Someone ANSWER please!!!

[bhukkadakota]

Noah's flood is meant to have taken place about 4000 years ago.
Im just wondering, because the chinese and even the koreans have a history that started long before 4000 years ago ( and not to mention the australian aborigines who have been around for around 45,000 years ), why these races were not wiped out?
and even if they survived, continued their history without recording such a significant event?

Also, Ive read in these posts that adam and eve were created about 6000 years ago. and it even says in the bible that other men were around, so it means adam and eve were the first people created in gods image not the first ever people. the descendants from adam and eve goes down to abraham who is meant to be the father of all hebrews.

My question is, adam and eve are the cause for the original sin. and original sin is passed on to each generation through childbirth. so shouldnt only the hebrews and their descendants be 'cursed' with this original sin?

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 02:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94158#post94158)
bhukkadakota:

Noah's flood is meant to have taken place about 4000 years ago.
Im just wondering, because the chinese and even the koreans have a history that started long before 4000 years ago ( and not to mention the australian aborigines who have been around for around 45,000 years ), why these races were not wiped out?
and even if they survived, continued their history without recording such a significant event?

Also, Ive read in these posts that adam and eve were created about 6000 years ago. and it even says in the bible that other men were around, so it means adam and eve were the first people created in gods image not the first ever people. the descendants from adam and eve goes down to abraham who is meant to be the father of all hebrews.

My question is, adam and eve are the cause for the original sin. and original sin is passed on to each generation through childbirth. so shouldnt only the hebrews and their descendants be 'cursed' with this original sin?

I assume you are speaking of Young earth interpretation of Genesis? If you are I am sure socrates can answer.

Blake

[Rusty T]

I'm sure Socrates WILL answer. . . come on, this is his forte'

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 09:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94158#post94158)
bhukkadakota:

Noah's flood is meant to have taken place about 4000 years ago.
Im just wondering, because the chinese and even the koreans have a history that started long before 4000 years ago ( and not to mention the australian aborigines who have been around for around 45,000 years ), why these races were not wiped out?
and even if they survived, continued their history without recording such a significant event?

Also, Ive read in these posts that adam and eve were created about 6000 years ago. and it even says in the bible that other men were around, so it means adam and eve were the first people created in gods image not the first ever people. the descendants from adam and eve goes down to abraham who is meant to be the father of all hebrews.

My question is, adam and eve are the cause for the original sin. and original sin is passed on to each generation through childbirth. so shouldnt only the hebrews and their descendants be 'cursed' with this original sin?

I’m not a YEC but I think I have read enough of their arguments to give a running try at this.

Firstly, the Bible does not say that before Adam and Eve there were other people around. Recheck the passages, chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Genesis. So that answers the “sin” part of the question.

Secondly, the age of the Chinese etal. Although their history claims to be older than 4,000 years, such claims are unverifiable; there is no hard evidence that suggests any date older than 2,000 to 3,000 years for the Chinese, Korean, etc. civilizations.

[$cirisme]

and it even says in the bible that other men were around

Umm, no it doesn't. :shrug:

[bhukkadakota]

Genesis 4:15 At this Jehovah said to him: "for that reason anyone killing Cain must suffer vengeance seven times".

so whose this "anyone" god is talking about?
because adam and eve had two sons cain and abel. and cain killed abel, so that must mean only adam and eve was there to kill cain. but then where did cains wife come from?

[Socrates]

Please, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Adam and Eve were indeed the first human couple. But according to Genesis 5:4, they had other sons and daughters besides Cain, Abel and Seth. So there must have been brother-sister intermarriage. this was not a sin, since God did not forbid this till the time of Moses. It was not necessary before then because they had not accumulated enough deleterious mutations to endanger the offspring.

For more information, see Where did Cain get his wife? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp)

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 02:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95040#post95040)
Socrates:

Please, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Adam and Eve were indeed the first human couple. But according to Genesis 5:4, they had other sons and daughters besides Cain, Abel and Seth. So there must have been brother-sister intermarriage. this was not a sin, since God did not forbid this till the time of Moses. It was not necessary before then because they had not accumulated enough deleterious mutations to endanger the offspring. Ah ha. I get! So just like "incest" was alright because of non deforming genetics mutations, it was also alright to kill because it would have been Cain's brothers and sisters that would have been the one to kill him. So killing must haven't been a problem... would it? Why did Cain fear revenge when he was the first person to kill?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 08:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95139#post95139)
Jimmy Higgins:

Ah ha. I get! So just like "incest" was alright because of non deforming genetics mutations, it was also alright to kill because it would have been Cain's brothers and sisters that would have been the one to kill him. So killing must haven't been a problem... would it? Why did Cain fear revenge when he was the first person to kill?

Cain was the first person to "murder". He feared the justice he expected for his crime.

[Sher]

Not to mention that we don't know how long had passed ... there could have been nieces and nephews and their off-spring as well ... not simply brothers and sisters

[Socrates]

Jimmy rants again :rant::Ah ha. I get! It would be a first if Jimmy removed his antitheistic blinkers and actually got something which should be easily understandable.So just like "incest" was alright because of non deforming genetics mutations, More to the point, brother-sister intermarriage was OK because God had not yet made a law against it. A plausible reason for waiting till Moses was the increase in deleterious mutations by that time would have increased the change of genetic defects in the offspring. Where does Jimmy get off in being so judgmental? :poke:... it was also alright to kill because it would have been Cain's brothers and sisters that would have been the one to kill him. What is this person on about now? :huh:So killing must haven't been a problem... would it? Why did Cain fear revenge when he was the first person to kill?He wasn't. Since Seth was a replacement for Abel, and was born when Adam was 130, that leaves MANY years for an ultra-fertile (because genetically perfect) couple to have lots of sons and daughters, and for several generations to develop.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95295#post95295)
Socrates:
Jimmy rants again :rant::Nope, not ranting.

Ah ha. I get! It would be a first if Jimmy removed his antitheistic blinkers and actually got something which should be easily understandable.Silly me and thinking incest was always bad. What was I thinking? :doh:


So killing must haven't been a problem... would it? Why did Cain fear revenge when he was the first person to kill?He wasn't. Since Seth was a replacement for Abel, and was born when Adam was 130, that leaves MANY years for an ultra-fertile (because genetically perfect) couple to have lots of sons and daughters, and for several generations to develop. I'm just being misotheistic and all, but wasn't Seth born AFTER Cain slew Abel. You note that Seth was born when Adam was 130. We know not when Cain was born, nor Abel. But what we can see, is that Genesis goes into great detail of generations AFTER Cain slew Abel, Gen 4:17-24. Strangely, Genesis 5:4 says something rather cryptic. It states that after Adam begot Seth, he then had other children. Strange how this is excluded from the births of Cain and Abel. Furthermore, you ASSUME that there are many other people by the time the killing happens. Yet the story gives no justification that much time has passed since the births of Cain and Abel. In fact, Cain and Abel may have merely been 20 at the time of the murder. And therefore, it could easily be seen that not enough time existed that would allow others to be slew-worthy. But then again, maybe the event occured right before Seth was born. Then that would mean time for up to 5 generations at 25 years apart, including Adam and Eve. However, this would seem unlikely if a chronological view of the story is to take hold. Genesis 4:17-24 shows, Cain -> Enoch -> Irad -> Mehujael -> Methushael -> Lamach -> Adah -> Jabal. So if the story is straight chronological, then 7 generations have occured after Cain before Seth is born. But perhaps, the two chronologies are parallel, they explain Cain's lineage to keep a flow to the story and then pick back up with Adam and Eve.

But then we need to look at what Eve says in 4:25, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."
Strange that Eve may of had many children by then, but then praising having X+1 children. Her reaction seems almost like Sarah's regarding her giving birth. Almost surprised, to say. So why this reaction about another birth, unless she only had two children at that point to begin with. Add this to the fact that Genesis 5:4 alone says that Adam and Eve had more children after Seth and nothing prior can be found regarding Adam begetting children prior to the murder, other than Cain and Abel, it would appear that Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve are the only ones around.

[Socrates]

Socrates:


It would be a first if Jimmy removed his antitheistic blinkers and actually got something which should be easily understandable.

Jimmy Higgins:Silly me and thinking incest was always bad. Yes, silly indeed for thinking that anything is bad except for it being contrary to God's Law. And brother-sister marriage was not contrary to God's law till the time of Moses.

Jimmy Higgins:What was I thinking? A leading question (i.e. it implies that Jimmy was thinking at all, which would be a change :poke:)



jimmy: So killing must haven't been a problem... would it? Why did Cain fear revenge when he was the first person to kill?

Soc: He wasn't. Since Seth was a replacement for Abel, and was born when Adam was 130, that leaves MANY years for an ultra-fertile (because genetically perfect) couple to have lots of sons and daughters, and for several generations to develop.

Jimmy Higgins:I'm just being misotheistic and all, but wasn't Seth born AFTER Cain slew Abel. That's what I just said :dufus:

Jimmy Higgins:You note that Seth was born when Adam was 130. We know not when Cain was born, nor Abel. Actually, we do have a good idea -- that Cain must have been conceived a few days after Creation -- see my detailed reasoning at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=56280#post56280

Jimmy Higgins:But what we can see, is that Genesis goes into great detail of generations AFTER Cain slew Abel, Gen 4:17-24. Strangely, Genesis 5:4 says something rather cryptic. It states that after Adam begot Seth, he then had other children. No, there is NOTHING in this summary statement of WHEN these other sons and duaghters were born.

Jimmy Higgins:Strange how this is excluded from the births of Cain and Abel. Furthermore, you ASSUME that there are many other people by the time the killing happens. No I DEDUCE this because it is implied by the Scriptural data we have.

Jimmy Higgins:But then we need to look at what Eve says in 4:25, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."
Strange that Eve may of had many children by then, but then praising having X+1 children. Yes, because evidently Abel was the "special" child, as shown by his virtue, and the subsequent chapter shows that at least a remnant of Seth's line surivived the Flood.

[bhukkadakota]

jimmy higgins has a good point
this YEC seems to be like some weird cult.
you if noahs flood happened 4000 years ago
it doesnt leave enough time for people to change race ( like whites, blacks and asians)
you dont just one day wake up and youve changed race it happens gradually over time.
tell me this, if noahs flood was 4000 years ago and they were the only survivors, and the chinese have a WRITTEN history that dates back to 3000 years ago ( just for christians sake we assume the claim chinese make about their 7000 year culture is false) then tell me is it possible in 1000 years for european looking people to change into asian looking people?
its all ridiculous.
AND aborigines in australia have a 45,000 year history in this land and that is ACCEPTED as a fact.
so how do you answer that? by saying it cant be true because god made the earth and god loves us
grow up

[Socrates]

bhukkadakota burps:jimmy higgins has a good pointThat would be a first.this YEC seems to be like some weird cult.We've had this discussion before, and shown that YEC has none of the characteristics of a cult.you if noahs flood happened 4000 years agomore like 4500 years.it doesnt leave enough time for people to change race ( like whites, blacks and asians)Rubbish -- if there is enough heterozygosity in the gene pool and something to split the population into small isolated groups (e.g. Babel), it can happen very fast.you dont just one day wake up and youve changed race it happens gradually over time.Not at all. Two mulattos (offspring of a white and black mixed couple) even today can have children of a wide range of skin color -- that's only one generation :dunce:tell me this, if noahs flood was 4000 years ago and they were the only survivors, and the chinese have a WRITTEN history that dates back to 3000 years ago ( just for christians sake we assume the claim chinese make about their 7000 year culture is false) The Encyclopedia Britannica says that their genuine recorded history is much shorter. In fact, short enough to fit into the Biblical time scale. 3000 years ago would actually be about right.then tell me is it possible in 1000 years for european looking people to change into asian looking people? its all ridiculous.Who said it happened like that? Rather, Europeans and Chinese people were the result of splitting of a population of humans with all the genes for their features already present. See www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
AND aborigines in australia have a 45,000 year history in this land and that is ACCEPTED as a fact. By whom? so how do you answer that? by saying it cant be true because god made the earth and god loves usAnd that he has revealed that He created about 6000 years ago. Also, radiocarbon dating has huge flaws as shown at www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
grow upFrom one who can't even capitalize properly. :dufus: He's clearly not very bright, since he also holds the Christ-myth twaddle -- see www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=96001#post96001 :rotf:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95805#post95805)
Socrates:

What was I thinking? A leading question (i.e. it implies that Jimmy was thinking at all, which would be a change :poke:)Now that is quality exegesis!


You note that Seth was born when Adam was 130. We know not when Cain was born, nor Abel. Actually, we do have a good idea -- that Cain must have been conceived a few days after Creation -- see my detailed reasoning at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=56280#post56280
# However, the Fall can’t have been too long afterwards. Adam and Eve were commanded to ‘fill the Earth’, and they would have obeyed in their unfallen state, and their physically perfect bodies would have been capable of conceiving immediately. But the first child they conceived (Cain) was indisputably sinful.
But then let us look at Genesis 4:1-2:
Adam [1] lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. [2] She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth [3] a man."
2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. The scriptures clearly note Adam having relations with Eve after the fall. Never ever ever mentions this prior. And besides, God never really asks man to fill the earth in Genesis 2, but rather the job of man is to till and protect the garden, Genesis 2:15. And seeing that the main players in stories are the first children, it would seem bizarre to have children 15 and 16 be the focal point of a critical story. Cain and Abel are children 1 and 2. We know the were born after the fall. We know Seth was born 130 years after Adam was created. Everything else is conjecture.


But what we can see, is that Genesis goes into great detail of generations AFTER Cain slew Abel, Gen 4:17-24. Strangely, Genesis 5:4 says something rather cryptic. It states that after Adam begot Seth, he then had other children. No, there is NOTHING in this summary statement of WHEN these other sons and duaghters were born.Nothing regarding other children of Adam and Ever in 4:17-24, but most certainly 5:4! And that is after the birth of Seth. Put it this way, there is not a single piece of scripture that says there were any children besides Cain, Abel, and Seth!


Strange how this is excluded from the births of Cain and Abel. Furthermore, you ASSUME that there are many other people by the time the killing happens. No I DEDUCE this because it is implied by the Scriptural data we have.You say it because you are forced into it. It doesn't make any sense though. I mean you are willing to make any compromise you can to avoid the reality of the dichotomy of the two creation stories.


But then we need to look at what Eve says in 4:25, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."
Strange that Eve may of had many children by then, but then praising having X+1 children. Yes, because evidently Abel was the "special" child, as shown by his virtue, and the subsequent chapter shows that at least a remnant of Seth's line surivived the Flood."Special"? Why? Is it not more likely to take the obvious meaning of the statement?

I'd hardly call your response a "mutilation of a misotheist".


And that he has revealed that He created about 6000 years ago. Also, radiocarbon dating has huge flaws as shown at www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.aspPerhaps you can address my question on that in the Science Forum.

[Socrates]

Jimmy:But then let us look at Genesis 4:1-2:


Adam [1] lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. [2] She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth [3] a man."
2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

The scriptures clearly note Adam having relations with Eve after the fall. Never ever ever mentions this prior. I agree, and that was my point. This shows that the Fall was soon after Creation Week.And besides, God never really asks man to fill the earth in Genesis 2, Why should Genesis 2 have to mention what is already stated in Genesis 1:26-28?... but rather the job of man is to till and protect the garden, Genesis 2:15. The two are hardly mutually exclusive :dufus:. And seeing that the main players in stories are the first children, it would seem bizarre to have children 15 and 16 be the focal point of a critical story. Cain and Abel are children 1 and 2. I agree, so the point is, what?We know the were born after the fall.As I said! We know Seth was born 130 years after Adam was created. Everything else is conjecture.Not at all -- they are logical deductions from the Scriptural data. It's only low-context logic-impaired 21st-century misotheists who need everything spelt out for them :whack:




JH: But what we can see, is that Genesis goes into great detail of generations AFTER Cain slew Abel, Gen 4:17-24. Strangely, Genesis 5:4 says something rather cryptic. It states that after Adam begot Seth, he then had other children.

Soc: No, there is NOTHING in this summary statement of WHEN these other sons and duaghters were born.

JH:Nothing regarding other children of Adam and Ever in 4:17-24, but most certainly 5:4! And that is after the birth of Seth. Where does it say "after"? No, it's in Jimmy's warped misotheistic imagination.Put it this way, there is not a single piece of scripture that says there were any children besides Cain, Abel, and Seth!It doesn't have to say it explicitly, because it's clear implicitly.




JH: Strange how this is excluded from the births of Cain and Abel. Furthermore, you ASSUME that there are many other people by the time the killing happens.

No I DEDUCE this because it is implied by the Scriptural data we have.

You say it because you are forced into it. i say that because it's a logical deduction. You don't like it because it destroys one of the misotheist's favorite attacks on God's Word.It doesn't make any sense though. That's more a reflection on your lack of sense :poke:I mean you are willing to make any compromise you can to avoid the reality of the dichotomy of the two creation stories.You're willing to make any rejection of simple logic that you can to wrench what was always known to be a unifoed creation account following normal ANE patterns into a dichotomy to fit in with 19th century Kraut* presuppositionalism.

Socrates:


Yes, because evidently Abel was the "special" child, as shown by his virtue, and the subsequent chapter shows that at least a remnant of Seth's line surivived the Flood.

JH:"Special"? Why? Is it not more likely to take the obvious meaning of the statement?Why is it not more likely to treat the document as making perfect sense as it stands?

JH:I'd hardly call your response a "mutilation of a misotheist".I would, and I suspect that one reason I was voted "Poster of the Month" was because of past mutilations of misotheists.


*Moderator Notice: Socrates, the edited word is consided by many to be derogatorry and inflamatory. In the future, please use another term to describe something of Geman origin.

Thanks,

Faramir

[Vorkosigan]

I would, and I suspect that one reason I was voted "Poster of the Month" was because of past mutilations of misotheists.

No, it was because you've been nailed to the wall so many times --- like a good poster should be.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97253#post97253)
Vorkosigan:

I would, and I suspect that one reason I was voted "Poster of the Month" was because of past mutilations of misotheists.

No, it was because you've been nailed to the wall so many times --- like a good poster should be.

:bow: :bow: :bow:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96980#post96980)


The scriptures clearly note Adam having relations with Eve after the fall. Never ever ever mentions this prior. I agree, and that was my point. This shows that the Fall was soon after Creation Week.Why? Seeing people lived to be so old, what makes you think that it had to be close to the fall? Adam lived to be over 900 years old. If he had his first child at 40 or 50, that would be like somone today having a kid at the age of 5, assuming straight extrapolation. So Adam would have plenty of time to flood the earth with children, if he had just his first at 50. So I don't understand why Cain and Abel would have needed to be born so quickly, when there was plenty of time to be fruitful and multiply.


And besides, God never really asks man to fill the earth in Genesis 2, ]Why should Genesis 2 have to mention what is already stated in Genesis 1:26-28?That is true.


... but rather the job of man is to till and protect the garden, Genesis 2:15. The two are hardly mutually exclusive :dufus:.Sure they don't have to be exclusives, but it does seem to beg the question of how exclusive the two stories seem to be. No Garden in Genesis 1, no command to multiply in Genesis 2. Furthermore, the reaction of Eve is that of Sarah and Rebekkah. That child birth is directly connected to the will of God. That only through him, can someone become pregnant. It is His will. Now why would Eve have this attitude if God commanded them both to be fruitful and multiply? Why would God retard this process if he commanded it?


And seeing that the main players in stories are the first children, it would seem bizarre to have children 15 and 16 be the focal point of a critical story. Cain and Abel are children 1 and 2. I agree, so the point is, what?The point just clearly states that Cain and Abel were the first. Just to strengthen that knowledge. And therefore, we are required to know whether or not other children were born of Eve afterwards.


We know Seth was born 130 years after Adam was created. Everything else is conjecture.Not at all -- they are logical deductions from the Scriptural data.No its not. The logical deduction is that the two stories are not interconnected. There are enough differences and strengths in the stories to come to this conclusion logically. It takes alot more effort to try and make them coincide. We know for scriptural fact that:

1) Cain is the first child

2) Seth is born when Adam is 130

3) We know that more children are born of Eve after Seth

All else is inferred by the data! Were more children born of Eve between Abel and Seth? There are two answers, yes or no. But we don't have any basis for these answers other than scriptural interpretation. You have interpreted the story based on the idea that Adam had to of started multiplying immediately after The Fall because God told him to. I've argued that Eve's reaction to Seth's birth seems akward to this idea because she seems to look at Seth as taking place of Abel, something only to see as important if she only had two children. Furthermore, it explictly states in chapter 5, that Eve has more children after Seth. We know that as scriptural fact. You induce otherwise, that Eve also had children before Seth, but that is based on no scripture facts. Just a meager attempt at plugging up the holes of assuming from the get-go that the two stories are perfectly related.

It's only low-context logic-impaired 21st-century misotheists who need everything spelt out for them :whack:That was rather rude.



No, there is NOTHING in this summary statement of WHEN these other sons and duaghters were born.
Nothing regarding other children of Adam and Eve in 4:17-24, but most certainly 5:4! And that is after the birth of Seth. Where does it say "after"? No, it's in Jimmy's warped misotheistic imagination.
After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. That isn't my "warped misotheistic imagination". That's scripture! Although, I must say that it may not have been children through Eve. It says clearly they are Adam's children.


]Put it this way, there is not a single piece of scripture that says there were any children besides Cain, Abel, and Seth!It doesn't have to say it explicitly, because it's clear implicitly.Its only implicit if you have already assumed that the two stories are connected so strongly. There is alot of evidence to say otherwise.


No I DEDUCE this because it is implied by the Scriptural data we have.

[quote]I mean you are willing to make any compromise you can to avoid the reality of the dichotomy of the two creation stories.You're willing to make any rejection of simple logic that you can to wrench what was always known to be a unifoed creation account following normal ANE patterns into a dichotomy to fit in with 19th century Kraut presuppositionalism.I'm sorry, but was that a racial slur? Are you calling me a "Kraut"? Jimmy Higgins be of strong German heritage. Are you insulting me like this? Do the mods like it when black members are referred to as "niggers"?


I'd hardly call your response a "mutilation of a misotheist".I would, and I suspect that one reason I was voted "Poster of the Month" was because of past mutilations of misotheists. Voted? Perhaps appointed. And besides, there are a growing number of issues you have ducked on that I have brought up. And besides, you haven't buried me on this . I think its been rather even, besides you with calling German's "Krauts". You are certainly up on me in the slur category.

Moderators Notice: As noted above in Socrates edited post, racial slurs will not be tolerated. I for one consider them on par with profanity. And repeating someone elses racial slur over and over again does not make it better. Please refrain from using racial slurs in the future, even if it is quoting another poster.

Thanks,

Faramir

[Socratism]

It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it clearly that the first story was told to Adam because nobody but God would have known the details, and the second story was written by Adam from first hand experience. They are two separate accounts, but the viewpoints are different, for anything that Adam wrote in his personal account about events that happened in the past were not personally seen by him.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 12:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97485#post97485)
Socratism:

It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it clearly that the first story was told to Adam because nobody but God would have known the details, and the second story was written by Adam from first hand experience. They are two separate accounts, but the viewpoints are different, for anything that Adam wrote in his personal account about events that happened in the past were not personally seen by him. Wow. That is without any sort of biblical reference. I'm sure you can explain anything with that sort of logic, oh wait, you do. You're a YEC'er.

What makes you think they wrote this stuff down? That isn't even implied anywhere.

[Maimonides]

Noah's flood is meant to have taken place about 4000 years ago.
Im just wondering, because the chinese and even the koreans have a history that started long before 4000 years ago ( and not to mention the australian aborigines who have been around for around 45,000 years ), why these races were not wiped out?
and even if they survived, continued their history without recording such a significant event?

Also, Ive read in these posts that adam and eve were created about 6000 years ago. and it even says in the bible that other men were around, so it means adam and eve were the first people created in gods image not the first ever people. the descendants from adam and eve goes down to abraham who is meant to be the father of all hebrews.

My question is, adam and eve are the cause for the original sin. and original sin is passed on to each generation through childbirth. so shouldnt only the hebrews and their descendants be 'cursed' with this original sin?
Well, I can give you my perspective but I'm not sure if you'll like it...

I was raised in church and taught YEC (10-12,000 yr. old earth and the like). I rejected this conclusion when it became incompatible with my archaeological research and the like. This is a tough area for many people (myself included), moreover as it cuts so to the quick of the faith.

You are absolutely right, of course, in terms of the substance of your point: people have been around a lot longer than a paltry six millennia. And the Biblical account does seem rooted in the climes of the Near East with its descriptions of the Garden of Eden and of cultivation. Thus I conclude that the Garden of Eden story is not factual in the empirical sense; it is rather a very wonderful story "myth" if you will, meant to explain the mysteries of the world around us. Pre-modern cultures didn't have our level of science; they had no way of ascertaining the earth's true antiquity and history. Their stories are still important, however, in the wonder and the lessons that they convey. See my thread "The Garden of Eden Myth."

Regards, ~Maimonides.

[Maimonides]

It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it clearly that the first story was told to Adam because nobody but God would have known the details, and the second story was written by Adam from first hand experience. They are two separate accounts, but the viewpoints are different, for anything that Adam wrote in his personal account about events that happened in the past were not personally seen by him.
Assuming that there was an Adam, my friend, assuming that there was an Adam.
Actually writing is only about five thousand years old (from ancient Sumer and soon thereafter Egypt), and humanity far older. The two accounts are clearly Mesopotamian-influenced, see my thread "The Garden of Eden Myth." The second account is much older; I have heard that this is the more Canaanite of the two whilst the first is more Babylonian (although I am unsure as to this particular).

[kofh2u]

Assuming that there was an Adam, my friend, assuming that there was an Adam.
Actually writing is only about five thousand years old (from ancient Sumer and soon thereafter Egypt), and humanity far older. The two accounts are clearly Mesopotamian-influenced, see my thread "The Garden of Eden Myth." The second account is much older; I have heard that this is the more Canaanite of the two whilst the first is more Babylonian (although I am unsure as to this particular).


I believe that you demonstrate sound judgement, and an intelligent approach to understanding Genesis, specifically, and also what follows in the 65 books thereafter (should one wish to read on further).

You are right, about the Hebrew Genesis superimposition upon existing, similar fables pre-dating Moses.
And, you are wise to refuse an easy acquiesence to the long repeated belief that Genesis is literal.

The question is, then, what were these Jews writing about, beneath the surface of stories that were already common?

Other cultures, notably pagan, had stories that were the foundation for institutionized pagan (mythological) religion in their our societies.

First, we must note that monotheism was then a radical heresy, and a perspective that opposed existing ideas of Gods. It served as a political force in separating Jews ftom the other societies surrounding them, and within the Egyptian society specifically.

In this, a premise of orgins for Genesis, I am suggesting that it is not the similarity with other myths already well know that we ought focus upon. It is that fact that differences in pre-existing fables were being added, augmentations to existing understandings about man's origins.
This is to imagine that Genesis is an argument that sets to detour people already indoctrinated with other basic ideas. Genesis begins will El, in the plural form, Elohim, a name for a Pagan God of creation. But, Genesis doesn't create, as the other myths did, a whole pantheon of related Gods/godesses.

There is no Queen of Heaven, but a real human, Eve, who is mother of all living. What developes from the vehicle of superimposition is an argument that turns away from the multiplicity of Gods, a turn in the well known story that leads eventually to the heresy, that all pagan gods are False Gods.

[barryrob]

Noah's flood is meant to have taken place about 4000 years ago.
Im just wondering, because the chinese and even the koreans have a history that started long before 4000 years ago ( and not to mention the australian aborigines who have been around for around 45,000 years ), why these races were not wiped out?
and even if they survived, continued their history without recording such a significant event?

Also, Ive read in these posts that adam and eve were created about 6000 years ago. and it even says in the bible that other men were around, so it means adam and eve were the first people created in gods image not the first ever people. the descendants from adam and eve goes down to abraham who is meant to be the father of all hebrews.

My question is, adam and eve are the cause for the original sin. and original sin is passed on to each generation through childbirth. so shouldnt only the hebrews and their descendants be 'cursed' with this original sin?

The desendant of Adam and Eve survived the Flood, Noah and all his falimily from which all humankind today are desendants, thus sin came via them to us.

Barryrob

[AntonS]

I want to share some information with you and another people.
I think this may help you. It is not only about artefacts found in the Ural mountains. My belief about artefacts is the next. Tungsten springs found in the Ural mountains was used for light bulbs many thousands of years ago (for example 112000 years ago when the Egyptian civilization was strong and Egyptians followed Israelites). Such bulbs was in use from before 112000 years ago! Electric bulbs were in use before the Flood! Then men's old age was about 900 years. Besides the electric bulb they had in use self-propelled vehicles i. e. cars, airplanes, they did nuclear investigation. Radio also was in use. But they had not computers and cellular phones because they failed to think digital technique out because of the Flood. There are not too much about those men in the Bible. They was strong and famous(?) from the earliest times. Noah had many knowledges. He had three sons. There were their wifes from which the Earth was inhabited. He had 600 years old when the Flood appeared, he was wise and very aware in comparison whith today's people. Many of antediluvian scientific achievements was in use after the Flood. For example, 112000 years ago Egyptians droved after Israelites using self-propelled vehicles i. e. cars. The car was with the compression ignition engine (so-called diesel). The car was made not from rubbish and moved not noisy. The car was with electric headlights. It is my belief that it is impossible to prove everything. I cannot prove i have 5 fingers on the hand or i cannot prove the Earth has the ellipsoid image. But i believe the Earth has the ellipsoid image in our 3-dimensional manifold. Something may be conditionally proved, for example a mathematical theorem: if... if... then the theorem is proved. A physical theorem is also may be considered proved if, for example, the experiment was done 1000 times then the theorem is proved, but nobody knows what will happen at the 1001th time. I may say: one, two, three, four, five. What will i say the next time? Six? Where do you know from?
It is possible to believe, not to prove - it is my belief.

[shunyadragon]

I’m not a YEC but I think I have read enough of their arguments to give a running try at this.

Firstly, the Bible does not say that before Adam and Eve there were other people around. Recheck the passages, chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Genesis. So that answers the “sin” part of the question.

Secondly, the age of the Chinese etal. Although their history claims to be older than 4,000 years, such claims are unverifiable; there is no hard evidence that suggests any date older than 2,000 to 3,000 years for the Chinese, Korean, etc. civilizations.False!!! I live in China and study Chinese culture in detail for more than seven years and traveled around China to visit many archeological sites and locations where historically chinese cultures have lived. There are numerous sites and documentation of areas constantly inhabited for between four and eight thousand years, without any evidence of a catastrophic flood.

My particular interest is jade and jade culture. Tis is the cornerstone of the evidence, because jade culture and the jade carving industry has evidence of the oldest continuous 'industry' in the world including specific carving technologies, styles and use of these objects in rituals and cultures for at least 4 to 5,000 years and good evidence back to 8,000 years.

China is easily the oldest single culture with the same writing language, and rituals in the world.

For further information visit my web site at www. shunyadragon.com

[AntonS]

I think it will be evident in the near future it is true i have said about light bulbs.
In any case anybody will be able to check whether it is really correct.
But there will not be any evidences about light bulbs such as about whether the Earth has the ellipsoid image. For example, try to prove you have not a mental disorder.
I'm sure i have 5 fingers on my hand, but i cannot prove it is true. Does anybody know how many fingers the man have on the hand in the 10-dimensional (or n-dinensional, i'm not sure) Universe.