M
MysticalMiracle
Guest
For those that believe the Adam and Eve story is a myth and not to be taken in the literal sense; what are your reasons?
- Status
H
HeDa
Guest
The Bible is not a science book but contains a lot of poetry, historical, teaching and narrative stories.
The story with Adam and Eve is all about relationships. Relationships between human beings and human beings and God.
There are lots of postings about Genesis, Adam and Eve, creation that you could search. There have been at least two in the past month as it is a popular subject.
The story with Adam and Eve is all about relationships. Relationships between human beings and human beings and God.
There are lots of postings about Genesis, Adam and Eve, creation that you could search. There have been at least two in the past month as it is a popular subject.
Last edited:
P
PhiriTalk
Guest
The Bible was written by not-God human beings, being inspired by and directed by God in their creation. Jesus says multiple times that stories are devices which carry meaning and are used to ease explanation. Scientists use allegory and metaphors all the time when they are communicating their work to lay people.
Was the universe literally created in seven days? No. The sun didn’t even exist until several days in, so the concept of “days” in the first place did not exist until then. It’s a heuristic used to explain extremely complex ideas to lay audiences and those with incomplete physical data.
Was the universe literally created in seven days? No. The sun didn’t even exist until several days in, so the concept of “days” in the first place did not exist until then. It’s a heuristic used to explain extremely complex ideas to lay audiences and those with incomplete physical data.
A
AlNg
Guest
One reason perhaps is that Genesis says that Adam and Eve heard God walking around in a garden. If God is immovable, how can He be walking around in a garden? If God is walking, as Adam and Eve say, would He not be moving?
J
JohnSadblack
Guest
I don’t know. Fossils maybe ? And the multiple versions of “Homo” (Erectus, Habilis, Neanderthalensis, Florensis…)
I like to think Genesis like this: Before the Forbidden Fruit, Adam and Eve represent mankind as it was “before”: Animals with little intelligence. And Adam and Eve eating the Forbidden Fruit represent how mankind started to be “more” than animals by gaining conscience and free will. But, by becoming intelligent, humans began to have more problems and feel pain because of their own awereness. It’s the representation of the Fall.
As people said before me, the Bible isn’t a book of science where you’ll find the answer to “How was created the Universe” or “How started life on Earth”.
Science is “How ?”, religion is “Why ?”. One doesn’t prevent the other.
I like to think Genesis like this: Before the Forbidden Fruit, Adam and Eve represent mankind as it was “before”: Animals with little intelligence. And Adam and Eve eating the Forbidden Fruit represent how mankind started to be “more” than animals by gaining conscience and free will. But, by becoming intelligent, humans began to have more problems and feel pain because of their own awereness. It’s the representation of the Fall.
As people said before me, the Bible isn’t a book of science where you’ll find the answer to “How was created the Universe” or “How started life on Earth”.
Science is “How ?”, religion is “Why ?”. One doesn’t prevent the other.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
those are two different things…its possible than Adam and Eve were the first humans (not a myth) and yet their story isn’t literally the same as what is told in Bible
M
MysticalMiracle
Guest
The light that was created first with the rotating earth is enough for me to be convinced that the concept of “day” did exist then.
P
PhiriTalk
Guest
Your personal interpretation of Genesis does not overrule the indisputable scientific fact that the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old and that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. We don’t tell God what to think, he just does.
Light, as in photons, most certainly existed before the Earth was formed.
Genesis is allegory.
Light, as in photons, most certainly existed before the Earth was formed.
Genesis is allegory.
M
MysticalMiracle
Guest
I would not call it a fact. It’s rather an assumption that has yet to be proven. Hence the reason why the Big Bang is called a theory
R
rossum
Guest
Gravity is also a theory, as in the “Theory of Gravity”. Science uses the word “theory” in a different sense to non-scientific English.
Science uses “hypothesis” for the common meaning of “theory”; a scientific theory is very well established with a mass of supporting evidence. A scientific theory is not an assumption.
N
niceatheist
Guest
If you have some other explanation for red shift of distant galaxies, nucleosynthesis (the amount of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the observable universe) and th CMBR then provide it. That the universe was once extremely hot and dense and began to expand has not been controversial for over half a century, and indeed was inherent in General Relativity (though initially Einstein wasn’t happy with that implicitation and inserted the Cosmological Constant to get rid of the expansion ).
P
PhiriTalk
Guest
Scientific theories are facts. I think you’re confusing theories with hypotheses.
The Big Bang is a well established scientific theory, albeit an incomplete one as are all other scientific theories. It’s not a theory of everything, just of one particular aspect of everything.
Last edited:
M
MysticalMiracle
Guest
Gravity is not a theory. It is a phenomenon. The term gravity is only used to refer to the phenomenon of objects falling to the ground. Although gravity is not a theory itself, there are theories that describe that phenomenon.
Prior to the Big Bang Theory, there have been several models including the Steady State Model. The model states that the universe is continuously expanding but remains to be uniform. The universe always appears the same; never changes. Naturally, that model had to have supporting evidence. The Steady State Model had been regarded as "fact" instead of an assumption until it was ultimately rejected by our current model. Primary due to the discovery of CMB, low level radiation. Theories change all the time. Yesterday, scientists discovered a couple of galaxies with no dark matter present. I thought dark matter makes it possible for galaxies to exist. What does that say about our Dark Matter Theory?
Stars that consists of hydrogen, helium, and lithium known as Population III stars should be remaining from the beginning stages of the Big Bang; they are nowhere to be found.
Prior to the Big Bang Theory, there have been several models including the Steady State Model. The model states that the universe is continuously expanding but remains to be uniform. The universe always appears the same; never changes. Naturally, that model had to have supporting evidence. The Steady State Model had been regarded as "fact" instead of an assumption until it was ultimately rejected by our current model. Primary due to the discovery of CMB, low level radiation. Theories change all the time. Yesterday, scientists discovered a couple of galaxies with no dark matter present. I thought dark matter makes it possible for galaxies to exist. What does that say about our Dark Matter Theory?
Stars that consists of hydrogen, helium, and lithium known as Population III stars should be remaining from the beginning stages of the Big Bang; they are nowhere to be found.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Google “Theory of Universal Gravitation” - that is what is meant by saying that gravity is a theory. “Just a theory” doesn’t mean it doesn’t have solid evidence behind it.
M
MysticalMiracle
Guest
There are theories that describe the phenomenon. What do you think the "Universal Theory of Gravitation" does? Much like the BB, it may describe the how, but it will not explain the why.
T
tafan2
Guest
I do not accept it as a myth, and I do not accept it in a literal sense.
I have absolutely no problem in accepting the universe is billions of years old, and that Adam and Eve existed.
There is no conflict between faith and reason.
I have absolutely no problem in accepting the universe is billions of years old, and that Adam and Eve existed.
There is no conflict between faith and reason.
M
MysticalMiracle
Guest
As Christians, we believe God will come to judge us. However, the same Big Bang Theory suggest that the universe will likely run out of usable energy and enter into some frozen state. The end of the universe as we know it. If you can help me understand how it would not be incongruous to believe in both; that would be great.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Why is the hypothesized heat death of the Universe incompatible with Christianity? One presumes, if we follow Revelations, that the Universe’s heat death will happen billions, if not trillions of years after Judgment Day.
But the Heat Death is only one possibility. There are other ideas; like the Big Rip. Still not terribly friendly to any life in the Universe, but the ultimate fate of the universe is still unknown.
T
tafan2
Guest
There are multiple scientific hypothesis about the fate of the universe.
But how any of these contradict the second coming is beyond me.
But how any of these contradict the second coming is beyond me.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Where did I say that it even tried to explain why? My statement was in response to your statement that gravity is not a theory, which you did not address.
- Status