Something in the Bible that is actually supported by evidence

[Wiccan_Child]

The British Museum holds the 'Adam and Eve' cylinder seal. Although Assyriologists no long believe the seal depicts Adam and Eve and the snake, they note the parallels between Genesis and Sumerian myth.

Then by your own admission it does not contain any evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve, the characters in the Bible purported to be the first, original humans from whom all modern humans are descended.

Adam is also equated with the Sumerian Adapa, the first sage of Eridu (Fischer, Historical Genesis, 1996, 308). The "p" in Adapa could change to "m" in Hebrew giving the name Adama.

That may well be the case. Myths have a habit of spreading to other cultures by osmosis. That doesn't make the original claim true, however.

There is geologic evidence of local-flooding within Mesopotamia which fits with the Biblical timeframe. The archaeologist Leonard Woolley claimed to have found the flood strata of the Genesis flood at Ur.

Exactly: a local flood. There are now, and have been, countless local floods, so we should expect at least one major flood in Mesopotamia. That's unsurprising. However, since the Bible claims there was a global flood (Gen. 7:19-20), your claim that everything in the Bible is supported by secular archaeology remains unfounded.

Which is what i said. The Bible is history. The author of the OP however has claimed virtually nothing in the Bible can be supported by evidence, which is completely wrong.

Actually, the OP states quite clearly that there are quite a few things in the Bible that are supported by the evidence. The point is that they're all mundane and relatively uninteresting - the juicy stuff is the talking donkeys and global floods and resurrected dead. You, however, claim that everything in the Bible is supported by secular history and archaeology. I contend that this is not the case - the more fantastical elements of the Bible are at best lacking in any evidence for or against, or at worst flat-out contradictory to the evidence, or are otherwise twisted to fit the evidence (such as changing the Global Flood to a local flood, or the primacy of Adam to just one of many coexisting humans, or the talking donkey as allegory).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Adam is not solely a single individual, but a house or clan name, exactly the same for the other patriarchs. Note that when Noah boards the ark, it states his ''house'' (clan) enters. The Hebrew here is bayith, meaning ''clan'' or ''tribe''. This also explains why Adam lived to 930 years, and the extreme long age of the other patriarchs - as they were not soley single individuals but house dynasties.

Adam lived to 130 years of age (historically possible) but there was a residue figure of 800 years after which his house continued under his name. Its impossible a single man could have lived to 930 years, but a dynasty easily could have under that name.

Also, Genesis nowhere claims all Humans descended from Adam, ethnography back then was very limited. The only descendants of Adam were those limited to the Mesopotamian area. The Bible only really is concerned with a limited ethnological perspective from the middle-east, there are for example no Australian Aborigines, Eskimos and so forth mentioned in the Bible - simply because they were never known by the authors.

I see no corroboration with that in the Bible, but if you wish to interpret Genesis allegorically, then that's fine. In that scenario, Genesis becomes flexible enough to fit established science - it is unsurprising and, indeed, uninteresting, that there was a tribe in the Middle-East, which lived alongside other tribes and was descended from pre-existing tribes. This is a mundane fact, not a supernaturally created individual.

Because the limited ''global'' geography at that time was only a few hundred miles - so the flood is both world-wide and local if you understand the ancient near eastern context.

But, ultimately, not actually global, correct? Even though Genesis specifically states that it covered all mountains?

See above, the flood was global to the ancient Sumerians, but by today's modern understanding of the globe - only local & confined to the Mesopotamian area. Our geographic knowledge has greatly expanded since c. 2950 BC when the Genesis flood occurred.

Scholars all the time are providing rational historic explanations for all Biblical events. Jesus walking on water for example, there was a recent scientific paper published showing that he could have walked on ice.

Undoubtedly, but what's the point in that? Jesus was supposed to be the Son of God, and as such could walk on liquid water as proof of his divinity. Walking on ice is uninteresting, as anyone can do it.



It seems you have interpreted the Bible in such a way that all of the apparently supernatural and miraculous goings on are, in fact, just mundane phenomenon exaggerated or misreported by the composite texts of the Bible. The flood was actually local, Jesus did nothing spectacular or divine, etc. If that's the case, then of course the entirety of the Bible is supported by secular history and archaeology - you've reinterpreted the text specifically to fit secular history and archaeology. I could do the same with Great Expectations, Star Trek, and the Qu'ran - but that rather undermines the whole point of the discussion.

 

[OllieFranz]

Scholars all the time are providing rational historic explanations for all Biblical events. Jesus walking on water for example, there was a recent scientific paper published showing that he could have walked on ice.

Was there a Koine word for ice?

And if so, why was it not used instead of "water" for the surface on which He walked?

If not, why not? Was ice so unknown? If so, then wouldn't the Sea of Galilee freezing over be considered in itself a miracle worthy of note?

And why would they be in a boat in any case, rather than ice-fishing?

 

[Phred]

Adam is not solely a single individual, but a house or clan name, exactly the same for the other patriarchs. Note that when Noah boards the ark, it states his ''house'' (clan) enters. The Hebrew here is bayith, meaning ''clan'' or ''tribe''. This also explains why Adam lived to 930 years, and the extreme long age of the other patriarchs - as they were not soley single individuals but house dynasties.

So now we're supposed to believe in YOUR interpretation, not the actual words. Which is why I seek to find EVIDENCE to support the Bible. And why I show you what is actually supported vs. what you think is supported. And the difference between them.

Adam lived to 130 years of age (historically possible) but there was a residue figure of 800 years after which his house continued under his name. Its impossible a single man could have lived to 930 years, but a dynasty easily could have under that name.

Or it was just made up. Or they added a zero to make it seem impressive. Or any of a million other possibilities such as Adam never actually existed. You see, you're leaving out the assumptions that YOU make. Such as, the Bible is true so you have to find a way to make it so.

Also, Genesis nowhere claims all Humans descended from Adam, ethnography back then was very limited. The only descendants of Adam were those limited to the Mesopotamian area. The Bible only really is concerned with a limited ethnological perspective from the middle-east, there are for example no Australian Aborigines, Eskimos and so forth mentioned in the Bible - simply because they were never known by the authors.

Again, YOUR interpretation. Pull some evidence out and show us first that Adam actually existed before you start all this nonsensical guessing.

Because the limited ''global'' geography at that time was only a few hundred miles - so the flood is both world-wide and local if you understand the ancient near eastern context.

Again, YOUR interpretation. Which differs from others here on this very forum. Which is why you need EVIDENCE not speculation.

See above, the flood was global to the ancient Sumerians, but by today's modern understanding of the globe - only local & confined to the Mesopotamian area. Our geographic knowledge has greatly expanded since c. 2950 BC when the Genesis flood occurred.

Except wouldn't God have known the difference?

Scholars all the time are providing rational historic explanations for all Biblical events. Jesus walking on water for example, there was a recent scientific paper published showing that he could have walked on ice.

HA! Please provide a link to that paper. In other news the translation could be read to say that Jesus walked "near" the water. Or, once again, a thousand other things that you can't show without EVIDENCE.

Do you understand why evidence is important and why it needs to be used in a consistent manner? That's science. You can speculate all you wish but you'll never be able to show any of it is real.

 

[Phred]

My reading of the Bible is how it was written in light of the ancient near eastern context, so its not an interpretation, its historical truth.

Uh huh.

Adam has a historical basis, we find his name as Adamu/Apada in Sumerian and Babylonian cuneiform tablets and most prominent Assyriologists since the late 19th century have supported the fact he was a real Mesopotamian.

Really? And because there was a guy named "Apada" in Sumeria sometime in the past that means it's the same one that was the first human created by God? Who then carved the tablets?

Furthermore all the antideluvian patriarchs listed in Genesis match up on the Sumerian King List.

Stand still my beating heart! If you put it in Italics it MUST be true.

I read scholarly literature and am interested in the evidence Assyriologists and archaeologists have presented.

Then why are you unable to post any of it here beyond giving us your word on it? Why are you unable to give us anything besides your word that these self-same experts are indeed supporting your interpretation?

Its quite apparent this is a topic you know very little on.

I understand what "evidence" is. Something you don't. Putting something in italics does not make it true.

Instead you only come here posting your emotions and militant atheism, you have a personal agenda to deconstruct the Bible and claim everything in it has no historical truth but is a fairytale. For this reason you are a quite a quack.

Again, I've offered you every opportunity to show me where I'm wrong. I've given you ample time to show me how there is evidence to support every word of the Bible. You've put words in italics and called me a quack. If you had any evidence you'd have presented it. I've shown you examples of what evidence actually is. You've pretended to have evidence and talked down to me like that makes your claims more substantial. In the end you're just another believer who isn't satisfied with his faith. You feel the need to prove your faith and there's where you fail. There is no proof of talking snakes, men created from dirt, miracles and global floods. There's no proof of God even. If you were honest, you'd simply say that these are elements requiring faith and nobody could argue with you about that.

But... for some reason you have to dig out these half-truths. The story of the first man is found in cultures around the globe. The word for "man" in Hebrew is roughly translated as "Adam". I'm sure the same story is told on these cuneiform tablets you mention. And, the languages being similar the word translates roughly the same. "Man". Adamu. It's not like you found him as the only entry in the first clay yellow pages.

Your interpretation is indeed your interpretation. It's not me that would argue that with you but your fellow Christians who take a more... literal approach. You're just one more 100% sure person who knows "historical truth" when he makes it up.

 

[Jazer]

Adam has a historical basis,

They have a next door neighbor theory. Science tells us when Bible Adam lived and where he lived. So they say it could not have been the Adam in the Bible it must have been someone else that we have never heard of and that is not in the history books or the collective conscious of the people.

 

[Jazer]

I've given you ample time to show me how there is evidence to support every word of the Bible.

It is all true because you can not prove any of it not to be true.
Why do we keep going back and forth?
Prove it's true/Prove it's not true.

 

[Phred]

They have a next door neighbor theory. Science tells us when Bible Adam lived and where he lived. So they say it could not have been the Adam in the Bible it must have been someone else that we have never heard of and that is not in the history books or the collective conscious of the people.

No, science tells you no such thing. This is what happens when you only understand a tiny bit about what you research. But... you've been told again and again and again with no results so I doubt telling you again will help.

 

[Jazer]

No, science tells you no such thing.

Science does tell us such a thing. Science has confirmed the Cohen Gene. Science tells us about a recent common ancestor that lived 6,000 years ago. It is amazing how far Science has progressed in just the last 10 years to produce new evidence that the Bible is true. Evidence that is in the DNA in every cell of your body. Every fiber of our body proclaims the Glory of God.

 

[Phred]

It is all true because you can not prove any of it not to be true.
Why do we keep going back and forth?
Prove it's true/Prove it's not true.

We keep going back and forth because you think that proving it not to be true means something. I can't prove pink unicorns don't exist. I can't prove you're not a trans-sexual circus clown. Does that mean you are? Your standards for what is and is not true are sorely lacking.

I don't need to prove the Bible isn't true. You need to prove that the Bible IS true. You need to show how these very special claims are true and you need to do so with very special evidence.

We don't have to go back and forth. Why?

You can't prove it to be true.

Until you do that there's really nothing more to be said.

 

[Phred]

Science does tell us such a thing. Science has confirmed the Cohen Gene. Science tells us about a recent common ancestor that lived 6,000 years ago. It is amazing how far Science has progressed in just the last 10 years to produce new evidence that the Bible is true. Evidence that is in the DNA in every cell of your body. Every fiber of our body proclaims the Glory of God.

You've been told, over and over again that the Cohen gene doesn't mean what you think it means. You can run around claiming that it means such-and-such. But it doesn't. Every time you drag this out you just show your ignorance of the topic. Again.

 

[Jazer]

You can't prove it to be true.

It does not matter what I can or can not do. I simply show what science can do and it is up to you if you want to accept or reject science. Although I am trained to just teach the Bible. Do whatever we can to help people to learn Bible truth.

 

[Phred]

It does not matter what I can or can not do. I simply show what science can do and it is up to you if you want to accept or reject science. Although I am trained to just teach the Bible. Do whatever we can to help people to learn Bible truth.

But you lie. You lie about what science can do. You lie about the associations between evidence and the Bible. You lie about all manner of things that there is no need to lie about. And I know you're lying because you've been told again and again and again by more than one person here and yet you continue to post that stupid chart that does not show what you claim it shows. And you'll post it again and again and again.

You may be trained to teach the Bible but you haven't read it very well.

 

[cupid dave]

My reading of the Bible is how it was written in light of the ancient near eastern context, so its not an interpretation, its historical truth.



Adam has a historical basis, we find his name as Adamu/Apada in Sumerian and Babylonian cuneiform tablets and most prominent Assyriologists since the late 19th century have supported the fact he was a real Mesopotamian.

Furthermore all the antideluvian patriarchs listed in Genesis match up on the Sumerian King List.

I read scholarly literature and am interested in the evidence Assyriologists and archaeologists have presented. Its quite apparent this is a topic you know very little on. Instead you only come here posting your emotions and militant atheism, you have a personal agenda to deconstruct the Bible and claim everything in it has no historical truth but is a fairytale. For this reason you are a quite a quack.

But you have no evidence that in those days men actually lived such inordinately long lives as 950 years and such, do you?

 

[Phred]

You asked for historical evidence for Adam. Plenty exists, mostly cuneiform tablets bearing his name, or synonyms/equivilants.

Yes, Adam, first man, created directly by God. You give me evidence for "an Adam". Not THE Adam, no evidence for his being the first man or evidence that he existed and wasn't just being written about.

Several tablet fragments of ''Adapa and the Food of Life'' for example were taken from the Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh, and they date back as copies of far earlier sources. The scholars who first translated these tablet fragments, noted that Adapa appears as Adamu (Adam). The similarities between this, and many other Sumerian or Babylonian sources and the Old Testament Genesis narrative have led scholars to conclude that Genesis borrowed from earlier literary sources or oral traditions, its therefore rooted in genuine history.

Oh dear... there you go again. Where's the beef son? Are you incapable of posting links? Book titles? "have led scholars to conclude" means that the evidence stops and you have some scholars making interpretations. Which I would like to see because I don't believe they are saying that "Adam is a real person who was created directly by God." I have no doubt Genesis comes from earlier oral traditions. I see no way anyone can conclude that snakes talk and Adam and Eve were actual people from the evidence you say they used. Please, enlighten me.

Mesopotamian cuneiform sources go back thousands of years before the earliest extant physical copies of the Old Testament. The Jews during the Babylonian Captivity (6th century BC) just took the Sumerian/Babylonian creation myths such as Eridu Genesis and the Enuma Elish and slightly modified them.

Again, you'll find many who disagree with you. So where is the evidence?

The Sumerian King List is a historical list of the Sumerian kingship, its not fictional and has been corroborated by archaeological inscriptions. Please learn the basics...

From Wikipedia:

The Sumerian King List is an ancient manuscript originally recorded in the Sumerian language, listing kings of Sumer (ancient southern Iraq) from Sumerian and neighboring dynasties, their supposed reign lengths, and the locations of "official" kingship. Kingship was believed to have been handed down by the gods, and could be transferred from one city to another, reflecting perceived hegemony in the region. Throughout its Bronze Age existence, the document evolved into a political tool. Its final and single attested version, dating to the Middle Bronze Age, aimed to legitimize Isin's claims to hegemony when Isin was vying for dominance with Larsa and other neighboring city-states in southern Mesopotamia.

The list blends prehistorical, presumably mythical predynastic rulers with implausibly lengthy reigns with later, more plausibly historical dynasties. Although the primal kings are historically unattested, this does not preclude their possible correspondence with historical rulers who were later mythicized. Some Assyriologists view the predynastic kings as a later fictional addition. Only one ruler listed is known to be female: Kug-Bau "the (female) tavern-keeper", who alone accounts for the Third Dynasty of Kish. The earliest listed ruler whose historicity has been archaeologically verified is En-me-barage-si of Kish, ca. 2600 BC. Reference to this individual in the Epic of Gilgamesh has led to speculation that Gilgamesh himself may be historical. Three dynasties are notably excluded from the list: the Larsa dynasty, which vied for power with the (included) Isin dynasty during the Isin-Larsa period; and the two dynasties of Lagash, which respectively preceded and ensued the Akkadian Empire, when Lagash exercised considerable influence in the region. Lagash in particular is known directly from archaeological artifacts dating from ca. 2500 BC. The list is important to the chronology of the 3rd millennium BC. However, the fact that many of the dynasties listed reigned simultaneously from varying localities makes it difficult to reproduce a strict linear chronology.

None of the following predynastic "antediluvian" rulers have been verified via archaeological excavations, epigraphical inscriptions, or otherwise. It is possible that they correspond to the Early Bronze Age Jemdet Nasr period culture which ended approximately 2900 BC, immediately preceding the dynasts. It is also possible that they were fictional creations to make the kingdom seem more legitimate and ancient to its subjects which would explain the exaggerated lifespans and recurring and composite characters that have overwhelming similarities with their predecessors.

What "basics" are you referring to? False items can just as easily be inscribed as can real ones.

You asked for historical evidence for Adam. I showed you.

No, you postured and told me. You have yet to SHOW me anything.

We have ancient cuneiform sources, early literature and other inscriptions marking his name - all as the same individual. That's what historical evidence is.

And if we find books everywhere with the name "James Bond" in them then he must be real too, no? You fail to see the difference between myth and reality and how the two can just as easily be inscribed on a tablet.

I'm not getting your logic because by your sort of mentality i presume you don't believe Julius Caesar, Boudicca, Genghis Kahn etc existed? Are all ancient or old sources which describe these individuals then fictional?

When we find them listed as rulers or conquerors... but when we read about Julius Caesar being born of a virgin... no, I don't believe that. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. You'd have be believe Adam existed and was the first man created by God because you found graffiti with his name on it.

I'm not religious, i just study the Bible in light of the historical and archaeological evidence.

You need to learn what "evidence" is.

You however are religious, Atheism requires faith, its a belief system/statement/worldview/position etcetc. In contrast i have no religious attatchments, hence i choose the seeker icon.

You also need to learn what atheism is.

 

[cupid dave]

Those are years of tribes or house dynasties, not single individuals. Genesis makes this very clear.

That is one hypothesis, and I believe Isaac Asimos used that idea after the Flood of Noah, to interpret the names as Eponyms, or totem references for the one great ancestor of the people that he saw as a Table of the Nations.

That worked there because the peoples did not disappear as with the 22 "begats" that lead up to Noah and his three sons.

Those 22 "extinctions" are more suggestive of species which existed for thousands of years.

 

[OllieFranz]

Nowhere does Genesis say Adam was the first man in the context you are saying.

Most Genesis apologists claim that the first two chapters of Genesis can be reconciled as teaching the same creation. You seem to be claiming that Adam was not the "man" created in Genesis 1, and was not called by name in the Bible until after he was placed in the garden.

While you can make this claim about Eve, and you can make the claim in a translation of the Bible, you cannot make that claim wrt the Hebrew Bible. The word translated as "man" in Genesis 1:26 -27 is אדם or "adam," the same Hebrew word used for Adam's name.

On the other hand, if you are not separating the two ancestral stories, then, please, explain exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that the Adam in the garden is only the progenitor of the Semitic people and a few extinct (or absorbed into living non-Semitic racial groups) or nearly extinct Japethic and Hamitic peoples without doing so.

 

[ryeaber]

The snake is described as bipedal. It obviously wasn't a snake in todays meaning of the term. If you check the Hebrew you will also see that this doesn't refer to a normal snake. Instead it was Human, it is described in Genesis as ''intelligent'', a talker, with legs etc. You need to study the scriptures and Hebrew and ancient context.

Can you clarify where it was described as bipedal? The hebrew word used is נָּחָשׁ֙ which accurately translates as serpent (not snake), but I've never heard it described as bipedal. It's the exact same word used when God transformed the staff of Moses (as proof that he did speak to God), btw. Interesting, eh?

 

[OllieFranz]

The Semites mutilated and corrupted Sumerian myths during the exilic period. The early geneaology in Genesis is in fact non-Semitic (the Sumerians were not Semites) and the Jews then redacted/altered a lot of the genealologies to insert themselves. In regards to ethnology however, both the Semites and Sumerians are Caucasoid, and this is the only race the Old Testament really deals with because of its limited scope of ethnography (middle-east, south-east europe and north africa). I think it may have been possible of a trade route with Western Europe, as Tarshish is usually identified with Spain, the rest of the globe though was never mapped or explored. So the authors didn't believe Adam gave birth to the other (non-Caucasoid) races.

Now I'm confused. A lot of what you are saying now is the sort of thing that Creationists argue against (Genesis is redacted, Chapter 2 is based on Sumerian mythology, etc). Creationists, whose side some of your earlier posts seemed to favor, adamantly argue for a "literal" reading (for various degrees of literal). So have all of us misunderstood your position, or have you just been playing devil's advocate?

Or maybe you were just being pedantic? I don't mind being corrected by a pedant; I almost always learn something new. But it helps to know that that is why you are confronting the anti-Creationist posts.

 

[Phred]

I've given you cuneiform source references, but it's apparent your knowledge on this topic doesn't go beyond wikipedia. It's not worth my time. Come back when you actually read some scholarly literature (*a 5 minute look at a wikipedia article doesn't obviously count).

Translation: I've been refuted by the simplest of sources so I'll just complain and whine about it being so simple. You're not using MY sources that conform to MY beliefs.

When you have something useful to share, please do. Until then, a five-minute look at a wikipedia article seems to have done the job.