Why I believe Genesis 1-11 is (embellished) real history

(RiderOnTheClouds) #1

I’m not in the EC crowd which tends to dismiss Genesis 1-11 as pure myth, albeit not without valuable spiritual lessons. I believe the writer of genesis 1-11 understood the characters of primeval history as real figures. Now I don’t believe the earth was made in six days, in a talking snake, a global flood or one language 4000 years ago, but at it’s core, genesis is recalling things which really happened, not without some embellishment of course (accuracy was not the aim of the game in ANE historiography), but the gist of it is real.

I believe this because many of the characters in primeval history appear in 1 Chronicles 1, a chapter with no great lessons to tell, it only mentions their names. Why show them there? Because the author wanted to tell us that they were real.

(Mitchell W McKain) #2

I think the inclusion of a genealogy is even stronger evidence that these are intended to be real historical people who existed at a particular time. In my view, this makes a dismissal of the story as pure myth a little too strong of a dismissal of the book altogether. However the argument that some of the elements of the story are symbolic in nature is quite a different matter.


I tend to agree with you that early Genesis presents a stylized history rich in symbolism as a story of origins for the Hebrew people. I don’t hold to this position dogmatically but I think it best coheres with the rest of scripture as I understand it.

While the first genealogy of 1 Chronicles seems to affirm the historicity of persons mentioned, I don’t think proving their historicity is the main authorial intent. ANE genealogies had a variety of forms and functions so the “plain reading” is not always the best interpretation. I think the main point of the genealogy from 1:2 to 2:2 is to convince the exiles on their return of the continuation of their legitimate status as God’s covenant people.

(George Brooks) #4

To accomplish this defense, you have to accept that the timeline has been manipulated beyond recognition.

[1] Abraham, deep in the bronze age, cavorts with the Philistines? Even though there are no Philistines until 1200 to 1130 BCE?

[2] Abraham pretends to be the brother of his wife, because she’s such a beautiful 68+ year old woman, he is afraid for his life?

[3] You believe Esau exchanged his birthright for a bowl of mush?

[4] You believe Lot’s wife was turned to salt?

[5] You believe in a talking donkey?

Just where do you draw the line in a book like Genesis? I’m not even going to dwell on Jonah…

(Christy Hemphill) #5

To say something is based on real history (i.e. actual individuals who lived at some point) is not the same thing as saying you think everything in the OT should be read at face value as an objective fact. What do you think “embellished” means?

(Doug Webber) #6

The first 11 chapters are symbolic, a mythical history. True history begins with Genesis chapter 12. Moreover chapters 1-11 are based on earlier myths. See Is Genesis Historical? A Revelation from Heaven

(RiderOnTheClouds) #7

Not 1 Chronicles.

Why not the other way around?


What makes 1 Chronicles historical? Could it not be simply a retelling of the mythical history?

I noticed that genealogy wasn’t mentioned until verse 29. Could that be an indication of where the actual history begins?

(RiderOnTheClouds) #9

The genealogy begins in 1 Chronicles 1:1.

(Mitchell W McKain) #10

That is like saying were no such things as doctors before 1796 (when vaccines where invented), or like saying that there are no such things as Persians in this day and age. It is a chicken and the egg sort of fallacy. We are talking about things which have a long history of change and continuity both. So there is less reality in the arbitrary lines you are drawing than in the statements of the Bible.

There are numerous puzzles with regards to statements of people’s ages in the early part of this text, but that is no reason to think that the story isn’t essentially historical. Though, of course, this is far more likely to be put in the category of a tale than history, and I am not even sure it fits the modern category of biography.

People do much crazier things than this. I don’t find anything particularly unbelievable about that.

First of all these are stories in which people tell us what they see and not some science text which give a reasonable account of why they see what they see. Sometimes bizarre events like manna falling from the sky can be found to have perfectly reasonable scientific explanations. For example, the pillar of fire following the Israelites at night and a pillar of cloud by day sounds an awful lot like a nearby volcanic eruption to me. This pillar of salt is no exception to such speculations.

No. Nor do I believe in talking snakes. But I do believe in a spiritual aspect to our existence and that people can experience this aspect of our existence is great variety of ways. For example, I have no reason to believe in fairies, ghosts, or UFOs, but this does not mean that the limits of my experience define the limits of reality. Though the lack of objective evidence does strongly suggest to me that these are in the category of spiritual experience. The talking donkey like the talking snake may be just a literary device, or it could be a actual experience. I am reminded of that TV show “Wonder falls” where a girl experiences inanimate objects talking to her.

(Doug Webber) #11

Because the Sumerian myths are much older, Moses we can date to the 16th-15th centuries B.C. However prior to Moses there were earlier revelations, and in those ancient times they always wrote things down in a mythical style.

(RiderOnTheClouds) #12

They may have been written down before, but they could still be recalling the events Genesis talks about.

(George Brooks) #13


You can date Moses to 16th to 15th centuries?

How do you do that? Here are verses, one from 2 different chapters in Exodus:

Exodus 13:17 - And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the Way of the Land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:

Exodus 23:31 - And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.

It is now well established that the Philistines were not well entrenched on the southern coast of the Levant until about 1130 BCE:

  **[Be sure to click on image for maximum legibility!]**

(Doug Webber) #14

The Pentateuch was not finalized, as far as I know, until the 6th century B.C. So there are references there that would be known at the time they were finalized, but may not represent the actual places name or people. You cannot use that reference as a sole source for chronology.

(George Brooks) #16

Absolutely … I would be the first one to agree to that @Doug_Webber.

But the same reasoning that makes you think there are things that wouldn’t be known … is the same reason why you can’t rely on writings from the 500s BCE to conclude that Moses existed during the Hyksos period of Egypt.

Are you claiming Moses left Egypt before or after the Hyksos were expelled?

(Edward T Babinski) #17

Genesis 1-11 is based mostly if not entirely on ancient mythical imaginings.

Israelite legends were invented to offer mythical explanations for why certain places and/or practices were considered sacred, as well as offering explanations for the physical world and political landscape.

Why are there two great lights (literal Heb. “great lamps”) in the sky that appear and disappear at regular intervals? God provided them so we can measure the time between religious festivals (the Hebrew word for “seasons” in Genesis 1 is used in the Pentateuch to denote religious festivals). The Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish, explains the lights in the sky the same way, as timekeepers put there by their high god, Marduk, so that humans can tell when the next religious festival in his honor is due to be celebrated.

Why is every seventh day a sacred day of rest? Because God rested on the seventh day of creation.

Biblical writings also provided answers to questions like, Why are we at odds with a particular nation? Because itʼs in their blood, their eponymous ancestors behaved badly toward us so itʼs little wonder that their descendants still do. Why did we kill and enslave people living in the land of Canaan? Because the alleged son of a son of Noah, named “Canaan” was allegedly cursed along with all of his descendants, the Canaanites, to be the slaves to Noahʼs other sons.

Hermann Gunkel (1862—1932), a German Old Testament scholar, wrote The Legends of Genesis, the first part of his massive commentary on Genesis, in which he points out many cases of OT authors attempting to produce answers to questions of both a global and tribal nature, “The Varieties Of Legends In Genesis

“The answers to such questions constitute the real content of the respective legends…

“Why has Japhet such an extended territory? Why do the children of Lot dwell in the inhospitable East? How does it come that Reuben has lost his birthright? Why is Gilead the border between Israel and the Aramæans? Why does Beersheba belong to us and not to the people of Gerar? Why is Shechem in possession of Joseph? Why have we a right to the holy places at Shechem and Machpelah? Why has Ishmael become a Bedouin people with just this territory and this God? How does it come that the Egyptian peasants have to bear the heavy tax of the fifth, while the fields of the priests are exempt? The usual nature of the answer given to these questions by our legends is that the present relations are due to some transaction of the patriarchs: the tribal ancestor bought the holy place, and accordingly it belongs to us, his heirs; the ancestors of Israel and Aram established Gilead as their mutual boundary, and so on. A favorite way is to find the explanation in a miraculous utterance of God or some of the patriarchs, and the legend has to tell how this miraculous utterance came to be made in olden times. And this sort of explanation was regarded as completely satisfactory, so that there came to be later a distinct literary variety of ‘charm’ or ‘blessing.’”

“Along with the above we find etymological legends or features of legends, as it were, beginnings of the science of language… Ancient Israel spent much thought upon the origin and the real meaning of the names of races, mountains, wells, sanctuaries, and cities. To them names were not so unimportant as to us, for they were convinced that names were somehow closely related to the things. It was quite impossible in many cases for the ancient people to give the correct explanation, for names were, with Israel as with other nations, among the most ancient possessions of the people, coming down from extinct races or from far away stages of the national language… Early Israel as a matter of course explains such names without any scientific spirit and wholly on the basis of the language as it stood. It identifies the old name with a modern one which sounds more or less like it, and proceeds to tell a little story explaining why this particular word was uttered under these circumstances and was adopted as the name. We too have our popular etymologies. How many there are who believe that the noble river which runs down between New Hampshire and Vermont and across Massachusetts and Connecticut is so named because it ‘connects’ the first two and ‘cuts’ the latter two states! Manhattan Island, it is said, was named from the exclamation of a savage who was struck by the size of a Dutch hat worn by an early burgher, ‘Man hat on!’… Similar legends are numerous in Genesis and in later works. The city of Babel is named from the fact that God there confused human tongues (balal, Gen 11: 9); Jacob is interpreted as ‘heelholder’ because at birth he held his brother, whom he robbed of the birthright, by the heel (Gen 25:26); Zoar means ‘trifle,’ because Lot said appealingly, ‘It is only a trifle’ (Gen 19:20,22); Beersheba is ‘the well of seven,’ because Abraham there gave Abimelech seven lambs (21:28 ff.); Isaac (Jishak) is said to have his name from the fact that his mother laughed (sahak) when his birth was foretold to her (18:12), and so forth.

“In order to realize the utter naĩveté of most of these interpretations, consider that the Hebrew legend calmly explains the Babylonian name Babel from the Hebrew vocabulary, and that the writers are often satisfied with merely approximate similarities of sounds: for instance, “Cain” (Kajin) sounds like the Hebrew for “gotten” (kaniti, ‘I have acquired/gotten,’ hence the legend arose that when Cain was born to Eve she said, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord” (Gen 4:1); Reuben from rah beonji, ‘he hath regarded my misery’ (Gen 29:32), etc. Every student of Hebrew knows that these are not satisfactory etymologies…

“More important than these etymological legends are those whose purpose is to explain the regulations of religious ceremonials… [For instance, circumcision was common in the ancient world but we Israelites] perform the rite of circumcision in memory of an alleged covenant between our God and our eponymous ancestor Abraham, and also in memory of a story involving Moses, whose firstborn was circumcised as a redemption for Moses whose blood God demanded (Ex 4:24 ff.)… The stone at Bethel was first anointed by Jacob because it was his pillow in the night when God appeared to him (Gen 28.11 ff.), therefore we continue to anoint it today. At Jeruel—the name of the scene of the near-sacrifice of Isaac, Gen 22:1-19—God at first demanded of Abraham his child, but afterward accepted a ram, so we likewise sacrifice animals to redeem our first born. And so on…

“Why is this particular place and this sacred memorial so especially sacred? The regular answer to this question was, Because in this place the divinity appeared to our ancestor. In commemoration of this theophany we worship God in this place. Now in the history of religion it is of great significance that the ceremonial legend comes from a time when religious feeling no longer perceived as self-evident the divinity of the locality and the natural monument and had forgotten the significance of the sacred ceremony. Accordingly the legend has to supply an explanation of how it came about that the God and the tribal ancestor met in this particular place. Abraham happened to be sitting under the tree in the noonday heat just as the men appeared to him, and for this reason the tree is sacred (Gen 19:1 ff.). The well in the desert, Lacha-roi, became the sanctuary of Ishmael because his mother in her flight into the desert met at this well the God who comforted her (Gen 16:7 ff.). Jacob happened to be passing the night in a certain place and resting his head upon a stone when he saw the heavenly ladder; therefore this stone is our sanctuary (Gen 28:10 ff). Moses chanced to come with his flocks to the holy mountain and the thorn bush (Ex 3:1 ff.). Probably every one of the greater sanctuaries of Israel had some similar legend of its origin.

“Other sorts of legends… undertake to explain the origin of a locality. Whence comes the Dead Sea with its dreadful desert? The region was cursed by God on account of the terrible sin of its inhabitants. Whence comes the pillar of salt yonder with its resemblance to a woman? That is a woman, Lotʼs wife, turned into a pillar of salt in punishment for attempting to spy out the mystery of God (Gen 19:26). But whence does it come that the bit of territory about Zoar is an exception to the general desolation? Because God spared it as a refuge for Lot (19:17-22).”

“Answers” like those above are no longer assumed to be true.

(Edward T Babinski) #18

Internal evidence in the text of Genesis 1-11 argues strongly that it was composed after the Israelites returned from Exile. Other parts were adaptations of common Mesopotamian myths. The evidence appears below thanks to a well researched post by Jonathan_Burke


He writes:

Most readers of Genesis 1 are hardly aware of its full content. Confined as many of us are by the English text, we miss a wealth of information which is embedded in Genesis 1-11, which would have been completely obvious to the original audience and which comprise an important part of its message.

See his post for the details but he then concludes:

If these chapters did exist as early as Abraham (or at least Moses), then we must explain why they are ignored by most of the books of the Bible, and only suddenly referred to by the post-exilic books. From Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings, book after book after book shows no awareness of these chapters at all.

Speaking of post-exilic literature, I ran across this info in Old Testament Abstracts:

Lukasz Niesiorowski-Spano, “Origin Myths and Holy Places in the Old Testament: A Study of Aetiological Narratives” [aetiology = “the story or stories told about how a place received its name”] (International Seminar, 2011).

“Niesiorowski-Spanoʼs monograph examines the aetiologies of a series of extra-Jerusalem cultic sites as related in the Books of Genesis, Joshua, and Judges, viz., Beersheba, Bethel, Dan, Hebron (and Mamre), Ophrah, Shechem and Gilgal, plus the Transjordanian locales Galeed, Mahanaim and Penuel. Basing on the evidence of the relevant biblical texts, archaeological discoveries, and such extra-biblical documents as Jubilees, Josephus, and Pseudo-Philo, N.-S. endeavors to trace the tradition-history of the aetiologies in question and their final literary fixation, as well as the nature of the cult (and the deity worshiped) at the given site. On this basis he concludes that the materials studied by him, while they do—in some cases at least—draw on older materials, received their final redaction in the Hasmonean period (160-110 B.C.), the territorial realities and aspirations of which they reflect. The fact that the Jerusalem priests responsible for these materials included such accounts accrediting the sacral character of an array of extra-Jerusalem sites would indicate, according to N.-S., that Jerusalem was not, in fact, regarded by them as the sole legitimate place of worship—Jerusalem attained that status in Judaism only after the catastrophe of 70 A.D.”

(Edward T Babinski) #19

Only a Low Level of Creative Imagination is Required to Explain the Origin of The Creation Stories in Genesis

The level of mental sophistication required to explain the origin of naive and simplistic concepts in Genesis like the idea that the basic stuff involved in creation were “darkness, water, wind, light and earth,” as well as “believing in the magical power of words,” “dividing the ingredients in two,” “making do with whatʼs at hand,” and, “things created as they appeared”—is equal to the level of mental sophistication of a young child. In fact the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics conducted a study during the 1980s on the mental sophistication of children and discovered that almost one-half of children aged ten years and younger in the United States and other countries believe the earth is flat. And those who say it is round picture “round” as a giant pancake or a curved sky covering a flat ground. One in four thirteen-year olds also believes the earth is flat.

All ancient recipes for creation begin with the simplest of ingredients because the ancient mind was unaware of the complex differences between things and could only conceive of such differences in the broadest of categories, such as distinguishing between “earth, wind, water, light and darkness.” Such were the “elements” of creation. Hence, according to ancient Egyptian tales of creation, nothing existed in the beginning except a waste of “waters,” also known as “the deep.” Greek tales speak of “earth, murky night, briny deep.” Babylonian tales speak of “waters.” Some ancient Sumerian tales spoke not of water, but of another basic ingredient, a mountain of “earth” that existed in the beginning. Phoenician/Canaanite tales speak of “the beginning of all things” as “a windy air and a black chaos which embraced the air and generated a watery mixture, and from this sprang all the seed of creation.” The Hebrew tale in the book of Genesis has the “spirit of God” (the literal Hebrew word for “spirit” also meant “wind or breath”) moving on the surface of “waters” with “light” and “earth” to follow.

A Belief In the Magical Power of Words
Many ancient tales of creation, not just the Hebrew one, attributed supernatural power to a godʼs “word,” i.e., simply “say the magic word” and things instantly appear, disappear, or are transformed. According to the Egyptian Book of the Dead every act of creation represented a thought of Temu and its expression in “words.” A host of Egyptian creation myths agreed that the agency of creation was the godʼs “word.” The pre-Babylonian civilization of Sumeria believed that all things existed and were created by the “word” of Enki. In fact, they viewed the “word” of all their gods as a definite and real thing—a divine entity or agent. Even Sumerian personal names reflected their belief in the power of the “word,” including names like, “The word of the wise one is eternal,” “His word is true,” and, “The word which he spoke shakes the heavens.” After the Sumerians came the Babylonians and their creation tale, Enuma Elish (nicknamed by scholars, the “Babylonian Genesis”), which began, “When Heaven had not been named, Firm ground had not been called by name…when no name had been named.” The Hebrew tale arose out of that same milieu.

Added to the ancient belief in the “magic” of “naming” things, was also the belief that the “word” of a ruler or king must be obeyed, and the gods were believed to rule over nature much like kings were believed to rule over their fellow men, i.e., by “divine right.” Therefore, whatever a god said, was “done” in nature. A fragment from Sumeria states, “Thy word upon the sea has been projected and returns not [void].” The Babylonian Enuma Elish, states, “May I [Lord Marduk, the Babylonian creator], through the utterance of my mouth determine the destines…Whatever I create shall remain unaltered, The command of my lips shall not return [void], it shall not be changed.” Compare the Hebrew usage of the same phrase in Isaiah 55:11, “So shall my [the Lordʼs] word be which goeth up from my mouth; it shall not return unto me void, For it shall have done that which I desired.”

Divide The Ingredients in Two
It was a common feature of early Greek cosmological beliefs, which they shared with those of the Near East and elsewhere, that in the beginning all was fused together in an undifferentiated mass. The initial act in the making of the world, whether accomplished by the fiat of a creator or by other means, was a separation or division. As the Hebrew myth has it, “God divided the light from the darkness…and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.”—W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. I, (Cambridge Univ. Press: 1962)

Ancient tales of creation often involved a division of primeval stuff into two equal halves—like cracking a cosmic egg in two and making “heaven” out of the top half and “earth” out of the bottom half. A Sumerian tale of creation has heaven and earth arise from a celestial mountain split in two. In Egyptian tales a god and goddess are pulled apart: “Shu, the uplifter, raised Nut (a water goddess) on high. She formed the firmament, which is arched over Seb, the god of the earth, who lies prostrate beneath her…In the darkness are beheld the stars which sparkle upon Nutʼs body.” The Egyptians also employed the less mythologized concept of a celestial dome (above which lies “the heavenly ocean”). In the Babylonian Enuma Elish, a water goddess is split in two by the creator to form upper and lower bodies of water, the upper half also becoming a “heavenly dome” that held back vast celestial waters. The Hebrew tale in Genesis has the creator make “a firmament in the midst [middle] of the waters, that it may divide…the water which was below the firmament from the water which was above the firmament.” Both the Babylonian and Hebrew tales continue with the “earth” being created in the lower half of the recently divided waters.

It is interesting to note that the Father of Protestantism, Martin Luther, was adamant that the Bible spoke of waters lying above the moon, the sun, and the stars. He countered the views of astronomers of his day with the words of Scripture:

“Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters… We Christians must be different from the philosophers [astronomers] in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity; with our understanding.” Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, Vol. 1, Lutherʼs Works, Concordia Pub. House, 1958

Also, a Hebrew psalm referred to “waters above the sun, moon, and stars”:

“Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him stars of light! Praise Him highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens!” Psalm 148:3-4

Furthermore, when the book of Genesis described a “flood” that covered the whole world, and reduced the world to its pre-creation watery beginning, the story states that the “flood gates of the sky” were “opened.” Neither did the author of that fable suppose that all the water above the firmament fell to earth, but that the “flood gates” had to be “shut” to stop more water from falling, and the creator had to promise not to flood the earth again with such waters. So, the Bible agrees with Luther that “the waters above the firmament” remained “up there”–and this agrees completely with ancient tales of creation in which the world arose from a division of waters which encompass creation still, and which the creator keeps at bay, having prepared a place in the “midst of such waters” for the earth.

Make Do With Whatʼs At Hand, Like a Potter Might
Ancient creation accounts never explain where the first “waters,” or “earth,” or “darkness,” came from. Nor do the various creators make everything “out of nothing.” They often have to resort to creating plants, animals and human beings out of the earth or from parts of divine beings. Sometimes this includes molding creatures like a sculptor molds images out of clay—then imparting some magic to them. The Hebrew tale of creation in Genesis is no exception. It does not say where the water and the darkness came from “in the beginning.” Neither does it say that the “earth” was created out of nothing, but simply that “the dry land appeared” after the creator “gathered together the waters into one place.” Moreover, the Hebrew creator does not create vegetation and living creatures out of nothing but has “the earth” sprout vegetation, and “the earth” bring forth living creatures. Nor does the Hebrew creator make man out of nothing, but, “formed man from the dust of the earth.” Then “blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being,” kind of like blowing on a clay sculpture to magically bring it to life. Neither was the divine “breath of life” shared only with man, for the same phrase is used in regard to every living creature that the earth brought forth, “all in whose nostrils was the breath of life.” (Gen. 7:21,22)

In the Babylonian tale, Enuma Elish, the creator of heaven and earth, Marduk, is called “the god of the good breath [of life],” and he creates man from something divine, the blood of a diety. So there is a “divine connection” between man and the gods. (Sort of like the Hebrew tale where man is created in the “image” of the divine creator and brought to life by divine breath.) Alternate creation accounts from ancient Babylon have mankind springing up from the ground, or created from the flesh and blood of a god mixed with clay, or even fashioned by the chief Babylonian god with the help of a divine “potter”—not unlike the Genesis account of man being “formed [molded] from the dust of the ground.”

A Creation Story & Cosmology Based on Appearances
Another factor most ancient tales of creation share is that living things do not evolve from one another but are each made separately in the form in which the author already was most familiar. Plants and animals are described as having been created in the forms in which they appeared in the authorʼs own day. In a similar fashion, the earth was described as being created in the form in which it appeared to the ancient mind, which was “flat.” The earth appeared to be the flat and firm foundation of creation, while the sun, moon, and stars appeared to be relatively smaller than the earth and less solidly “set” in creation since they moved across the sky, hence even their creation came after the earthʼs—like light bulbs screwed into itʼs ceiling. And such objects might even “fall to earth.” (Some of the tiny bright lights in the sky were referred to as “wandering stars,” since they did not move in unison with the rest—though much later mankind discovered that those “wanderers” were not “stars” at all, but planets) And the earth appeared to lie beneath a vast dome stretched out above it. The ancient mind focused on the most basic of elements and the most basic of appearances when it came to its creation stories.

Likewise, alternating periods of “day and night” were perceived by ancient earth dwellers as constituting the rhythm of the whole cosmos. The Hebrews even divided their cosmic creation account into “mornings and evenings,” “nights and days.” But today astronomers recognize the earth as merely one of a class of objects that spins on its axis and circles stars, with many other objects out there, each having their own “days and nights” of differing durations. There may even be a planet somewhere that spins so slowly on its axis that one side of the planet experiences perpetual “day” while the other side experiences perpetual “night.”

Lastly, every one of the “six days” of creation in the Hebrew tale is devoted to creating things for the earth alone, or creating plants and animals to fill it. When the sun, moon, and stars are created, it is merely to light the earth below, and for signs and seasons on earth. Even on the first day of creation when the Hebrew creator made “light,” it was so He could set up “days and nights” for the earth. How earth-centered is that? Or how naively based on appearances as seen from earth?

For further examples see https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2011/11/holy-heavens-of-hebrews.html

(Erik Nelson) #20

Many have noted that the Eden account resembles the transition. From Mesolithic Hunter gatherers to Neolithic farmers, which occurred in the Middle East. About 8000 years ago right around the time of Creation, according to the Septuagint Chronology.

(system) #21

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.