How reliable are the T.N.Kh./ Old Testament prophecies, and how do we know?

[rakovsky]

The Old Testament / Tanakh includes appealing prophecies like dating for Messiah's arrival (Daniel 9), descriptions of his death (According to Maimonides, this is the Servant's "crushing" in Isaiah 42; Christianity sees it in Isaiah 52-53), and the future resurrection of the dead (Isaiah 26). What makes those prophecies reliable, and how does the prophecy function?

It seems that theoretically, there could objectively exist such a thing as a gift of prophecy, and that the Lord could guide the Biblical prophets into true predictions. But science seems skeptical about the reliability to perform foretelling supernaturally. And it seems that there are moral people whom God inspires in the world (like civil rights activists), but I don't know that their inspiration and morality means they become reliable precise oracles for the nation's political future, like giving a 30 year deadline for passing certain laws.

The Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia distinguishes prophets' intuition and sense of prophecy and actual, certain prophecies:

The prophecy is imperfect when the recipient does not know clearly or sufficiently from whom the revelation proceeds, or whether it is the prophetic or individual spirit that speaks. This is called the prophetic instinct, wherein it is possible that a man may be deceived, as it happened in the case of Nathan who said to David when he was thinking of building the Temple of God: "Go, do all that is in thy heart, because the Lord is with thee" (2 Samuel 7:3). But that very night the Lord commanded the Prophet to return to the king and say that the glory of the building of the temple was reserved, not for him, but for his son. St. Gregory, as quoted by Benedict XIV, explains that some holy prophets, through the frequent practice of prophesying, have of themselves predicted some things, believing that therein they were influenced by the spirit of prophecy.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm

Maybe prophesying is not necessarily from God, even when the prophet is a moral, inspired believer like the ancient prophets were? In that case, it seems we have to evaluate whether foretelling is scientifically reliable. Otherwise, how do we know that the Biblical prophecies must be correct?

The Encyclopedia also talks about nonChristian prophecy as sometimes being legitimate:

St. Thomas, in order to prove that the heathens were capable of prophecy, refers to the instance of the Sybils, who make clear mention of the mysteries of the Trinity, of the Incarnation of the Word, of the Life, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ. It is true that the Sybilline poems now extant became in course of time interpolated; but, as Benedict XIV remarks, this does not hinder much of them, especially what the early Fathers referred to, from being genuine and in no wise apocryphal.

And it even says that post-Biblical prophecies by even inspired Christian saints could be mistaken:

The real test of these predictions is their fulfilment; they may be only pious anticipations of the ways of Providence, and they may sometimes be fulfilled in part and in part contradicted by events. The minatory prophecies which announce calamities, being for the most part conditional, may or may not be fulfilled. Many private prophecies have been verified by subsequent events, some have not; others have given rise to a good deal of discussion as to their genuineness.

If Christian saints' predictions could be mistaken, it makes me uncertain how reliable the Biblical ones must be.

 

[rakovsky]

The prophecy of Edward the Confessor given in the "New Advent" Encyclopedia is interesting:

Spoiler: CLICK HERE TO READ THE PROPHECY BY EDWARD

Prophecy of St. Edward the Confessor
Ambrose Lisle Philipps in a letter to the Earl of Shrewsbury dated 28 October, 1850, in giving a sketch of English Catholic history, relates the following vision or prophecy made by St. Edward: "During the month of January, 1066, the holy King of England St. Edward the Confessor was confined to his bed by his last illness in his royal Westminster Palace. St. Ælred, Abbott of Rievaulx, in Yorkshire, relates that a short time before his happy death, this holy king was wrapt in ecstasy, when two pious Benedictine monks of Normandy, whom he had known in his youth, during his exile in that country, appeared to him, and revealed to him what was to happen to England in future centuries, and the cause of the terrible punishment. They said: 'The extreme corruption and wickedness of the English nation has provoked the just anger of God. When malice shall have reached the fullness of its measure, God will, in His wrath, send to the English people wicked spirits, who will punish and afflict them with great severity, by separating the green tree from its parent stem the length of three furlongs. But at last this same tree, through the compassionate mercy of God, and without any national (governmental) assistance, shall return to its original root, reflourish and bear abundant fruit.' After having heard these prophetic words, the saintly King Edward opened his eyes, returned to his senses, and the vision vanished. He immediately related all he had seen and heard to his virgin spouse, Edgitha, to Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, and to Harold, his successor to the throne, who were in his chamber praying around his bed." (See "Vita beati Edwardi regis et confessoris", from manuscript Selden 55 in Bodleian Library, Oxford.)

The interpretation given to this prophecy is remarkable when applied to the events which have happened. The spirits mentioned in it were the Protestant innovators who pretended, in the sixteenth century, to reform the Catholic Church in England. The severance of the green tree from its trunk signifies the separation of the English Church from the root of the Catholic Church, from the Roman See. This tree, however, was to be separated from its life-giving root the distance of "three furlongs". These three furlongs are understood to signify three centuries, at the end of which England would again be reunited to the Catholic Church, and bring forth flowers of virtue and fruits of sanctity. The prophecy was quoted by Ambrose Lisle Philipps on the occasion of the reestablishment of the Catholic hierarchy in England by Pope Pius IX in 1850.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm

That is, the English Catholic bishops were deposed by the English Queen Elizabeth in c. 1559, the last Catholic bishop appointed by Queen Mary died in 1585, and then about 300 years later in 1850, the Catholic Pope reestablished the Catholic Hierarchy of England. This passage in Wikipedia mentions how the bishops were deposed in the 16th c.:

Spoiler: CLICK HERE FOR WIKIPEDIA'S PASSAGE

Soon after the accession of Queen Elizabeth I, in 1559, the bishops of England were forced to choose between taking the Oath of Supremacy, thus denying the authority of the Pope, and losing their episcopal sees. Those who chose to continue their allegiance to Rome were subsequently deposed and replaced in their sees by priests of the Church of England. Most of the deposed Bishops were imprisoned in various locations and died in captivity over a period of years, though some left the country and continued their work overseas. The last of the deposed bishops was Thomas Goldwell, Bishop of St Asaph, who died in Rome on April 3, 1585.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Vicariate_of_the_London_District
From 1559 to 1850, it's not exactly 300 years, only 291.

Sascha Vongehr writes on the Science 20 website about the scientific theoretical possibility of precognition:

Many hold the impossibility of any form of influence from the future as a dogma. For them, precognition does not show up because it does not exist, period.

Future Influence has been seriously discussed by established scientists. Wheeler’s and Feynman’s “absorber theory” includes advanced waves coming from the future on equal footing with retarded effects (“retarded” signifying after the cause). Quantum interference can be interpreted as future influence (quantum physics is time symmetric, so inverting usual explanations about interfering histories is already proving this, but there is more to this as will be discussed in a future post).

...classical physics (read: non relativistic and pre-quantum) is trivially without future influence. The naïve “real world-box being changed by time” concept is the very core of classical physics. Future influence is strictly modern physics and needs quantum concepts.

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/science_precognition_cosmic_habituation_and_decline_effect-84694


Next, he proposes that if quantum mechanics can have a real effect, evolution would bring that out and develop it in animals:

Usual Evolution

Once there is a physical mechanism, any minute physical effect, evolutionary selection is expected to tap into the physical effectiveness eventually. Quantum interference along molecules is used by plant chlorophyll to harvest light. Quantum effects have been shown to be exploited by birds’ sensing earth’s magnetic field in ways that were previously thought impossible (see discussion of surprising quantum biology). The necessary quantum entanglement should (according to established knowledge) be immediately destroyed in warm macroscopic systems like bird brains.

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/science_precognition_cosmic_habituation_and_decline_effect-84694

 

[rakovsky]

Next, S. Vongehr lists factors that improve scientific studies' precognitive finding results, and finds emotions to be a strong factor:

2.3) Precognition may Necessitate Strong Emotions – the proper Decline Effect

The following factors correlate with positive scores in Ganzfeld experiments: Belief in psi; prior psi experiences, practicing forms of meditation (yoga), creativity/artistic ability, emotional closeness between sender and receiver, extraverts rather than introverts. Insisting on that the scientific method is better served by selecting subjects randomly is obviously counterproductive; that such studies nevertheless find significant effects the more significant.


In all the reported cases of precognition, successful “media” are always extremely motivated to participate. Strong emotions float about whenever test subjects perform especially well. The latter may be due to biased reporting, i.e. the emotions are interpreted as especially strong in the light of the just gotten streak of correct predictions. Nevertheless, rather than being and ad hoc excuse, emotions have all along been said to be involved in precognition, which is often premonition (affective apprehension) or presentiment, both signifying effect from future events that is perceived as emotion.


Even assuming it exists, precognition is a feeble effect. If it is indeed coming about via emotions, there is an obvious problem: Studies that want to increase significance must repeat the same experiment over and over again. Repetition kills emotions, positive as well as negative. You do not fall on the floor laughing after hearing the same joke a hundred times. Recalling a tragic personal loss again and again is one way to overcome emotional involvement; psychotherapy exploits this. This could be the proper “decline effect” in its original meaning.

Next, he explains what he means by the decline effect. He is theorizing that that one reason studies fail to show strong strong ESP results can be that repetitive testing wears down the factors that generate positive findings in the first place:

Joseph B. Rhine reported this proper decline effect in the 1930s. An undergraduate, Adam Linzmayer, guessed cards that were not yet revealed to him with a hit rate far above chance. There are five different cards in a Zener deck (see picture below), thus chance would be a 20 percent hit rate. He had three streaks of guessing nine cards in a row, which has a one in two million chance already if it occurs just once. Yet repeated testing again and again for thousands of times wore him down and he lost the talent. So did many other subjects; it always happens this way in these studies, and it is not explained away by an initial chance fluctuation towards positive results slowly drowning in the large numbers, a so called “regression to the mean”. The latter would have different detailed statistics and would be the same for fluctuations into the opposite direction, but people who are phenomenally bad at guessing never show up.
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/science_precognition_cosmic_habituation_and_decline_effect-84694

What do you think of his explanation here, especially his idea that people who are awful guesses "never show up"?

Supernatural Magazine has an interesting article:

“How To Develop Your Intuitive Abilities”
Have you ever had gut feelings about something that proved to be correct? Have you ever thought about someone, and then, they called you on the phone shortly thereafter? Have you ever dreamt about something while sleeping that ended up happening in real life? Have you ever felt guided and avoided danger? Have you ever walked into a room and felt uncomfortable with the room itself or the people there?

The first step is to want our intuitive abilities to become stronger. If we intend it to happen, it will eventually happen when we are ready for it to happen.

Practice being aware of your intuitive hunches and follow them.

Author, Dr Bruce Goldberg, mentions in his book, Unleashing Your Psychic Powers, that scientists have used ESP cards since the early 1900’s to test people’s intuitive abilities. You can create your own ESP cards by drawing a different symbol on five cards. For example, a star could be on one of the cards, a circle on another card, etc. After shuffling the cards, one tries to determine which card will be dealt. Dr Goldberg suggests doing this 25 times and recording the results of one’s accuracy. Because there are five cards in the deck, anything above 20% accuracy is considered to be intuitive ability.

http://supernaturalmagazine.com/articles/how-to-develop-your-intuitive-abilities

The Jewish Encyclopedia says that in Hebrew, the words for prophet mean either fore-speaker or seer:

The name "prophet," from the Greek meaning "forespeaker" (πρὸ being used in the original local sense), is an equivalent of the Hebrew

, which signifies properly a delegate or mouthpiece of another (see Ex. vii. 1), from the general Semitic sense of the root, "to declare," "announce." Synonymous to a certain degree was the word "seer" (

), which, as I Sam. ix. 9 indicates, was an earlier designation than "prophet," at least in popular speech. The usage of these words gives the historical starting-point for inquiring as to the development of true prophetism in Israel. But there is an earlier stage still than that of, "seeing," for it may be observed that while Samuel was currently called "the seer," a prominent part of his manifold work was divining.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12389-prophets-and-prophecy

It also explains how Hosea reached his prophetic conclusions about Israel:

Hosea is face to face with the terrible problem of the fate of Israel at the hands of Assyria. To him it was beyond the possibility of doubt that Israel must be not only crushed, but annihilated (ch. v. 11, x. 15, etc.). It was a question of the moral order of Yhwh's world, not merely a question of the relative political or military strength of the two nationalities. To the masses in Israel such a fate was unthinkable, for Yhwh was Israel's God. To Hosea, as well as to Amos, any other fate was unthinkable, and that also because Yhwh was Israel's God. Everything depended upon the view taken of the character of Yhwh; and yet Hosea knew that God cared for His people far more than they in their superstitious credulity thought He did. Indeed, the love of Yhwh for Israel is the burden of his discourse. His own tragic history helped him to understand this relation. He had espoused a wife who became unfaithful to him, and yet he would not let her go forever; he sought to bring her back to her duty and her true home. There was imaged forth the ineradicable love of Yhwh for His people; and between the cries and lamentations of the almost broken-hearted prophet can be heard ever and anon strains of hopeand assurance, and the divine promise of pardon and reconciliation. Thus while prophecy in Northern Israel came to an end with this new and strange lyrical tragedy, the world has learned from the prophet-poet that God's love and care are as sure and lasting as His justice and righteousness.

One could conclude from this that Hosea's belief in the Israelites' resurrection (eg. in Hosea 6) comes from his belief in God's extreme love for Israel.

The Jewish Encyclopedia also explains the views on Philo on how to understand the operation of prophecy:

The first to reflect upon the phenomena of prophecy and to suggest that certain states, either mental or moral, are prerequisite to the reception or exercise of the prophetic gift was Philo of Alexandria. As in many others of his conceptions and constructions, so in his explanation of prophecy, he follows the lead of Plato, accepting his theory concerning mantic enthusiasm ("Phædrus," p. 534, ed. Stephanus). In order that the divine light might rise in man the humanmust first set altogether. Under the complete emigration of the mortal or human spirit and the inpouring of the immortal or divine spirit the Prophets become passive instruments of a higher power, the voluntary action of their own faculties being entirely suspended (Philo, "Quis Rerum Divinarum Hæres Sit," § 53). The prophet "utters nothing of his own": he speaks only what is suggested to him by God, by whom, for the time, he is possessed. Prophecy includes the power of predicting the future; still the prophet's main function is to be the interpreter of God, and to find out, while in the state of ecstasy, enthusiasm, or inspired frenzy in which he falls, things that the reflective faculties are incompetent to discover (Philo, l.c. §§ 52-53; "De Vita Mosis," ii. 1; "Duo de Monarchia," i. 9; "De Justitia," § 8; "Prœmiis et Pœnis," § 9; Drummond, "Philo Judæus," ii. 282; Hamburger, "R. B. T." ii. 1003, s.v. "Religionsphilosophie").

Yet this inspiration is held not to be the effect of a special and arbitrary miracle. Communion between God and man is permanently possible for man. Every truly good and wise man has the gift of prophecy: the wicked alone forfeit the distinction of being God's interpreters. The Biblical writers were filled with this divine enthusiasm, Moses possessing it in a fuller measure than any others, who are not so much original channels of inspired revelation as companions and disciples of Moses.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12389-prophets-and-prophecy

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If Christian saints' predictions could be mistaken, it makes me uncertain how reliable the Biblical ones must be.

Could the bible just be made up stuff and any parallel to reality simply an interesting coincidence.
Alex

 

[Jeeves]

The Jews wrote down their own story as it suited a succession of rulers, each in his own time and circumstances. Like most peoples, they fitted the ravings of holy men - real and fictitious - to the unfolding events, even if it meant having to post-date or pre-date a prophecy, or merge a couple of legends, even if one of them came from a different culture.

The Catholics took all that stuff, plus whatever parchments were found in caves and monasteries scattered about the Roman Empire, picked out the ones they considered relevant, had those translated, more or less accurately, from sundry current and obscure languages, commissioned some chapters, or even books, that suited their propaganda requirements, saw that it was a good book, and put their archbishoply seals on it:
There ya go: The Absolutely, Solemnly Official Version.

 

[Sarkus]

Could the bible just be made up stuff and any parallel to reality simply an interesting coincidence.
Alex

Now that's just being far too reasonable, isn't it.

 

[timojin]

The Jews wrote down their own story as it suited a succession of rulers, each in his own time and circumstances. Like most peoples, they fitted the ravings of holy men - real and fictitious - to the unfolding events, even if it meant having to post-date or pre-date a prophecy, or merge a couple of legends, even if one of them came from a different culture.

The Catholics took all that stuff, plus whatever parchments were found in caves and monasteries scattered about the Roman Empire, picked out the ones they considered relevant, had those translated, more or less accurately, from sundry current and obscure languages, commissioned some chapters, or even books, that suited their propaganda requirements, saw that it was a good book, and put their archbishoply seals on it:
There ya go: The Absolutely, Solemnly Official Version.

Let's ask The burial of Abraham is it in Hebron ? and so Saharan his wife ? and so Jacob ? .
Have we machtched the Assyrian Expansion into Egypt? or the conquering o Cambyses conquering of Egypt , with writing in the bible with those expansions . If you have done the you will give some credence to the to the Prophets , if not, then then you are a part continuity of questioning without of early ignorance.

 

[rakovsky]

Could the bible just be made up stuff and any parallel to reality simply an interesting coincidence.
Alex

The Bible is not just made up stuff, because ancient Israel was a real nation with real kings.
The Azekah inscription of 700 BC by the Assyrians narrates King Sennacherib's attack on the Biblical king Hezekiah of Judah.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azekah_Inscription)

 

[rakovsky]

Now that's just being far too reasonable, isn't it.

Is Sarkus an Armenian name?
Saying the Bible is just made up is not far too reasonable, because some important people and events narrated in the Bible are confirmed by artefacts and non-Jewish writings.
The Nebudchadnezzar Chronicle is an inscription discovered that narrates the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_Chronicle
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_in_biblical_archaeology

 

[rakovsky]

Let's ask The burial of Abraham is it in Hebron ? and so Saharan his wife ? and so Jacob ? .

The answer is apparently "Yes."
The Bible says they were buried in Mahpelah, which is upon/over/above Mamre/Hebron:

Genesis 49:29-30
And he charged them, and said unto them, I am to be gathered unto my people: bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, [30] In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan,

The Hebrew word "al", used in this passage, means above, upon, over: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5921.htm

So the Bible appears to say that the field is in Hebron.

Have we machtched the Assyrian Expansion into Egypt?

Nubian control—and Egypt’s peace—were broken by an Assyrian invasion in ca. 671 B.C. The current pharaoh, Taharqo (ca. 690–664 B.C.), retreated south and the Assyrians established a number of local vassals to rule in their stead in the Delta. One of them, Necho I of Sais (ca. 672–664 B.C.), is recognized as the founder of the separate Dynasty 26. For the next eight years, Egypt was the battleground between Nubia and Assyria. A brutal Assyrian invasion in 663 B.C. finally ended Nubian control of the country.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/lapd/hd_lapd.htm

or the conquering o Cambyses conquering of Egypt ,

It was quite natural that, after Cyrus had conquered the Middle East, Cambyses should undertake the conquest of Egypt, the only remaining independent state in that part of the world. The war took place in 525 BC, when Amasis II had just been succeeded by his son Psamtik III. Cambyses had prepared for the march through the desert by forming an alliance with Arabian chieftains, who brought a large supply of water to the stations. King Amasis had hoped that Egypt would be able to withstand the threatened Persian attack through his alliance with the Greeks.

However, this hope failed, as the Cypriot towns and the tyrant Polycrates of Samos, who possessed a large fleet, now preferred to join the Persians, and the commander of the Greek troops, Phanes of Halicarnassus, also went over to them. In the decisive battle at Pelusium the Egyptian army was defeated, and shortly afterwards Memphis was taken. The captive king Psammetichus was executed, having attempted a rebellion. The Egyptian inscriptions show that Cambyses officially adopted the titles and the dress of the Pharaohs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambyses_II#Conquest_of_Egypt

with writing in the bible with those expansions . If you have done the you will give some credence to the to the Prophets , if not, then then you are a part continuity of questioning without of early ignorance.

I don't understand what the part I put in bold means.
If the Bible did not talk about those conquests, it does not mean there is a contradiction. The Bible was a history of Israel, not particularly of Egypt.

To show a contradiction, you would need to have the Bible saying Assyria "never" attacked Egypt in 1500-300 BC, and then archeology proving that it did.

 

[Jeeves]

rakovsky ---- The Bible is not just made up stuff, because ancient Israel was a real nation with real kings.

A nation's existence does not prevent its kings and priests writing down stuff that isn't true, nor people long afterwards, from writing lies about them.

Let's ask The burial of Abraham is it in Hebron ? and so Saharan his wife ? and so Jacob ?

What, you found people buried in places where people died? Astonishing!
Whom did you ask and how do you know they're the same people as the ones in the stories? You do understand that those are pretty common names, and not only among Hebrews.

Have we machtched the Assyrian Expansion into Egypt? or the conquering o Cambyses conquering of Egypt , with writing in the bible with those expansions . If you have done the you will give some credence to the to the Prophets

Lots of conquering and and expansion happened everywhere; few places more than in that highly contentious area.
What's that got to do with prophets or prophecy? Anyone with any sense can tell you that a spreading empire is likely to engulf the surrounding smaller nations.... Not because they've been naughty in the sight of their little gods, but because it's what empires do.

if not, then then you are a part continuity of questioning without of early ignorance.

I'm not questioning the early ignorance: I'm quite sure of it. Late ignorance, too.
But if you want pretty sound information on the Bible - though not up-to-date on archeology - read Isaac Asimov's Guide. http://www.holybooks.com/asimovs-guide-to-the-bible/[/QUOTE]

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The Bible is not just made up stuff, because ancient Israel was a real nation with real kings. The Azekah inscription of 700 BC by the Assyrians narrates King Sennacherib's attack on the Biblical king Hezekiah of Judah. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azekah_Inscription)

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The Bible is not just made up stuff, because ancient Israel was a real nation with real kings. The Azekah inscription of 700 BC by the Assyrians narrates King Sennacherib's attack on the Biblical king Hezekiah of Judah. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azekah_Inscription)

The Bible is not just made up stuff, because ancient Israel was a real nation with real kings. The Azekah inscription of 700 BC by the Assyrians narrates King Sennacherib's attack on the Biblical king Hezekiah of Judah. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azekah_Inscription)

The Bible is not just made up stuff, because ancient Israel was a real nation with real kings.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I quote but the it does not show up and yet it appears.
I dont know what is wrong but I cant edit.
All I wanted to add was thebible gives a great account of creation.
Who was the witness of creation?
If there was no witness the account must be made up.
A great start... Even the start of the story is made up.
Alex

 

[Jeeves]

Who was the witness of creation?
If there was no witness the account must be made up.
A great start... Even the start of the story is made up.
Alex

It wasn't even the Hebrews' own creation myth. It was cribbed from earlier cultures - two different ones, which explains why the first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other.
What's really funny is that Christian scribes through the centuries have revered the book too much to fix that little slip: "They will eat of the tree of life, also, and become like us."

The most popular stories are repeated, too, in other books, with minor variation, attributed to different characters.
My favourite is about Abram and Sara pulling the badger game on hospitable kings - the second time, the irresistible Sara is about 90 years old.

 

[timojin]

It wasn't even the Hebrews' own creation myth. It was cribbed from earlier cultures - two different ones, which explains why the first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other.
What's really funny is that Christian scribes through the centuries have revered the book too much to fix that little slip: "They will eat of the tree of life, also, and become like us."

Chapter 1 gives you the creation and evolution. You must remember It says God created man and woman and the chapter one finished the creation and the seventh day the rest. The story of Adam starts with a special case, There can be a metaphor or a parable on how sin show itself as in form of disobedience . I speculate that Satan was a human from the evolution chain . and he seduced Eva , and Eva seduced Adam
Then we see sons coming down down the line . The son Cain needed a woman but the woman was from out of the paradise , they had children and life wernt on from a different start to the present and there is were the Jewish calendar 5777 years from Adam to the present . In the bible you can see the names chronology.

 

[Jeeves]

Chapter 1 gives you the creation and evolution. You must remember It says God created man and woman and the chapter one
finished the creation and the seventh day the rest. The story of Adam starts with a special case

Cute! He creates men and women - plural, in the same way as other animals - on Saturday afternoon, and then, next Monday morning, He wakes and says, "I think I'll get me some red clay and make a special little metaphor-man - and then had the afterthought of making the metaphor-wife out of his rib, and sticking these ignorant savages in the same garden where the gods had their most precious fruit trees. Then he doesn't even bother to keep an eye on them!
And we're supposed to take this seriously?

There can be a metaphor or a parable on how sin show itself as in form of disobedience .

Sin had to be invented before it could be shown. You can only disobey if somebody gives orders. If somebody gives orders He knows you can't obey, disobedience is guaranteed: sin, death and perdition are guaranteed. None of these things could have been imagined by two innocent apes who didn't even know they were naked, because they hadn't eaten of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge yet; had no understanding of good and evil.
Original Sin, as a concept, is kind of like sentencing a two-year-old to the electric chair for taking a candy off the coffee table after they'd been told not to - plus all the other babies not yet born. And the people who take this crap most seriously have a strict rule against abortion!

I speculate that Satan was a human from the evolution chain . and he seduced Eva , and Eva seduced Adam

How do you mean 'seduced'? All the regular humans were having sex, multiplying and filling the earth, according to God's instruction. These two hadn't worked it out yet.

Then we see sons coming down down the line . The son Cain needed a woman but the woman was from out of the paradise , they had children and life wernt on from a different start to the present and there is were the Jewish calendar 5777 years from Adam to the present . In the bible you can see the names chronology.

Yes, the Jews wrote themselves up a history, at some point. In fact, they were still nomadic herdsmen, long after the great civilizations of the middle east region (and Asia, that they never heard of) had been established. After sitting out the worst famine period in Egypt (Don't put too much store in their account of how that all went down!) they overpowered another small nation and took its land. Had to fight to keep it; had to fight for any advantage - pretty much all the time. But eventually they settled and became civilized enough to set down in writing their oral traditions, myths, legends, folklore, popular stories and prophecies - and, as you say, lists of names. (Making up that chronology must have been a creative challenge.)

 

[timojin]

Cute! He creates men and women - plural, in the same way as other animals - on Saturday afternoon, and then, next Monday morning, He wakes and says, "I think I'll get me some red clay and make a special little metaphor-man - and then had the afterthought of making the metaphor-wife out of his rib, and sticking these ignorant savages in the same garden where the gods had their most precious fruit trees. Then he doesn't even bother to keep an eye on them!
And we're supposed to take this seriously?

Sin had to be invented before it could be shown. You can only disobey if somebody gives orders. If somebody gives orders He knows you can't obey, disobedience is guaranteed: sin, death and perdition are guaranteed. None of these things could have been imagined by two innocent apes who didn't even know they were naked, because they hadn't eaten of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge yet; had no understanding of good and evil.
Original Sin, as a concept, is kind of like sentencing a two-year-old to the electric chair for taking a candy off the coffee table after they'd been told not to - plus all the other babies not yet born. And the people who take this crap most seriously have a strict rule against abortion!

How do you mean 'seduced'? All the regular humans were having sex, multiplying and filling the earth, according to God's instruction. These two hadn't worked it out yet.

Yes, the Jews wrote themselves up a history, at some point. In fact, they were still nomadic herdsmen, long after the great civilizations of the middle east region (and Asia, that they never heard of) had been established. After sitting out the worst famine period in Egypt (Don't put too much store in their account of how that all went down!) they overpowered another small nation and took its land. Had to fight to keep it; had to fight for any advantage - pretty much all the time. But eventually they settled and became civilized enough to set down in writing their oral traditions, myths, legends, folklore, popular stories and prophecies - and, as you say, lists of names. (Making up that chronology must have been a creative challenge.)

I see your intent is to criticise/ I mentioned on how the Jews based their beginning 577 7 years ago.
Nothing was said about other culture nor any name . Now if you want expand . In a way speaking the first Hebrew was Abraham. There were other cultures names before Hebrews, as some examples Urrait, Hittites,
Sumerians , Akkadians, and many more.

 

[Sarkus]

Is Sarkus an Armenian name?

Not that I'm aware of.

Saying the Bible is just made up is not far too reasonable,...

I didn't say that it is made up only that it's possible.

... because some important people and events narrated in the Bible are confirmed by artefacts and non-Jewish writings.

Suggesting that something is made up, or fiction, is not to claim that every single bit of information within it is made up. "The Da Vinci Code", for example, details quite a bit of history and uses real place names... but it is still fiction.

 

[Jeeves]

I see your intent is to criticise/ I mentioned on how the Jews based their beginning 577 7 years ago.

That time-frame was based on the generations of names in their oral tradition. Only, some of those generations were way longer than any real humans ever live, while others are glossed over because so little is known about them, so the scribes' math it pretty screwy. That's not a criticism: every tribe makes up some screwy math and physics to explain its own origin.
(I am, however, extremely critical of modern people who try to impose those ancient stories on other people who know better.)

Nothing was said about other culture nor any name .

Where? In the Bible? Lots of nearby cultures are mentioned, but not in detail, since the Jews of that time didn't get close to any of the cultural centers. Probably, they got to the market at the edge of Damascus, Hebron, Tyre, Beersheeba, sold some bullocks, bought some fabric and olive oil, then moved on. They knew about Sumer, Egypt and Assyria, but not Greece or Rome, until they were conquered, and certainly not about India or China.

In a way speaking the first Hebrew was Abraham.

If the much-storied Abraham invented a whole language, 1. To whom did he speak it ? 2. Why would he need it? and 3. Why doesn't the bible mention it?

There were other cultures names before Hebrews, as some examples Urrait, Hittites,
Sumerians , Akkadians, and many more.

That's what i said. Some of the peoples in the region were like the Jews, more or less, while some were very far advanced beyond them.
The bible doesn't talk much about them, because it was never meant to be the story of mankind. The early parts were meant to be the story of the Jews - as they liked to tell it, from their own perspective, for their own self-esteem. The collection, and later parts, were meant for European Christians, to give a background and authority to their religion, which the Roman priests were constructing.