Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not reading God's Word right is just wrong. No talking snakes!
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 106 of 157 (511854)
06-12-2009 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rahvin
06-11-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
quote:
greentwiga, if your claim was only that the severe regional flood in Mesopotamia circa 2900 BC is the factual source behind the wildly exaggerated global flood myth of Genesis, I'd agree with you.
The problem is also claiming that, because there was a real-world event behind the flood story, the Bible is true.
It's true only if you remove all of the exaggerated features of the story that make it what it is.
You've seen movies "based on a true story," right? Would you call them "fiction" or "non-fiction?" Are they typically "accurate recordings of history?" Do you ignore all of the alterations made to the actual historical record so that an entertaining and marketable movie can be made and claim "this movie is historically accurate" even though 90% of the movie was written by script writers, not historians?
The fact is, the end result (the actual text of Genesis that's been around for the past few thousand years) is not historically accurate even if the person who first told the story was completely accurate in retelling a real-world event. The story in Genesis no longer resembles that story.
...
I know that you don't see the path of your logic the way I'm describing it - but then, very rarely do human beings think of their thoughts and personal curiosities in terms of premesis, hypotheses, and conclusions. The fact is, you're claiming that the Bible is inerrant...but your interpretations if the original author's intent require that you presuppose that the original author was accurate. Your conclusion (the Bible is inerrant) is contained within the premise that the original author was inerrant. Without that premise, all of your attempts to match Biblical myths to real-world events falls apart - if, for example, the Adam myth was literally completely false and made-up in the same way that Thor and Zeus and unicorns are completely made-up, then your line of reasoning would be completely invalid. You'd be chasing a red herring, because you're using circular reasoning.
You are equating "truth" or "error" with "historical accuracy." This presupposes that the account was intended to teach history. But how can you be so positive that this is so? What if the early Genesis accounts were intended to teach theology, and borrowed imagery and story structures from neighboring cultures to do so, similar to the parables of Jesus? No-one would claim that since Jesus' parables were not historically accurate, they then must be untrue or erroneous. Why couldn't the early chapters of Genesis be similar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 6:17 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 12:15 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 107 of 157 (511869)
06-12-2009 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by kbertsche
06-12-2009 10:26 AM


Re: Bad Theology?
You are equating "truth" or "error" with "historical accuracy." This presupposes that the account was intended to teach history. But how can you be so positive that this is so? What if the early Genesis accounts were intended to teach theology, and borrowed imagery and story structures from neighboring cultures to do so, similar to the parables of Jesus? No-one would claim that since Jesus' parables were not historically accurate, they then must be untrue or erroneous. Why couldn't the early chapters of Genesis be similar?
I'm simply arguing against the position that the Bible is inerrant and literally true, as well as the position that the Bible really says y when the text plainly says x.
I have absolutely nothing to say about what the Bible says theologically (at least not in this thread). If greentwiga treated the whole collection of texts as a series of parables, I wouldn't be having this conversation. He doesn't - he claims that the Bible's original meaning has been lost somewhere in translation; that Adam was not meant to describe the first man, but rather the first wheat farmer (though that makes the rest of the Creation story make no sense - Eve was created from the rib of the first wheat farmer? All animals were Created by God...and then he makes the first wheat farmer? It just doesn't fit the context); the global flood myth was actually talking about a regional flood (and as I said, I'll agree that the flood myth was originally based on a regional flood, very likely the one greentwiga was talking about) despite the text very plainly speaking of a global flood (everything god made was supposed to die, which would require a worldwide catastrophe).
Basically, the "historical accuracy" issue is a cornerstone of greentwiga's position. I'm simply pointing out that, if the Bible is only historically accurate when you completely remove all of the mythologized exaggeration, then you're no longer talking about the stories as recounted in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by kbertsche, posted 06-12-2009 10:26 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 108 of 157 (511919)
06-12-2009 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by PaulK
06-12-2009 1:30 AM


Re: Bad Theology?
If Eve was alive and gave birth after Abel died, saying Seth is a replacement for Abel, yes, that precludes a gap between Even and Cain of even Seth.
You are right, both are after the curse. No domestic wheat before Adam was born and domestic wheat after the curse and Adam was kicked out. I have been saying all along, Adam lived when and where wheat was domesticated. One of the arguments about farming is the farming package. with one plant domesticated here, and one there, farming would not replace hunter-gatherer because it was not a complete package. Once they had all 8 founder crops and possibly sheep, farming exploded out of the middle east. The cultural diffusion you mentioned is also great. The J2 Y haplotype (associated with Jews and Kurds) seems to be the one that spread farming first. There are more specifics that I mention on my website, but it all seems to spread out of SE Anatolia. One other point. Mathilda mentions that Abu Hureyra is predomestic activity that seems to have spread there from the north. We may be quibbling over the definition of domestic. is it the seeds not shattering off the stalk? is it the seeds easily separated from the husks? Is it the larger seed size? If you say it was the first step, before the younger dryas, and I say it was the second step, during the younger dryas, and another says the third step, after the younger dryas, who is right? Though some seeds may be earlier, and some of the steps may be earlier, farming didn't erupt out to the rest of the world until after the younger dryas ended. My claim is specifically about wheat, and wheat still fits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2009 1:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 06-13-2009 3:15 AM greentwiga has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 109 of 157 (511980)
06-13-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by greentwiga
06-12-2009 6:46 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
I notice that you do not answer many of my points, also you miss the difficulties with your own interpretations.
I can say quite categorically that you have not found a valid interpretation of Genesis 2 that actually fits the evidence. All you have is a few bits and pieces that possibly fit - and a lot more that doesn't.
The definition of domestication is certainly important, but our difference on the matter is no mere quibble. The essence of domestication - with respect to plants - is to breed varieties that are superior for human purposes. But there is no hint of that process in Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by greentwiga, posted 06-12-2009 6:46 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 110 of 157 (512118)
06-14-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Theodoric
06-12-2009 9:32 AM


Re: Bad Theology?
Not proof, but shows the possibility, which was denied in the post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Theodoric, posted 06-12-2009 9:32 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 06-14-2009 2:08 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 111 of 157 (512134)
06-14-2009 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by greentwiga
06-14-2009 9:56 AM


Re: Bad Theology?
Not proof, but shows the possibility, which was denied in the post.
But you present no evidence even for this.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by greentwiga, posted 06-14-2009 9:56 AM greentwiga has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 112 of 157 (512721)
06-20-2009 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by greentwiga
06-11-2009 10:04 PM


Re: Bad Theology?
Should I do that? I have yet to find a text that clearly says he was the first human being. Even in the New Testament, When Paul could have said he was the first Anthropos, he didn't. He said he was the first Adam and that Jesus was the last Adam. If Adam meant human being, that would say that Jesus was the last human being, which he clearly is not, else you and I would not be here. So tell me, should I be questioning every interpretation or accepting them blindly?
Paul means that God looks upon all mankind and sees only two Heads. The first is the Adam of Genesis, the first man. The second is Christ of the New Testament, the last Adam or the second man.
Christ concludes the problems caused by the first man Adam through going to His cross. He terminates the influence of what that disobedient first man started. And Christ initiates a "new man". Last Adam emphasizes that He terminates and concludes the damage caused by the first man. Second man emphsizes that Christ is a new beginning of a new man in resurrection.
But where is all this benefit in Christ ? How does this termination of the old damaged man come about ? How does the new beginning come about if Christ has done all these wonderful things?
"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
We must receive Christ as a life giving Spirit that all this salvation and benefit can begin to operate from within. The salvation begins within the receivers and works its way out. And when I say out I mean all the way out eventually into the soul, into the body, and ultimately into the very environment.
Full stop now.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by greentwiga, posted 06-11-2009 10:04 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 113 of 157 (512733)
06-20-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Greatest I am
10-23-2008 10:50 AM


GIA writes:
Your focus is on the physical. I speak to the philosophy that will arise. The non physical. Scripture would call it the WORD.
Which brings up two basic philosophies and a fork in the road.
1) IF God exists, is the WORD based on GODs intelligence TO us?
2) Or did our imaginations and evolving abilities define and refine the WORD?
Whose image (imagination) defines the word? Is God imparting His image (imagination) into us as we allow it, or is our imagination conjuring up reality as we interpret it? (God included)
Basically my question boils down to the belief that God exists, existed before we did, and actively imparts wisdom to us and through us...or the alternative, which is that basically we imagined God and continue to refine and define this ideal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Greatest I am, posted 10-23-2008 10:50 AM Greatest I am has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 114 of 157 (512745)
06-20-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Greatest I am
10-22-2008 8:43 AM


In conclusion, to read scripture literally without knowing the true context and idioms of the original words and language forces one to truly believe in the impossible and unnatural. The Bible begins with a talking serpent and ends with ten headed monster. A clear indication from the compilers of scripture to not take the Bible literally.
Debate--Should the Bibles be read literally.
There is a slight difference in the monster in Revelation and the talking serpent in Genesis.
Here in Revelation we are clearly told that the sign has a symbolic meaning.
" I will tell you the mystery of ... the beast ... who has seven heads and the ten horns." (Rev.17:7)
"Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are the seven mountains here the woman sits and are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain only a short time. And the beast who was and is not, he himself is also the eighth and is out of the seven .... etc. etc." (v.9 - 11)
My purpose here is only to point out that interpretation of symbolism is clearly called for. Of course the first verse in Revelation says that it is being made known "by signs" (1:1)
First the reader has to consider what interpretations are supplied in the Bible itself for its contents. And I would add that such interpretations may reside in other portions of the Bible beside the portion in which we read that which is being interpreted.
Now consider the talking serpent in Genesis. Nothing in the writing informs us that interpretation of symbolism going to be applied. That is nothing in Genesis. However, some interpretation to the matter is provided elsewhere in the Bible.
At this point the reader can dismiss this extra Genesis comment as irrelevent as is the custom with a few people on this forum. What the New Testmament says concerning the serpent is not important to them. I don't think that is the way to go. I think the Bible stands or falls together as a complete whole. It is not a hodgepodge scapbook of disjointed fragments of religious wisdom. So I think comments about the serpent in Genesis found elsewhere in the Old or New Testament are important to understanding the talking serpent.
Then there is the additional considerations.
1.) How far does the symbolism extend?
2.) Could we be dealing with a physical thing with spiritual significance (ie. OT ark of the covenant, animal sacrifices, tabernacle, temple).
Does it mean that there was no talking serpent at all? Or does it mean that there was a talking serpent which nonetheless had greater significance than just a talking serpent?
Since I don't automatically rule out the miraculous I take the second approach. The account reads like the flow of history yet there is something behind this miraculous talking serpent of much greater significance.
If someone is reluctant to consider the latter written Chtristian New Testament on this, I would say that is his loss. However I might as them - "Okay then. Is there an older written book in the Bible which might shed light on how to understand the talking serpent?"
I think the place to look would be the book of Job, an older book. Then I would go into a careful analysis of the things SAID by this miraculous talking serpent. Are they reminiscient of the style and content of some other notable spokesperson or spokesbeing in the unverse.
I'll stop here.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Greatest I am, posted 10-22-2008 8:43 AM Greatest I am has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by greentwiga, posted 06-21-2009 10:19 AM jaywill has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 115 of 157 (512822)
06-21-2009 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by jaywill
06-20-2009 12:51 PM


For thousands of years, scholars thought Hittites were a local group in Canaan. Then we found that they were a huge empire in Turkey, and a few refugees had settled in Canaan. We needed to look at outside sources to understand. There are a variety of foreign Gods mentioned in the Bible, Baal, Dagon, Asgerah, etc. Again to understand more about what the foreign religion taught, we need to look at outside sources. We can do the same for the talking serpent. This, in no way, changes the theology that the Bible teaches. The serpent of old is equated with Satan. Paul equates idols with demons. Still we can look at the foreign religions to understand more. The oracle at Delphi is just one religion that sheds light on the passage. The woman talked to, believed and obeyed a talking serpent and taught men to do the same. In the Garden, Adam and Eve were taught, don't talk to the serpent, don't believe him or obey him. Don't teach others to do those things either. Evil is a term that most often is used to mean breaking the covenant. By obeying the serpent, they broke the covenant with God. There is so much more here. Read Sumerian beliefs. Read The Golden Bough by Frazier. The talking serpent is not scientifically accurate but it is historically accurate. The Bible teaches solidly against that belief, and extends that to all false religions. Yes, this is symbolism, but clearly related to known false religions. To isolate the Bible from all known history, and the theological teaching and then claim that the Bible is stating that the talking serpent has a physical reality and that therefore the Bible is false is just setting up a straw dog.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jaywill, posted 06-20-2009 12:51 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Brian, posted 06-21-2009 4:18 PM greentwiga has replied
 Message 117 by jaywill, posted 06-21-2009 5:25 PM greentwiga has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 116 of 157 (512850)
06-21-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by greentwiga
06-21-2009 10:19 AM


For thousands of years, scholars thought Hittites were a local group in Canaan.
Thousands of years! Are you having a laugh.
Then we found that they were a huge empire in Turkey,
No 'they' didn't.
and a few refugees had settled in Canaan.
Bull.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by greentwiga, posted 06-21-2009 10:19 AM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by greentwiga, posted 06-22-2009 3:08 PM Brian has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 117 of 157 (512855)
06-21-2009 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by greentwiga
06-21-2009 10:19 AM


We needed to look at outside sources to understand.
No rather the seeker for spiritual truth needs to let the Bible interpret itself.
If you go chasing after Sumerian and Hittite mythology to get insight into the revelation of the Bible I think you will end up in a diluted confusion.
The difference is coming to the Bible as the revelation from God to man or coming to it as a religious scapbook no better or worse than a thousand other sacred writings. You will find that I take the Bible as God's plenary revelation to man.
Now Paul refered to "pagan" poets and philosophers in the books of Acts. And sometimes the Bible will make a passing comment like this. But it is the teaching of the Bible and how those matters are being used which leads to truth.
Let the Book interpret itself first.
There are a variety of foreign Gods mentioned in the Bible, Baal, Dagon, Asgerah, etc.
Very interesting. Maybe fascinating. However, I would not let them be a distraction from God's revelation. The people of God were guided by the Spirit of God and did not include all the possible Apochaphal writings in this library. They discerned the difference.
I do not like to speak of God's opposition. But but you should know that to confuse man Satan enfluenced a plethora of writings hoping that if these were also in the world man would see God's revelation as just another one of these.
Don't fall for that trap. There is a spiritual warfare going on here on earth. The slew of other writings, as fascinatingas they may be, are only there to confuse us and distract us from the genuine God to man revelation of the Bible.
Again to understand more about what the foreign religion taught, we need to look at outside sources. We can do the same for the talking serpent.
I look to the Bible to inform me.
This being utilizing the snake had to very intelligent. He seems to speak from experience. His talk is reminiscient of the slanders uttered by Satan in the older book of Job. It cannot be a man because no other people were there beside Adam and his wife. So who is talking?
Now I doubt that speaking animals were a part of the creation. Man is said to be in the image of God. The uniqueness of speaking I don't think is shared by man with the other creatures. So who is speaking if not a man or a serpent?
An angelic being is the best possibility. But which one? Only two are mentioned in the Bible - Michael and Gabriel. A third powerful being is mentioned called "Day Star". He is also called the Anointed Cherub. This would be the being who became Satan. The slander, the accusation, the envy, the self willed rebellion, all suggest this being.
So I think I look first for the Bible to inform me. Why need I run after hundreds of mythologies of Sumerians, Hittites, Amorites, Babylonians to sift through some questionable hints? I barely have time to exhaust the unsearchable riches of the Bible.
Look, this other stuff is mildly interesting. I don't we show go there to find out about the serpent in Genesis. I want to solidify my faith and experience of God first. If I have some spare time left I'll take a look at some Sumerian mythology for curiosities.
This, in no way, changes the theology that the Bible teaches.
I don't think that it will help. Now God told the Israelites when they went into the land of Canaan, in essence, "Now don't go in there so curious and trying to find out how these people worshipped their gods."
We can be deceived. We need to humble ourselves before God and heed His warnings. Moses had all the wisdom of the Egyptians. True. But it didn't dilute him and distract him from serving God.
God is like a wise parent. He knows you could get confused if you go looking for the meaning of His word in Sumerian religion.
The serpent of old is equated with Satan. Paul equates idols with demons.
Even in the Old Testament before Paul, you had the realization that demons were behind some of the idols.
Still we can look at the foreign religions to understand more. The oracle at Delphi is just one religion that sheds light on the passage.
We can inderstand some things. And I know Bible teachers who I trust who know a great deal about these things. G.H. Pember and Donald Barnhouse knew a lot about religions of the Canaanites. They did not allow it to be a distraction from the revelation of the Bible.
The woman talked to, believed and obeyed a talking serpent and taught men to do the same. In the Garden, Adam and Eve were taught, don't talk to the serpent, don't believe him or obey him.
For sure Adam was told that he would have dominion over all the creeping things and over all the animals. That should have caused him some concern when one of them challenged God's directions.
Adam relinquished his sovereignty over the creation up to Satan. We've been suffering ever since.
The serpent went through the weaker vessel of the woman. I did not say she only was weak. I said she was weaker. The subtle enemy of God used the weaker vessel of the woman as a channel to derange God's plans.
Don't teach others to do those things either. Evil is a term that most often is used to mean breaking the covenant. By obeying the serpent, they broke the covenant with God. There is so much more here. Read Sumerian beliefs.
Will it give me more Jesus ?
Read The Golden Bough by Frazier. The talking serpent is not scientifically accurate but it is historically accurate.
Unless human history is grounded in the miraculous.
I believe that God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
I think man started off in this world with a miracle. That Person who formed the clay into a man shape was Christ before His incarnation. I belief He was walking around there and formed man of the dust and made man alive. That was God who did those things.
I have to account for the miraculous in the beginning of human history. So the speaking serpent was the evil counterpart of this divine and miraculous goings on. That is how I feel today.
But if I see Golden Bough, I'll take a look at it.
The Bible teaches solidly against that belief, and extends that to all false religions.
It does teach that such things are not typical or normal. But that it happened once is taught. The beginning of on this earth is a very unique time.
Yes, this is symbolism, but clearly related to known false religions. To isolate the Bible from all known history, and the theological teaching and then claim that the Bible is stating that the talking serpent has a physical reality and that therefore the Bible is false is just setting up a straw dog.
If you play around with the story trying to make it say something else you arrive at more problems. Nothing in Genesis three seems to call for us to stop the clock and transcend into some higher plain.
Cain moved East of Eden. Tilling of the ground, arguments and murder follow, gving birth to babies followed. After the episode with the serpent very down to earth matters are related. The flow of history after the event is practically seamless.
The identity of the serpent is specified in Revelation in totally unambiguous terms.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by greentwiga, posted 06-21-2009 10:19 AM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by greentwiga, posted 06-22-2009 3:59 PM jaywill has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 118 of 157 (512937)
06-22-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Brian
06-21-2009 4:18 PM


Look at Wikipedia. They fought Egypt to a standstill. The Empire disintegrated about 1180 BC. The last remnants disappeared about 800 BC and the memory of them was lost for 2,000 years until 1884 AD, except for mentions in the Bible. The only part that I may have misspoke is that some people think the mention in the Bible refers to Hittites living in Canaan and others say it was a group with a similar name (children of Heth or Hethites.) If you doubt what I say, check it out first. Some have brought out some valid, documented points and I listened to them. (I appreciate those corrections.) My main point is that researching outside the Bible helps prevent many strange interpretations. Talking snakes, referring to the name of this thread is just one of those bad interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Brian, posted 06-21-2009 4:18 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Brian, posted 06-22-2009 4:39 PM greentwiga has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 119 of 157 (512943)
06-22-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jaywill
06-21-2009 5:25 PM


Jaywill - What you say is solid. For a Christian, there is no need to look to other writings. The Bible is clear that the Garden teaches us to hold Marriage as a sacred covenant. It is also clear that sin entered the world through Adam, and that we need a second Adam, one who will take away/pay for the sin. These are matters of theology/belief. Many of these people do not believe and are questioning the accuracy of what the Bible says. When we take the Hebrew word, serpent, and translate it snake, we get a problem. Everyone knows that snakes do not talk. When we see that the Garden taught against a specific religion, the talking serpent makes sense. Reading the Golden Bough helps us understand other finer points. Why did Cain kill his brother in the field and shed the blood onto the field? Why was Cain afraid that anyone who met him would kill him? That book helps us understand that type of thinking that existed for thousands of years after the Garden. A careful analysis of the Biblical passage on the Garden will not convince anyone that God exists. It just shows that it is quite possible that the story of the Garden was historically accurate. If a person wants to reject the Bible, it should not be done because of wrong interpretations that also happen to be scientifically invalid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jaywill, posted 06-21-2009 5:25 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jaywill, posted 06-22-2009 7:13 PM greentwiga has replied
 Message 126 by purpledawn, posted 06-23-2009 7:07 AM greentwiga has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 120 of 157 (512948)
06-22-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by greentwiga
06-22-2009 3:08 PM


The Empire disintegrated about 1180 BC. The last remnants disappeared about 800 BC and the memory of them was lost for 2,000 years until 1884 AD, except for mentions in the Bible.
The 'Hittites' in Turkey are NOT mentioned in the Bible.
If you doubt what I say, check it out first.
I have checked it out, read this post and you will see that the culture discovered in Turkey were misnamed 'Hittite', they were never known as Hittites but the name remained for convenience. There's more info on that thread, feel free to comment there.
I still have NEVER been given the name of a single scholar who doubted that the Hittites existed despite asking literally dozens of webmasters with this false claim on their sites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by greentwiga, posted 06-22-2009 3:08 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by greentwiga, posted 06-22-2009 6:01 PM Brian has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024