An agricultural creation

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

This may be covered in the post about everything wrong with Genesis. But this just struck me recently.

 

Alright, so the past couple of Christians that came here really had me looking at the creation account in Genesis. There are a ton of reasons to be critical of the biblical account. But this just made me stop and think. Well DB ya dummy. Why didn't you see that before? This is the curse upon all males because of their transgression of eating the magical fruit. 

 

Genesis chapter 3

 

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

In the underlined verse #18 this is written from the perspective of someone who lived after the Neolithic period. It wasn't until about 14,000 - 10,000 BC from what I read that man began to farm. Only a man who was familiar with farming would know that to keep your crops healthy you have to pull the weeds. But also in verse 19 that man would eat bread. Freaking Bread. 

 

In Genesis ch. 2 v. 5 it talks about the herb of the field and how there wasn't a man to till the ground.

 

Also in Genesis ch. 2

 

11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

 

So this author was familiar with farming, baking, mining gold, and mining gem stone. 

 

I think we skipped a whole lot of verifiable human history here! Lmao!!  

 

I can't believe I couldn't see this crap before. It seems like common sense now. 

 

So the Genesis creation model completely skips 2.5 million years of human evolution. The person that wrote this had never lived or even heard about a hunter-gatherer society of humans. They only wrote about what they knew. And that was a reflection of the world they lived in. An agricultural society that ate bread, probably vegetables grown in gardens, and whatever domesticated animals they ate. 

 

Like I said before. It's nice to be able to see the truth of the Bible now. 

 

DB

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

So the Genesis creation model completely skips 2.5 million years of human evolution. The person that wrote this had never lived or even heard about a hunter-gatherer society of humans. They only wrote about what they knew. And that was a reflection of the world they lived in. An agricultural society that ate bread, probably vegetables grown in gardens, and whatever domesticated animals they ate. 

 

Like I said before. It's nice to be able to see the truth of the Bible now. 

 

DB

 

The DH covers the issue. The writers were writing in these later periods that you're identifying.

 

We had Luth-ifer trying to argue that Moses wrote Genesis. The Sabbaths and everything else tend to show that later developed theology was back written into the Genesis myth. With Genesis 2 being older than Genesis 1 at that. The newer Genesis 1 version of the creation came in with more detail than the older Genesis creation account. Luth-ifer couldn't argue his way into a Moses authorship with any objective evidence or reasoning. Objectivity goes in the direction of the DH. 

 

The bottom line is that the art of counter apologetics begins at the very beginning.

 

Apologists have to be held there against the ropes from the outset. Their go to move is always to try and logic leap forward to some later content and distract attention away from this core, foundation level problem with the bible at the very beginning. 

 

The above should be a problem for those who refuse the documentary hypothesis in favor of divine revelation direct to Moses. For the liberals who accept the DH, well, that undermines the factuality of Genesis in a direct and straight forward way, what else? Clearly it has to be admitted that it was written not by Moses and at a much later date than conservative fundamentalists allow for. 

[Sexton Blake]

Apart from the fact that there is no evidence that Moses even existed, or that the exodus story happened, there has been a long recognition that Moses did not write the first five books of the bible:

 

Issac ibn Yashush (11th century):

 

A list of 36 Edomite kings in Genesis 36 all lived long after Moses died.

 

Abraham ibn Ezra (12th century):

 

Some passages described places Moses had never visited.

 

Some passages refer to Moses in the third hand, so written by someone else.

 

Some passages use terms that Moses would not have known about.

 

Some passages used language that reflected another time and another locale.

 

Carlstadt (16th century):

 

The tradition that the author of Joshua wrote about Moses' death is wrong

because it is written in the same style as the texts that precede it.

 

Thomas Hobbes (17th century):

 

Pointed out the uses of "to this day" which showed it was talking of

earlier times rather than contemporary writing.

 

Isaac de la Peytere (17th century);

 

Moses used the words "across the Jordan" in the first verse of

Deuteronomy. This would have only been used by someone on the other side, in

Israel, west of the Jordan referring to what Moses did on the east of the

Jordan. Moses never went to Israel.

 

Spinoza (17th century):

 

Third person accounts of Moses. He calls himself "the humblest man on

Earth", which would be a contradiction. References to geographical locales

by names they gained long after Moses died. Deut 34: "There never arose

another prophet like Moses" could hardly have been written by Moses.

[Myrkhoos]

Well, I think the "hunter-gather" phase was in Eden, no? They just ate whatever was there, no need to farm, from what I understood.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Well, I think the "hunter-gather" phase was in Eden, no? They just ate whatever was there, no need to farm, from what I understood.

No not really. It even mentioned there was no man to till the ground. Before man was created. I take from that whoever wrote this assumed that ever since man was created there was farming. And very shortly after man was created he is cursed that weeds would grow everywhere he tried to plant food. The way it reads the only period of time that could possibly be considered hunter gatherer would have been the very short period of time between man's creation and his fall. If you can call it that. Basically all Adam and eve had to do was pick the fruit off the trees or from the fields as they got hungry. Because it was a utopia and everything grew for them. They didn't really have to work for it. Not really the same as hunter gatherer where they stored food for long term use like through winter. But in reality that time spanned millions of years. What is biblically written doesn't reflect a hunter-gatherer society. But how could they imagine anything else.

 

I'm sure a good apologist would try to twist it in that direction tho. 

 

But the reality is that the earliest biblical fragments were written thousands of years after hunter-gatherer society. And likewise these stories probably weren't created until after. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Because it was a utopia and everything grew for them

If slow cooked baby back ribs didn't grow for them, it could hardly have been a utopia.  Fucking lying-ass bible.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

Pretty sure the hunter-gatherers didn't have time/resources to devote to written languages.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If slow cooked baby back ribs didn't grow for them, it could hardly have been a utopia.  Fucking lying-ass bible.

Very good point. I hope by slow cooked you mean smoked. Thats the only way to cook ribs properly yum yum!!

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

35 minutes ago, Krowb said:

Pretty sure the hunter-gatherers didn't have time/resources to devote to written languages.

Yeah I doubt it. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

36 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Very good point. I hope by slow cooked you mean smoked. Thats the only way to cook ribs properly yum yum!!

Damn straight.  

[Myrkhoos]

1 hour ago, Krowb said:

Pretty sure the hunter-gatherers didn't have time/resources to devote to written languages.

I think they had plenty of time and resources. Hunter-gatherers had probably more leisure time than agriculturalists. But written language becomes in use, from what I observed, in very large scale societies, where memory cannot be counted on.

    The Quran was put to writing after tye Muslim conquests, large geographic spaces separating communities and, from the official stories,fears of variants cropping up. So an imperial form was commisioned, the Uthman Quran if I remember. For small tribes writing didn't seem al that useful I imagine.