Mostly the Romans, firstly under old Julius himself. Romans hit it twice, perhaps not intending to burn books, sure.
The Caliph did finish off what little was left by that time.
The offspring of those had 47. The two unmerged chromosomes pair up with the merged one. This is not anything unusual, it happens from time to time. Doesn’t always, or even usually, cause a speciation.
The thing is, there are always lots more than one difference between the genomes of two closely related species. There’s no way to point to any one thing in those genomes that made the individuals be one or the other. So it’s impossible to say that some specific individual is the first of a new species.
As far as historical parts of the Old Testament, the two books of Maccabees are mostly historical. Ignoring the occasional miracle, that is. Of course, the Protestants tossed those books, but Jews and Catholics still think they’re important.
My point was that even if God had made other people, these other people would have remained in the Garden while Adam, Eve and all descendants through Noah were locked out.
~Max
No, actually, Maccabees isn’t part of the Jewish Bible, either.
Didn’t say it was. I said Jews think it’s important. At least I haven’t heard of them throwing out their menorahs. Those books are in the Catholic Bible. The Jews have their own organization of the texts that are important to them and they’re not all in a single book.
Unless God made them outside of the garden to start with.
Well, obviously the events described in the Book of Maccabees are important to Jews, but not the actual book itself. We don’t really have any particular canonical text describing the events of Hanukkah.
It’s sort of an odd case; Hanukkah began as a popular celebration of the Maccabee victory, but the Rabbis who compiled the Talmud and redacted the Hebrew Bible a couple hundred years later tried their best to downplay it. This is because in their day, the Roman Empire was even more powerful than it had been in the time of the Maccabees, and they really didn’t want to encourage the notion that Jews could engage in suicidally hopeless revolts and trust God to help them out.
I don’t doubt that some people in the OT may have existed.
Queen Victoria is mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes stories but they remain fictional.
Wot!!! Do you mean to suggest, sir, that Conan Doyle (both great, btw) didn’t invent London?
Archaeologists have not found evidenced of Sherlock Holmes on digs. 
Are you really trying to claim all the Kings in the OT are fictional?
As expulsion from the garden was divine punishment, it wouldn’t make sense to subject newly created people to the same punishment.
~Max
That’s not the point at all.
If a work of fiction, myth or legend happens to mention a person or place that was possibly a real historical figure or location, that adds no credence to the fictional story itself.
People uncovering the ruins of New York in 5000 years time would not be warranted in treating a Spider Man comic as historically accurate.
Why would it necessarily be punishment to just be living in the world like every other creature presumably was?
They may, of course, have been happily naked, not ashamed of ther bodies, and not known they were going to die. In which case, I guess their descendents got punished by their ancestors having mated with people who were otherwise; but that’s the whole point of the original sin concept, isn’t it?
I don’t think anybody in this thread has claimed that it does; only that there is some actual history in the Bible.
Bear in mind that it wasn’t originally one of millions of other books including many books specifically about history. It was for a lot of people The Book, and was trying to fit everything in: history and law and teaching stories and poetry and joy and lamentations, all rolled into one work, because you didn’t just trot down to the library and have easy access to lots and lots of others. Everything had to be written out by hand, and books for most people were rare and expensive if available at all.
So, there are a lot of legends about Geo Washington - is he mythical?
The Bible is a work of many things- myth, legend, history, poetry, prose, and religious instruction. You can’t just look at the Mythical parts and write the whole thing off as fiction. If so, all ancient writings are fiction.
Yep.
I’m terms of the OP, it’s not wrong per se, but it’s worth being aware that if you are allowed to add on ad hoc suppositions you can defend any explanation about anything.
So, in terms of scientific descriptions, explanatory and predictive power are the key things.
And in terms of stories what matters is how well a straightforward reading holds up. Especially when the words are claimed to be the divine word of god. He should know that that part of the story wouldn’t make sense without mentioning the fine poon tang he also magicked up.
(However, Cain & Abel: Holy Reverse Gangbang is finally a Christian movie I would be willing to watch)
The historical milieu of the time the Bible was being written/edited together is reasonably accurate. That of a few centuries before, not so much.
And some of the myths about Washington were created only a year after his death. You need to examine the motives of the writers also.
I would consider the historical reliability of the later Biblical books to be comparable to Herodotus or Shakespeare; generally fairly accurate on the level of “who was the king at X time” and “who won Y war”, but more specific details can’t be at all relied upon.
My post was in response to the claim that the OT gets “historical” and the support given for that was that some of the people in the OT actually existed.
I don’t think that is particularly valid for the reasons I’ve given above.
You have the reasoning completely backwards.
George Washington was a very well attested and referenced person from history. There is little doubt that he existed. That fact does not mean that all writings or oral records that mention him are in any way true.
Yes, within the limits of how people wrote history back then. Before then, it is myth and legend.
Genesis is pretty much 100% myth. We can stretch a point, and say that the Flood was likely based upon a number of huge floods that more or less flooded their known world. You can call that “Legend” then.