When does biblical history begin ?

[possibletarian]

Okay here's my question,

These days there are many Christians who will support evolution and a very old earth 4.5 billions years old, with a universe that's along the lines of 14 billion years.

Somewhere in this period they throw humanity into the mix some believe Adam and Eve could still have existed, or be created especially during the time that humans were also evolving, others believe that Adam and Eve were just a story of man's fall from grace. Given that most biblical characters can be dated back by linage to Adam and Eve's children that gives us a period of around 6,000~7,000 years since those people existed.  When does what the bible says become real history ?

Where does it place original sin in this context ?

[vorlon13]

wut ?

[Catholic_Lady]

Okay here's my question,

These days there are many Christians who will support evolution and a very old earth 4.5 billions years old, with a universe that's along the lines of 14 billion years.

Somewhere in this period they throw humanity into the mix some believe Adam and Eve could still have existed, or be created especially during the time that humans were also evolving, others believe that Adam and Eve were just a story of man's fall from grace. Given that most biblical characters can be dated back by linage to Adam and Eve's children that gives us a period of around 6,000~7,000 years since those people existed.  When does what the bible says become real history ?

Where does it place original sin in this context ?

Personally I think the bible becomes real history with the story of Jesus. We have historical evidence of His existence, His death by crucifixion, His 12 disciples and their deaths, and the rapid spread of very early Christianity. 

I'm not opposed to believing in some Old Testament people as having been real people (like Abraham for example), but don't believe things played out literally as they are written. 

I don't think original sin = Adam and Eve eating a forbidden apple. I think that's allegory for the first opportunity we had to sin, which was taken. I think this "opportunity" happened somewhere along the evolutionary process of homo sapiens. At some point, enough "clicked" in the brain of an early human to where they became aware of morality in their actions. That's original sin. It's the fact that we can and will commit sins, given the opportunity. 

That's my own opinion of how it played out, anyway. The Church leaves the story of Genesis open to interpretation, so long as we come away from it believing that God is the creator and that human beings have original sin.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Okay here's my question,

These days there are many Christians who will support evolution and a very old earth 4.5 billions years old, with a universe that's along the lines of 14 billion years.

Somewhere in this period they throw humanity into the mix some believe Adam and Eve could still have existed, or be created especially during the time that humans were also evolving, others believe that Adam and Eve were just a story of man's fall from grace. Given that most biblical characters can be dated back by linage to Adam and Eve's children that gives us a period of around 6,000~7,000 years since those people existed.  When does what the bible says become real history ?

Where does it place original sin in this context ?

Personally I think the bible becomes real history with the story of Jesus. We have historical evidence of His existence, His death by crucifixion, His 12 disciples and their deaths, and the rapid spread of very early Christianity. 

I'm not opposed to believing in some Old Testament people as having been real people (like Abraham for example), but don't believe things played out literally as they are written. 

I don't think original sin = Adam and Eve eating a forbidden apple. I think that's allegory for the first opportunity we had to sin, which was taken. I think this "opportunity" happened somewhere along the evolutionary process of homo sapiens. At some point, enough "clicked" in the brain of an early human to where they became aware of morality in their actions. That's original sin. It's the fact that we can and will commit sins, given the opportunity. 

That's my own opinion of how it played out, anyway. The Church leaves the story of Genesis open to interpretation, so long as we come away from it believing that God is the creator and that human beings have original sin.

There was no one named "Jesus" in ancient times.  The name didn't exist until 1630, which is 387 years ago.  

Now since almost everything you know is less than 100 years old why do you continue to believe silly ancient fairy tales?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's my own opinion of how it played out, anyway. The Church leaves the story of Genesis open to interpretation, so long as we come away from it believing that God is the creator and that human beings have original sin.

No it doesn't.  I get tired of quoting catechism when she misrepresents this.  

The catholic church insists as a matter of doctrine that original sin was a literal event that took place in our actual history, between our original parents.  A literal adam and eve, mother and father to us all. Without this bit of fun...and this is also a matter of their own doctrine...their religion makes absolutely no sense.

[Huggy Bear]

Personally I think the bible becomes real history with the story of Jesus. We have historical evidence of His existence, His death by crucifixion, His 12 disciples and their deaths, and the rapid spread of very early Christianity. 

I'm not opposed to believing in some Old Testament people as having been real people (like Abraham for example), but don't believe things played out literally as they are written. 

I don't think original sin = Adam and Eve eating a forbidden apple. I think that's allegory for the first opportunity we had to sin, which was taken. I think this "opportunity" happened somewhere along the evolutionary process of homo sapiens. At some point, enough "clicked" in the brain of an early human to where they became aware of morality in their actions. That's original sin. It's the fact that we can and will commit sins, given the opportunity. 

That's my own opinion of how it played out, anyway. The Church leaves the story of Genesis open to interpretation, so long as we come away from it believing that God is the creator and that human beings have original sin.

There was no one named "Jesus" in ancient times.  The name didn't exist until 1630, which is 387 years ago.  

Now since almost everything you know is less than 100 years old why do you continue to believe silly ancient fairy tales?

*emphasis mine*
You do realize that the King James version of the bible was published in 1611 right? Not to mention the name also appears in the Wycliffe version of the bible (although it's written in middle english) published in the late 1300's

[Minimalist]

We have historical evidence of His existence, His death by crucifixion, His 12 disciples and their deaths, and the rapid spread of very early Christianity.

Actually we don't.  You have your gospels which are propaganda and not history.



Archaeologist William Dever uses the terms Syro-Palestinian history because the bible is simply not a reliable source.

[Huggy Bear]

Actually we don't.  You have your gospels which are propaganda and not history.



Archaeologist William Dever uses the terms Syro-Palestinian history because the bible is simply not a reliable source.

Your boy Bart Ehrman says differently.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Religion runs into the discussion of history and takes a big crap in the middle of the room. It wins when everybody bails out.

[Succubus]

Personally I think the bible becomes real history with the story of Jesus. We have historical evidence of His existence...

This is a blatant knowing lie. Produce that evidence now! You have the floor. All eyes are upon you.