from? She wasn't descended from Adam and Eve. Was she fallen? WHY? HER parents didn't eat from the "don't eat from that" tree that God ordered Adam and Eve not to eat from before leaving them alone with it.
So either Cain married his sister, or he married something similar to but not quite the same as a human woman. An animal, in other words.
No? Well, what would YOU call it? .
The notion of Cain building a city was covered in an earlier thread. It’s a fascinating thread in its own right. You can find it here.
See, you ask some important questions, don't answer them . . . and then jump to unimportant questions, and get consumed by those.
Why presume that something (or for that matter, much of anything) wasn't (or couldn't be) known prior to Moses writing it down? It actually appears to be a rather ignorant or stupid (or incredibly arrogant) presumption.
As for Cain's offering not being acceptable, I don't believe it was some deep, dark, unknown secret that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. How or where do you suppose the animal skins came from that God clothed Adam with to cover his nakedness?
Individuals and groups can understand something, without being able to articulate what it is.
Some view the Bible as a process of articulation . . . as clarification occurs over generations deeper understanding is still in need of articulation . . . a process that goes on forever.
Clearly, Adam and Eve didn't have the whole picture to begin with, and never did.
Clearly, Adam and Eve didn't have the whole picture to begin with, and never did.
Granted, certain details were omitted, but were they necessary? I don't think so. Fact is, I think they probably had a much better understanding and clearer picture of "the end game" (so to speak) - which the vast majority still don't have or know.
Granted, certain details were omitted, but were they necessary? I don't think so. Fact is, I think they probably had a much better understanding and clearer picture of "the end game" (so to speak) - which the vast majority still don't have or know.
okay, we'll assume that's true
but that's a view that we're currently trying to get back to something, reclaim something?
but that's a view that we're currently trying to get back to something, reclaim something?
In light of what I've said previously (below) on the other thread, no.
On 7/29/2017 at 8:40 AM, TLC said:
I'm not really on board with that (or whatever it is that you might be trying to say - I'm not exactly sure.) Because it seems more likely that creative genius (if that's even a reasonably fair or sensible way to speak of it) would find itself more important than whatever was produced or resulted from it. At least, that's what appears to be mostly evidenced in lives today.
In a way, yes. Think of it as "what if," if you want...
What if Lucifer was second, only to the Lord God, in all creation. (forget any nonsense about being one of three "archangels." there are no others beside him, and there is one - and only one - above him.) But, there came a point where that wasn't enough. And (you probably know this part) ... he abdicates his second place position and reaches for higher.
The result? A vacancy at the right hand of God (i.e., second only to God Himself.) You're a smart young guy... what should God to do? Create another perfect being to fill that position? Wait... wasn't the first one created perfect for that position? How is God going to do any better in a "do over"? And, what happens to the first character that failed (aka, the devil)?
What if (and to show how utterly foolish the prior morning star was), a rock - a chunk of dirt - (i.e., "man" - aka, Adam) is the nominee. But, there will be a time of proving, after which - if proven worthy, the appointment will be made.
well, it's a deep rabbit hole (not much related to this thread) ...and you're already working to fill in the blanks, so... 'nuff said.
proof that people will only hear what they want to hear, no matter what or how you say it...
You're saying humans were/are a replacement for Lucifer's original position. God somewhat jokingly, uses earth to make us. (Which I agree IS humorous for God to do :biglaugh:)
(we disagree on weather Lucifer loved himself or his ideas more, that's okay for now)
I was thinking of our present population of humans trying to get back to Eden in a sense. (Sorry if I mixed up our understanding here) . . . I don't really think that's the right motive.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
137
24
35
25
Popular Days
Aug 2
50
Sep 12
15
Oct 4
13
Jul 30
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 137 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 24 posts
Bolshevik 35 posts
TLC 25 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2014
50 posts
Sep 12 2018
15 posts
Oct 4 2018
13 posts
Jul 30 2017
11 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81: even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books And just to verify I was going provide what you
Raf
Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demo
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, I beg to differ with you; Demons do exist! I know one lives here in DC!!
Raf
People don't realize that evolution says nothing at all about the origin of life. Only its development. They are separate issues. Science has no solid explanation for how life actually began. "God did it" is not an answer. It's a decision to stop seeking an answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I wonder if anyone has had any luck using Wierwille's Magic Elixir (PFAL research techniques) to resolve the discrepancies in Genesis.
PS. I think Adam and Eve may have had red drapes. Oh, not just any red drapes...FIRE ENGINE RED drapes!
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I haven't forgotten this thread. It's just not a priority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I wanted to clarify this earlier post: The discussion of whether there are errors in Genesis covers a LOT of ground. A whole lot of ground. You could stick with Genesis 1 alone and spend the rest of your life exploring the implications of whether this verse is true, whether it conforms to our understanding of the world through science, whether our understanding of the world through science is true, etc. All of those questions and discussions would be ON TOPIC for a thread called "Actual Errors in Genesis."
The only problem is, we'd never get past chapter 1. At some point, we have to agree to move on, not because the discussion is off-topic, but because it stops the progress of the conversation.
In THAT light, I would ask that further discussion of evolution be moved to another thread. I did not mean to imply that evolution was off-topic for this thread. It is not.
***
Secondly, I want to thank T-Bone for a vigorous debate on the Flood. If I understand our arguments correctly, we are leaving that discussion with neither of us having persuaded the other. Fair enough.
And with that, we move on to Genesis 4...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Genesis 4
I am not going to jump on the “who was Cain’s wife?” bandwagon in the sense of there being no other women around. I agree that Genesis 4 says Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel, but it does not rule out their having other children, including daughters. I would have to argue that it is implied they had no other sons until Seth was born, after Abel’s murder.
So, going strictly by what the Bible says and doesn’t rule out, Cain’s wife was his sister. And I guess God was OK with that.
Miscellaneous question: Why don’t we know the names of ANY of Adam and Eve’s daughters? I mean, what’s a girl gotta do to get her name in the Bible? So far, get fooled by a talking snake with feet and instigate the fall of the human race qualifies for a mention. Let’s put a marker there and wait until the author of Genesis finally finds a woman worth mentioning by name again, shall we? Not that it’s an actual error, but it’s just fun.
By itself, Genesis says absolutely nothing about why God looked with favor on Abel’s offering of fat portions from the firstborn of his flock, but He did not look with favor on the fruit of Cain’s soil. Ever notice that? If you lived in a time when the first book of the Bible was the ONLY book of the Bible, you would have no way of knowing why God accepted Abel’s offering but dissed Cain’s.
Is it fair to argue that, according to the Bible at least, Adam, Eve and their progeny were the only human beings on earth? I mean, the notion that Cain married his sister is predicated on the idea that there were no other women available (ruling out his mom, of course. But why of course? I would have ruled out his sister “of course.” Where did the topic go? Oh, yes, there it is…). If there WERE other women available, then Cain’s wife was not his sister. Must have been some soulless woman-looking-thing that was not human in the same way Adam and Eve were human.
If she was not Cain's sister, but she was fully human in every way that Adam, Eve and Cain were human, where did she come from? She wasn't descended from Adam and Eve. Was she fallen? WHY? HER parents didn't eat from the "don't eat from that" tree that God ordered Adam and Eve not to eat from before leaving them alone with it.
So either Cain married his sister, or he married something similar to but not quite the same as a human woman. An animal, in other words.
No? Well, what would YOU call it? .
The notion of Cain building a city was covered in an earlier thread. It’s a fascinating thread in its own right. You can find it here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In Genesis 5, we begin some detailed chronological information.
Earlier, there seemed to be some confusion about time, and I wanted to make my position clear. I do not believe Genesis presents a historically accurate account of things that actually happened. There may have been murders, but Cain never killed Abel because both are fictional characters (that’s my position). Cain never married his sister or an animal because Cain is a fictional character (that’s my position). Cain never built a city because… you get the idea.
However, just because I don’t believe something does not mean I won’t acknowledge the Bible says it.
For some reason, this was not clear earlier. T-Bone wrote about some scholars who tried to get an accurate date for the creation of Adam and Eve (post 86). I responded that those scholars were justified in treating the Genesis genealogies as complete specifically because of Genesis 5. In other words, I believe the Bible presents those genealogies as complete (post 90).
My answer confused T-Bone, who wrote: “your view is inconsistent; in post #3 you declare Genesis is NOT history. But in post # 90 you argued the genealogies were a complete listing so the amount of time is fixed by the number… I don't follow your reasoning – if it's not history, in other words a myth then how can you say the genealogy lists are complete and fixes the time? And in post # 97 you go back to saying it's history… so is it history or myth?”
Answer: It’s myth. That’s my position. And I am most certainly not saying that the accounts of Genesis are true. I am simply saying what I believe Genesis says and means. If you can understand my posts and accurately convey my opinions, without agreeing with me, then I can understand the Bible and accurately convey what it says without agreeing with it.
We may disagree on how particular verses should be interpreted. But it should not be difficult at all to agree on what it SAYS. What it says is not a matter of opinion.
Genesis 5 gives us names and ages that permit us to construct a timeline and calculate the “creation of Adam.” The ages in Genesis 5 are either accurate or they are not. If they are accurate, then we can date the creation of the first man (assuming Adam was the first man). If they are not accurate, then it is an error.
Honest people can disagree, as T-Bone did earlier, but that’s where we stand. And with that, we look at Genesis 5.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. It doesn’t say how old Eve was. How long did Adam live without Eve? A year? 90 years? Because we don’t know how old Eve was when she gave birth to Seth. Also 130? Do you believe that? Really?
Adam goes on to live another 800 years. Eve went on to live another [who gives a crap. She’s just a woman, so the Bible doesn’t bother telling you, because it’s not like she was an important figure in the history of mankind].
Seth was 105 years old when he became father of Enosh. Enosh was born when Adam was 235 years old. That’s the Bible talking, not me. Seth goes on to live another 807 years.
Enosh is 90 years old when his son, Kenan, was born. If Enosh was 90, Seth was 195. Adam was 325. Kenan was born 325 years after the creation of Adam.
70 years later, 395 years after the creation of Adam, Mahalalel is born.
65 years later, 460 years after the creation of Adam, Jared is born. No indication of where he buys his lunch.
162 years later, 622 years after the creation of Adam, Enoch is born.
65 years later, 687 years after the creation of Adam, Methuselah is born.
What happened to Enoch? To say Genesis is a little vague is an understatement. You guys can keep arguing about it all you want. I think the same thing happened to Enoch that happened to Frodo at the end of Lord of the Rings – nothing. It’s just a story.
But it’s the Bible’s story!
Adam is 687 years old when Methuselah is born.
Adam is 874 when Lamech is born.
When Lamech is 56 years old, Adam, the first man, dies.
Now it gets interesting.
1,056 years after the creation of Adam, Noah is born.
A couple of other calculations will make life interesting.
Lamech dies at age 777. He was 182 when Noah was born. Methuselah was 369 years old when Noah was born. And Methuselah, we all know, died at the age of 969. Well played, Genesis writer! Because you later write that Noah was 600 years old when there was this rainstorm.
So Methuselah either died in the Flood or on Floodmas Eve. The movie got it right! Anthony Hopkins' character DID belong in the story. Anyone see the movie? Did it mention that Metuselah was Noah's grandfather?
The Flood was 1,656 years after the creation of Adam. [Caveat: months are not part of this calculation, so we COULD have a variance of up to 8 or nine years (for example, if Adam were 130 years and 11 months and 27 days old when Seth was born, etc).] By being SO precise about how old this person was when that person was born, Genesis undercuts the "it's not a complete genealogy" argument. It's either 1,656 years between the first man and the Great Flood, or Genesis is in actual error. Spoiler alert: it's B.
Okay, but what about the women? Oh yeah, that’s right, who cares.
Aside from fiction and legend, I don’t think you’re ever going to find any evidence that people lived to be these fantastic ages. Legends are not evidence. If legends are evidence of people living for centuries, they have to be allowed as evidence for all sorts of magic and nonsense.
Nine hundred and 69 years. Please.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Genesis 9 gives the distinct impression that prior to the Flood, mankind did not eat meat. In reality, mankind has been eating meat for at least 1.5 million years (including man's ancestors: by the time we get to cro magnons about 35,000 years ago, meat is a major part of man's diet.
Am I wrong about what Genesis says? If I'm right, this is a fairly obvious error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Once again, the Bible gives the distinct impression that Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives, are the only humans on earth who survived the flood. When you consider the flood story, this makes sense. After all, God could very easily have said to Noah, "There's a huge regional flood coming. You've got 120 years. I strongly suggest you move far away, where the flood won't affect you." That's not what He says. Some of us WANT the Flood to be regional, because you MIGHT make an argument for a regional flood. But the Bible itself doesn't give the slightest inkling that it's talking about less than the whole earth.
Did fear and dread of man fall on all the beasts of the earth? No. All the fish? No. Given into man's hands? Not really, no. EVERYTHING that lives and moves about will be food for man? That's some pretty bad dietary advice right there.
Ok, drain the blood. Check. Still bad dietary advice.
"I will demand an accounting FROM EVERY ANIMAL?" What? Have there been some bear trials that we're not aware of? Is God holding animals accountable for the animals that they kill? I mean, isn't it his fault for making them carnivores? Did they have a vote? What does that verse even mean?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I haven't said very much on this thread, partially because I agree very, very much with Raf that the Bible is not "true" in the sense of the fundamentalist "inerrancy," which is put on most spectacular display by the idiocy of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum...
That being said, I don't think the product of the writers and editors of Genesis can be accurately assessed using post-Enlightenment standards for what it means to express "truth".
While studying for my Old Testament class tomorrow, I came across a wonderful quote I want to share, "It is clear that... narrative in the Old Testament, in its many variations, is offered as an alternative, a contradiction, and a subversion of the dominant narrative that was all around Israel, variously as 'Canaanite religion' (in the case of Elijah) or the imperial imposition of a series of superpowers. Mutatis mutandis, the apostolic witness of the New Testament was an alternative to various narrative offers, notably that of Roman power legitimized by Roman religion." (Walter Brueggemann, The Practice of Prophetic Imagination: Preaching an Emancipating Word, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012, p. 6)
If we're going to judge what are and what are not "actual errors" in ANY writing, we have to look at the original intent of the writers and the editors. That is as true in a seminary as it is in a newsroom!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I confess, this thread approaches (and refutes) the Answers in Genesis type of interpretation of the book. I think broadening the scope to include multiple interpretations would quickly make the thread unwieldy, but I suppose it would not be off-topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Because we are a prey animal.
Our evolutionary ancestors had to fear snakes. It's genetic wiring.
Our ancestors didn't know why snakes made such a great symbol, just that it did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Human expression is what is being mocked in the thread. If the flood didn't happen, there's no truth to the story?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think there is a good point though. We DO know things we can't explain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
See, you ask some important questions, don't answer them . . . and then jump to unimportant questions, and get consumed by those.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Why presume that something (or for that matter, much of anything) wasn't (or couldn't be) known prior to Moses writing it down? It actually appears to be a rather ignorant or stupid (or incredibly arrogant) presumption.
As for Cain's offering not being acceptable, I don't believe it was some deep, dark, unknown secret that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. How or where do you suppose the animal skins came from that God clothed Adam with to cover his nakedness?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Individuals and groups can understand something, without being able to articulate what it is.
Some view the Bible as a process of articulation . . . as clarification occurs over generations deeper understanding is still in need of articulation . . . a process that goes on forever.
Clearly, Adam and Eve didn't have the whole picture to begin with, and never did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Granted, certain details were omitted, but were they necessary? I don't think so. Fact is, I think they probably had a much better understanding and clearer picture of "the end game" (so to speak) - which the vast majority still don't have or know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
okay, we'll assume that's true
but that's a view that we're currently trying to get back to something, reclaim something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
In light of what I've said previously (below) on the other thread, no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Ok, I take that as a yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
proof that people will only hear what they want to hear, no matter what or how you say it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You're saying humans were/are a replacement for Lucifer's original position. God somewhat jokingly, uses earth to make us. (Which I agree IS humorous for God to do :biglaugh:)
(we disagree on weather Lucifer loved himself or his ideas more, that's okay for now)
I was thinking of our present population of humans trying to get back to Eden in a sense. (Sorry if I mixed up our understanding here) . . . I don't really think that's the right motive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
That's not at all what I said. Try reading it again. (The vacancy was singular.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.