Adam and Eve : Real people or allegorical myth?

[Hunter24]

Your “did” and “didn’t” is based on YOU saying so. There is really no reason to discount OT miracles.One could then reject the miracles of Jesus which is the whole fabric of Christianity. It’s not a matter of “couldn’t” , it a matter of what God said, and he said He DID do it in the manner described.

Did god himself pick up a pen and write the bible? No. Nor did he poses and work directly through the writers. The Christian idea is that he “inspired them”. This menas that god put the correct idea of what he wanted written in the writers head. But remember that these people were ancient Jews and so to make the stories more understandable and memorable. Do you beleave every parable Jesus ever said actualy happened? After all he said they did! But no, If god is a rational being and you are in his image then your are a rational being, in which case you should be able to tell when someone is just telling a story to illustrate a point.

If you take every statement of the bible literaly then we live under I giant dome that holds back an endless sea. Sorry to burst your bubble but alot of people have gone up there and, sorry, there is no dome, just space. When that was written the writer was illistrating that god created the cosmos, but he had no consent of space, so he described it as a sea (because water is blue) being held back by a dome (because of the apparent shape of the sky).

This doesn’t mean the bible is wrong, it just means that every single word isn’t to be take literaly. It means that you actualy have to do some thinking and extract the meaning yourself.

 

[Hunter24]

It is based on what we can see of the world God created, and the idea that God is not deceptive. We can see from the scientific evidence we have that God did not create the universe last Tuesday. The evidence shows us that the universe is a lot more than a week old. We do not consider that God is actually Loki/Trickster, and is falsifying the evidence. The evidence God provides is considered reliable.

Assuming the reliability of the evidence, than the Young Earth interpretation of Genesis is just as wrong as Last Tuesdayism. Could God have created the universe last Tuesday? Yes He could. Did God create the world last Tuesday? No He didn’t, and the evidence He provides shows that He didn’t.

It is also a matter of the correct interpretation of what God said. Genesis 1:6-8 talks about a waterproof firmament in the sky. Do you think we are to interpret that literally? We have ample evidence that such a literal interpretation of those verses of Genesis are incorrect.

Science tells us that we are all descended from one couple. Science also tells us that that one couple were not the only members of Homo sapiens alive at the time. Hence, an interpretation of Genesis which says we are all descended from one pair of humans is supported by the evidence and by science. An interpretation which says that those two were the only two Homo sapiens alive at the time is incorrect. An interpretation which says that they were the only two Homo sapiens with souls is allowed by science, though not evidenced. Souls do not fossilise, and nobody has yet linked a soul to a specific DNA sequence.

rossum

Very well put.

 

[johnnyjones]

But he didn’t (or most likely didn’t) create the world in seven days and no true scientist believes that it was so at least that part is not something only based on what Hunter24 says.

What do you mean “true scientist?” One that hasn’t swallowed the preservation of evolution for fear of academic rejection?

 

[johnnyjones]

Did god himself pick up a pen and write the bible? No. Nor did he poses and work directly through the writers. The Christian idea is that he “inspired them”. This menas that god put the correct idea of what he wanted written in the writers head. But remember that these people were ancient Jews and so to make the stories more understandable and memorable. Do you beleave every parable Jesus ever said actualy happened? After all he said they did! But no, If god is a rational being and you are in his image then your are a rational being, in which case you should be able to tell when someone is just telling a story to illustrate a point.

If you take every statement of the bible literaly then we live under I giant dome that holds back an endless sea. Sorry to burst your bubble but alot of people have gone up there and, sorry, there is no dome, just space. When that was written the writer was illistrating that god created the cosmos, but he had no consent of space, so he described it as a sea (because water is blue) being held back by a dome (because of the apparent shape of the sky).
I discussed this parable issue with you once before. No, every parable is just that , a parable, which is a story to explain a concept or idea. The OT is not referred to as parables.
This doesn’t mean the bible is wrong, it just means that every single word isn’t to be take literaly. It means that you actualy have to do some thinking and extract the meaning yourself.

I discussed this parable issue with you once before. No, every parable is just that , a parable, which is a story in the NT by Jesus to explain a concept or idea. The OT is not referred to as parable.

 

[Deconi]

If the human race began with only Adam and Eve, where did their sons find wives? From what I’ve herd every human being can be traced back to one of seven prehistoric family’s or clans. I’m not christian, but you have to realize here that some of the things the bible says are disproved by modern science. This dosn’t mean you religion is false or wrong, just that a litteral interpretation of the bible is in some places wrong. Some of the stories in the bible are even just Jewish adaptations of other myths (namely Noah’s ark, which is an adaptation of a Babylonian myth) like Jesus’s parables, they are not ment to have ever detail take as literaly having happened, but are there to illustrate a point. The point of the creation story is that god was responsible for the creation of the universe and the human race, you are getting caught up on the unimportant details of how they were created and how many. These arent important, they are just filler to make it a story.

Ancient Jews beleaved god created the earth but new nothing of evolution or of astrophysics. If the story were written today and not 2500 years ago the writer would likely have detailed god subtly guiding the big bang, formation of the cosmos, and evolution of life up until man at which point man reached a level of intelligence where he rejected god.

Again I’m not Christian but that would be the realistic way of looking at it from a Christian point of view.

You’re not ignorant of how babies are made that you cannot answer your first query yourself.

There’s an Island here in the Pacific where a sailor from an English galleon was marooned for smuggling his Island woman aboard. As punishment, he was marooned with the Island woman he’d smuggled aboard on a desolate island without inhabitants or resources. About a century later, the island was ‘re-discovered’ and the now dead sailor was found to have been quite resourceful in populating the said island with over a hundred inhabitants. Although their facial appearance made it obvious they are related, they also had the same surname; that of the sailor! His namesake ‘flourishes’ still with those bearing his lineage and name now fully assimilated into the rest of world populace.

My point is that Adam and Eve can easily populate their region of the world in similar manner. Considering Adam lived to be about a thousand years, it isn’t too complicated.

Now you can attack the incestuousity necessary to make it a reality!

 

[Deconi]

Did god himself pick up a pen and write the bible? No. Nor did he poses and work directly through the writers. The Christian idea is that he “inspired them”. This menas that god put the correct idea of what he wanted written in the writers head. But remember that these people were ancient Jews and so to make the stories more understandable and memorable. Do you beleave every parable Jesus ever said actualy happened? After all he said they did! But no, If god is a rational being and you are in his image then your are a rational being, in which case you should be able to tell when someone is just telling a story to illustrate a point.

If you take every statement of the bible literaly then we live under I giant dome that holds back an endless sea. Sorry to burst your bubble but alot of people have gone up there and, sorry, there is no dome, just space. When that was written the writer was illistrating that god created the cosmos, but he had no consent of space, so he described it as a sea (because water is blue) being held back by a dome (because of the apparent shape of the sky).

This doesn’t mean the bible is wrong, it just means that every single word isn’t to be take literaly. It means that you actualy have to do some thinking and extract the meaning yourself.

In regards the authorship of Scriptures, it has been said and decided that God is The Author of Scriptures! In case you ask who decided that, it is an INFALLIBLE dogma of Catholicism. What that means is that He inspired ‘them’ to write what He wanted and ONLY those matters that He wanted written!

It is why Scriptures is accepted as being inerrant! The ‘human’ factor you point to is applicable to the copyists and interpreters of Holy Writ into other languages, but it is minute and NOT sweeping as to the accounts being erroneous!

Thus far, NOTHING in Scriptures has been proven incorrect! That’s, NOTHING in Scriptures is in error or proven erroneous!

Rossum, is correct about there being a difference between Scriptures and the INTERPRETATION of Scriptures, but he is not entirely correct in his INTERPRETATION of the evidence, or more accurately, the interpretations that he chooses to follow!!

As for the waterproof firmament, it’s notonly to keep out, but to keep the water IN! There is a ‘dome’ around the Earth since it is spherical, and no water can escape into space, per se! Also the waters above the firmament cannot enter this Earth since it ‘burns’ upon encountering that ‘waterproof firmament dome.’

Just because we can explain things scientifically, doesn’t mean they aren’t miraculous, nor that scientists invented or created these things to operate in the fashion they do!!

…and NO I am not picking on you. Simply poiting to some of the glaring errors in your view, for you to discuss or discard, as you wish.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was watching this special on TV called “Human Journey” which tracks how humanity eventually came to inhabit every corner of the world. DNA evidence has pointed that we all came from a single mother from Africa. So for those who wants evidence, there’s your evidence right there.

Another interesting fact from that show is that there is only one family of humans that migrated out of Africa and inhabited the world. In the Bible there are two points when one family eventually became the ancestors of everyone in the world. Noah and Abraham.

 

[vera_dicere]

In this day and age of modern science, despite some flaws, it really is a silly, and dangerous thing indeed to teach that Adam and Eve actually existed as some guy called Adam who God pulled literally out of the dirt.

I accept the theory of evolution is the most probable way God created humanity. “Adam and Eve” I see as the first two people who had awareness of God and an immortal soul as a result yet turned from him in some way known only to them and God. No apple. No magical tree. No fancy garden with Lions hanging out with lambs.

Kinda like those old bones they dig out of the ground in Africa and they give names to like “Steve” and “rose” or whatever, they weren’t really their names!

The whole world being 6000 years old is just absolute nonsense. God gave us brains. Society has evolved science to give us incredible insight into the workings of our reality. 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago, people were kicking about in the desert with their goats and their no pork rule - you think those barely literate people would understand the inner workings of evolution? Adam and Eve is an age appropriate creation story.

We really need to claim evolution as a Christian concept to pull in athiests. I have an atheist friend, former Catholic, who can’t get over teh Adam and Eve thing, another Protestant friend who beleives the bible is 100% literal and thinks my athiest friend and myself are going to burn in Hell for accepting evolution. My atheist friend was very surprised to learn I accept evolution - i explained it in a Christian context with the Bibical example as a story, and she sort of started to see my perspective.

That fella, Penn, he wrote the best way to make an atheist, get them to read the Bible. That’s very true - if you don’t give them the knoweldge and the context and the ability to place Bibical expression in modern context.

I think we’d save a lot of souls if we just start saying outright, more loudly, that Adam and Ever are just the names we give the first people to be aware of God or whatever, not created as stated in the Bible.

 

[rossum]

What do you mean “true scientist?” One that hasn’t swallowed the preservation of evolution for fear of academic rejection?

A “true scientist” is one who believes that God is not deceptive, and that the evidence we see in the world that He made is reliable. That evidence reliably tells us that the Earth, and the universe are both billions of years old. Hence, the young earth interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.

Someone who accept a Loki/Trickster god cannot make that assumption, since they cannot rely on the evidence they see in the world as being true – Loki might have tampered with the evidence.

rossum

 

[Andromedus]

What do you mean “true scientist?” One that hasn’t swallowed the preservation of evolution for fear of academic rejection?

A true scientist is someone who does what scientists are supposed to do, science. The creation story in Genesis is a mythological account of the truth that God created the world, it is not however science. Nothing indicates that the world was created during a time of seven days and there is no scientific reason to believe that the world is 6000 years old, you can of course still believe that if that is what you want.

 

[oyaji]

Modern science has proven some interpretations of the Bible wrong.

Examples?

 

[Deconi]

A “true scientist” is one who believes that God is not deceptive, and that the evidence we see in the world that He made is reliable. That evidence reliably tells us that the Earth, and the universe are both billions of years old. Hence, the young earth interpretation of Genesis is incorrect.

Someone who accept a Loki/Trickster god cannot make that assumption, since they cannot rely on the evidence they see in the world as being true – Loki might have tampered with the evidence.

rossum

A ‘true scientist’ neither REQUIRES a belief in God nor posits any position regarding the things Divine! S/he is to follow evidence of observation and experimentation of the observable data. As such, s/he would ‘suffer’ the limitations of the scientific method, of stepping stones, by stepping stone!

Were it up to scientists to advance the human experience we’d probably still be in the dark ages trying to understand combustion and what to do with it!

All civilisations before Christ are testament to it! The greatness of Egyptian technology; the mystical appearance of the Orient sciences and their technology; The Greeks, Romans, The Incas / Mayan technologies, etc. Some of these great civilisations did things that still puzzles our most brilliant scientists and historians, who in their modernist arrogance think those in the past could not possible have the brains to have figured out mathmetical equations to complete them!

Scientifically speaking, Christ’s arrival changed everything!

 

[johnnyjones]

A true scientist is someone who does what scientists are supposed to do, science. The creation story in Genesis is a mythological account of the truth that God created the world, it is not however science. Nothing indicates that the world was created during a time of seven days and there is no scientific reason to believe that the world is 6000 years old, you can of course still believe that if that is what you want.

Genesis does not have to be science, who said that? Your in disagreement with the church . The church does not define Genesis as being “mythological”.

The NT continually refers to the creation account even using Abels blood in comparison with Jesus Christs. Are you applying a “mythological” blood to this comparison of Jesus’ real blood? Scripture doesn’t.

 

[Andromedus]

Genesis does not have to be science, who said that?

I think most people does.

Your in disagreement with the church . The church does not define Genesis as being “mythological”.

Does the Church define Genesis like ‘‘everything literally happened’’? She don’t. Catholics are free to believe in evolution if they want to.

The NT continually refers to the creation account even using Abels blood in comparison with Jesus Christs. Are you applying a “mythological” blood to this comparison of Jesus’ real blood? Scripture doesn’t.

Could be ‘‘mythological blood’’, yes, but I don’t think that much about the 2 times they mention Abel in the Epistle to the Hebrews to be honest.

 

[johnnyjones]

I think most people does.

Does the Church define Genesis like ‘‘everything literally happened’’? She don’t. Catholics are free to believe in evolution if they want to.

Could be ‘‘mythological blood’’, yes, but I don’t think that much about the 2 times they mention Abel in the Epistle to the Hebrews to be honest.

Genesis doesn’t have to be science, although it has elements of science, Gods word is sufficient.

The church supports the creation account, do your homework. Catholic are free to believe in THEISTIC evolution, not evolution. Using your logic, the church also gives me freedom to believe in a literal creation, so whats your point?

Your last point is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long time. Since when is how many times something is mentioned in scripture a guide to whether it has merit? Do you think much about the ONE TIME the NT says "the word was God? Abel is real, Jesus is real, Genesis is real. Very simple.

 

[1voice]

In this day and age of modern science, despite some flaws, it really is a silly, and dangerous thing indeed to teach that Adam and Eve actually existed as some guy called Adam who God pulled literally out of the dirt.

I accept the theory of evolution is the most probable way God created humanity. “Adam and Eve” I see as the first two people who had awareness of God and an immortal soul as a result yet turned from him in some way known only to them and God. No apple. No magical tree. No fancy garden with Lions hanging out with lambs.

Kinda like those old bones they dig out of the ground in Africa and they give names to like “Steve” and “rose” or whatever, they weren’t really their names!

The whole world being 6000 years old is just absolute nonsense. God gave us brains. Society has evolved science to give us incredible insight into the workings of our reality. 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago, people were kicking about in the desert with their goats and their no pork rule - you think those barely literate people would understand the inner workings of evolution? Adam and Eve is an age appropriate creation story.

We really need to claim evolution as a Christian concept to pull in athiests. I have an atheist friend, former Catholic, who can’t get over teh Adam and Eve thing, another Protestant friend who beleives the bible is 100% literal and thinks my athiest friend and myself are going to burn in Hell for accepting evolution. My atheist friend was very surprised to learn I accept evolution - i explained it in a Christian context with the Bibical example as a story, and she sort of started to see my perspective.

That fella, Penn, he wrote the best way to make an atheist, get them to read the Bible. That’s very true - if you don’t give them the knoweldge and the context and the ability to place Bibical expression in modern context.

I think we’d save a lot of souls if we just start saying outright, more loudly, that Adam and Ever are just the names we give the first people to be aware of God or whatever, not created as stated in the Bible.

There is absolutely no physical proof of the evolution of man from a lower form of life.

Evolutionists cant agree among themselves … their various theories are completely incompatible … one with another.
Additionally…
The theory of evolution of human beings is completely incompatible with the Bible.
Jesus genealogy is either true or false… If false then the entire history of the Bible is inaccurate.

 

[rossum]

Examples?

1. That there is an actual waterproof layer in the heavens (Genesis 1:6-8).
2. That the universe was created 6,000 years ago (Bishop Ussher and others).
3. That the universe took 144 hours to create (Genesis 1).
4. That there was a worldwide flood in the last 6,000 years (Genesis 6-8).
5. That all land tetrapods are descended from a single pair of their ‘kind’ after the flood.

That is enough to be getting on with. The overly literal YEC interpretation of Genesis is shown to be incorrect by the evidence in the world God created.

rossum

 

[Andromedus]

Genesis doesn’t have to be science, although it has elements of science, Gods word is sufficient.

Did I perhaps misunderstand you before when you said ‘‘Genesis does not have to be science, who said that?’’ because I thought you meant that the book of Genesis is scientific and that you wondered who questioned that statement?

The church supports the creation account, do your homework. Catholic are free to believe in THEISTIC evolution, not evolution. Using your logic, the church also gives me freedom to believe in a literal creation, so whats your point?

I think it depends on what you mean with ‘‘supports’’, we don’t have to believe in a literal interpretation if that is what you mean. If you mean that it is divinely inspired and sacred scripture, then yes that is true and I would never say anything else.

Theistic evolution is still evolution, I don’t call gravitation theistic gravitation even though I believe God is the creator of gravitation. I would probably only say ‘‘theistic evolution’’ when I for some reason tries to distinguish myself from atheists or creationists or perhaps if I try to explain to someone that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution at the same time. Yes, you can believe in a literal interpretation of the first chapters in Genesis if you want to but I think it is the wrong interpretation since I believe in evolution. Yes, there is an invisible ‘‘theistic’’ there I just don’t see why I need to point it out every time.

Your last point is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long time. Since when is how many times something is mentioned in scripture a guide to whether it has merit? Do you think much about the ONE TIME the NT says "the word was God? Abel is real, Jesus is real, Genesis is real. Very simple.

I don’t know if Abel was real, Jesus was real and Genesis is a book I have seen and therefore I know it is real, although you perhaps meant the creation story and not the existence of the book? The importance is of course not only based on how many times it is mentioned but the difference between the two times Abel is mentioned in Hebrews and ‘‘the word was God’’ is that the later is, from a doctrinal point of view, perhaps one of the most important things the bible says. Abel is only mentioned as an example of faith the first time and the second time an illustration to show how important Christ is. To me Abel’s existence is irrelevant to what the author is trying to say.

 

[johnnyjones]

Did I perhaps misunderstand you before when you said ‘‘Genesis does not have to be science, who said that?’’ because I thought you meant that the book of Genesis is scientific and that you wondered who questioned that statement?

I think it depends on what you mean with ‘‘supports’’, we don’t have to believe in a literal interpretation if that is what you mean. If you mean that it is divinely inspired and sacred scripture, then yes that is true and I would never say anything else.

Theistic evolution is still evolution, I don’t call gravitation theistic gravitation even though I believe God is the creator of gravitation. I would probably only say ‘‘theistic evolution’’ when I for some reason tries to distinguish myself from atheists or creationists or perhaps if I try to explain to someone that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution at the same time. Yes, you can believe in a literal interpretation of the first chapters in Genesis if you want to but I think it is the wrong interpretation since I believe in evolution. Yes, there is an invisible ‘‘theistic’’ there I just don’t see why I need to point it out every time.

I don’t know if Abel was real, Jesus was real and Genesis is a book I have seen and therefore I know it is real, although you perhaps meant the creation story and not the existence of the book? The importance is of course not only based on how many times it is mentioned but the difference between the two times Abel is mentioned in Hebrews and ‘‘the word was God’’ is that the later is, from a doctrinal point of view, perhaps one of the most important things the bible says. Abel is only mentioned as an example of faith the first time and the second time an illustration to show how important Christ is. To me Abel’s existence is irrelevant to what the author is trying to say.

No misunderstanding, Genesis does not have to be science. Does the resurrection have to be science?

Your not making sense. The church frees me up to believe in creation if I want, why would you wan to dispute that? Why except the miracles of the Nt but not the miracles of the OT?

Your wrong about Hebrews12 :24 . The real blood of Jesus saves. Do you think a comparison with real blood is being made with mythological blood. You wouldn’t say the blood of Jesus is better than something that NEVER existed. In addition Abel is mentioned with Zechariah who was real from Chronicles (Matt23:35) Is Zechariah false too?

 

[1voice]

usstore.creation.com/catalog/noahrsquos-feasibility-study-p-996.html?osCsid=qetp1gs2svbg2hu2fk0olcavf7

1. That all land tetrapods are descended from a single pair of their ‘kind’ after the flood.

rossum

You are misquoting and or misunderstanding what was recorded.

---

Genesis 7:2–3:
‘Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.’

Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus name. But this is arbitrary, so the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods, which were the largest dinosaurs—the group of huge plant-eaters like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. There are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but only 12 are ‘firmly established’ and another 12 are considered ‘fairly well established’.

God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).

One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic mating, so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the ‘kind’ with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.

The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc.

Source:
Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study

Article

creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark