Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[Cyberman]

The difference is that we've found much evidence to support the bible, but nothing to support the book of mormon.

Fantastic. I look forward to seeing some of this evidence presented for review. It ought to be easy, if there's so much of it.

[catman]

If we start at the beginning and survey the book of Genesis, we see several things. One, God creates a man and a woman who eventually have children. These children in turn grow up and have children and from these the world is populated. This happens in the region which we now commonly refer to generally as the middle east.

Scientific study and archeological evidence all points to Africa and not the Middle East.

What we do know is that Adam and Eve were not in China or North America or Australia or Antarctica or Russia etc.

Actually we do not know that Adam and Eve existed at all. Bible is the only source.

From this locale we then read of the spread of people outwards. This takes place primarily after the Tower of Babel account. Noah's sons are then recorded to have had children which in turn had children who would eventually migrate to become the fathers of the Chinese and Russians and Europeans and etc etc.

Amazingly China was populated within a few thousand years.

So we can see in a sense...God zooming out and out and out as He gives us the account of a growing world population.

No he does not. He mentioned nothing about these about the growing populations in these other nations.

These "fathers" of the nations knew God.

How do you know that?

The further people moved from where it all began the more distorted and twisted their concept of God became.

Even though their religions/mythologies may be older than Judaism?

This is in keeping right along with what we would expect if this indeed was God's word. And God gives us the record of how this unfolds with a history of the evolution of the Israelites. The Israelites lived in what we refer to broadly as the middle east. They did not live in China, or India, or Antarctica, or North America. They lived in a specific geographic location. It would not make much sense if God while giving us an account of the Israelites, threw in for flavor, the goings on of the Han Dynasty! That would be quite out of place and immaterial unless it had some type of bearing on Israel.

You do know that Yahweh was on of many Gods that was originally worshiped by the Jews. He was a JEWISH DEITY. The Jews at the time did not consider him a God for the world. He was a for the Jews only and didn't care about the outside world. That is the real reason why the ancient Chinese or Aztecs never heard of Yahweh. They had their own mythologies.

[Minimalist]

They said the Hittites didn't exist, but now they know they did.

Oh, FFS...this silly shit again? Can't you fuckers ever work up a new act?

Atlanta, Georgia exists. The American Civil War happened. That does not make Gone With The Wind any less a novel.

BTW, who said the Hittites "didn't exist?"

In 1828 the text of the treaty between Egypt and the Hittites was found on the walls of Karnak. In 1887 the Amarna tablets, which include correspondence between the Egyptians and Hittites were found.

Before Napoleon opened Egypt (1798) to western scholars who was even looking for this shit?

We don't need your fucking bible for that, laddy.

[discipulus]

Scientific study and archeological evidence all points to Africa and not the Middle East.

With regards to the Cradle of Civilization (as it has been termed), it encompasses a broad region which is loosely referred to as "the ancient near east", or the "middle east". This region (if you will note, this is the exact term I used in my response) is not limited only to Iraq, or Saudi Arabia as many envision when they hear the term "middle east", but rather, as the Wikipedia article states:

In Western European and Middle Eastern cultures, [the term "Cradle of Civilization"] it has frequently been applied to the Ancient Near Eastern Chalcolithic (Ubaid period, Naqada culture), especially in the Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia and Levant) and Egypt, but also extended to sites in Asia Minor (Anatolia), Armenia[1] and the Iranian Plateau (Elam)

So as you will see catman, what I have said in no way contradicts the most recent findings of archaeologists. Notice I also referred to the children of the children of the children of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve themselves, i.e. the third generation on as having spread out in the region generally referred to as the middle east. This is in no way refuted by your reply. These peoples had to migrate EAST due to the constraints placed on them by the Mediterranean Sea to the WEST.

To conclude, the area in Africa which you have in mind is included in the overall region I referred to as the "middle east".

Actually we do not know that Adam and Eve existed at all. Bible is the only source.

Here catman, your point is not lost on me. However, your point in no way pertains to the question in your OP. We are not discussing whether or not the Bible is a reliable source for the whereabouts of Adam and Eve, but rather why, if the Bible is the inspired word of God, the focal point of the Bible is on a particular people group.

Now if you would like to start a new post on whether or not the Bible is a reliable account of ancient history then I would be delighted to participate!

Amazingly China was populated within a few thousand years.

How is this pertinent?

No he does not. He mentioned nothing about these about the growing populations in these other nations.

The account in Genesis is that the nations of the world were populated by the descendants of Noah's sons. How is this not an account of a growing world population?

How do you know that?

The "fathers" of the nations were the three sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. They knew God because they were delivered alive through the flood by God's providence and were eyewitnesses of the works of God. Their father, Noah, was referred to as a "righteous" man, and "blameless" in the sight of God, and as one who walked with God. It is not unreasonable to say that his sons knew God therefore. These were as I stated earlier, the "fathers" of the nations.

Even though their religions/mythologies may be older than Judaism?

You are mistaken. For the account I have given you is the account of the very first people to populate the earth after the flood. We are speaking of a time that predates any of the world's religions and or mythologies. At this time the only people that existed on the face of the earth were those who were delivered alive through the flood by God.

And being charitable, even if you deny the flood was global, and maintain it was local, the point remains, if there were indeed other civilizations in existence at this time in other parts of the world, they were still descendants of Adam and Eve. If these civilizations worshipped other gods it was because they, over time, abandoned the One True God and crafted their own to suit their fancy.

You do know that Yahweh was on of many Gods that was originally worshiped by the Jews. He was a JEWISH DEITY. The Jews at the time did not consider him a God for the world. He was a for the Jews only and didn't care about the outside world. That is the real reason why the ancient Chinese or Aztecs never heard of Yahweh. They had their own mythologies.

God revealed Himself to Moses as YHWH. This does not mean that there were two gods, but rather One God who revealed Himself as God Almighty from the time of Adam and Eve up until the time of Moses. The same God that created Adam and Eve was the same God who revealed Himself to Moses on Mt. Sinai. For does not the Shema which encapsulates the monotheistic essence of Judaism read?: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one"

The reason the Aztecs or the Chinese never heard of YHWH is because God never revealed Himself to those people by that name, but rather, He revealed Himself to them as God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.

[Minimalist]

And your evidence that "god" did anything of the sort? Or that god even exists?

What would that evidence be?

[truthBtold]

Im still waiting too.. I think evidence needs to be defined by theist..

[pocaracas]

I find it interesting that Noah's lineage had to be traced to Adam...
If, at some point, there was only Adam, then everyone on the planet, Noah included, could trace their lineage back to Adam.
The same applies some time later to J.C., where anyone alive at the time should be able to trace their lineage back to Noah (sole survivor of the flood) and then to Adam.

[discipulus]

And your evidence that "god" did anything of the sort? Or that god even exists?

What would that evidence be?

Good day Minimalist!

I noticed you asked a question but I am not sure who it was addressed to.

Was it addressed to me?

[Lek]

Im still waiting too.. I think evidence needs to be defined by theist..

http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-tru...l-evidence

Here's one site, but there's a ton of others. This is not proof, but it's supporting evidence. There's also no proof that the bible is a lie. I'm not sure that this webwsite is transferring correctly to the board. If not, you can google "supporting evidence for the bible" and see many credible statements concerning this subject.

[Simon Moon]

http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-tru...l-evidence

Here's one site, but there's a ton of others. This is not proof, but it's supporting evidence.

There's plenty of evidence that the Bible got things wrong historically and archeologically. Both in the NT and the OT.

There's also no proof that the bible is a lie.

There are other choices besides the Bible is a lie and it is entirely truthful.

For example, it is possible that the writers believed that they were recording the truth, but they were actually recording legend.

The fact that the Bible gets some things historically correct, does not offer a shred of evidence that any of the supernatural god stories are true.

The Hindu Vedas and the Koran get many things correct, historically. But yet you do not believe any of the supernatural stories in them.

You are making special exceptions for the religious text you believe, that you reject for others.