Adam and Eve spoke What language?

[lucaspa]

So God's original design (before sin entered the world) was for humans to live a period of time and then die a physical death?

What was the point of life then?

Like Assyrian said, what does the Bible say the point of life was?

If, after physcial death, we are to go live with God, why do you think physical death is so bad?

 

[lucaspa]

That's your opinion and assumption based on your interpretation of the collective evidence. I, too, have opinions based on my theological and philosophical beliefs.

There's a difference between a conclusion "based on the collective evidence" and "opinions based on my theological and philosophical beliefs". What you are saying is that you pick the beliefs ahead of time and do not care about the evidence. It may be "opinion" but it is informed opinion based on evidence. In contrast, your opinion is based only on what you want things to be. That's not an adequate basis for finding truth.

I believe that God actually and really created in six literal days and that the author of Genesis one is recording true events in exact detail.

He can't be, because the details in Genesis 2 contradict the details in Genesis 1, when both are read literally.

This again is based on how you've interpreted the collective evidence - which is directly influenced by your philosophical and theological perspective.

No, it's not. Instead, the philosophical and theological perspective is influenced by the evidence. If you think it works the way you stated, then the disciples could never have founded Christianity. After all, their philosophical and theological perspective was that of being Jewish, and Jesus did not fit the criteria for being the Messiah. It was that discrepancy between Jesus and the theological perspective that led Jews to reject Jesus as Messiah.

But instead, the disciples went with the "collective evidence" of seeing and talking to the risen Jesus and changed their philosophical and theological perspective.

Again I, too, have my own opinion. I believe that the preponderance of early and global flood myths not only came from a real event but that this event was the same global flood mentioned in Genesis. Not some large localized flood in Iraq.

The problem here is that there is not a "preponderance" of global flood myths. Most peoples do not have one. Richard Andre did a comprehensive collection of myths about the floods. It was Die Flutsagen: Ehnthographisch Btrachtet, 1891. Andre had nearly 90 deluge traditions. Of these, 26 arose from the Babylonian story and 43 were independent. He noted a lack of deluge traditions in Arabia, Japan, northern and central Asia, Africa, and much of Europe. He concluded that not everyone had descended from survivors of a single deluge, otherwise the traditions would all have been much more identical and there would be deluge traditions in every society instead of a minority.

As it happens, the stories in Genesis 6-8 (and there are 2 flood stories intertwined) come from the Epic of Gilgamesh. They are a re-working of that story to make it theologically serve the Hebrew people during the Exile.

I don't care what you wish to call it. I'm suggesting it actually happened the exact way it was reported to us by the author(s) of Genesis.

Then you deny God created.

 

[Jig]

There's a difference between a conclusion "based on the collective evidence" and "opinions based on my theological and philosophical beliefs". What you are saying is that you pick the beliefs ahead of time and do not care about the evidence. It may be "opinion" but it is informed opinion based on evidence. In contrast, your opinion is based only on what you want things to be. That's not an adequate basis for finding truth.

All evidence must be interpreted. All interpretation is based on an underlying foundation of personal philosophical beliefs. There is no escaping it.

He can't be, because the details in Genesis 2 contradict the details in Genesis 1, when both are read literally.

Depends on the hermeneutic you are using. I read the account literally and see no contradiction.

No, it's not. Instead, the philosophical and theological perspective is influenced by the evidence.

All evidence is neutral; it does not speak for itself.

Then you deny God created.

I'm not the one in denial.

 

[Hairy Tic]

That's your opinion and assumption based on your interpretation of the collective evidence. I, too, have opinions based on my theological and philosophical beliefs. I believe that God actually and really created in six literal days and that the author of Genesis one is recording true events in exact detail.

On a side note: the status quo in academia on who authored Genesis has been changing in the last ten years. Many theologians and Biblical scholars no longer accept the documentary hypothesis as feasible.

## And a great many do. There have been all sorts of changes in the use and understanding of the DH over the years, & there is a long history of mistaking debate about it and refinement of it with rejection of it. That is what one would expect - the same can be said for "Q", & Marcan priority.

This again is based on how you've interpreted the collective evidence - which is directly influenced by your philosophical and theological perspective.

And...?

Again I, too, have my own opinion. I believe that the preponderance of early and global flood myths not only came from a real event but that this event was the same global flood mentioned in Genesis. Not some large localized flood in Iraq.



I don't care what you wish to call it. I'm suggesting it actually happened the exact way it was reported to us by the author(s) of Genesis.

## And I disagree with you. You have your opinions - others have theirs. Why is that remarkable ? Isn't that to be expected ? I don't understand the defensiveness in your post.

 

[Hairy Tic]

While that's true, what you've written could be misleading. The main realization from the documentary hypothesis (DP) was that no single author, and certainly not moses, wrote the pentateuch. The newer hypotheses, and there are scores of them, agree that moses didn't write the pentateuch, and nearly always have many authors writing it. The main departure from the DP is that they often have MORE separate authors, such as the Fragmentary Hypothesis.

## That is what James Barr said almost 30 years ago - that there were indeed changes, but not in the direction of suggesting fewer authors; in the direction, rather, of suggesting there were more.

I've seen many uninformed Christians state that the DP is outdated as a way to suggest that modern Bible scholars are going back to the idea that Moses wrote it, when in fact that's not the case at all, and the newer ideas that now compete with the DP are, like the DP, rejections of authorship by Moses, or even by a single person.

##

Jig, you don't have to take my word for it either, here is one example of a review of current thought:
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/10_126.pdf

Jig, in light of that, do you agree that modern Bible Scholars are practically unanimous that Moses didn't write it, and that many authors are involved, over a long period of time?

Papias

 

[Hairy Tic]

There's a difference between a conclusion "based on the collective evidence" and "opinions based on my theological and philosophical beliefs". What you are saying is that you pick the beliefs ahead of time and do not care about the evidence. It may be "opinion" but it is informed opinion based on evidence. In contrast, your opinion is based only on what you want things to be. That's not an adequate basis for finding truth.



He can't be, because the details in Genesis 2 contradict the details in Genesis 1, when both are read literally.



No, it's not. Instead, the philosophical and theological perspective is influenced by the evidence. If you think it works the way you stated, then the disciples could never have founded Christianity. After all, their philosophical and theological perspective was that of being Jewish, and Jesus did not fit the criteria for being the Messiah. It was that discrepancy between Jesus and the theological perspective that led Jews to reject Jesus as Messiah.

But instead, the disciples went with the "collective evidence" of seeing and talking to the risen Jesus and changed their philosophical and theological perspective.



The problem here is that there is not a "preponderance" of global flood myths. Most peoples do not have one. Richard Andre did a comprehensive collection of myths about the floods. It was Die Flutsagen: Ehnthographisch Btrachtet, 1891. Andre had nearly 90 deluge traditions. Of these, 26 arose from the Babylonian story and 43 were independent. He noted a lack of deluge traditions in Arabia, Japan, northern and central Asia, Africa, and much of Europe. He concluded that not everyone had descended from survivors of a single deluge, otherwise the traditions would all have been much more identical and there would be deluge traditions in every society instead of a minority.

As it happens, the stories in Genesis 6-8 (and there are 2 flood stories intertwined) come from the Epic of Gilgamesh. They are a re-working of that story to make it theologically serve the Hebrew people during the Exile.

## Claus Westermann, in volume 1 of his commentary on Genesis, observes that at least 250 Flood stories are known. What people seem not to notice is that the fact of there being such a story tells us nothing about its origin, nor whether it is the only one from its culture, nor about the function it fulfilled in the society it was found in; as he is careful to point out.

There are at least two Flood-narratives from Babylonia, that in Tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh Epic which you mention, & the Atrahasis Epic, which predated and influenced it. There is also, older than both of them, a Sumerian Flood poem. Unfortunately, out of 200 or so lines, only 40 remain; but that is quite enough to compare all three. The two Babylonian poems have been edited & much discussed, & the literary history of the Epic of Gilgamesh is sufficiently clear for its various stages to be usefully compared, even in detail. Which is the same kind of critical operation as is engaged in when attempts are made to trace the "ancestry" of the text of the books of the Bible.

Here are the Sumerian fragments of the Flood story:

• The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature

Gilgamesh, Tablet 11:

• Epic of Gilgamesh: Tablet XI

The Atrahasis Epic is not, it seems, available on-line. Tablet 1 (of 3) is, but 3 is the tablet containing Flood-account.

I have found this book very stimulating:

• Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic - home page noahs-ark-flood.com

Then you deny God created.

 

[Hairy Tic]

All evidence must be interpreted. All interpretation is based on an underlying foundation of personal philosophical beliefs. There is no escaping it.



Depends on the hermeneutic you are using. I read the account literally and see no contradiction.

## What do you make of the fight with the monster Rahab ?

All evidence is neutral; it does not speak for itself.

## And the same holds for the contents of Genesis. It does not claim to be history, so there is no reason (that I know of) why it *must* be treated as history, and several why not. Why can't the contents of Genesis 1 to 11 be (inspired) myths or fairy-tales ? That in no way deprives them of their theological message - it means only that they are not accounts of actual events befalling actually historical individuals. IOW, it changes their supposed literary genre - from history, to myth.

If they are actually historical, why do they speak Hebrew ? Hebrew is neither the oldest language, nor the oldest known language, nor even the oldest Semitic language. If, OTOH, Hebrew-speakers compiled the texts, the liguistic practice of the characters is explained.

If these texts are historical, it is curious that they are so like many myths and folk-tales, and contain features shared with many tales no one is expected to believe is real. A serpent capable of articulate speech - in Hebrew ? - and reasoned debate, & apparently of estimating with an alleged result is probable or not, is not a beast one meets with every day - except in folktales, myths, & fairy-tales: the talking horse Xanthus who speaks to Achilles, & the talking birds who warn the hero Sigurd, do not belong to the world of history, but of the imagination. Why should the ratiocinating serpent in Genesis 3 be different ? Why cannot folklore and myth have been taken into the Bible, as a legitimate part of it, and also, perhaps, as consecration of the mythopoetic imagination that tells such tales ? Why cannot there be in the Bible a place for the sanctified imagination ? Not because it can be turned to evil ends; if that were why it cannot, the works of reason would also be excluded. So, if there is no place for the works of the imagination in the Bible - why is that ?

I'm not the one in denial.

 

[Assyrian]

What is fascinating is the way the documentary hypothesis is being accepted among Creationist too, only in the form of 'The Tablet Theory'. It says the same thing though, that Genesis is composed of much older documents brought together by an editor. Of course they also claim in that the original documents were written by Adam and Noah and that the editor was Moses, but that is just wild speculation. What they do have evidence for, and from the text of Genesis itself is that it is composed of a series of separate documents. Interestingly the documents they identify through the use of toledoth, or generations, matches the main documents identified by differences in style and vocabulary by the documentary hypothesis.

 

[Jig]

Hairy, doesn't the Roman Catholic Church have a position stating that Adam was a real historical person?

 

[Assyrian]

So God's original design (before sin entered the world) was for humans to live a period of time and then die a physical death?

What was the point of life then?

What does the bible say God's original purpose was?

For someone who like to keep asking questions, you are not very good at answering them yourself.

 

[Jig]

For someone who like to keep asking questions, you are not very good at answering them yourself.

I want to be sure I understand your position better. You already seem to know what I believe.

 

[Assyrian]

I want to be sure I understand your position better. You already seem to know what I believe.

You mean you weren't just trying to pick holes in TE? Not that there's anything wrong with that. But this is a discussion forum, not a police interview, so asking questions should be a two way street.

However if you do want to understand my position, the best way is to try to answer my question:

What does the bible say God's original purpose was?
​

I am not talking about what you think God's purpose must have been from your interpretation of how he created the world, but what God tells us in his word his purpose was.

 

[Jig]

answer my question:

What does the bible say God's original purpose was?
​

Our 'purpose in life', as God originally created man, is 1) glorify God and enjoy fellowship with Him, 2) have good relationships with others, 3) work, and 4) have dominion over the earth. But with man's fall into sin, fellowship with God is broken, relationships with others are strained, work seems to always be frustrating, and man struggles to maintain any semblance of dominion over nature.

The 'purpose of man' is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

This is why I feel your understanding that physical death was part of God's original plan is odd. What would be the point of creating man only to have him live for a short amount of time on Earth?

Life is pointless if death exists because life can only have meaning if it never ends.

 

[Assyrian]

Our 'purpose in life', as God originally created man, is 1) glorify God and enjoy fellowship with Him, 2) have good relationships with others, 3) work, and 4) have dominion over the earth. But with man's fall into sin, fellowship with God is broken, relationships with others are strained, work seems to always be frustrating, and man struggles to maintain any semblance of dominion over nature.

The 'purpose of man' is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

This is why I feel your understanding that physical death was part of God's original plan is odd. What would be the point of creating man only to have him live for a short amount of time on Earth?

Life is pointless if death exists because life can only have meaning if it never ends.

Technically, "glorify God and enjoy Him forever" is the Westminster Catechism rather than scripture. With the rest you fell into the trap I warned you about of trying to work out God's purpose from your interpretation of Genesis rather than what what the bible tells us God's purpose was. Your points are true enough, God does want us to have fellowship with one another, work and have dominion over the earth, but they are not what the bible tells us God's purpose was from before the foundation of the world.

Which is why you end up describing the failure of God's purpose (your version of it anyway) when man sinned. Which is odd because because you seem to think it is the TE understanding of creation that contradicts God's purpose.

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.

Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2Tim 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

1Pet 1:18 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
20 He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake.

The gospel wasn't God's Plan B to rescue his original purpose in creation which we messed up in the garden. God purpose before the foundation of the world was that we would receive life and immortality through Christ and his death on the cross. If God's purpose from before the foundation of the world was to bring life and immortality through our Saviour Jesus Christ, how does creating the human race mortal contradict that purpose? In fact if God's plan was for his son to be born a human and to die for us, doesn't that purpose involve humans being mortal?

 

[Hairy Tic]

Hairy, doesn't the Roman Catholic Church have a position stating that Adam was a real historical person?

## It was officially clarified about 100 years ago by the Pontifical Biblical Commission that his existence could not be safely denied. It published many documents, which though very traditional in outlook did allow for the possibility that the positions they rejected might in due course be validated.

That particular decision is in effect a dead letter, and has been since the late 50s. One topic of discussion among Catholics is whether it is meant to be a dead letter, or whether it is still, at least morally, in force; and, if so, what this means or shold mean in practice. Things like the niceties of Church law, the authority of X to say that Y is the case, & such like minutiae, can be rather important - exegesis & dogma are also involved in the issue of Adam's existence.

There are Catholic Biblical scholars who maintain that the PBC judgement is still in force; but most would say that Gen.1-11 is primeval history, & that the characters mentioned are not intended by the sacred author to be understood as historical. Some Catholic scholars are dead against the documentary hypothesis - others, the great majority, have no problems working with it. (Rather curiously, those with a "high" Mariology seem often to be opposed to ideas of evolution & Biblical criticism - they overlap with the more "traditionalist" wing of Catholicism.) To cut a long story short - I hope not too short - no Catholic is likely to get in hot water for denying the historical actuality of Adam.

By contrast, the fact of original sin, the spirituality of the soul, its infusion into the body at conception, that all men are born in original sin not by imitation of the sin of Adam but by propagation, & other doctrines & dogmas with some connection to the doctrinal interpretation of Genesis 1-5, are part of Catholic teaching. Which may sound rather strange

 

[granpa]

My question just shows the irrational implications of believing that mental capacity to sin against God somehow evolved in humans. Either you're capable or you're not, there is no middle ground. There must be a line that was crossed. Did the humans on the non-capable side still need Jesus? Or were they like dogs and geese?

nonhumans lack reason and the capacity for speech.
Once they became human they were fully capable of reason and speech.
There is no in-between.

our earliest ancestors would have become human later in life.
Not as infants or young children as it is today.

 

[juvenissun]

Everyone spoke the same language up until the 4th generation after the flood.
Adams life overlapped with Methusalah, who in turn overlapped with Noah and Shem, and Shem lived till days of Abraham.

What language did they/God communicate in.?

Would Shems language have been confused or retained at Babel?

Did Abraham speak Hebrew? Or did he change his language after he changed his name?

 

[Jazer]

Hairy, doesn't the Roman Catholic Church have a position stating that Adam was a real historical person?

Science says that Adam was a real historical person, they just can not verify that Adam and Eve lived at the same time. But all people have a most recent common ancestor. Most of the Middle east (Hebrew & Arab) call upon Abraham as their common ancestor, but the geneology can be traced from Abraham back to Adam.

 

[Jazer]

Did Abraham speak Hebrew? Or did he change his language after he changed his name?

Abraham was a Chaldean from the city of Ur. That is in the area that is now Iraq. The Chaldeans later became a part of Babylon. Their major city today is Baghdad. A city Bush did not seem to have any problems droping bombs on. The Chaldeans were advanced in Science, but Abraham was called by God to come out from among them and not to partake in their sin. Abraham like Moses was fully trained in all the science/education of their day.

 

[Jazer]

So at one point in time a mother incapable of sin gave birth to a child capable of sin?

Did his mother have a soul capable of going to Heaven? Or did she miss out by one generation, even though she was 99.99 percent similar to her child?

Eve came from Adams rib. So she did not have a mother, unless you consider her mother in law to be her mother.