Did Adam and Eve really exist?

[jasoncran]

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.

it relates in a sense that some may be doing that with evolution. not all but maybe some.

 

[Physicist]

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.

Yes, archeological evidence supports the existence of Hezekiah just as the archeological evidence supports the existence of Hammurabi, but both are ascribed genealogies that are highly questionable unless one takes their sacred writings on faith.

The archeological evidence supports human habitation much older than the timeline constructed by Bishop Usher from the OT family lines. Also, anthropologists recognize the Adam and Eve narration as possessing many characteristics similar to other origin myths in other cultures. Based upon science and historical scholarship, one would classify Genesis as early Hebrew mythology. Of course, believers will judge the story using a different standard.

 

[wavy]

As bad as they were that is one area where Id trust them pretty much implicitly.

And your trust would be gravely misplaced, as pretty much all scholars acknowledge the 'fluidity' of geneaology-making and there are countless instances in bible literature where genealogies are purposely designed to fit whatever scheme the composer wished to satisfy.

Finis,
Eric

 

[follower of Christ]

And your trust would be gravely misplaced,

Puh-lease
Of course you have to say that. Its part of the job description.

as pretty much all scholars acknowledge the 'fluidity' of geneaology-making and there are countless instances in bible literature where genealogies are purposely designed to fit whatever scheme the composer wished to satisfy.

Finis,
Eric

And can you PROVE that they are inaccurate ?
If not, then stop wasting my time.

 

[wavy]

Puh-lease
Of course you have to say that. Its part of the job description.

*childish remark deserves no serious response*

And can you PROVE that they are inaccurate? If not, then stop wasting my time.

In fact, I can. But every man in his own order. First provide the evidence for your statement: 'The Jews were pretty meticulous about lineage'

I'll be waiting.

Finis,
Eric

 

[Free]

Puh-lease
Of course you have to say that. Its part of the job description.

Let's stick to the arguments, puh-lease.

And your trust would be gravely misplaced, as pretty much all scholars acknowledge the 'fluidity' of geneaology-making and there are countless instances in bible literature where genealogies are purposely designed to fit whatever scheme the composer wished to satisfy.

I agree. The genealogies are known to have gaps and are therefore not accurate for dating (I'm not sure if that was the point of this discussion; just saying). This doesn't mean they aren't true, only that certain writers left out certain persons based on what the whole purpose of the genealogy was.

 

[wavy]

I agree. The genealogies are known to have gaps and are therefore not accurate for dating (I'm not sure if that was the point of this discussion; just saying). This doesn't mean they aren't true, only that certain writers left out certain persons based on what the whole purpose of the genealogy was.

True, but there's more than the simple phenomenon of interstices involved, and while they may be intentional sometimes and not just oversights or some other form of error, this in turn begs questions of the honesty of the writer in omitting persons, etc, to fulfill whatever their intentions were. For example, Matthew's scheme of 3 periods of 14 generations from Abraham to the Exile down to Jesus Christ. Whatever he was trying to do, he obviously didn't expect his readers to go check any records. Their omission is not understood on the part of the reader and there is no evidence that they were intended to. They are omitted without further comment.

But more on the point of other kinds of genealogical problems, there are also displacements, for example. Becher, a descendant of Benjamin in Gn xlvi.21, is listed as a descendant of Ephraim in Nb xxvi.35 the eponymous ancestor of the Becherites. The relationship between these two genealogies particularly with respect to the descendants of Benjamin in both lists opens up a whole other can of worms since textual garbling took place between three of Benjamin's descendants listed in Genesis (Ehi, Rosh, Muppim) and two descendants of his in Numbers. (Ahiram, Shephupham) In Hebrew you can explain exactly where the confusion took place and see the similarity between both sets of names (both 10 characters in Hebrew), but even in English you can see the similarity. This isn't a scribal error for a few reasons--the error most likely occurred in the original composition of Numbers, but I'll explain that only if asked.

Another example of displacement is Samuel's genealogy. According to the first chapter of 1Samuel he is of Ephraimite lineage. The sixth chapter of 1Chronicles places him in a Levitic genealogy. And there is a tendentious reason behind that, since in the Chronicler's scheme only Levites could be priests and Samuel was a priest. The same reason is behind the Chronicler's version of 2Sm viii.18. He altered the text from 'David's sons were priests' to 'David's sons were chief officials' in 1Ch xviii.17. Since they were Judahites, in the Chronicler's view they could not be priests. The solution? Alter the wording. Problem solved.

Anyway, genealogical shifts and jumblings are common.

In Semitic tribal genealogies, there is nearly always much shifting of periods and relationships. A once important tribe might decrease drastically in number or might be divided into splinter groups. A group might develop from a small family into a large clan or tribe in the course of a few centuries. A tribe might split into clans which joined different tribes, or it might retain its identity of name and tradition after being separated by considerable distances from its original habitat. Examples of such situations are found in vast numbers in Arab tribal history, and there are many illustrations in genealogies of tribes and clans in the Bible
--Albright [1990] Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, New York: Eisenbrauns, p. 82


Finis,
Eric