Amateur historical analysis of Eden and the Flood

[Dissenter]

The flood story in Genesis is not strongly backed by archaeological evidence. It may have been contrived by many ancient cultures to explain a different mass casualty event and its fallout.

It is necessary to view the PBS Nova episode "The First Horse Warriors," available on YouTube. Fast forward to 36 minutes and 12 seconds. The remaining 12 minutes will describe a massive outbreak of the Bubonic Plague which took place around 5000 years ago. Europe lost 90% of its population. A people called the Yamnaya moved in. The August 2019 National Geographic also covers the genetics of the various migrations into Europe including the Yamnaya.

It could be that some people heard of a plague coming and self-quarantined by buying a ship and going out to sea.

It could be that the Yamnaya coveted the help of these people who were clever enough to survive the plague. Perhaps the children were separated from their parents and told a lie about where they'd been. Shem, Ham, and Japheth were said to be old enough to be married but that detail was recorded after many generations of being passed down verbally.

Perhaps they were given land to live on so they wouldn't become spoiled living in some royal court, with the plan being to obtain a child from them every now and then. Perhaps kings Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes in the Book of Ezra were such children and helped a people they recognized as their own, much like Joseph did when serving the Pharaoh near the end of the Book of Genesis.

There are flood myths all over the ancient Near East, indeed the whole world. Perhaps quite a few people in the path of the plague of 5,000 years ago had the idea to self-quarantine, many by ship. While the Yamnaya retained some cohesion, perhaps they agreed upon a uniform explanation to convince the children of maritime self-quarantine how they got to where they were. Perhaps the myth spread to a few other places after that through cultural exchange- or perhaps the plague had spread beyond the area of Yamnaya expansion and others had self-quarantined by boat.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

All of this is just speculation, and to my knowledge, has no basis either in Jewish or Christian tradition.

It would have been awfully hard for Adam and Eve to serve as advisors to the pharaoh. Ditto Noah, and in any case, after the flood, the pharaoh, if there was one reigning at that time in Egypt, would have been dead.

 

[Dissenter]

Is this the Fundamentalist Forum?

The idea is that these stories were passed down verbally for many generations before Moses wrote them down.

The full meaning of the events may have been kept from some of the participants and details may have been lost between the time of Adam and Eve or Noah and Moses.

 

[po18guy]

Best not to over-think the faith.

 

[Dissenter]

There is another potential interpretation of the flood story and the account of Adam and Eve.

Near the end of the Book of Genesis, it is recorded that Joseph is abandoned in a well by his brothers, found by slave traders, and sold to Egypt. He becomes an advisor to the pharaoh.

Can it be that Adam, Eve, and Noah had also served in this capacity?

Ancient kings and even some kings in the modern era were thought to be divine. Can it be that when Moses recorded his peoples' earliest memories of themselves, the verbal accounts he relied on had blurred the distinction between "God" and "king?"

Perhaps ancient kings depended on people to serve as royal advisors to the court and to the people. Perhaps the people were told the advisors were demigods and were worth praying to. (Dem·i·god [ˈdemēˌɡäd] noun: a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank: "some Roman emperors claimed descent from demigods such as Hercules") Perhaps living in the royal court and having everything they wanted was too corrupting. Perhaps they got savvy about how to game the system. The Book of Genesis implies strongly that Adam and Eve somehow got too wise.

If they learned to cheat and manipulate their handlers, perhaps the people of their day copied their ethic and learned to cheat and manipulate one another.

So how to breed worthwhile royal advisors along the lines of Joseph? Cast them out into the wilderness and let them live by their own wits. Let them build honest morals by having to grow food and maintain their shelters. Perhaps the king cleared the land "east of Eden" just for them. If you're not honest about whether you've built a good enough house or whether you've grown enough food, then you starve or freeze or get attacked by wild animals, and the harder you work, the more you have. Good for morals and work ethic.

Adam and Eve's recollections of the Garden of Eden may have been hazy because they felt no pain. They may also not have passed on the fullness of what they had been doing there. The garden was probably something like a large park in downtown Babylon or Ur or Persepolis. The streams had been named after the mighty rivers of the world, perhaps for whimsy's sake, or perhaps to represent the major rivers of the world for some form of divination, or something else entirely.

Perhaps, if not Noah, then someone like him had been leading the people of his day into corruption. Perhaps their role was some sort of demigod advisor to the farmers or tradesmen. Perhaps they cheated or manipulated their neighbors to get out of working hard instead of actually working hard and honestly, because their guide had learned to outsmart his royal handlers and they copied his crafty ways. Perhaps such corrupt advisors were sailed out of sight of land and told there was a flood, then taken to a place which was unpopulated or had been cleared of people in order to regain their morals and work ethic by having to work hard to survive and prosper.

There may have been a few families in each case because the intention was to start a society of non-sociopathic equals who would prosper or fail based on whether they were moral or hard-working. Then perhaps the plan was that kings here and there would find a way to obtain a few of them to help advise their people and their hardworking, moral epigenetics would preserve the worth of their advice for a while. It does say in Nehemiah 5:8 that Jews were always having to buy back their brethren from slavery.

 

[BartholomewB]

The end of the Ice Age released enornous volumes of water into the rivers and seas. There is a hypothesis that the rising sea level of the Mediterranean resulted in salt water flooding into the Black Sea, which until then had been a freshwater lake. Could this have been Noah's flood?
That must be at least a possibility.

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dissenter]

The end of the Ice Age released enornous volumes of water into the rivers and seas. There is a hypothesis that the rising sea level of the Mediterranean resulted in salt water flooding into the Black Sea, which until then had been a freshwater lake. Could this have been Noah's flood?
That must be at least a possibility.

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some claim there is evidence water was flowing out of the Black Sea as long as 15,000 years ago, others think the "Black Sea Flood" was a gradual rise. The proponents of the sudden Black Sea Flood theory say it probably happened 7600 years ago, which is too far back even if accounts of how long some of the people in Genesis lived are accurate.

 

[Dissenter]

It would have been awfully hard for Adam and Eve to serve as advisors to the pharaoh. Ditto Noah, and in any case, after the flood, the pharaoh, if there was one reigning at that time in Egypt, would have been dead.

The theory was that the "flood" or plague came first and some people self-quarantined at sea, then for a while the history of the event was lost. Stories were contrived to explain what happened before the start of most of recorded history because people did verbally recall a mass die-off, and the fact that their ancestors had been at sea.

There is evidence of cultures in Europe and the Near East which were wiped away. There was, for example, a uniform system of measurement some call the "Megalithic Yard" which was apparently used in what are now stone ruins all over Europe and consisted of 2.72 feet.

The flood myth emerged across many cultures because the survivors had no societal support because their society had died in the plague. Their descendants may have been turned into some sort of slave-advisor class like Joseph later was.

Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and Egypt emerged later. The Garden of Eden may be an ancient memory of some sort of slave enclosure, perhaps located in a large garden in some ancient city like Ur of the Chaldees. Kings were often thought to be divine and perhaps the stories passed down to Moses really mean the king ordered the construction of a garden where the people could gaze upon some slaves from hidden vantage points, until they got too wise and started to corrupt the people. They may have been driven out by the king's men to a place where they would have to live by their own labor and learn honest work or starve. The plan may have been to take an occasional Joseph-like advisor from them from time to time.

The events were recorded by Moses many centuries after, perhaps partially drawn from other cultures' ancient records and stories.

Can it be readers were meant to infer that Abram and Sarai hadn't really had a child in old age? Perhaps Abram was praying and meditating on justice and protection for his family and possessions, and his conscience started to tell him he had to give up Isaac. If your conscience told you you had to sacrifice your own son, wouldn't you say "where did that come from? Must be something I ate." On the other hand, if you started to feel God was asking for your best livestock, you might have gone along if it was the practice to sacrifice livestock. But God inspired Abram to stop treating Isaac like livestock, not sacrifice him. and Abram obeyed.

One hopes the meaning of the Book of Ezra isn't that the Israelites made a deal with Persia, but maybe that's when the religious leadership of the Jewish faith came to be called "Pharisees." It sounds a bit like Persia or "Parsee," the name for the Persian minority in India. King Cyrus ostensibly banned slavery throughout his empire but what if he reserved the right to take the occasional advisor from the Israelites by imbedding Persian agents into the religious leadership of the Hebrews, even as he ordered his kingdom to pay for the rebuilding of the Temple? Faithful Jews were allowed to continue practicing but suppose quasi-religious reasons could be contrived to commandeer the occasional Joseph-like advisor for Persia by imbedded Persian agents. And that may be how the Sons of Iran imbedded themselves into the Jewish faith.

This may be why the world needed the Lord Jesus Christ- to end the practice of taking the Lord's people and others for slaves. The early Christian communities may have been necessary to restart an economy in which a gifted person couldn't be blacklisted by what was essentially the mob and their willing sycophants in the community. Faithful Jews may have looked on with detached sorrow but not been able to do anything.

As stated elsewhere, Mary Magdalene's name is said to mean she was from Magdala which sounds like Aramaic for "tower." But it may mean "magija dalina," or "she distributes magic."

 

[HomeschoolDad]

At this point, let's be clear that the Church does not require the faithful to believe that there was a worldwide flood that killed all people except those on the Ark, and all animals that could not survive in water. Here's a useful article from Catholic Answers, which once operated the precursor to this forum:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-catholic-perspective-on-a-new-attraction

 

[Shulammite]

At this point, let's be clear that the Church does not require the faithful to believe that there was a worldwide flood that killed all people except those on the Ark, and all animals that could not survive in water. Here's a useful article from Catholic Answers, which once operated the precursor to this forum:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-catholic-perspective-on-a-new-attraction

Well then. Since that is the case let us not call it Church. If the Church does not require it, why should any be required to believe in a Church? Afterall, the purpose of having any Church is based on believing in the Bible. Since it is not required, it would seem your Church be a vain thing only here for money and preying on those who believe. Church without faith in the Bible is like a blue sky without the very sun which shows it blue. You go ahead and have your church without the sun. It seems to be the blind leading the blind.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Well then. Since that is the case let us not call it Church. If the Church does not require it, why should any be required to believe in a Church? Afterall, the purpose of having any Church is based on believing in the Bible. Since it is not required, it would seem your Church be a vain thing only here for money and preying on those who believe. Church without faith in the Bible is like a blue sky without the very sun which shows it blue. You go ahead and have your church without the sun. It seems to be the blind leading the blind.

The Bible is not over and above the teaching Church. Indeed, at least where the New Testament is concerned^ , the Church decided what books were to be considered the inspired Word of God, and which ones weren't. There were a lot of writings floating around in the early Church, and some made the cut and some didn't. Moreoever, the Church tells us how we are to interpret the Bible, and what may be understood in a metaphorical sense, as opposed to being understood literally. Christ established a Church, not a biblical canon.

My first questions, for anyone outside the Catholic Church who embraces the Bible, is "where do you think the Bible came from, who decided what books would be in it, and where is that authority today?". (On the heels of that would be the $64 question, "when two of you disagree on what something in the Bible means, which one of you is right, and who decides?")

^ (I qualify this because the Old Testament books were chosen by the Jewish religious authorities, with some disagreement among them, viz. the deuterocanonical books)

 

[Shulammite]

The theory was that the "flood" or plague came first and some people self-quarantined at sea, then for a while the history of the event was lost. Stories were contrived to explain what happened before the start of most of recorded history because people did verbally recall a mass die-off, and the fact that their ancestors had been at sea.

There is evidence of cultures in Europe and the Near East which were wiped away. There was, for example, a uniform system of measurement some call the "Megalithic Yard" which was apparently used in what are now stone ruins all over Europe and consisted of 2.72 feet.

The flood myth emerged across many cultures because the survivors had no societal support because their society had died in the plague. Their descendants may have been turned into some sort of slave-advisor class like Joseph later was.

Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and Egypt emerged later. The Garden of Eden may be an ancient memory of some sort of slave enclosure, perhaps located in a large garden in some ancient city like Ur of the Chaldees. Kings were often thought to be divine and perhaps the stories passed down to Moses really mean the king ordered the construction of a garden where the people could gaze upon some slaves from hidden vantage points, until they got too wise and started to corrupt the people. They may have been driven out by the king's men to a place where they would have to live by their own labor and learn honest work or starve. The plan may have been to take an occasional Joseph-like advisor from them from time to time.

The events were recorded by Moses many centuries after, perhaps partially drawn from other cultures' ancient records and stories.

Can it be readers were meant to infer that Abram and Sarai hadn't really had a child in old age? Perhaps Abram was praying and meditating on justice and protection for his family and possessions, and his conscience started to tell him he had to give up Isaac. If your conscience told you you had to sacrifice your own son, wouldn't you say "where did that come from? Must be something I ate." On the other hand, if you started to feel God was asking for your best livestock, you might have gone along if it was the practice to sacrifice livestock. But God inspired Abram to stop treating Isaac like livestock, not sacrifice him. and Abram obeyed.

One hopes the meaning of the Book of Ezra isn't that the Israelites made a deal with Persia, but maybe that's when the religious leadership of the Jewish faith became to be called "Pharisees." It sounds a bit like Persia or "Parsee," the name for the Persian minority in India. Freddie Mercury the singer was a Parsee. There are many famous ones. King Cyrus ostensibly banned slavery throughout his empire but what if he reserved the right to take the occasional advisor from the Israelites by imbedding Persian agents into the religious leadership of the Hebrews, even as he ordered his kingdom to pay for the rebuilding of the Temple. Faithful Jews were allowed to continue practicing but suppose quasi-religious reasons could be contrived to commandeer the occasional Joseph-like advisor for Persia by imbedded Persian agents. And that may be how the Sons of Iran imbedded themselves into the Jewish faith.

This may be why the world needed the Lord Jesus Christ- to end the practice of taking the Lord's people and others for slaves. The early Christian communities may have been necessary to restart an economy in which a gifted person couldn't be blacklisted by what was essentially the mob and their willing sycophants in the community. Faithful Jews may have looked on with detached sorrow but not been able to do anything.

As stated elsewhere, Mary Magdalene's name is said to mean she was from Magdala which sounds like Aramaic for "tower." But it may mean "magija dalina," or "she distributes magic."

The Bible is not over and above the teaching Church. Indeed, at least where the New Testament is concerned^ , the Church decided what books were to be considered the inspired Word of God, and which ones weren't. There were a lot of writings floating around in the early Church, and some made the cut and some didn't. Moreoever, the Church tells us how we are to interpret the Bible, and what may be understood in a metaphorical sense, as opposed to being understood literally. Christ established a Church, not a biblical canon.

My first questions, for anyone outside the Catholic Church who embraces the Bible, is "where do you think the Bible came from, who decided what books would be in it, and where is that authority today?". (On the heels of that would be the $64 question, "when two of you disagree on what something in the Bible means, which one of you is right, and who decides?")

^ (I qualify this because the Old Testament books were chosen by the Jewish religious authorities, with some disagreement among them, viz. the deuterocanonical books)

Lol! Spoken like a true Harlot. You would know nothing about God without the written word. And don't give me, " Oral Tradition" for every oral word spoken was documented. And since you were not at the receiving end of any spoken word by Paul or Saint Peter, you cannot claim oral anything. The Church is that which is established by the Jewish Apostles not your inherited verbal opinions. There is no Church without the eternal gospel. So, keep speaking erroneous talking points you only fool yourself. Without the first to know, there is no church. So, Church is where Christ is. Clearly, you are not Church because you speak against the tradition handed down to us called Holy Scripture.

2 Thessalonians 2: 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
Since you have never heard directly from the Apostles orally nor did your Popes, which followed after Peter, whom your assembly claims as its first pope; it is clear then, the only thing any Church can receive is the letter. Anything spoken contrary to that letter is heretical. You stand in apostasy of Christ's Church of which I am a part of. That Church is wherever two or three gather in His name not against it. In His name I say to you go pound sand. You will have to because you build your house on it. You and the like will do as you are doing till the fulfillment of the times, but you will not convince highly anointed people of your lies.

The Church derives from the Bible. Your church doesn't even have the complete bible. If you do not uphold the Bible, you are not church, period! This is prophesied to happen; God's will be done!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Church derives from the Bible. Your church doesn't even have the complete bible. If you do not uphold the Bible, you are not church, period! This is prophesied to happen; God's will be done!

To return to my question, who assembled the New Testament, and decided which books would go into it? What happened to that authority? And where is that authority today?

I do remind you that this is a Catholic forum, and as such, we do not seek to look outside or beyond the Church for "what constitutes the true Church of Christ?". You are clearly advocating an agenda outside of the one true Catholic Church, and while I am willing to allow you to have your say, the reader is reminded that your views diverge widely from Catholic teaching.

 

[Shulammite]

To return to my question, who assembled the New Testament, and decided which books would go into it? What happened to that authority? And where is that authority today?

I do remind you that this is a Catholic forum, and as such, we do not seek to look outside or beyond the Church for "what constitutes the true Church of Christ?". You are clearly advocating an agenda outside of the one true Catholic Church, and while I am willing to allow you to have your say, the reader is reminded that your views diverge widely from Catholic teaching.

God decides. The New Testament wasn't written by your assembly it was collected. It already existed before any canon came about by the RCC. Before that, the Ethiopians already had the Old Testament and all the books of the minor prophets. As did the Syriac Church. With the Greek Septuagint, all acquired the remaining books of the Old Testament. Solomon bequeathed to Mekeda the Queen of Sheba the OT and its practices. They were already observing the Mosaic Covenant before Rome ever entered the picture. Hence, the Ethiopian eunuch who would go to Jerusalem every year on behalf of the Candice dynasty.

Since the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, they interpreted into Ge'ez, long before they made copies of their Canon. That occurred in the 4th Century. They have an 81 book Canon you have a 73 Book Canon. With all that in mind, you collected and interpreted from the Greek to your Latin. However, your assembly did not write the New Testament. God allowed you transliterate and print. The Same can be said of the Protestants who actually beat you to the printing press under their thoughts that all should have access to the Bible not just hierarchy. So, out of selfish ambition the RCC jumped on board not seeking to be outdone by the Protestants.

So, yes, you compiled and printed up a bible for the western world. Point is, you were not the only ones to have done so. The Ethiopians had the Bible long before Christianity was permitted to be practiced in Rome. God does have a way about Him, doesn't He! It is like compiling historical records kept by those of whom witnessed any historical events. It doesn't make the source finders the source, simply collectors of records from antiquity. Get the picture!

I will remind you; I am of the True universal church that does not discredit the Holy written word by putting an institutionalized philosophy above God. May I also remind you 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Since what you say is neither taught by word of mouth or letter from the Apostles, you are in grave danger. Also, be careful of misinterpreting St. Ignatius of Antioch using the word' universal'. When actually it is used by him as an adjective not a proper name. It describes an universal consensus that should be among Christians concerning like-mindedness, nothing more and nothing less. That would later be adopted by your institution as a proper name. Play on words can get you played when judgement is at hand. Not only that, though Ignatius lived in Roman occupied Syria he was not a Roman by ethnicity. Being born in Syria, he was simply under Roman occupation. It is not until around 330 AD, that Christianity was allowed to be freely practiced by Constantine in Rome some Centuries later. Point is, Christianity was already in other regions of the world before it was widely acceptable in Rome and Roman occupied areas. So, don't be so cocky. Just like you cannot claim to have carried and delivered a baby someone else carried and delivered, you can only claim carrying forth a message, not produced it. So, do you all want a cookie for that which GOD had happen or do you all have pretensions of being God as well? God is good and HIS WORKS are to be praised. Stop acting as though you are above them and responsible for them. There is no Church without the prophets or the law and Christ is the law and the prophets. When you stop obeying you start decaying till "Rome will lose the faith" Mother Mary. Just as prophesied. I promise you though, with or without you His word will never pass away. Point is, if you produced it, it would die with you, since it won't you will perish alone without it. If not in Christ in obedience you can no longer be called relevant.

 

[Shulammite]

The theory was that the "flood" or plague came first and some people self-quarantined at sea, then for a while the history of the event was lost. Stories were contrived to explain what happened before the start of most of recorded history because people did verbally recall a mass die-off, and the fact that their ancestors had been at sea.

There is evidence of cultures in Europe and the Near East which were wiped away. There was, for example, a uniform system of measurement some call the "Megalithic Yard" which was apparently used in what are now stone ruins all over Europe and consisted of 2.72 feet.

The flood myth emerged across many cultures because the survivors had no societal support because their society had died in the plague. Their descendants may have been turned into some sort of slave-advisor class like Joseph later was.

Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and Egypt emerged later. The Garden of Eden may be an ancient memory of some sort of slave enclosure, perhaps located in a large garden in some ancient city like Ur of the Chaldees. Kings were often thought to be divine and perhaps the stories passed down to Moses really mean the king ordered the construction of a garden where the people could gaze upon some slaves from hidden vantage points, until they got too wise and started to corrupt the people. They may have been driven out by the king's men to a place where they would have to live by their own labor and learn honest work or starve. The plan may have been to take an occasional Joseph-like advisor from them from time to time.

The events were recorded by Moses many centuries after, perhaps partially drawn from other cultures' ancient records and stories.

Can it be readers were meant to infer that Abram and Sarai hadn't really had a child in old age? Perhaps Abram was praying and meditating on justice and protection for his family and possessions, and his conscience started to tell him he had to give up Isaac. If your conscience told you you had to sacrifice your own son, wouldn't you say "where did that come from? Must be something I ate." On the other hand, if you started to feel God was asking for your best livestock, you might have gone along if it was the practice to sacrifice livestock. But God inspired Abram to stop treating Isaac like livestock, not sacrifice him. and Abram obeyed.

One hopes the meaning of the Book of Ezra isn't that the Israelites made a deal with Persia, but maybe that's when the religious leadership of the Jewish faith became to be called "Pharisees." It sounds a bit like Persia or "Parsee," the name for the Persian minority in India. King Cyrus ostensibly banned slavery throughout his empire but what if he reserved the right to take the occasional advisor from the Israelites by imbedding Persian agents into the religious leadership of the Hebrews, even as he ordered his kingdom to pay for the rebuilding of the Temple. Faithful Jews were allowed to continue practicing but suppose quasi-religious reasons could be contrived to commandeer the occasional Joseph-like advisor for Persia by imbedded Persian agents. And that may be how the Sons of Iran imbedded themselves into the Jewish faith.

This may be why the world needed the Lord Jesus Christ- to end the practice of taking the Lord's people and others for slaves. The early Christian communities may have been necessary to restart an economy in which a gifted person couldn't be blacklisted by what was essentially the mob and their willing sycophants in the community. Faithful Jews may have looked on with detached sorrow but not been able to do anything.

As stated elsewhere, Mary Magdalene's name is said to mean she was from Magdala which sounds like Aramaic for "tower." But it may mean "magija dalina," or "she distributes magic."

If you do not know scripture you should not speak upon it. Dissent or not, knowledge is power and this reads like a secondhand recipe handed down by one who thinks this or that ingredient could be what's added. There is no guessing. The scriptures are true. This is some very bad red stew.

 

[Shulammite]

The Bible is not over and above the teaching Church. Indeed, at least where the New Testament is concerned^ , the Church decided what books were to be considered the inspired Word of God, and which ones weren't. There were a lot of writings floating around in the early Church, and some made the cut and some didn't. Moreoever, the Church tells us how we are to interpret the Bible, and what may be understood in a metaphorical sense, as opposed to being understood literally. Christ established a Church, not a biblical canon.

My first questions, for anyone outside the Catholic Church who embraces the Bible, is "where do you think the Bible came from, who decided what books would be in it, and where is that authority today?". (On the heels of that would be the $64 question, "when two of you disagree on what something in the Bible means, which one of you is right, and who decides?")

^ (I qualify this because the Old Testament books were chosen by the Jewish religious authorities, with some disagreement among them, viz. the deuterocanonical books)

"^ (I qualify this because the Old Testament books were chosen by the Jewish religious authorities, with some disagreement among them, viz. the deuterocanonical books)"

Let's clarify this. Up to the destruction of the second temple, the Jewish " authorities" used the Greek Septuagint. Though modern Jews argue otherwise, it is a fact that ancient Hebrew or Paleo Hebrew was actually ancient Phoenician. With the introduction of the Greeks, Greek became the predominate language. Jews spoke an ancient Paleo Hebrew mash up with the Greek which became Aramaic. Before the rise of the little horn (I'll reveal the meaning of that later God willing), it was not considered "Jewish legend" the account of Ptolemy II Philadelphus commissioning Jewish scribes to translate their Paleo Hebrew scriptures into Greek. The Septuagint is real and it is a correct transliteration.

During the time of Jesus and the Apostles, most of the region where they lived spoke Greek. The Jewish leaders only spoke ancient Hebrew amongst themselves, even then, it had mutated into Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek because Greek was the predominate language of the region. A language does not make less holy God's word. God made all languages.

After fleeing from the temple in 70 AD, many things were lost. Jews not directly in Jerusalem fled the region all together with what they had in their synagogues around the region. Over time many Jews in diaspora even stopped speaking Aramaic as they integrated into other nations far from their origins. It wasn't until the council of Jamnia that their revised Tanakh was born. The Jews of that council decided to omit anything written in Greek because it was not written in what they considered the holy language of God -Hebrew which had evolved from ancient Paleo Hebrew. Anything not written in their more modern Hebrew was not considered divinely inspired even though Greek was spoken by those who transliterated holy scripture for Ptolemy II Philadelphus.

Point is, not even those of the Council of Jamnia spoke Paleo Hebrew which was actually Phoenician. Yet the funny thing is, those same Jews still made use of the Babylonian Talmud which had nothing to do with Moses or Torah. Which later would be expound upon with the Jerusalem Talmud written around the 6th century AD. and accompanied by the Zohar and Midrash which over time developed.

The first Talmud was in use before and during the time of Christ. That had a lot to do with Christ calling the Pharisees and Sadducees brood of vipers-children of the devil. They practiced those deep things of satan adopted in their captivity in Babylon. Christ knew that. Hence, "whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones, you keep the kingdom of heaven shut that no man enters, not even yourselves"-Jesus the Christ. Oh, you better believe the Talmud was an issue during Jesus' time.

 

[Dissenter]

It would have been awfully hard for Adam and Eve to serve as advisors to the pharaoh. Ditto Noah, and in any case, after the flood, the pharaoh, if there was one reigning at that time in Egypt, would have been dead.

Bubonic plague is thought by some archaeologists to have severely reduced the population of Europe between 5300 and 4900 years ago. If it had first spread through what became ancient Egypt, that would have been not long before the start of the ancient Egyptian civilization. Plague is thought to live in host species in the Himalayas between outbreaks, so it may well have spread through the Middle East and North Africa before it reached Europe. People moved around between cultures less back then.

 

[Dissenter]

If you do not know scripture you should not speak upon it. Dissent or not, knowledge is power and this reads like a secondhand recipe handed down by one who thinks this or that ingredient could be what's added. There is no guessing. The scriptures are true. This is some very bad red stew.

There are over 2,000 allegedly Bible-based Protestant sects in addition to the Catholic and Orthodox churches, so whatever do you mean by "know scripture?" A lotta people know a lot of Scripture as well as the history and context surrounding it, and we are far from a consensus.

If the scriptures are literally true, why is there no archeological evidence of a worldwide flood? Why hasn't genetics found all people are descended from one family which lived 4,000 to 5,000 years ago? Why are some of the stories clearly based on similar stories from other cultures, like the Epic of Gilgamesh?

 

[Dissenter]

One hopes the meaning of the Book of Ezra isn't that the Israelites made a deal with Persia, but maybe that's when the religious leadership of the Jewish faith became to be called "Pharisees."

This isn't meant to be a special indictment of any people or ethnicity. Probably every culture is tempted to let the poor have someone else's child every now and then especially in beleaguered communities which might be close to trafficking gangs.

 

[Shulammite]

There are over 2,000 allegedly Bible-based Protestant sects in addition to the Catholic and Orthodox churches, so whatever do you mean by "know scripture?" A lotta people know a lot of Scripture as well as the history and context surrounding it, and we are far from a consensus.

If the scriptures are literally true, why is there no archeological evidence of a worldwide flood? Why hasn't genetics found all people are descended from one family which lived 4,000 to 5,000 years ago? Why are some of the stories clearly based on similar stories from other cultures, like the Epic of Gilgamesh?

Living under a rock of stumbling does prevent you from knowing the scientific evidence clearly available in the sedimentary rock globally. Those layers document a fossil record of animals and aquatic life that cannot be present in certain parts of the world without having been carried there. Not to mention, fossilized creatures upon mountains that could not have them unless covered by water. Maybe you just arrived on planet earth and don't know these things............

Actually, science does prove we all descend from an Africa woman. There is an African tribe that possess what science calls the Eve gene. Only black women can carry it. They are an African tribe who can produce blue eyes and such and have the "mitochondrial Eve", gene. That means, that particular group of people have the genetics to produce people of all races. They are the only ones to possess it. It also explains how after the flood Noah son's and their wives could repopulate the earth with different races. Clearly, someone was black and had that gene on the ark. If anything, one or more of the women on the Ark was black. It is passed down by the women. The only way that is possible, is if the first woman was Black-Eve. Which makes sense, for all the blend of race would make black. To un-blend and disperse is simply to select of already preexistent genetic codes. That doesn't mean Adam had to be black. Explains the importance of the Song of Solomon and the image of Mekeda- a black woman, as an example of the image of Christ's Bride. For that song is first and foremost God's song in code. It represents the blend of all races, for all are loved and created by God. The Bride is a multicultural people. The prediction of all races being brought into the Covenant God made, is symbolized in Joseph's Coat of Many Colors as well. Try to tell that to the racist Jews though. I'm glad I'm not racist though. It simply means, Eve had to be black and also possessed the genetics to produce all the ethnicities we see in our world.

Science likes to couple theories to truths it discovers to try and make valid its lies and discredit scripture. Just like the fact that, adaptation was programmed into our DNA concerning the fall of man. To that truth they couple an unproven theory called the Theory of Evolution. Without a fossil record to support that theory they try to validate it with an obvious truth called adaptation. Adaption is a preexistent trigger that allows a creature to adapt to environmental stressors. It is not an adding of new DNA but a tapping into preexistent survival mechanisms to deal with the fallen world. Just as you try to argue " a lack of fossils' to verify a flood, (unsubstantiated claim by you mind you) for sure there is no substantial evidence for Evolution- species being able to add nonexistent DNA strands making it a completely different species. Definitely no fossil record to support that. Nephilim hybrids don't count as an evolutionary species either.