The WTS always propagates the idea that Adam was created around 4000 BC and thus the world is 6000 years old and based on this they had set up the 1975 Armageddon fiasco where many dubs got ripped off.
What they never say is that this dating is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, there is however an older version of the Old Testament "the Greek translation of the seventy" which for all we know may be the correct one and which makes mankind 7500 years old with Adam created around 5500 BC.
Not only this agrees better agrees with archaeological discoveries but it was also used by Luke to write Jesus's genealogy in his gospel.
Adam 4000 BC or 5500 BC?
by greendawn 16 Replies latest jw friends
-
greendawn
-
tetrapod.sapien
the problem is that while middle eastern archaeology may be a subset of anthropology, anthropology itself (incl paleo), along with geology and biology (incl genetics), does not agree with this at all.
TS
-
Abaddon
Yeah, the dating of mans creation is difficult.
On one hand one can say "well, it's in the Bible, isn't it", but as you yourself bring out, there's a +/- of 1,500 years between two versions which are impossible to truly seperate in terms of accuracy, or on their own be proved to be accurate.
As there are clear signs of developed civilisations at the time either version of Genesis says man was created, and the dating of these is multi-stranded (for example, C14 and dendrochronological), one is either forced to accept dating technologies which are otherwise provable as accurate are, when it comes to dating the origina of man, wrong. Not a very likely or realistic suppositon.
Look at the Flood. The Great Pyramid at Geza is a remarkable building - all the more so if one considers IF the Bible is accurate it had been standing for c.400 years when the flood came and suffered NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER.
Or maybe the Flood and Creation accounts are metaphors?
Everyone immediately assumes suphur breast-plated locusts and multi-headed beasts are metaphorical, as we know such things don't actually exist from our knowledge of the world. Likewise, if our knowledge of the world shows us the creation and flood accounts are not factual as there is no evidence they ever actually happened the way described in the Bible, I fail to see why people do not reach the obvious conclusion, i.e., that these accounts are metaphors or allegories as well.
-
Cygnus
Except, Abaddon, the gospels have Jesus seeming to believe pretty strongly that the Noachian deluge was a real, global event. I know there are folks like aChristian and Carl Jonsson that argue it was local and thus a trustworthy record of a real event but the overall intent of the Genesis account sure makes it sound global. It figures that Jesus has to muss everything up.
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Yeah the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 differ between the Massoretic, the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In some spots, the Sam will agree with the LXX, and in others with the MT. IIRC, a nun once told us that the genealogies in the LXX may have been altered to better mesh with an Egyptian chronology at the time.
-
JosephMalik
The creative days were epochs, descriptive of major milestones in Earths preparation. No one knows how long each one was and it is most unlikely that they were of equal length. Why should they? In scripture 7 days can be called a day. The word is context dependent. Who makes the rules? This seventh day will also be of unknown length sufficient for the purpose designated for it. But it is interesting to see all the theorists like the WT dividing up something they know nothing about and predict events still in the future.
Joseph -
Sam the Man
You mean it was written by the writer of Luke in his gospel.
-
Abaddon
Cygnus
Except, Abaddon, the gospels have Jesus seeming to believe pretty strongly that the Noachian deluge was a real, global event.
For me this is good proof that Jesus was either totally made-up, or non-divine and 'stolen' by religious people, or maybe he was divine, but what we read are not really his words. I don't think a real divine Jesus would get things that wrong, perpetuate nonsense, or play "silly buggers" by having all the evidenece point to the modern scientific dates as a test of 'faith'.
I know there are folks like aChristian and Carl Jonsson that argue it was local and thus a trustworthy record of a real event but the overall intent of the Genesis account sure makes it sound global. It figures that Jesus has to muss everything up.
Bad Messiah! Go to your heaven! ;-P
-
kid-A
Yeah, the dating of mans creation is difficult.
Yes, that is not surprising given that man was NOT created, but evolved over millions of years from australopithecines, to homo habilis, to homo erectus, to cro-magnon, with many other species splitting off in the process. Sadly, the brains of creationists have not evolved beyond single-celled amoebas!!
-
gaiagirl
Stories tend to grow with each retelling, and the Flood story had been told for several thousand years before anyone ever though of, or even had the ability, to write it down. There exists good geological evidence for local flooding in the area of the Black Sea several thousand years ago, but none at all for a global flood at any time within human history. Instead, regions which have been continuously inhabited for well over 5000 years, such as India, Egypt, and China, apparantly failed to notice anything unusual during the time which the Bible says the Earth was flooded.