Is the Holy Bible the timeline for mankind's existence?

Loads of people have written the story.

The Greeks did, the Babylonians did, the Romans did, the Egyptians did, the Native Americans, although I'm not sure if they have written it down..

But the point is, this is like the fundamental, archetypal story that defines humanity. Pretty much all cultures have all done it, defined in their own way, recorded it in their own means. It's the one thing we've always wondered. One of our greatest questions. Why are we here and how did we get here? No doubt the question has been tackled from all angles.

For the OP, I don't know why you think no other book.

The latest is almost the most widespread today. That is the book of science. From the start, the big bang which is the predominant belief, right up to the big freeze, or the big crunch and various theories about what the universe may do in the future. Our planet can be consumed by the sun gone supernova in about 5 billion years (we're like halfway through the Earth's lifespan). They've even summarized it in one single book if you must have it in only one book.

Plus, the bible isn't one book. It's a collection of various writings from all kinds of places and authors.

You could stick all the Greek Myths together in one book for example as well. I'm sure that's been done.

 

It is our moral guide and the book that helps our clergy teach... complacency and proper control the masses.

 

Glad you understand it then. You know those pictures that you have to cross your eyes to get the image in it to appear? Yeah, I can do those all day.

 

What you're talking about is the problem of theodicy. It's a very old discussion, and what it boils down to is that if you take omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, you can only have two of the three without contradicting the observed nature of the universe. Either Yahweh wanted to create a perfect universe but wasn't able to do it, thus making him not omnipotent, or he couldn't foresee all the consequences of his actions, thus making him not omniscient, or he just didn't want to create a perfect world, thus making him not omnibenevolent. It's one of the basic logical flaws of christian theology. Essentially, Yahweh as depicted in the christians' book is a selfish, petty, cruel tyrant. My personal opinion is that if Yahweh exists, he is clearly a rather nasty demon.

Incidentally, Satan was neither cast out of heaven nor was he present in the Garden of Eden. Lucifer was the one who was cast out, it was the serpent who tempted Eve, and Satan was more like a divine lawyer in the story of Job. They were originally all distinct characters that have been conflated together to create the concept of the devil by later christians.

 

I have a little dog. One day I decided to leave her alone in the house with her food bowl on the kitchen table, and her water bowl on the leather chair. When I got home from work, she had spilled water all over the expensive leather chair (ruined it) and scratched up the kitchen table terribly. It became necessary for me to drone her in the toilet in order to prevent this situation from happening again.

I am either cruel, stupid, or decided to give myself a reason to eliminate my pet.

*none of the above actions occurred, and no animals were injured in the typing of this analogy*

 

I went with the last option. Truth is, it doesn't matter how old the world is, whether we came from monkey's or single cell organisms or whatever the hell, we are here now, understanding the past might well be interesting, but it does little to get us any further down the road...

 

In this I must disagree, as I believe our ability to explore and understand the past and the world around us to be the very reason we "Get Further Down The Road". It seems to me virtually every advance of our species has come about due to this aspect of our curiosity and ability to learn.

 

I would disagree, strongly, I don't recall the Romans or Chinese questioning if we were related to monkeys, yet they both advanced civilization along far more than any philosopher...

 

Both of the civilizations you mention (as well as all others), advanced because they explored the possibilities of the world they existed in, experimented and observed, improved based un these results, and kept doing it. Picking out a field unknown at the time and using this as support for your position is either disingenuous, or seriously misunderstanding the ways in which our species has advanced over time. Still, we might as well use it as a support for my position since you brought it up.

Evolution and genetics exist in our world because humankind did the same thing as we have done throughout history. The Chinese and Romans managed great advances in technology and governance...we have continued this trend because we continue to explore, observe, adapt and repeat.

 

Not to be rude, as I don't really know you, but none of what you said makes any difference if we came from single celled organisms, monkeys, or the Hand of God... I love history, its fascinating, but it really means little as we go on through our days. At most a hundred years is the limit of our lives today, as that would cover most of what we can actually understand, in real terms, going beyond that requires a different type of thinking...

 

It is the only regarded book on the creation of the universe to it's eventual destruction. What lies in it's pages in-between are the answers to every issue facing purpose and reason known to human-kind.

Trash it if you will. It's word does not reach every soul. Without the thirst or curiosity of the knowlegde contained within it's pages it reveals nothing. Deservedly. The Bible is only revealed unto the penitent heart that seeks answers beyond science.

Yes it provides a complete timeline; both a personal one and an existential one.

 

Okay...let's try a slightly different angle. The Romans created an advanced system of water distribution, based on the observed results over time, an examination of history, and advances noted and enjoyed we now get to turn on a faucet and drink clean water. We have observed, adapted, and repeated to get to this point, and it is likely it means quite a bit in your day to day life. The Chinese utilized many herbal and plant based concoctions to improve human health, observation and experimentation over time, as well as advances in technological ability combined with understanding of natural functions have led to the Pharmaceutical industry, and further advances in health..it is likely you use many of the resulting medications in your day to day life.

Neither of us seem rude....we are having a debate.

 

I understand your feigning intent here to correlate two ideas but this has got to be the most unballasted metaphor I have ever read.

Out of curiosity; what drives you to peruse such topics that are obviously outside of your own perceived interests?

 

You are overshooting, it was civilization that kept driving us, not preponderance of prior events...

No offense, but you totally sell the Chinese short on their contributions to history... Sorry, but I studied them in college and spent six months in their country, and simply would like you to know they did a bit more than you 'appear' to think. I say that to open a conversation on more...

Ah, you mentioned modern Pharma. That is a world of its own at this point, really no different than the Games presented in Rome, almost everyone is addicted to their drugs these days...

Let us debate, you are pretty cool. Don't mean to offend, if I did, but my nature is rather aggressive, sorry...

 

The pursuit and discussion of these topics is based on a few things, one being the topic of the thread I am in (as are you)....and another would be a rebuttal to certain opinions being stated as fact, which they most obviously are not.....case in point:

As for pretending (feigning) to have a certain intent....I think your use of the word might be a bit confused.

 

I was simply following your own lead, in that I picked one very small aspect of the contribution of societies to focus on. I am well aware many, many more exists and wish to point out that these are a reason for all that followed....and thus it literally IS civilization. I did not sell anyone short, in that I had no intent to describe these contributions/advances beyond the area I mentioned. That would have blown up the server.

My point was to address your comment:

As well as the larger debate, in that those things that occurred previously are built upon every day, which allows for advancement and increased stability within a civilization. As well as the large daily impact such advancement has on our lives.

 

Not all of mankind, just the Hebrew people. Not of all time, but simply from the beginning of the Hebrew people.

 

With all due respect…Wrong-Oh!
First, if you had said the Hebrew bible only covered the Hebrew people you would have still been wrong but not as totally wrong. The bibles genealogy begins with Adam in the book of Genesis (if we use traditional interpretation and/or beliefs), then it goes on to a person named David, ie King David, which is where the Hebrew lineage begins. From king David the genealogy of the Hebrew people begins. All the rest of the people are of all races and types and kinds lol, so IMO to refer to them as Hebrew would be inaccurate at the very least. Lastly, IMO and with ADR, you are also wrong about the time issue. The bible says God created the heavens and the earth. Time was created when the universe began, so indeed the bible has time covered as well. Does the term ‘I am Alpha and Omega‘ ring a bell? That is fairly solid evidence that God and the bible had the time issue
covered as well. The accuracy of the bible in regard to the cosmology of the universe ie Its compatibility with the Big Bang model of the universe highly enhances my faith of the bible and confirms my faith in Gods existence.

reva

 

Circular nonsense. In order to believe you must first believe. It's a highly redacted and edited collection of Bronze age creation myth.

 

The Bible reflects the comprehension of its various authors and is, necessarily, reflective of the mindset of the times in which they first wrote down the oral tales they chose to record, those being revelatory of their times. To reduce it to banal journalism and mundane instruction manual rather than the poetic legacy that it is seriously diminishes its value.

Some like to fancy that those who first told the tales, those that re-told them repeatedly, those who wrote them down, those who selected and edited them, those who translated them, and those who printed them were all infallible beings. That deprives the document of its most significant distinction - it's humanity.

How does one accept the accuracy of conflicting accounts - beginning with those of creation? Trying to explain them all away has resulted in some impressive contortions. (A paleo-William of Ockham might have saved them the mental strain.) When there are two or more conflicting accounts of the same event, at least one is, of necessity, not objectively accurate. If two or more conflicting accounts are included in the same opus, that work is, necessarily, not entirely true.

To be a literal slave to this significant literary compilation is to elevate a manmade achievement to the status of a divine artifact in an egregious travesty of mindless book worship - the tome as false god.

Some crave a magic message directly from the authorized amanuenses of a divine and scrupulous proofreader in the sky. The Bible, for all its merits, is not that. To pretend otherwise is to demean it.


.

 

They're doing such a swell job following that moral guide aren't they? Lol

 

If I'm willing to believe the bible is an actual timeline, I'm in no position to not believe just as strongly that Lord Of The Rings is as well.

 

WOW. You just acted like Adam, by being the progenitor of all men, was not the progenitor of the Hebrew. The Bible is merely the Talmud poorly translated into Latin and then into English.The old testament, that is. And the New Testament tacked onto the end of it.

I agree with the big bang similarity.

 

I cautiously accept the current KGV etc version of the 'bible’. Btw, bible literately means a collection of texts. Anyway my 'acceptance' includes agreeing with most translations of the bible from the original languages. I will say I dont agree with a few minor verses and specific words etc. but that is material for another thread. Also, but MUCH more cautiously I accept and agree that the various meddling(s) through history by intellectuals and Christian officials etc including of course the large ones which occured at the first (etc) Council of Nicaea. Still I feel even those um' changes enhanced rather than corrupted the original texts, and oral transference of the meaning of Gods word. IMO the KJV etc conveys the ‘will’ and ‘word’ of God accurately and easily enough so that all those wanting to know God can by reading his words aka the bible. The exception would be precise advanced bible hermeneutics and exegesis, which has always required the researcher having intimate knowledge of ancient languages and doctorate (PhD) level education. As far as the big bang goes its interesting, entertaining even to watch how secular scientists mostly theoretical physicists and cosmologists for the last ten or more years have been attempting to distance themselves from the standard model of the big bang as first postulated (meaning the model that tells us the universe ‘began to exixt‘ about 14.7 billion years ago)*. The reason for this distancing is the theistic implications of the BB. I could expand on this* but my reply again is getting too long!


* I will say that the new trend of multiverse’s, string theory, infinite parellell universes, and hawking badminton shaped universe beginning ie he is now saying the universe never began but it simply just ‘rebounds’ and has been rebounding in an infinite manner for perpetuity. Yet he has only imaginary numbers as he calls them to prop up his theory! In fact none of the newer theories of ‘no beginning’ universes or universe have good mathematical evidence to support them and there is NO, nadda, ZERO, NONE, zip, (lol) empirical evidence to support the ‘no beginning’ universe theories. However the traditional Big Bang (hot) model has much mathematical AND empirical to support it. Oops well there goes my short reply. Anyone still with me on this?


RevA

 

Most scholars believe the bible, due to its various authors and extended millennia long write time consists of many styles and literary devices. Some biblical styles or 'devices' are; parable, historic, prophetic, poetry, etc etc. Also consider I am more of an Christian apologist* than a theistic scholar etc. What I am getting around to is that I believe the creation account in the book of Genesis for example is not a literal account of the creation. For example statements in the bible where it states; 'a thousand years to man is as a day to God' (not the exact words). However I DO believe that it shows that the universe did begin to exist which was contrary to some of the greatest minds of science such as Einstein. He claimed the universe eternal, static and unchanging, but hubble and his giant telescope showed him his error in the early years of the 20th century. Anyway, there are quite a few ‘categories’ of creationists. Progressive creationists allow the universe is billions of years old for example. However, I am more of an KCA ID’er than a creationist which states that the universe began to exist. Nothing begins to exist without a cause. So the cause for the universe to begin to exist was God. That my friend is a short butchered version of the KCA. LOL ~

RevA