Author Topic: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?  (Read 2331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eaglesway

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 4137
  • Gender: Male
  • Grace & Peace be multiplied unto you, in Jesus
    • Hell is a Myth.com
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #25 on: April 13, 2010, 07:08:08 PM »
The scriptures reflect glory when we, in the fellowship of the Spirit, with unveiled faces, look into them for glory. They are the witness of His glory.

Jesus, on the mountain of temptation said, Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Everyday God is speaking, the scriptures are provided as a witness.

Today, if you hear His voice.

The rain falls on the just and the unjust, the seed bears fruit as the earth nourishes the evil and the good, and His faithfulness is manifest as the sun rises each morning.

His glory is seen as the stars shine every night and we know they are there even when clouds obscure their view.

His eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen through the things that are made.

In Him we live and move and have our being.

Psa 19:1  

To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.


 THE HEAVENS declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows and proclaims His handiwork.
 
Day after day pours forth speech, and night after night shows forth knowledge.
 
It is not audible speech; their voice is not heard with the ear,
 
Nevertheless  their witness goes out through all the earth, their sayings to the end of the world.

Of the heavens has God made a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; and it rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
 
Its going forth is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the ends of it; and nothing yes, no one is hidden from the heat of it.
 
The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the whole person; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
 
The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure and bright, enlightening the eyes.
 
The reverent fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the ordinances of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
 
More to be desired are they than gold, even than much fine gold; they are sweeter also than honey and drippings from the honeycomb.

Moreover, by them is Your servant warned (reminded, illuminated, and instructed); and in keeping them there is great reward.
 
Who can discern his lapses and errors? Clear me from hidden and unconscious faults.
 
Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me!

Then shall I be blameless, and I shall be innocent and clear of great transgression.
 
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer.
 

The Logos is complete, but it is not completely understood. hellisamyth.webs.com

Offline Universalist Catholic

  • 300
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2010, 05:25:55 AM »
I've also been wondering about the first part of Genesis.  If we were to do a literal count of the Generations from Adam to Abraham, that would mean that people have only inhabitated the earth for 6000 years.  But science seems to think that humans have been on earth for 200,000 years or so.  http://www.askipedia.com/askipedia-article-015001-88.htm  According to science, the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years.  a lot older than 6 literal days.  Plus scientists believe human life began in Africa.  So im wondering if the generations from Adam to Abraham are the literal generations, or symbolic. 

Offline reFORMer

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 1943
  • Gender: Male
  • Psalm 133
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2010, 06:21:51 AM »
Do you understand that, due to what the Theory of Relativity describes, those on the inside of the "big bang" would experience a different passage of time than observers on the outside?  This has been used to explain the disparity of time.

The Genesis accounts are about the recreation of the earth.  "In beginning God creates the heavens and the earth; and the earth became chaotic 8414 and emptied."
Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning 7225 God 430 created 1254 853 the heaven 8064 and 853 the earth 776.
2And the earth 776 was 1961 without form 8414, and void 922; and darkness 2822 [was] upon the face 6440 of the deep 8415. And the Spirit 7307 of God 430 moved 7363 upon 5921 the face 6440 of the waters 4325.

"void" or, "empty" is the opposite of "inhabited"...

Isaiah 45:18
18 For thus saith 559 the LORD 3068 that created 1254 the heavens 8064; God 430 himself that formed 3335 the earth 776 and made 6213 it; he hath established 3559 it, he created 1254 it not in vain 8414, he formed 3335 it to be inhabited 3427 : I [am] the LORD 3068; and [there is] none else.

H8414 tohu
1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness
     a) formlessness (of primeval earth)
          1) nothingness, empty space
     b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)
     c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)
     d) place of chaos
     e) vanity

A soft answer to the evolutionist I give is based on the idea that the self-consciousness of man, his keeping records of himself in written language, based on the evidence does not have to be anymore than six thousand (6,000) years old.  I've found Scientists claiming the oldest known historical artifacts of human language to only be nine thousand (9,000) to twelve thousand (12,000) years, maybe fourteen thousand (14,000) years old at the oldest.  That's not much different than six thousand (6,000,) considering the passage of time for our galaxy or the earth.  The numbers are so speculative and nearly the same that it seems the evidence would just as well support the six thousand (6,000) years figure but for one thing only:  it would lend credence to the Biblical record.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 09:33:01 AM by reFORMer »
I went to church; but, the Church wasn't on the program!  JESUS WANTS HIS BODY BACK!!  MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!!!

Offline Beloved Servant

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
  • David's sling
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2010, 06:39:50 AM »
Do you understand that, due to what the Theory of Relativity describes, those on the inside of the "big bang" would experience a different passage of time than observers on the outside?  

This explains the dinosaurs and other phenomena.
That Adam walked with the Lord for 4-billion years
while the earth was being prepared for man's fall.  
« Last Edit: May 02, 2010, 06:53:17 AM by Beloved Servant »

Offline Universalist Catholic

  • 300
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2010, 07:13:44 AM »
Im a little bit confused.  Then again I dont understand the theory of Relativity. 

Offline jabcat

  • Admin
  • *
  • Posts: 9018
  • SINNER SAVED BY GRACE
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2010, 07:19:41 AM »
I don't either, but reFORMer and David, you've said something very intriguing.  Could you please expound on this at least a little more?  Thanks, James.
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting--all of which are out of character--but rather thanksgiving.  Eph. 5:4  **  Saved 1John 3.2, Eph. 2:8, John 1:12 - Being saved 2Cor. 4:16 2Peter 3:18 - Will be saved 1Peter 1:5 Romans 8:23

Offline Cardinal

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 8428
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #31 on: May 02, 2010, 08:23:59 AM »
 :cloud9: Twenty some years ago, it was on the news that scientists had discovered a problem with the carbon dating, in that the rate of decay changed at a certain point, and if that was true it meant that the age of things had to be adjusted and they figured it about 13 to 14 thousand years. This lined up with some revelation He gave me, so I took it as a confirmation. Blessings....
"I would rather train twenty men to pray, than a thousand to preach; A minister's highest mission ought to be to teach his people to pray." -H. MacGregor

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12916
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #32 on: May 02, 2010, 08:45:07 AM »
Im a little bit confused.  Then again I dont understand the theory of Relativity. 
Different places different time.
Consider the following experiment. One person watches a clock on earth. One person watches a clock on a planet at the edge of the universe.
Both watch the clock for an hour. Both have the same feeling of time and really feel they watched the clock for 1 hour. They did. But only for the place were they are. The point is if we watch an hour pass on that distant planet it look like a second. But for the people on that planet it really feels like an hour.
So suppose God is sitting on that distant planet. His clock/calendar says 6 days have passed. But that's only so for were He is sitting. Not on eartch were time passes slowly.

So according to Einsteins law of relativity 14 billion year = 6 days depending on the viewing location.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12916
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #33 on: May 02, 2010, 08:56:17 AM »
Ancient Jewish scholars already noted that God switched calendars somewere around the creation of Adam. Jewish calendars start at Adam not at verse 1:1.

The relativity idea is nice. The book by Shroder about it is nice too. (very readable)
But perhaps the answer is even simpler.
Aion=age.  Lot's op articles and discussions on that on TentMaker.
But there is a similar word for that in Hebrew. Yom
Just like Aion is prefered to be translated as forever Yom is prefered to be translated as day.
But in reality Yom means age.
So God didn't say Day one. But He said age one.
Those ages/Yoms were millions and billions years in length.
But also just 24 hours....
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12916
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #34 on: May 02, 2010, 09:31:17 AM »
What does it all mean?
Lemme start with a big IMO

Science is right. (not about everything) The universe is billions of years old. So is earth. Dinos, cavemen etc excisted.
They all fit in the first 6 ages.
Roughly at the time when the Bible dates creation of Adam the first signs of civilization start to pop up. So that aligns with secular science.
For example the Bible introduces the bronze age with Tubal-Cain.

But there are also weird things:
Gen 3:17 It sounds like they already knew about pregnacy etc. Even before they experienced it.
Gen 4:14 Cain is send away and is afraid to be killed. Only Adam Eve and their children existed.
Gen 4:17 Cain build a whole city for his wife and child? And... were did his wife came from?

What if Adam isn't really about the very first man? But the very first man that was put in Eden and got contact with God.
Jewish scholars speak of an animal and human soul/spirit.
So my thought is a bit like this:
What if at the time of Adam earth already was inhabited with early humans. But Biblically seen they were still animals. (only animal spirit)
But Adam was the first one to receive the human spirit. And with that he really became the first human.

There is more but I think I've upset people enough for one day  :laughing7:
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11260
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #35 on: May 02, 2010, 01:50:52 PM »
Quote from: ww
What if Adam isn't really about the very first man?

Adam doesn't appear on the scene until Genesis 2.  And, he isn't sent out by God to be fruitful and multiply--he's put in a garden to tend and keep it.

Science likes to tell us that people just like us existed for hundreds of thousands or even million years before Adam.  If that's the case, where are the skyscrapers, the science, the engineering, the art, the music, the books, the jokes?  How many Mozarts would appear in a 100,000 years?  How many Tesla's?  How many Pascal's?  Where is the evidence of language before Adam?


It's believed that humans originated about 200,000 years ago in the Middle Paleolithic period in southern Africa.


Really?  Then why has Adam done more in 6000 years than man did in the previous 194,000?


19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

--Gen 2

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12916
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #36 on: May 02, 2010, 02:43:37 PM »
It's a bit what you call animal and what you call man.
Was man the first ape that walked semi-upright? If yes that man wouldn't be able to to produce Mozarts and Teslas. Simply because that man had the intelligence of an ape.
The Bible calls the beast man after it received the spirit of humanity/reasoning etc.

All those people you mention are from the last part of the 6000 years.
Science seems to accelerate. Just compare the scientific progress between 1000-1100AD and for example 1900-2000AD.

Now I answered your questions you answer mine. Ok?
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline eaglesway

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 4137
  • Gender: Male
  • Grace & Peace be multiplied unto you, in Jesus
    • Hell is a Myth.com
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #37 on: May 02, 2010, 03:42:07 PM »
  Does any one find it interesting that God made the grass, plants and trees before He brought forth the stars and the sun and the moon?
  It seems to me that either the creation is told in allegorical form, or, since the whole idea of creation involves immense supernatural acts, the plants and trees where held in some kind of stasis field (lol- I'm a big science fiction fan) while the sun and moon and stars were created.
  And since the sun etc weren't created til the fourth day- day does not likely mean 24 hours, at least for the first four days because there were no separations between the times and seasons until the fourth day?
  It is also possible that the processes God used in manifesting creation, being very dynamic forces to say the least, exceed in some ways our ability to carbon date them. Perhaps our scientific measures cannot quantify aionian times, which it seems to me the first four days, at least, were.
  I find it all very interesting, but speculative, and I have no problem with a wide array of views that I have read so far, from actual creation days to days as paleolithic periods- because God is capable of them all. I do believe the genealogies are correct and direct history however. The record of the genealogy of Messiah is intrinsic to the entire Hebrew priesthood, the oracles and promises, etc. If the genealogy is a myth, then the whole book is a myth- and as such, IMO, would be unworthy of spirited discussion and debate concerning doctrine.
The Logos is complete, but it is not completely understood. hellisamyth.webs.com

Offline Beloved Servant

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
  • David's sling
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #38 on: May 02, 2010, 04:07:09 PM »

I don't want to paste the whole chapter here but,

1 Corinthians 2

speaks to us about such things.
We pray Lord for Your Spirit to open the pages to our understanding.

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 12916
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2010, 04:53:03 PM »
 Does any one find it interesting that God made the grass, plants and trees before He brought forth the stars and the sun and the moon?
He never said He did.
1:8 And God called the curtain heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second era.

The original text doesn't write THE second/third/etc day.
The accounts are not claimed to be chronological.
The era's can also overlap. Right now we still have sun stars, herbs, and beasts.
Quote
It seems to me that either the creation is told in allegorical form, or, since the whole idea of creation involves immense supernatural acts,
By a God that has the power to do it all in a split second. It took Him a while. Otherwise Gen 1:1 would have been: He cretaed evereyting including Adam. I think thats showing a process.
Quote
the plants and trees where held in some kind of stasis field (lol- I'm a big science fiction fan) while the sun and moon and stars were created.
  And since the sun etc weren't created til the fourth day- day does not likely mean 24 hours, at least for the first four days because there were no separations between the times and seasons until the fourth day?
Ha a fellow SF man :winkgrin:
The sun is a second generation star. That stasis field should have had a big generator because the plants were in stasis a long while  :winkgrin: Not to mention it was kinda chilly without the sun. At those temps anything dies instantly.
There are quite a few Christian authors that show intelligent design in regular science. Hugh Ross is one of them. Personally I see zero attackts, of God by aligning science with the Bible. Didn't He say His hadiworks is in the sky. Well redshift is handiwork too...
Quote
It is also possible that the processes God used in manifesting creation, being very dynamic forces to say the least, exceed in some ways our ability to carbon date them. Perhaps our scientific measures cannot quantify aionian times, which it seems to me the first four days, at least, were.
I think both evolution and Big Bang is true.
The Big Bang started with nothing. So did God. As for evolution.... Darwins theory is crap. Microscopic life on earth existed almost from the start. Then during the Cambrian explosion suddenly there was a huge varity of life. Just as like God pushed another create button.
Rtc. etc. etc
Quote
I find it all very interesting, but speculative, and I have no problem with a wide array of views that I have read so far, from actual creation days to days as paleolithic periods- because God is capable of them all. I do believe the genealogies are correct and direct history however. The record of the genealogy of Messiah is intrinsic to the entire Hebrew priesthood, the oracles and promises, etc. If the genealogy is a myth, then the whole book is a myth- and as such, IMO, would be unworthy of spirited discussion and debate concerning doctrine.
Erm... I think we can agree that the whole OT focusses on the Jewish people. There where other unmentioned people on earth then. So imo God had/has a script. And the OT just foucusses on the main actors. Are the people mentioned in the genealogy all in the line from Adam to Adam? Or just the main actors? Meaning holes in genealogy. When someone is called a son of Abraham it can also mean Abraham was his grandfather. LXX gives other ages.

As I said earlies it depend when you call a beast a  man. From Father's pov that's late in earth's history. About the time the intelligence of mankind starts to rise quickly.
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Offline eaglesway

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 4137
  • Gender: Male
  • Grace & Peace be multiplied unto you, in Jesus
    • Hell is a Myth.com
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2010, 10:07:40 PM »
 
  I find it all very interesting, but speculative, and I have no problem with a wide array of views that I have read so far, from actual creation days to days as paleolithic periods- because God is capable of them all. I do believe the genealogies are correct and direct history however.


As you wrote Beloved Servant, may the Lord give us understanding by the Spirit concerning the "hidden wisdom"(1 Cor 2). However this wisdom is a wisdom "the rulers of this age" did not understand- or they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory- which leads me to believe Paul is speaking of the "ways" of God in us more so than the secrets of aionian times. Of course, with a big IMO.
The things written in 1 Corinthians 2 may apply more to the manifesting of the kingdom of God "Today" than to the deciphering of the secrets of aionian times. I have found (and I love those verses, along with the end of Romans 11) that everyone seems to think their particular slant on mystic interpretation  is the "hidden wisdom". Me too, of course- I don't seek to separate myself from being subject to the speculative adventures of the carnal mind.But I personally believe the hidden wisdom is that which leads to the manifestation of the Bride of Christ, coming down(manifesting) out of the heavens(seated with Christ over all P & P)- not these speculative types of gnostic thingies that are interprative and unverifiable.....and definitely fun to talk about.
The Logos is complete, but it is not completely understood. hellisamyth.webs.com

Offline Dallas

  • 300
  • *
  • Posts: 425
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #41 on: May 03, 2010, 02:15:43 AM »
Quote
What if Adam isn't really about the very first man? But the very first man that was put in Eden and got contact with God.

I believe this.

The bible talks about other people...

Genesis 4, This is while Adam and Eve had only had two children, Cain and Abel, also Adam and Eve were living at the base on the mountain of Eden.

14"Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

Who are these people Cain is afraid of?

16Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Nod? Who is this Nod? Also, we see here that Cain moved away from Adam and Eve, so he wasn't afraid then it was them who would kill him, then again whom was he afraid of?

17Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.
18Now to Enoch was born Irad, and Irad became the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael became the father of Methushael, and Methushael became the father of Lamech.
19Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah.

Who are these womens parents...not Adam and Eve? Also where did Cain find a wife? The only answer that can be surmised from scripture is from the land of Nod.

It was quite clear that there were others walking the planet. These occurances are far from few!


Now, is the bible historically accurate, Yes.

The bible doesn't claim to contain the creation of the universe as it is preached, but what it claims is how the "living people" were started. It is also the history of those people. The people with the spirit of God whom became Living beings."

Genesis 2:Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11260
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #42 on: May 03, 2010, 02:39:48 AM »
The first book, Old Testament, is the story of the generations of Adam.

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
 2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


--Gen 5



The second book, New Testament, is the story of the generation of Jesus.


1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
--Mat 1


The whole book is about Jesus.


Psalm 40:7
Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,



And about us.


Revelation 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.


Offline Beloved Servant

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 4290
  • David's sling
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #43 on: May 03, 2010, 02:43:12 AM »
I understand, Eaglesway.

Molly, that was great!

Offline willieH

  • Read Only
  • *
  • Posts: 2260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #44 on: May 03, 2010, 06:09:04 AM »
What does it all mean?
Lemme start with a big IMO

Science is right. (not about everything) The universe is billions of years old. So is earth. Dinos, cavemen etc excisted.
They all fit in the first 6 ages.
Roughly at the time when the Bible dates creation of Adam the first signs of civilization start to pop up. So that aligns with secular science.
For example the Bible introduces the bronze age with Tubal-Cain.

But there are also weird things:
Gen 3:17 It sounds like they already knew about pregnacy etc. Even before they experienced it.
Gen 4:14 Cain is send away and is afraid to be killed. Only Adam Eve and their children existed.
Gen 4:17 Cain build a whole city for his wife and child? And... were did his wife came from?

There are many speculations which can be made of this (the origin of "Cain's wife"...

That the WORD is silent about it... does not allow us to ADD our "speculations" to it...

As far as "when" Cain was born, this could amount to a hundred, or even more YEARS from the beginning in the Garden -- :dontknow: -- No one knows, and Scripture leaves no clues...

This could potentially account for existant populations elsewhere, and since ONLY speculation can be made of this issue, one speculation is as potentially valid as another, as long as it does not OPPOSE Scripture elsewhere.  And only OFFERED by the one speculating as a mere possibility -- which also admits NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS, and is NOT INTENDED to be believed as TRUTH...

What if Adam isn't really about the very first man?


As we offer our "speculations"... in order for them to have ANY VALIDITY... they must FIRST, be in line with Scripture (which CLEARLY notes ADAM as the FIRST MAN -- 1 Cor 15:45)

The Scriptures -- 1 Cor 15:47 -- note the FIRST man is NATURAL and OF THE EARTH... and the Scripture (as noted above), clearly states that ADAM was the FIRST MAN -- 1 Cor 15:45 -- which SOWED DISHONOR [Sin which brought forth DEATH] and through which SIN entered the World, as well as DEATH -- Rom 5:12-19

What if at the time of Adam earth already was inhabited with early humans. But Biblically seen they were still animals. (only animal spirit)
But Adam was the first one to receive the human spirit. And with that he really became the first human.

There is no SCRIPTURAL basis for this conjecture... One can say anything... but one must also be careful not to ADD to what is clearly stated...

Why would God create "MEN" which had an "animal spirit"?  Science will resort to this being APES --- and then lay out the theory of Evolution from such a proposal.

The WORD does not offer any such allusion (at least that I have come across)... nor does such a speculation rhyme with what is CLEARLY stated in the Bible concerning ADAM as being the FIRST MAN... (again, at least as much as I have come across!)

It would be interesting if you or another involved in this discussion.

There is more but I think I've upset people enough for one day  :laughing7:

Hey bro... anyone should have the right to speak, without others getting upset about it.  :wink1:

...willieH  :cloud9:

Offline Pierac

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1377
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #45 on: May 03, 2010, 06:45:36 AM »
What does it all mean?
Lemme start with a big IMO

Science is right. (not about everything) The universe is billions of years old. So is earth. Dinos, cavemen etc excisted.
They all fit in the first 6 ages.
Roughly at the time when the Bible dates creation of Adam the first signs of civilization start to pop up. So that aligns with secular science.
For example the Bible introduces the bronze age with Tubal-Cain.

But there are also weird things:
Gen 3:17 It sounds like they already knew about pregnacy etc. Even before they experienced it.
Gen 4:14 Cain is send away and is afraid to be killed. Only Adam Eve and their children existed.
Gen 4:17 Cain build a whole city for his wife and child? And... were did his wife came from?

There are many speculations which can be made of this (the origin of "Cain's wife"...

That the WORD is silent about it... does not allow us to ADD our "speculations" to it...

As far as "when" Cain was born, this could amount to a hundred, or even more YEARS from the beginning in the Garden -- :dontknow: -- No one knows, and Scripture leaves no clues...

This could potentially account for existant populations elsewhere, and since ONLY speculation can be made of this issue, one speculation is as potentially valid as another, as long as it does not OPPOSE Scripture elsewhere.  And only OFFERED by the one speculating as a mere possibility -- which also admits NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS, and is NOT INTENDED to be believed as TRUTH...

What if Adam isn't really about the very first man?


As we offer our "speculations"... in order for them to have ANY VALIDITY... they must FIRST, be in line with Scripture (which CLEARLY notes ADAM as the FIRST MAN -- 1 Cor 15:45)

The Scriptures -- 1 Cor 15:47 -- note the FIRST man is NATURAL and OF THE EARTH... and the Scripture (as noted above), clearly states that ADAM was the FIRST MAN -- 1 Cor 15:45 -- which SOWED DISHONOR [Sin which brought forth DEATH] and through which SIN entered the World, as well as DEATH -- Rom 5:12-19

What if at the time of Adam earth already was inhabited with early humans. But Biblically seen they were still animals. (only animal spirit)
But Adam was the first one to receive the human spirit. And with that he really became the first human.

There is no SCRIPTURAL basis for this conjecture... One can say anything... but one must also be careful not to ADD to what is clearly stated...

Why would God create "MEN" which had an "animal spirit"?  Science will resort to this being APES --- and then lay out the theory of Evolution from such a proposal.

The WORD does not offer any such allusion (at least that I have come across)... nor does such a speculation rhyme with what is CLEARLY stated in the Bible concerning ADAM as being the FIRST MAN... (again, at least as much as I have come across!)

It would be interesting if you or another involved in this discussion.

There is more but I think I've upset people enough for one day  :laughing7:

Hey bro... anyone should have the right to speak, without others getting upset about it.  :wink1:

...willieH  :cloud9:

Well spoken!


Paul

Offline willieH

  • Read Only
  • *
  • Posts: 2260
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #46 on: May 03, 2010, 06:57:52 AM »
willieH: Hi UC... :hithere:

I kind of jumped into this discussion at the tail end... but thought it would be appropriate to answer the OP...  :mblush:

Now Im not trying to disprove the bible in any way, but Im wondering if everything that happened in the bible is necessarily an historical event or some of it being allegory with the purpose of representing a greater truth.

The WORDS of God are SPIRITUAL... irregardless of whether they are or are not, an actual historical report.  There is SPIRITUAL allegory and truth which lies within them, even if some were actual historical occurences and/or, some were not.

I've been told that the story of Adam and Eve is not necessarily an historical event, but an allegory for how man fell into sin at some point in history, due to a lie from the evil one.  Plus I am well aware of the fact that many stories, such as The Creation, the Fall, Noahs Ark, and the tower of Babel are very similar to some Near Eastern Myths, from Gilgamesh.

Man BEGAN somewhere, somewhen, ...why not at the beginning? And why not actually as reported in Genesis?  :dontknow:

IMO -- Those who reach for the Creation to be strictly an "allegory", seem to be reaching for something to grasp, when something is already there to grasp...  :wacko2:

  Plus many civilizations believed in some type of myth based on an area in ruin, like Sodom and Gomorrah.  Then I have been told that the Book of Joshua was not necessarily an historical event, but a story with truth to it.  Im not making any claims.

That there is evidence in various cultures of such ancient tales as Noah's Ark or Sodom & Gomorrah, screams of an ECHO to an actual event, as opposed to a myth...  :idea2:

A myth, is usually unique and not commonly shared by several INDEPENDENT cultures...

An actual "event" which is COMMONLY "legendary" (due to lack of documentation and is shared by several UNCOMMICATIVE cultures), is pretty strong proof (though it cannot be "proven"  :laughing7:) that said "event" ...actually took place...  :nod:

:Peace:

...willieH  :cloud9:

Offline Molly

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 11260
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #47 on: May 03, 2010, 07:06:06 AM »
1 Cor 15:45

The first man Adam...


Adam

G76
Αδάμ
"Adam"
ad-am'
Of Hebrew origin [H121]; Adam, the first man; typically (of Jesus) man (as his representative): - Adam.

Offline eaglesway

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 4137
  • Gender: Male
  • Grace & Peace be multiplied unto you, in Jesus
    • Hell is a Myth.com
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #48 on: May 03, 2010, 08:36:23 AM »
Amen Willie.
    Great way of putting it. We should accept the testimony of the oracles and relate to the myths as the echoes. Whether we fully understand the oracles or not, there is no substance in the echoes. If all scripture is God breathed, I have a field in which to dig for the treasure. Just a few verses that encourage me to dig and not grow weary- or complacent.

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
(Eph 3:3-5)

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. 
(Rom 16:25-27)

This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.
(2Pe 3:1-2)

I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind. For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-- and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
(2Pe 1:13-19)


The Logos is complete, but it is not completely understood. hellisamyth.webs.com

Offline Cardinal

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 8428
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is the bible necessarily historically accurate?
« Reply #49 on: May 03, 2010, 09:58:47 AM »
 :cloud9: Just a side note..........He sent Cain into the land of Nod.......Nod means in Hebrew, "wandering(s)". Contrast with the steps of the righteous being ordered by the Lord......Blessings....
"I would rather train twenty men to pray, than a thousand to preach; A minister's highest mission ought to be to teach his people to pray." -H. MacGregor