Did Adam and Eve really exist?

[Rick W]

We have archeological evidence for Hezekiah. (Hezekiah's tunnels) Also, Isaiah (Dead Sea Scrolls) mentions Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.

I'm not real sure but it looks like we can trace the genealogy through the text written in the bible.
For example:
2Ki 9:23 And Joram turned his hands, and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There is treachery, O Ahaziah.

2Ki 8:24 And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.

If anyone feels ambitious enough to do an in depth study I'm wondering if all those in the line are indeed mentioned in other parts of the bible with a father/son relationship. If so then the question would be, "Which text is wrong?"

 

[Physicist]

"Did Adam and Eve really exist?"

We know Isaiah was a real person. Was his father real also?
We know Hezekiah was a real person. Was his father real also?
Who's father was not real?
Where at what point in the line of Christ was a person real but his father was not?

Romans used to trace their ancestry back to Romulus and Remus, and before them, Aeneas, the Trojan. Obviously, somewhere along the line, the ancestry became fictional. With regard to Isaiah, we could start with him. How do we know he existed? There is uncertainty when and if he existed so assigning a genealogy is pure fiction.

 

[follower of Christ]

Romans used to trace their ancestry back to Romulus and Remus, and before them, Aeneas, the Trojan. Obviously, somewhere along the line, the ancestry became fictional. With regard to Isaiah, we could start with him. How do we know he existed? There is uncertainty when and if he existed so assigning a genealogy is pure fiction.

So because heathen men created fictional genealogies that means that everyone else did as well ?
The Jews were pretty meticulous about lineage. As bad as they were that is one area where Id trust them pretty much implicitly.
Their own pride and arrogance was enough motivation to cause them to know from whom they came.

 

[dteeuwen]

Hi, I'm new here. I'm not sure how exactly this has been missed, but if the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, neither of which match or even allow for enough time to reach back the generally accepted amount of time to Adam (which would be approximately 4 - 5 thousand years by most Biblical Literalist's accounts), are used to trace Jesus genealogy, then they deny his divinity. I understand the literary device the writers were using, but nonetheless, if Jesus was God's son, then it makes no difference which of the quite incomplete genealogies you follow.

As to the question of whether Adam and eve existed, it really makes no difference. The first 20 chapters of Genesis are so fractured and obviously pieced together from older sources that the actual people involved barely matter. They merely a device to reach the meat of the Torah, the Laws and the emergence of Israel as a power to replace Canaan.

 

[follower of Christ]

As to the question of whether Adam and eve existed, it really makes no difference.

And therein lies the attitude that is the destruction of the very foundation of our faith.
If Adam did not exist, then the stories of original sin are lies...and when we start down that path its not too hard to just start dismissing everything else that we dont find palatable.

But thats right, we dont believe in worldwide floods either....do we ?


Additionally, its really not fair to bring the genealogies into question so ambiguously. You really should be willing to show us where theyve gone so wrong and give us a chance to either see it ourselves or show you that you are in error.

 

[Rick W]

With regard to Isaiah, we could start with him. How do we know he existed? There is uncertainty when and if he existed so assigning a genealogy is pure fiction.

Hezekiah was definitely real. Isaiah didn't just write about him but interacted with him on a personal basis.

It's impossible for archeology to prove every person in biblical text. There's debate concerning King David yet there's strong evidence for his existence. In many areas of archeology relating to non-biblical issues there are conclusions drawn that are accepted until proven false. It seems there are no such allowances made concerning the Christian text. Oh well. That's just the way it is.

Concerning Roman genealogy I can't say I'd trust that any more than I can trust the claims of a modern day politician. But Jewish genealogy is a different matter. Before marriage they had to prove they were indeed Jewish. Records were kept for this purpose and they were very strict about their adherence to what God had commanded them about marrying "foreigners". And that's not to mention the strict laws concerning the Levitical priesthood.

Anyway, we know Hezekiah to be a real person. We should be able to follow his line through the biblical text. That means nothing to a non-believer of course since even Christ's existence is questioned along with just about every dominate personage/patriarch in the bible but to a Christian who believes scripture it could be a very good study.

 

[follower of Christ]

In many areas of archeology relating to non-biblical issues there are conclusions drawn that are accepted until proven false. It seems there are no such allowances made concerning the Christian text. Oh well. That's just the way it is.

It does seem to be a double standard, for certain.

 

[jasoncran]

we also know that solomon lived and and so on.

what does archeology say about the lives of jesse and the others before david?

 

[jasoncran]

In many areas of archeology relating to non-biblical issues there are conclusions drawn that are accepted until proven false. It seems there are no such allowances made concerning the Christian text. Oh well. That's just the way it is.

It does seem to be a double standard, for certain.

uh just like evolutionists double standard, a little bit of proof and the whole thing is true, but try to disprove it's like a fulfledged court session with darwin as the prosecutor, judge and jury.

 

[Rick W]

In many areas of archeology relating to non-biblical issues there are conclusions drawn that are accepted until proven false. It seems there are no such allowances made concerning the Christian text. Oh well. That's just the way it is.

It does seem to be a double standard, for certain.

And it's one we must contend with. The level of evidence required depends on the level of opposition anyway. And we all do it, believer, unbeliever or whoever.

Before a debate can even begin or before any kind of study/research started an assumptions must first be made. After all, people don't look for something when they have no idea what they are looking for or why in the first place. The science of forensics demonstrates this. A prosecutor uses forensics to acquire evidence that a person is guilty. A defense attorney looks for evidence the person is innocent. In both cases an assumption is first made and upon that assumption the evidence is sought. Each may accuse the other of bias and rightly so. It makes no sense to begin research of any kind without some form of direction in mind or bias to make that first assumption.
And some opposing evidence may be overlooked or rejected due to the fact it's not being sought. I can easily overlook blue if I'm looking for red. A shade in between may rejected because of the level of acceptance placed on the evidence needed.

Therefore acceptable evidence depends on who is judging what is acceptable. A defense attorney will attempt to degrade the prosecutor's evidence and the other way around. Depends on what one wants to believe, pro or con.

 

[jasoncran]

good point.

 

[Rick W]

we also know that solomon lived and and so on.

what does archeology say about the lives of jesse and the others before david?

The archaeological side of it would be a great topic for Biblical History & Archaeology

 

[jasoncran]

we also know that solomon lived and and so on.

what does archeology say about the lives of jesse and the others before david?

The archaeological side of it would be a great topic for Biblical History & Archaeology

good lord i get headaches debating the stuff i do now, i would like to see that one though, btw happy thanksgiving up there in pa.

 

[Rick W]

btw happy thanksgiving up there in pa.

Just got back from Mom's. It's always good to see those in the family I rarely see during the year. That in itself is worth giving thanks.

 

[follower of Christ]

In many areas of archeology relating to non-biblical issues there are conclusions drawn that are accepted until proven false. It seems there are no such allowances made concerning the Christian text. Oh well. That's just the way it is.

It does seem to be a double standard, for certain.

uh just like evolutionists double standard, a little bit of proof and the whole thing is true, but try to disprove it's like a fulfledged court session with darwin as the prosecutor, judge and jury.

I dont see evolutionists as having 'proof'. And if theyre honest, they know its not 'proof' at all. We all have the same evidence. YEC simply starts with the presumption that God did it in 6 days as His word shows not so long ago.
I figure as more time goes by and more evidence is uncovered, along with scientific method getting better and more accurate, that we'll be seeing all sorts of things coming more into line with the scriptures. Though I'd think that science will find a way to explain it away.

 

[follower of Christ]

Each may accuse the other of bias and rightly so.

THAT is the one that kills me.
I KNOW I am biased. I freely admit it. Baised AND narrow minded. It goes with the job.
But try getting some science types to admit that they ARE biased towards their theory.
If they werent biased, then they wouldnt be so rabid about it when we reject the theory.

 

[jasoncran]

uh just like evolutionists double standard, a little bit of proof and the whole thing is true, but try to disprove it's like a fulfledged court session with darwin as the prosecutor, judge and jury.[/quote]
I dont see evolutionists as having 'proof'. And if theyre honest, they know its not 'proof' at all. We all have the same evidence. YEC simply starts with the presumption that God did it in 6 days as His word shows not so long ago.
I figure as more time goes by and more evidence is uncovered, along with scientific method getting better and more accurate, that we'll be seeing all sorts of things coming more into line with the scriptures. Though I'd think that science will find a way to explain it away.
[/quote]
yes i have should said proof? lucy's bones weren't even found near each other, a few miles apart if i recall correctly.

 

[Rick W]

I KNOW I am biased. I freely admit it. Baised AND narrow minded.

Yes, I'm narrow-minded when it comes to Christ, who He is, what He has done on the cross, My love for Him and His love for all. I believe the bible is true. I believe that when the text says a father had a son and that son is named I believe it to be true. For those who aren't quite so sure then I must ask which father/son relationship testified is a lie to divide the real from the myth?

Trying to prove Adam and Eve really existed to someone who believes they are myth isn't going to happen through the forensic science of archeology. Evidence may be presented, a case debated but in the end it comes down to the conclusion drawn by the individual based on the weight of evidence and it's validity that an individual places on it.
This is why I contend that "science" proves nothing in regard to an issue such as this or even evolution. Science produces the data and that's all. Science is not an entity of it's own. A conclusion is drawn ... "scientific conclusion". The individual makes that conclusion, science does not.

 

[jasoncran]

[quote="follower of Christ":2b8fzs6s]
I KNOW I am biased. I freely admit it. Baised AND narrow minded.

Yes, I'm narrow-minded when it comes to Christ, who He is, what He has done on the cross, My love for Him and His love for all. I believe the bible is true. I believe that when the text says a father had a son and that son is named I believe it to be true. For those who aren't quite so sure then I must ask which father/son relationship testified is a lie to divide the real from the myth?

Trying to prove Adam and Eve really existed to someone who believes they are myth isn't going to happen through the forensic science of archeology. Evidence may be presented, a case debated but in the end it comes down to the conclusion drawn by the individual based on the weight of evidence and it's validity that an individual places on it.
This is why I contend that "science" proves nothing in regard to an issue such as this or even evolution. Science produces the data and that's all. Science is not an entity of it's own. A conclusion is drawn ... "scientific conclusion". The individual makes that conclusion, science does not.[/quote:2b8fzs6s]
or manilupates the data otherwise as is the case with global warming.

 

[Rick W]

or manilupates the data otherwise as is the case with global warming.

Very true as the case with those emails demonstrates. Those that want to believe a man-induced warming will downplay the issue or claim it's just a certain few or ignore it altogether to uphold the belief. My views on global warming don't suit the topic so I don't want to go there. But it is another example of forensic science. The scandal is an example of how far some will go to make their case believable.