History of the human race.

[Ross]

Is humanity really only six thousand years old?

[historia]

In keeping with modern historical-critical biblical scholarship, I take the genealogies of Genesis to be a (relatively late) literary construct on the part of the Priestly author of the Pentateuch, which, like much of Genesis, should not be interpreted literally.

Whom do you ascribe as the author of the Pentateuch, and what do you mean by "relatively late?"

Following the general thrust of modern scholarship, I think there are at least three major sources -- and therefore at least three principal authors -- behind the Pentateuch. We don't know their names, but scholars designate the sources as J/E, P, and D. One or more redactors subsequently brought these sources together to form the Torah as we know it.

The author(s) of J/E wrote their account(s) -- which were probably based on even older oral traditions -- much earlier than the Priestly author ('P'), who was likely writing in the post-Exilic period. My understanding is that the Priestly author, among other things, composed the genealogies we find in the Pentateuch. So most of the stories of Genesis and Exodus existed long before someone connected their figures into a genealogy. We see a similar literary convention in, for example, the king lists of other ancient societies.

[historia]

It's not at all surprising that it would take tens of thousands of years to put all of those prerequisites in place, especially when you're the first human to even think of one of these things, and you're kinda busy just keeping yourself and your kin alive through hunting and gathering. When's the last time you invented a civilization-changing technology? It's not easy.

Maybe it is not easy, but I still don't see why this last 6,000 years development would not have happened a long time ago, if people really have existed over 200,000 years.

If something is hard to achieve, it takes a long time to achieve. If multiple hard things need to be achieved before something else can happen, then it's going to take even longer before that thing happens. Surely, that's not hard to understand.

It's trivial to sit back at the end of a long line of civilization-changing discoveries, naively imagine each was obvious and therefore simple to invent, and wonder why humans didn't figure it out earlier.

For example, humans invented writing about 5,000 years ago, but didn't invent the printing press until 600 years ago. Why didn't they figure that out earlier? Why didn't the ancient Romans or the ancient Mayans develop the printing press?

Look at what has happened in the last 150 years.

Indeed, humans have achieved a lot in the last 150 years. More so, in fact, than we did in the previous 500 years. And we accomplished more in those 500 years than the previous 1,500. As we develop new technologies, it becomes easier -- and therefore faster -- to develop subsequent technologies.

The invention of agriculture, for example, allowed a lot more humans to focus on developing new technologies, rather than just hunting and gathering for food to sustain themselves. The invention of cities allowed even more humans to focus on inventing new things. The invention of writing let us record and pass on complex information. The printing press, the internal combustion engine, the computer, etc., all make it easier, and therefore faster, to invent things. There are also just a lot more humans today than in the past, allowing for more brains to invent technology faster.

Now just run that process in reverse: As we go back in time, we are going to find that there are fewer and fewer technologies and less and less people. That means, the further back we go, it will take longer and longer to invent each technology. So that once we get to the earliest inventions of human civilization, like agriculture, writing, smelting, and so on, it is going to take exponentially longer to invent those than any invention of the past 150 years.

Tens of thousands of years?

Yes, and we don't need to speculate about this. The archeological record confirms it.

[Ross]

In keeping with modern historical-critical biblical scholarship..... much of Genesis, should not be interpreted literally.

Thank you for your input thus far which I have read with interest.

Is your view that Genesis should not be taken or interpreted literally, purely secular and in view of modern discoveries and the like including carbon dating and archaeology?

Or have you any evidence that this view is Biblical (scriptural.)

[Capbook]

Is humanity really only six thousand years old?

Yes, imagining of 6,000 years, USA just of 248 years it comes to what it is now considered as the most powerful country of the world, in terms of many aspect, technology, militarily, and etc.

And in the Bible, Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.

Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is: 5 days+ 2,000 years+4,000 years=6,000 years
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... the-earth/

[bjs1]

I am happy to take the genealogies found in the Scripture as symbolic. They served an important purpose, but it was not to nail down a specific time frame. But however we measure it, I don’t know how as humans nail down when in history the Godhead pronounced “This is in our image.”

You also have the problem of real historical figures being born to symbolic parents.

I'm not sure I follow. Can you explain your meaning?

[Ross]

Is humanity really only six thousand years old?

The genealogy provided in Genesis is extensive and provides names and dates.
Unless I am missing something, this same genealogy is included in two Gospels, namely Matthew and Luke, part of the foundation of Christianity.
So if one disputes the 6000 year old human race explanation provided by the Bible; then we may as well throw such Bible away or discredit it as worthless other than a vague and inaccurate account of the beginnings of the human race and the need for a grip on our tendencies toward indecent behaviour.

[historia]

Is your view that Genesis should not be taken or interpreted literally, purely secular and in view of modern discoveries and the like including carbon dating and archaeology?

No, my view is, first and foremost, predicated on a literary analysis of the text.

I think any serious, historical-critical analysis of Genesis will yield the conclusion that the first 11 chapters are written as myth, and that the rest of Genesis is written as legend -- so, in other words, not as straight-forward historical accounts. And just as we wouldn't read a poem or a parable literally, so too we shouldn't read myth or legend literally.

Second, we have numerous examples of early Christians reading the Jewish scriptures in general, and Genesis in particular, in metaphorical or allegorical ways. Paul, for example, gives us an allegorical interpretation of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21-31. Likewise, Matthew cites several Old Testament passages as being fulfilled by Jesus, but often reads them in non-literal ways, as their original context are about something else. Isaiah 7:14 is perhaps the best example of that. The examples of non-literal readings of the Bible by the Early Church Fathers are too many to mention.

Which isn't to say that the Bible doesn't contain any historical information at all, as surely it does, or that the early Christians never read it literally, as, at times, surely they did. But the Fathers explicitly acknowledged that, although some texts appear to be relating historical events, nevertheless they should be understood "spiritually" rather than literally.

It's not until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century that we get Christians beginning to argue that the literal meaning of the text should be accepted to the exclusion of other readings. And it's really 19th Century Protestant Fundamentalism that begins to insist that Genesis, in particular, must be making accurate scientific and historical statements, even though that contradicts the archeological and scientific evidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

I am happy to take the genealogies found in the Scripture as symbolic. They served an important purpose, but it was not to nail down a specific time frame. But however we measure it, I don’t know how as humans nail down when in history the Godhead pronounced “This is in our image.”

You also have the problem of real historical figures being born to symbolic parents.

I'm not sure I follow. Can you explain your meaning?

What I mean is the bible traces the geneology of various historical figures including King David and Jesus of Nazareth. If they were historical but the genelogical listings were symbolic somewhere there had to be the jump from the mythical to the historical. So if Eve , for example, was symbolic and didnt exist, but Eve's grandchild did, did a mythical woman at some point give birth to a historical baby?

[Ross]

I think any serious, historical-critical analysis of Genesis will yield the conclusion that the first 11 chapters are written as myth, and that the rest of Genesis is written as legend

Second, we have numerous examples of early Christians reading the Jewish scriptures in general, and Genesis in particular, in metaphorical or allegorical ways. Paul, for example, gives us an allegorical interpretation of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4:21-31. Likewise, Matthew cites several Old Testament passages as being fulfilled by Jesus, but often reads them in non-literal ways, as their original context are about something else. Isaiah 7:14 is perhaps the best example of that.

It's not until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century that we get Christians beginning to argue that the literal meaning of the text should be accepted to the exclusion of other readings. And it's really 19th Century Protestant Fundamentalism that begins to insist that Genesis, in particular, must be making accurate scientific and historical statements, even though that contradicts the archeological and scientific evidence.

We have Matthew and Luke arguing against your viewpoint though and providing scripture containing the genealogies that you reject as myth and legend.

[Ross]

Luke chapter 3

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.




Is Matthew and Luke, part of the fundamental basis of Christianity, also fable and legend?