What does the bible say about how long humans have been around?

[Jase]

Evolution is a theory; not a law. Have you heard of sonofusion? It is were a sound is transmitted into a liquid and light is a bi-product. I have literal event described by the bible before man tested it to be true...

You would do well to learn the meaning of a scientific theory. Evolution is a theory, a fact, and there are laws associated with it.

Gravity is also a theory. And a fact. And the law of Gravity is a mathematical formula explaining the relation of an aspect of the theory.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

See I disagree about your first question in that the question was not about genealogy. Rather, your statement was the bible is wrong and how do we make it right? The direction of you’re the viewpoint is that we reconcile the bible to truth…however; the bible says we are being reconciled to God by God.

I know this is incredibly hard for your kind.
But the simple fact of the matter is, How you choose to read the bible is not nessisarily what the bible is meant to say.
Now I understand that you BELIEVE with all your heart you have the absolutely figured out know exactly how to read it and there is no possible way it can even be read otherwise, but your wrong.

So the question is not "The bible is wrong, how do we fix it?"
the question is "My reading of the bible is wrong, what is the proper reading?"

Now, the reason why I brought up sonofusion is show that your assumption that the origins account is wrong is incorrect.

First of all, i didnt actually say that. I was talking about humans, not the universe.
Second of all, since when is sonofusion how the universe started? I do not remember ever reading about that. Its like pretending we now have lamps that turn on when you say "Light" and act as though that vindicates the creation story.

In the beginning, God, darkness, and water was present…Then God spoke and light was formed. This is sonofusion at its core. You can disagree, but the evidence is clear.

Just for fun, imagine that there is no such thing as sonofusion.
At that point, would the bible be wrong? Would god be lying when he said he spoke and light appeared?

Ofcourse you wouldnt, you'd say something like "its a miracle" like you do for the talking animals, man being made from dirt, woman from a rib. the mist, the existance of water to begin with and everything else. nevermind that each of these are impossible they are all acts of god. But IF at some point something is found that if you stretch it far enough might somehow be related to one of those thousands of impossible acts of god then all of a sudden its proof positive that the bible is true? Nonsense.

The problem with your types of 'evidence' is that if you would not accept them in reverse, you should not accept them in the current state either. If you make enough claims vague enough sooner or later something is going to stick even if you have to stretch it.

Finally, I work from the framework that God is able to tell us how it was when He created it because He was there. Of course, you do not come with at least the possiblity that God exist...nothing after the first mention of Him in the bible will matter.

I work with the framework that if there is a god and if he told you how it happend in the bible. That your reading it wrong. The fact there are over 30.000 sects of christianity is pretty good evidence that people suck at agreeing what the bible really says. But you can bet your lunchmoney that every single one of them will say they got it right.

With that in mind, I am trying to find out what those couple thousand sects that arent denying history believe the bible says. You arent among those, ergo I have no interest in anything you are trying to say.

Now will you kindly shut up, I am not here to debate weither christianity is true or weither the bible is true.

 

[ebia]

Interesting way to look at it, in that light it would be about the consequences of sin I suppose?

in crude terms, yes.

I guess I have to wonder if adam and eve are both fictional intended to bring a point across, and the same is true for the stories of seth etc while we are told how long they live and can link the stories together by x amount of time in between.. At what point do we reach real persons? Like Moses, and how can you tell?

there is no reason why the change from parabolic history to more literal history should not be graduated. Nevertheless there are clear markers with Genesis 12 (the end of the prologue and the beginning if the biblical story proper), Exodus 1, 1 Samuel 1, Ezra, the gospels,

Or is the short answer in essense that there is no easy way (like "Exodus 1:1 From point point on we'll be discussing actual people") and you'd need to be actually studying the bible in historical and cultural context in order to read it properly?

Also on a somewhat related note, if there were no adam and eve does that mean there was no original sin? Or rather would that represent the time when mankind turned away from god? (As opposed to eating fruit, which im told was an act of turning away from god by disobeying so I could see that make sense but I dont know how you interprete it)

 

[drich0150]

While certainly true it doesn't matter if Adam and eve lived for 500.000 years in the garden, the problem is we 'know' they didn't die

(Gen 5) says they did die after 900 or so years after the fall.

yet find human fossils that old. Aswell as that we are lead to believe there were no humans other then them.

Actually no we are not, remember Cain's wife? where did she come from if they were the only ones? The bible only says Adam and Eve were the first. it does not say they were the only ones.

 

[dvd_holc]

You would do well to learn the meaning of a scientific theory. Evolution is a theory, a fact, and there are laws associated with it.

Gravity is also a theory. And a fact. And the law of Gravity is a mathematical formula explaining the relation of an aspect of the theory.

I am a scientist and know the difference. Evolution is not proveable by experiment data hence it remains a theory only. While gravity has been proven by experiments as the original post pointed out.

 

[dvd_holc]

I know this is incredibly hard for your kind.
But the simple fact of the matter is, How you choose to read the bible is not nessisarily what the bible is meant to say.
Now I understand that you BELIEVE with all your heart you have the absolutely figured out know exactly how to read it and there is no possible way it can even be read otherwise, but your wrong.

So the question is not "The bible is wrong, how do we fix it?"
the question is "My reading of the bible is wrong, what is the proper reading?"


First of all, i didnt actually say that. I was talking about humans, not the universe.
Second of all, since when is sonofusion how the universe started? I do not remember ever reading about that. Its like pretending we now have lamps that turn on when you say "Light" and act as though that vindicates the creation story.


Just for fun, imagine that there is no such thing as sonofusion.
At that point, would the bible be wrong? Would god be lying when he said he spoke and light appeared?

Ofcourse you wouldnt, you'd say something like "its a miracle" like you do for the talking animals, man being made from dirt, woman from a rib. the mist, the existance of water to begin with and everything else. nevermind that each of these are impossible they are all acts of god. But IF at some point something is found that if you stretch it far enough might somehow be related to one of those thousands of impossible acts of god then all of a sudden its proof positive that the bible is true? Nonsense.

The problem with your types of 'evidence' is that if you would not accept them in reverse, you should not accept them in the current state either. If you make enough BS claims vague enough sooner or later something is going to stick even if you have to stretch it.


I work with the framework that if there is a god and if he told you how it happend in the bible. That your reading it wrong. The fact there are over 30.000 sects of christianity is pretty good evidence that people suck at agreeing what the bible really says. But you can bet your lunchmoney that every single one of them will say they got it right.

With that in mind, I am trying to find out what those couple thousand sects that arent denying history believe the bible says. You arent among those, ergo I have no interest in anything you are trying to say.

Now will you kindly shut up, I am not here to debate weither christianity is true or weither the bible is true.

I will make this my last post...not because you right...or even have logic, but I will show you some mercy and do what you ask though you have sterotyped me over and over. You knew vary plainly that the bible give a simple way to compute the age of the earth and human race, but you disagreed with the number before you started this thread based on what you "know". I agree with the bible based on what I "know". And you want me to leave because of this...so bye

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

(Gen 5) says they did die after 900 or so years after the fall.

Right I guess that was confusing.
I meant we know they did not die in that time frame.(because they are said to die only 6000 years ago, aswell as their first offspring)

Actually no we are not, remember Cain's wife? where did she come from if they were the only ones? The bible only says Adam and Eve were the first. it does not say they were the only ones.

Ah right, I forgot about that.
so you are saying god basically kept a 'zoo' with 2 of every animal in it while outside of it the world carried on in the manner that we know it? I could see how that works. god made the first 2 humans by special creation ages ago then proceeded make more of them by whatever means.

That seems to work pretty well with the idea of essentialism aswell actually. the 'perfect' essense of the creatures being those in the garden.

If that is not what you mean please explain.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I will make this my last post...not because you right...or even have logic, but I will show you some mercy and do what you ask though you have sterotyped me over and over. You knew vary plainly that the bible give a simple way to compute the age of the earth and human race, but you disagreed with the number before you started this thread based on what you "know". I agree with the bible based on what I "know". And you want me to leave because of this...so bye

See maybe this escaped you, but from the moment you attempted to derail the thread I had no intention of respecting you or takening you seriously.

Maybe next time you can take a hint sooner and leave the first time I ask you rather then continue to try to derail a thread with nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic. Or better yet, just stay on topic and you'd have gotten the respect everybody else here recieved.

I am a scientist and know the difference. Evolution is not proveable by experiment data hence it remains a theory only. While gravity has been proven by experiments as the original post pointed out.

Ya know lying is still a sin. You clearly do not know the difference.
Theories do not become laws, Theories explain facts and laws. Theory is as high as you can go.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

in crude terms, yes.

I see, interesting.

I dont mean to be disrespectful if i put things crudely, only an attempt to clearly understand which will always take some of the mystic away for the sake of clarity I suppose.

there is no reason why the change from parabolic history to more literal history should not be graduated. Nevertheless there are clear markers with Genesis 12 (the end of the prologue and the beginning if the biblical story proper), Exodus 1, 1 Samuel 1, Ezra, the gospels,

So each story would progressively contain less fiction (for the sake illustrating a lesson) and more actual history? I could see that I suppose.

Basically going from "Myth" to "Based on a true story" to "history" and several steps in between.

 

[ebia]

So each story would progressively contain less fiction (for the sake illustrating a lesson) and more actual history? I could see that I suppose.

Basically going from "Myth" to "Based on a true story" to "history" and several steps in between.

Kind of, yes. As ancient people's stories get closer to the time of composition they get closer to what we might think of as historical writing.

That said, I would perhaps prefer to call it "parabolic history" rather than myth and certainly either of those two to fiction because the latter can give an erroneous impresion. The bible does include fiction, but I don't think that's the right category for most of Genesis.

If you read 2 Samuel 12 you will find the story of King David and Bathsheba. David fancies Uriah's wife, sleeps with her, and when she gets pregnant he tries to cover things up by arranging for Uriah to get "accidentally" killed in battle. The prophet Nathan tells David a story to show him what he has done:

"There were two men in one city, one rich and one poor. And the rich man had very many flocks and herds, and the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he preserved and reared it, and it grew up with him and with his sons together; it used to eat from his bread and drink from his cup and sleep in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. And there came a traveler to the rich man, and he refrained from taking anything from his flocks and from his herds to prepare for the stranger, since he had come to him as a wayfarer, and he took the ewe lamb of the poor man and prepared it for the man who had come to him."

Nathan's story is about a real event (David's act of incredible injustice), but that event is told in a parabolic way. It's "history", but it's not told in a literal way.

That's similar to the way much of the early chapters of Genesis work - they are describing God's creative acts, humanity's turning from obedience to God's purposes, etc, but in a parabolic way. A way that is focused on significance rather than the facts of what one would have seen had one been there.

 

[drich0150]

Ah right, I forgot about that.
so you are saying god basically kept a 'zoo' with 2 of every animal in it while outside of it the world carried on in the manner that we know it?

The bible tells us that in the Garden life and things were perfect as God intended them to be. after the fall of Man Adam and eve were cast outside of the garden where the ground was cursed. which if we use today as any kind of standard the we can assume that life outside of the garden would be something like it is today.(Because we still refer to the "ground" as being cursed as a direct result of the fall.)

So yes in a manner of speaking. "Human beings" (If their were any) or whatever lived outside of the garden could have been more or less the same as Adam and Eve and their offspring, except for one thing. Adam and Eve were made in the image of God having a soul/Spirit. IF there was anything outside of the garden that science could identify as a homo sapeian, it does not mean it contained a soul. "We" being offspring of Adam share the soul that God gave the First Man and Woman.

I could see how that works. god made the first 2 humans by special creation ages ago then proceeded make more of them by whatever means.

More or less yes.

That seems to work pretty well with the idea of essentialism aswell actually. the 'perfect' essense of the creatures being those in the garden.

If that is not what you mean please explain

Minus all of the specifics you have what it is i am trying to say.

In the beginning God created Man in His own image, and placed Him in the garden. From that point to the fall of man, a trillion billion years could have elapsed we simply do not know for sure. Outside of the garden Time could have passed as "we" believe it to have happened plus or minus a few billion years. 6000 or so years ago Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden and started the reign of man outside of the garden. Touching off life as we know it till the return of Christ.


This is it in a nut shell.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

The bible tells us that in the Garden life and things were perfect as God intended them to be. after the fall of Man Adam and eve were cast outside of the garden where the ground was cursed. which if we use today as any kind of standard the we can assume that life outside of the garden would be something like it is today.(Because we still refer to the "ground" as being cursed as a direct result of the fall.)

So yes in a manner of speaking. "Human beings" (If their were any) or whatever lived outside of the garden could have been more or less the same as Adam and Eve and their offspring, except for one thing. Adam and Eve were made in the image of God having a soul/Spirit. IF there was anything outside of the garden that science could identify as a homo sapeian, it does not mean it contained a soul. "We" being offspring of Adam share the soul that God gave the First Man and Woman.

I could see that, you'd have 2 seperate places.
1. The garden of eden
2. The world

While god uses special creation for the garden, whichever means he used to produce life outside the garden of for what purpose is unknown in the bible so no conflict with life outside the garden evolving as we discovered.

but after the fall eden-humans are kicked out and meet up with world-humans, passing on the soul that way.

In the beginning God created Man in His own image, and placed Him in the garden. From that point to the fall of man, a trillion billion years could have elapsed we simply do not know for sure. Outside of the garden Time could have passed as "we" believe it to have happened plus or minus a few billion years. 6000 or so years ago Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden and started the reign of man outside of the garden. Touching off life as we know it till the return of Christ.

Interesting perspective.

Just curious, considering we cannot find the garden on earth. Do you believe the entire garden was disbanded and the animals scattered? Lifted to heaven? Or what happend? (Maybe, never on physical earth in the first place?)

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Kind of, yes. As ancient people's stories get closer to the time of composition they get closer to what we might think of as historical writing.

That said, I would perhaps prefer to call it "parabolic history" rather than myth and certainly either of those two to fiction because the latter can give an erroneous impresion. The bible does include fiction, but I don't think that's the right category for most of Genesis.

If you read 2 Samuel 12 you will find the story of King David and Bathsheba. David fancies Uriah's wife, sleeps with her, and when she gets pregnant he tries to cover things up by arranging for Uriah to get "accidentally" killed in battle. The prophet Nathan tells David a story to show him what he has done:

Nathan's story is about a real event (David's act of incredible injustice), but that event is told in a parabolic way. It's "history", but it's not told in a literal way.

That's similar to the way much of the early chapters of Genesis work - they are describing God's creative acts, humanity's turning from obedience to God's purposes, etc, but in a parabolic way. A way that is focused on significance rather than the facts of what one would have seen had one been there.

I think I see what you mean, I apologize for my poor choice in wording.
'Parabolic History' has an interesting ring to it.

I have some minor issue quite putting together the picture of what this would look like in practical terms though. Perhaps you could help me out by describing what you believe history looked and how you relate it to the parabolic history in the bible? Like for instance adam/eve is a parabolic history of an event but what did the actual event look like? <like, we have the rich man taking the lamb. The actual event involved david nearly murdering a man.>



I'd also like to take a moment and thank both you and drich for your differing but both interesting contributions.

 

[drich0150]

I could see that, you'd have 2 separate places.
1. The garden of eden
2. The world

While god uses special creation for the garden, whichever means he used to produce life outside the garden of for what purpose is unknown in the bible so no conflict with life outside the garden evolving as we discovered.

but after the fall eden-humans are kicked out and meet up with world-humans, passing on the soul that way.



Interesting perspective.

Just curious, considering we cannot find the garden on earth. Do you believe the entire garden was disbanded and the animals scattered? Lifted to heaven? Or what happened? (Maybe, never on physical earth in the first place?)

We have been given the a basic understanding of where the garden was. Genesis 2:10-14, “A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold…The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.”

And, also take int account that we were also told that man would never set foot in the garden again, and that an angel of the lord was dispatched to guard it with a fiery sword.

If you look at a map one can place two of those rivers on the map still, both are in what we now know as desert... Kinda what a place would look like if someone put it to a fire.. Or maybe what is meant by, guarded by a fiery sword. This would full fill that prophesy in that no man will ever set foot in the garden again. (Because we can't for all of the sand.)

In short the garden or what is left of it is buried beneath the desert (along with the other two identifying rivers.)

Maybe that is why there is so much oil there. Without a doubt it was lush at some point.

 

[razeontherock]

Interesting thread! Of course Drich and Ebia have both presented reasonable and different views. I don't firmly hold any on the topic, but merely present that it is possible that the story is more allegorical, referring to the birth of man's psyche, intellect and self-awareness. Perhaps by special creation, perhaps by a punctuated equilibrium that equates to miracles working alongside natural means, perhaps by purely natural means.

All of which is within the realm of possibility per historic teaching within the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

[ebia]

I think I see what you mean, I apologize for my poor choice in wording.
'Parabolic History' has an interesting ring to it.

I have some minor issue quite putting together the picture of what this would look like in practical terms though. Perhaps you could help me out by describing what you believe history looked and how you relate it to the parabolic history in the bible? Like for instance adam/eve is a parabolic history of an event but what did the actual event look like? <like, we have the rich man taking the lamb. The actual event involved david nearly murdering a man.>

I'd also like to take a moment and thank both you and drich for your differing but both interesting contributions.

The event includes the creation of people (the evolution of the first people and their being able to form an idea 'God') and presumably some of the choices they made.

If all we knew was Nathan's story we could not reconstruct literal history from it. We might be able to say someone powerful had done something really bad, we might guess the king was involved, but that's about it.

Neither Nathan's story nor Genesis 2/3 is designed to teach us the 'literal facts', but the significance.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

We have been given the a basic understanding of where the garden was. Genesis 2:10-14, “A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold…The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.”

And, also take int account that we were also told that man would never set foot in the garden again, and that an angel of the lord was dispatched to guard it with a fiery sword.

If you look at a map one can place two of those rivers on the map still, both are in what we now know as desert... Kinda what a place would look like if someone put it to a fire.. Or maybe what is meant by, guarded by a fiery sword. This would full fill that prophesy in that no man will ever set foot in the garden again. (Because we can't for all of the sand.)

In short the garden or what is left of it is buried beneath the desert (along with the other two identifying rivers.)

Maybe that is why there is so much oil there. Without a doubt it was lush at some point.

I see,
and what do you believe happend to the other animals that were in the garden?

 

[drich0150]

I see,
and what do you believe happend to the other animals that were in the garden?

like what?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

like what?

Maybe I confused something.

I thought the garden had all those animals in it that adam has to name and eventually notices that there are two of every animal in the garden except for him.

So I guess those animals, I dont remember if the specific ones are actually mentioned.

 

[razeontherock]

Neither Nathan's story nor Genesis 2/3 is designed to teach us the 'literal facts', but the significance.

And that is the way the Bible should be read! What is significant about how long man has been around, is: not very long, from G-d's perspective. Were we there to counsel Him how to start creation? Were we even there to observe it?