Who? 2 3 4 5
Eternity isn’t the issue, the Kingdom is. Eternity begins wherever the Kingdom does, and the problem is that people conceive of the Kingdom of Heaven as something we want to get to when we die instead of something that has come here and in which we get to live already.
1 Like
This assumes that there is a time frame given in Genesis.
2 Likes
You haven’t read G.A.E. yet?
There is no issue to me as the critiques have been found wanting. It’s good PR for the GAE view when criticism of it is so fundamentally bad and based on assumptions rather than evidence.
But there is a good percentage of folk who like to just nitpick and tear things down and demolish. That is easy and nothing to write home about. Takes no effort to peddle doubt. I prefer to try to build.
Vinnie
2 Likes
Which of these is historical?
Adam
Eve
Cain
Abel
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Cain’s Line
Enoch
Irad
Mehujael
Methushael
Lamech
Adah
Zillah
Jabal
Jubal
Tubal‑cain
Naamah
Noah’s Family
Shem
Ham
Japheth
Japheth’s line
Gomer
Magog
Madai
Javan
Tubal
Meshek
Tiras
Ashkenaz
Riphath
Togarmah
Elishah
Tarshish
Kittim
Dodanim
Ham’s line
Cush
Egypt (Mizraim)
Put
Canaan
Seba
Havilah
Sabtah
Raamah
Sabteka
Sheba
Dedan
Nimrod
Patriarchies
Ludim
Anamim
Lehabim
Naphtuhim
Pathrusim
Casluhim
Caphtorim
Sidon
Heth
Jebusites (eponymous ancestor)
Amorites
Girgashites
Hivites
Arkites
Sinites
Arvadites
Zemarites
Hamathites
Shem’s line
Elam
Asshur
Arphaxad
Lud
Aram
Uz
Hul
Gether
Mash
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Joktan
Almodad
Sheleph
Hazarmaveth
Jerah
Hadoram
Uzal
Diklah
Obal
Abimael
Sheba
Ophir
Havilah
Jobab
Abraham’s Family & Associates
Abram/Abraham
Sarai/Sarah
Terah
Nahor (brother)
Haran
Lot
Milcah
Iscah
Abraham’s Household & Encounters
Hagar
Ishmael
Eliezer of Damascus
Melchizedek
Abimelech
Phicol
Ephron son of Zohar
Zohar
Machpelah sellers (Ephron’s clan)
Kedorlaomer War (Genesis 14)
Amraphel
Arioch
Chedorlaomer
Tidal
Bera
Birsha
Shinab
Shemeber
Zoar’s king (unnamed)
Isaac’s Family
Isaac
Rebekah
Esau
Jacob
Esau’s Wives & Descendants
Adah
Aholibamah
Basemath
Eliphaz
Reuel
Jeush
Jalam
Korah
Teman
Omar
Zepho
Gatam
Kenaz
Amalek
Nahath
Zerah
Shammah
Mizzah
Seir the Horite’s Line
Seir
Lotan
Shobal
Zibeon
Anah
Dishon
Ezer
Dishan
Hori
Hemam
Alvan
Manahath
Ebal
Shepho
Onam
Aiah
Aran
Kings of Edom (Genesis 36)
Bela son of Beor
Jobab son of Zerah
Husham
Hadad son of Bedad
Samlah
Shaul
Baal‑hanan son of Acbor
Hadar/Hadad
Mehetabel
Matred
Me‑zahab
Jacob’s Wives and Concubines
Leah
Rachel
Bilhah
Zilpah
The Twelve Sons of Israel
Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Asher
Issachar
Zebulun
Joseph
Benjamin
Daughter
Dinah
Joseph’s Story
Joseph
Potiphar
Potiphar’s wife (unnamed)
Pharaoh (unnamed)
Cupbearer (unnamed)
Baker (unnamed)
Zaphenath‑paneah (Joseph’s Egyptian name)
Asenath
Manasseh
Ephraim
Onan
Er
Shelah
Tamar
Perez
Zerah (Judah’s sons)
In Genesis specifically we can’t prove historicity with external corroboration but that is not needed to me. The account is narrating details about figures it treats as real people. Its history mythicized. The presence of genealogies alone indicates that. I don’t see the genre as fiction. We aren’t reading the Lord of the rings. We are not reading a modern biography either.
53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically - Biblical Archaeology Society.
It’s hard to find external evidence for the existence of specific nomads 3,000 years ago. We can only look to see if anything in text as we have it is consistent with what we tentatively know of the time from other sources. The figures in Genesis are just too old to the point where our information is too scant.
And scripture treats all these figures as actual people so, unlike some atheists who have nothing better to do in life than parade around on Christian forums tearing views down, that is good enough for me.
Vinnie
3 Likes
Who cares! That is not the point of Scripture.
Scripture is not a History Book in the academic terms, as it is not a science manual, or a journalistic disciplined news account.
Richard
1 Like
That’ll be none at all then.
ANE religious systems were based on ideas of ritual purity and impurity. It was integral to the reigning worldviews of the day.
Mary Douglas’s Purity and Danger (1966) is considered a seminal work in anthropology:
1 Like
Thank you. A second volume to add to my first: Purity in Ancient Judaism: Texts, Contexts, and Concepts - Edited by Lutz Doering, Jorg Frey, and Laura Von Bartenwerffer
1 Like
One of our evolved, hard wired, moral foundations, as per Jonathan Haidt’s superb (despite his flaw) The Righteous Mind.
2 Likes
None of these figures dates from 3,000 years ago. 6,000 - 4,000 rounded.
Only faith can make them actual. From texts not even 3,000 years old.
Whose view is torn?
[content removed by moderator]
Vinnie’s claim of Genesean historicity, when challenged, results in Trumpian double-down and attempts at ad hominem character assassination, as elsewhere, as here, last para,
[content removed]
There are approximately 365 distinct individuals named in Genesis, and the origin of those characters, as @paleomalacologist alludes, last para, is interesting; where did these Bronze Age characters come from in the final Iron Age edit well over a thousand years later than their setting?
What is the basic Christian belief here?
- Most important: the Bible is inspired and treats them as historical. QED.
- God incarnate also referred to several characters as if they existed.
- Genesis is not a modern history.
- Genre : Genesis doesn’t read like pure fiction either.
- It’s mostly a compilation of stories told and retold over time.
- Sometimes we see cases where two different versions of the story have been combined together (e.g. Joseph narrative).
- Genealogies with made up names saw off the branch they are sitting in.
- When we get to times we can have data for, many Biblical names are real and have been verified, even if some skeptics doubted them.
- There is simply next to no data about the names of specific nomads surviving from three, four or five thousand years ago. This does not mean there were no nomads or that stories of them were not handed down orally over long periods of time subject to significant alteration and change. This almost certainly happened. But go back to the first bullet point.
1 Like
We’re talking Adam, Eve and Noah here. Jesus had no reason, no possibility, apart from atheism (not unknown, even among Jews, for a thousand years [in his culture]), not to know that they were real. Is there some moral reason why his divinity meant that he had to know, i.e. unquestioningly, unquestionably, believe, the truth? So that if he believed, whatever he believed, had to be true? Including his own suicidal mission?
I guess if God knew then so did Jesus, that was / is the whole point of His divinity.
I think you will find most Christians take offence at that turn of phrase.
Richard
1 Like
I have some basic ideas to suggest on this topic. The term ‘modern science’ refers to the epistemic interpretation of God’s creation. Every translation of Genesis is a literal interpretation of Hebrew words. A valid comparison of the information from both sources must involve using the same form of interpretation. Since God’s creation occurred without any human involvement, the information it provides and the epistemic form of interpretation should be given priority for interpreting ancient words that are a human creation. If the literal translation and knowledge of the human writer is the only valid way to understand Genesis, then there can be no reconciliation to what it says with what God’s creation tells us. The truth of Genesis would be purely a matter of belief. But that would make the sincere belief in any mythology a basis for truth. It is a serious dilemma.
What are these two sources?
And why should each source not be interpreted according to its own nature?
You seem to be caught on the horns of God’s (infallible, inerrant) word and God’s creation.
A false dilemma from a scientific POV.