It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


More proof that Biblical "timeframe" is ridiculous

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 01:48 AM
(Brief was the thought to post the following as a "Lost Civilizations" topic. In fact, the new discoveries fit quite well with contemporary histories, albeit extending back the period(s) known. Certainly however, this post challenges the narrative of Genesis, hence also the conspiritorial religiousity attempting to suppress science.)

Archeological evidence reveals civilizations at locations on separate continents at the time when only a few humans are biblically-recorded. (We can thank the 17th Century Archbishop Usher for the confusion.) Most recently, it is noted that substantial populations existed in Asia, at Shanghai, China. Also, a flourishing African civilization at the same time could provide for afterlife concerns, as discovered from a tomb at Wadi Hosh, Aswan, south Egypt. Additionally, new discoveries near Erisman, Iran indicate that an industrial, metal-working center was located there 6,000 years ago.

The findings are indicative of substantive population centers at the widely-scattered localities. Thus, one conclusion is that the populous had to grow for some time prior to 4,000 BCE, precluding the virtually instantaneous creation outlined in Genesis, purportedly at 4,004 BCE. Other conclusions are related, that not only did people have to procreate in large numbers over time and then become organized; also, their technologies had to have time to develop prior to that time. Of course, migration over thousands of miles and settlement requires additional time. But such discoveries and the attendent corrollaries fly in the face of only literalist biblical interpretations. Accordingly, the Bible is useful for history only marginally, its primary function is spirituality. One does not want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:25 AM
Hi there Aeon (+ a bunch of ones and noughts....):

Good post.

One must remember that the text of the Hebrew "bible" was made up of traditions that were spoken first for several hundred years and morphed into different recensions by different priestly groups in different Israelitish-Canaanitish cult centers (Shechem, Shiloh, Gilgal, Bethel, Megiddo, Dan etc.) then finally codified after the Babylonian Exile (BC 587-521) then written over and re-written/edited-redacted more than a dozen times over the centuries until as late as the Macabbean period in 165 BC, and that the result we read today in these texts (4 major families of the Torah exist, none of them match exactly, e.g. the SamPent, the Vorlage to the LXX, the Masoretic Text and the Qumran families of MSS) is far closer to "midrash" (hagaddic moral-story) rather than "history" in the modern positivistic sense (i.e. rather than "scientific facts").

The "dating" schema in the Masoretic Texts (with specific AGES and REIGNS of KINGS, or the SOJOURN IN THE WILDERNESS with MOSES which try to form specific patterns of 480 years between Moses and the 1st Temple of Solomon etc.) DOES NOT MATCH the schema of dates/ages/times/years in the LXX or in the SamPent which shows that the final redaction of the socalled Masoretic (received) text of the Old Testament is an artificial midrashic construct to point to 165 BC as being a key date in the "timeline if Israel" (i.e. the time of the Macabbean re-taking of the 2nd Temple from the Syrian Greek Antiochus IV).

Much of the contents of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) is legendary and moralistic, rather than purely scientific anyway:

Or do people on this thread actually "believe" (!) that Joshua commanded the sun AND THE MOON to stand still so he could finish a battle and be avenged on his enemies? (read Joshua, chapter 10, written by the same literary hand who wrote the core of the so-called book of Deuteronomy and at least one of the severely different versions of the book of the prophet Jeremiah (compare the LXX with the MT, and there are 13 chapters missing in the LXX) , i.e. c. 500 BC, long after the time of Moses-Joshua)

With respect to the dating issues in Bere#h ("genesis") don't forget to mention some of the many other thriving ancient cultures in speficic places in the world (BC 9500 to BC 5500) e.g. the impressive(pre-Sumerian) Harappa culture (still being unearthed as we write) in northern India, which seems to have had quite a thriving "civilisation" even by modern standards, with "hot and cold running water pipes " and "apartments specifically built for travelling businessmen along the trade routes" (to quote the great Hindu scholar Dr. Werner of Univ of Durham) as early as 8,500 BC...

Other archaeological discoveries which basically trash the timelines and "historical" presuppositions in the socalled Torah of the Jews are being exposed by science now, even as we write i.e. as the digging continues, especially in central Asia...

Just remember, "STORY" not anything like modern ideas of "HISTORY" ...when it comes to the writings of the Jews (ditto for the gospel writers), where the setting into writing of "positivistic history" was not part of their Weltanschauung...and they are no different in many respects from their older and far more sophisticated neighbours such as Babylon, Assyria and Egypt from whom the tiny states of ancient Israel-Judah borrowed their literary devices and myths during long years of occupation by these larger nations....

posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 12:32 AM
Thank you for your very well-informed reply, Amadeus. Indeed, biblical narratives are primarily moralistic and consist largely of cautionary tales. Occasionally, I note opinions on various topics which insist on literalistic scriptural interpretation and I even have relatives so inclined. Such "discussions" in which we engage consist of little more than mutual contradictions. Generally, I trump the intercourse by citing that belief requires no proof and none is sufficient to skepticism. But I do usually demonstrate that I have researched extensively. While aware of a few versions of Torah, I did not previously realize the extent of the variety! That is fodder for further research on my part and is very interesting.

As to the archaeological discoveries in recent years, I am also fascinated. You mention the very ancient Harappan cultures, though I've found occasional stories on submarine findings off the Indian coast and near Cuba as well. If indeed the structures at those places were submerged rather than sunk by land subsidence, it would suggest an age greater than 11,000 to 14,000 years, when the last two phases of glacial melting occurred. Other out-of-place artifacts have long been suggestive of relatively high technology and culture far beyond the accepted historical timeframe. In all, it appears to me that an advanced, world-wide civilization was well-established during the Pleistocene Epoch but ecological catastrophe(s) caused by a global warming ended it. Of course, world coastlines were inundated by glacial meltwater (substantially raising sea level), drowning most population centers. Briefly, that is my hypothesis, which appears to be borne out through off-shore archaeology. But there were also upland cities, and we're finding out much about those also while history continues to be extended into antiquity.

Perhaps archaeology is the field I admire most, though I became a geologist

posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:22 AM
There are different interpretations of Genesis. Although this is far from the mainstream of Christianity, some people, including myself, belieive that the there was a sixth day creation of primitvie (hunter-gatherer) man (see Genesis 1:26-27), and an eighth day creation of a more advanced (agricultural) man (see Genesis 2:7-8).

posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:28 AM
Interesting interpretation, though it certainly would be consistent with human cultural advancement over time. Any other alternative interpretations?

posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:39 AM
Yes. Some also believe that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represented Satan and that the forbidden fruit was a metaphor for Eve's sexual intercourse with this fallen angelic being, of which Cain was the result.

Also, the generations of Adam may not be literal father to son generations, but the phrase "son of" may merely mean "descendant of", while "begat" may mean "was the ancestor of". Or perhaps Adam and Eve were only created six thousand years ago, while primtive man was created in much more ancient times.

[edit on 14-8-2004 by Ischyros]

posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:53 AM
No one know the time save the keeper. Angels are eternal lest they fall as was man. Try to measure time as you are in it. Your ship may find the shore you seek. Enoch was a man who was shown the gates of the stars by the angels who fell. How long were they around before man? If they left thier first estate and came to earth, what time was it? Masons are all about time and the so called secrets of measuring time. Lucifer is an angel who's time is short. Who's time is on your wrist?

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 06:24 PM
I am not qualified to explain with confidence,so I'll refer you to the book,
"Adam When" the author lays out the timeline given in the Bible,which is
the ONLY Truth we have In this world.
If you want to take some so-called philosopher's word for it thats your right. It just seems sooo pitiful to cling to a lairs regurgitations.
Let GOD be true and EVERY MAN a LIAR!(Romans 3:4)
"Adam When" is FREE at Read It.. I Dare You..
also check out "Brotherhood of Darkness" (video lecture) over at in the multimedia section.
Both of these authors will sink ANY faulty,worldly OPINIONS you might read in this topic or any other for that matter.

BY the way the Bible is not open to ANY private intrepretation.(2Peter 1:20)

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 06:43 PM

Originally posted by pauthed
BY the way the Bible is not open to ANY private intrepretation.(2Peter 1:20)

Who's Bible? The one that the Church says is good enough? The one which contains the Book of Noah and the Books of Enoch (plus all the other "missing" books)? The Torah?

Even the excepted version has its variants... I'm still trying to locate the Zurich Bible, supposedly the largest collection, and most complete, of all the other Hebrew Bibles.


This forum really isn't private, is it? So we can freely interpret.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:53 PM
Yes, great post indeed. Every generation of Christians claims the Bible is set in stone with regards to the facts, only to be proven wrong on many points as the acheological evidence comes in. Then they adapt and say it was meant to be that way.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 09:06 PM
As far as the 'sons of Adam' referring to generational descendants rather than direct son or daughter:

This technique is employed in at least one othe place in the Bible that I can think of: In the opening chapter of Matthew when the author is tracing the lineage of Christ, he in at least three places mentions the identical phrasing 'so and so begat so and so' or, in later translations 'so and so was the father of/ son of so and so' used to skip generations as a whole, yet demonstrate the link between Christ and the House of David, fulfilling the Messianic Prophecy that the Messiah would be of 'the house and lineage of David'

Just a thought, your mileage may vary

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Amadeus
Or do people on this thread actually "believe" (!) that Joshua commanded the sun AND THE MOON to stand still so he could finish a battle and be avenged on his enemies?

I do.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 11:42 PM
When I see discussions such as these crop up the stereotype that pops into my head is a Darwin-thumping scientist shouting at a Bible-thumping Christian, and vice versa.

With all due respect to both, I have always considered the Jews to be the authority on Genesis, in light of who wrote it. Does anyone consider this to be an unreasonable position to take?

I have had the good fortune to be able to speak to a few rabbis in my day on this very topic. While tradition demands that rabbis disagree on just about everything to some extent or another, the ones I talked to, without exception, found no conflict between the account of Genesis and the Theory of Evolution. (Clarification! The idea that things evolve, not the idea that life is an accident, which, as far as I know, is not the same thing as declaring that life evolves!)

More interestingly, they also rejected the idea that a "day" of creation was necessarily the same length as a modern day. Not being an expert on the subject myself, second-hand news is the best I can offer. So...

Any Torah students out there willing to weigh in on this?

Edit: Clarification on what I mean by "Theory of Evolution".

[edit on 8/18/2004 by Majic]


posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 11:57 PM
Maybe another theory . . .

Genesis 1 is speaking of God as in plural. Genesis 2 is spaeking of a Lord God, singular and physical.

Intervention . . . Adam was 'created' bothe male and female in genesis 1.
But Genesis 2 singles out the male Adam and is 'formed' not created.

So in short, evolution created man (Adam) male and female, and an intervention of this Lord God and Angels 'formed' man (Adam) and 'made' Eve.

I think the Garden of Eden is the missing link.

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:07 AM
2 Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of the scripture is open to private interpretation. I follow the KJV and use the Strong's Concordance for Greek
& Hebrew.The Bible is my authority New and Old Testaments alike.
No book in the history of the WORLD has touched as many people and changed as many lives as the Bible.And no one has ever proven it wrong.
Professional Opinion dosen't mean squat while speaking on God's HOLY Word. The very fact that a person finds fault in the Bible is PROOF POSITIVE that they've defeated themselves already in approaching the Bible with bias.

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 07:25 AM
Greetings Pauthed:

You mention that your "bible" is your "authority."

Let's start with the Hebrew Bible, since that is the group of traditions that the "Greek Christian forger" of the Epistle of 2 Peter obviously refers to in his early 2nd century Greek letter falsely bearing the name of "Peter" (NEWSFLASH: the real disciple "R. Shimeon bar Yonah ha Kephah" ("ho Petros" the Rock in Greek) couldn't read or write KoineGreek, but was an early 1st century Galilean Aramaic speaking fisherman who, like his brother was a disciple of John the Baptist before swinging over to the "other " movement after John's arrest).

Which version of the so-called "bible" are you reading as your so-called "authority"

The SamPent? (dated around 480 BCE)
The Hebrew Vorlage to the Greek LXX? (dated around 400 BCE)
The "other mixed" Dead Sea Scroll Families of MSS? (BCE 350 to AD136)
The Aramaic Targums? (c. 200 AD)
The Syriac Pe#ta (c. 350AD)
The socalled "received" Masoretic Text of Leningrad (c. 780AD)

Can you even read these texts? Have you ever even bothered to COMPARE them? Then HOW can you say you have an "authoritateive" text to base your assumptions on?


But this fact is one of the best kept SECRETS within Judeo Christian religious circles, and one of the MAIN REASONS why the Dead Sea Scrolls were NOT widely published for the masses in the 1950s

Or to break it down for you, take the Book of Jeremiah: do you take the MT version with its 13 extra chapters or the LXX (or its Hebrew Vorglage found in pieces at Qumran) of the book which is missing those later additions?

Once you are able to answer that simple question, we'll continue the discussion from there.

And if there are any "rebbes" on this thread, you are welcome to throw in your two sheckels' worth about the "authority" of the late Masoretic Text which is so different from copies of the Hebrew Bible more than 1000 years older found at Qumran.

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:37 PM
Must you always feel the need to trash another's faith or personal beliefs? What kind of high do you get by doing this? Thread after thread I have seen you trash another's viewpoint because it doesn't sit well with what you believe... who are you to dictate what others can and cannot think?

Get off your high horse.

Instead of bashing a person's personal faith, why don't you instead try a different approach... of, oh, I don't know... the open hand approach? Or how about, for once, instead of hiding your fanciful words, your higher than thou attitude, and your belittlement of others... why don't you, for once, tell us what you believe?

That way we can all take turns and smash your opinions to bits.

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Amadeus
And if there are any "rebbes" on this thread, you are welcome to throw in your two sheckels' worth about the "authority" of the late Masoretic Text which is so different from copies of the Hebrew Bible more than 1000 years older found at Qumran.

With so many different scriptures laying around, I guess it's pretty much a matter of which one you pick up.

So, in light of this, I think I'll go with The Shooter's Bible.

Happiness is a warm gun.

posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 08:31 PM
I know it wasn't directed to me but the Bible is my authority also. I don't know all the different texts and where they were translated and who they were translated by etc., etc., etc... Here's what I do know. I know what I used to be and the things I thought were ok to do and believe, I no longer believe in. Because Jesus Christ is my Savior I am no longer what I once was. Through Bible reading and prayer and being able to attend a church that teaches the truth and other aspects I KNOW I'm saved. I know when I read the Bible it changes me.

People can complicate God and Jesus the Bible and make it a burden and drive people away from it. The gospel is easy enough for a child to understand. Man is seperated from God. God loves you and He died for you. His death paid for my sin and yours. Trust in Jesus and your restored to a relationship with God. He then becomes what you filter everything in your life through.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 08:41 AM
Hi Soothsayer:

It seems you don't like to examine primary evidence, and you are like some others who speak about things they do not fully understand. I would challenge you to look up some of my statements from all of my posts that you've managed to read and yet not understand very well....and check them out one by one for yourself.

You will find that I am merely voicing standard modern theological higher source criticism as it pertains to the confused jumble of contradictory texts of both the Jews and the Christians, most of whom cannot read the original languages of their own belief systems.

These are the same confused texts which you take to be authoritative for some reason (maybe because some "Christian" council in the long forgotten past put their stamp of approval on it?) .

If you can't deal with facts, and argue accordingly, why are you on these threads? I don't trash people's belief systems for fun: I merely point out their blind acceptance of falsehoods and nonsense that religious organizations feed to their masses week after week---to people like you who do NOT BOTHER to study the subject in any depth beyond the surface.

I sincerely pity people like yourself who live in this twilight world of myth and half-truths who blindly believe things they do not understand, or do not even want to bother to investigate for themselves is all.

This is fairly common in "dumbed down" America, I'm afraid, especially for the common masses of ordinary people who have no real critical facility to speak of and who only have the corporate sponsored news to get their information.

Sad really. Pick up a book sometime. You might learn something.

<<   2 >>

log in