Originally posted by Berzerker
And yet the Bible says the people alive then were descendents of the Ark survivors. Btw, the Israelites weren't advanced compared to many neighbors, they were a hill tribe surrounded by great civilisations. But your point is valid, when advanced peoples meet primitives there is a tendency to see them as more animal-like. But this is about the Garden and man's fall, not the fall of Israelites. The Bible accurately describes an ancient transition from animal to human...
And yet the Bible says the people alive then were descendents of the Ark survivors. Btw, the Israelites weren't advanced compared to many neighbors, they were a hill tribe surrounded by great civilisations. But your point is valid, when advanced peoples meet primitives there is a tendency to see them as more animal-like. But this is about the Garden and man's fall, not the fall of Israelites. The Bible accurately describes an ancient transition from animal to human...
The creation story didnt have to originate among the Israelites. I'm doubtful of the ability of a tiny nomad tribe to create such a story. It makes more sense that it was created by those advanced civilizations and adopted by the Israelites who then attached to it their own history.
And I'm not sure I understand what you meant with the first sentence about the Ark.
I agree, the loincloth symbolism refers to sex (or procreation) but it has an implied message - the Bible's author(s) knew man's fall was his ascendency from nature and it happened long ago. There is a passage in the Bible where God says his spirit will reside in man for 120 years. But these years are not human years, they are God's years. And according to the Mesopotamians, God's year lasted 3,600 human years. Thats 432,000 years, within the range of the scientific evidence of our "enolution".
Comment