Adam And Eve, Noah And The Origion Of Man

[Redzeppelin]

It is not a non-believer thing. The bible here in my house, sponsored by the catholic church states it is a allegorical myth.

Catholics do not speak for all Christians. I personally think that Popes present and prior have given away too much valuable ground by trying to argue rationality with the Naturalists.

I do not mind what C.S.Lewis said; A Myth is by definition the history of formation of a nation - The Genenis is exactly like this. There is considerable more humanity in Oedipus than in Abraham, Adam, Eve - Anyone would consider that the bible have texts that can be classificated as a myth.

Lewis also said that the incarnation of Christ was where myth became real; in other words, just because different mythologies exist doesn't mean that none of them can be true. Lewis posited that mythologies and pagan religions that echo Christianity and Judaic monotheism were actually imitations/reflections of the one true God; that pre-Christian pagan religions anticipated the incarnation of Christ - not that Christianity "borrowed" from them. As such, the point I'm trying to make (rather badly) is that the fact that the Biblical narrative resembles mythological narratives doesn't necessarily mean that it is one too - it could also mean that other mythological narratives are reflections of the one true story of creation and God.

And the reason of why the story is a myth is not even because they are contraditory - any kid know that there is no vegetation without sunlight, so first story can not be true. And the second story just leave man without food and since we know female and male are equal, with a bit of problem there.

All celestial bodies are dim reflections/imitations of the true source of light that is provided by the presence of God Himself; His presence IS the embodiment of life force - the sun need not exist when the light of God is present to nourish vegetation. Your final sentence needs to be developed a bit more so that we can understand exactly what your two final points are.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Catholics do not speak for all Christians. I personally think that Popes present and prior have given away too much valuable ground by trying to argue rationality with the Naturalists.



Lewis also said that the incarnation of Christ was where myth became real; in other words, just because different mythologies exist doesn't mean that none of them can be true. Lewis posited that mythologies and pagan religions that echo Christianity and Judaic monotheism were actually imitations/reflections of the one true God; that pre-Christian pagan religions anticipated the incarnation of Christ - not that Christianity "borrowed" from them. As such, the point I'm trying to make (rather badly) is that the fact that the Biblical narrative resembles mythological narratives doesn't necessarily mean that it is one too - it could also mean that other mythological narratives are reflections of the one true story of creation and God.



All celestial bodies are dim reflections/imitations of the true source of light that is provided by the presence of God Himself; His presence IS the embodiment of life force - the sun need not exist when the light of God is present to nourish vegetation. Your final sentence needs to be developed a bit more so that we can understand exactly what your two final points are.

You believe, which finally is all that can or need be said. Your CS Lewis quote says more - and different - I think than how you take it. We ALL see by the light of the sun. But to see by the 'light' of Christianity is to see only in a particular way and to exclude everything that is beyond the scope of that illumination.

[NikolaiI]

I think the creation story of the bible is a story written by people to explain the existence of the earth and universe. It is similar to Native American creation stories, among others, however, I don't think it was inspired by God. To interpret Genesis literally is like using the bible as a science textbook, which degrades its value for what it is.

Other stories in the old testament might be factual, but I think the ones in which God acts and talks with Man are fable. First there was the universe and stars, then later came the Earth from stardust, came nature and Man. Religion is a thing that we created.

What PrinceMyshkin says about Christianity is true; if we are judging it for truth, then we are judging it for truth. Truth is a concept we measure Christianity by, we don't measure truth by how much Christianity it has in it. If we do it the other way around, then we have conflicts and contradictions.

And about the bible and whether stories are fact or fable, there are some that believe the past is not fixed, any more than the future is. But about the OP, I think Adam and Eve are fable.

Why is there even this thread? The one below it covers allll of the exact same points, ideas, and everything else, and goes on for pages.....

[kiobe]

Why is there even this thread? The one below it covers allll of the exact same points, ideas, and everything else, and goes on for pages.....

Well, this is not supposed to be about evolution, which is the title of the other thread. This, hopefully will be about the origion of man, not the evolution of mankind.

Anthropolgists have shown that after the initial increase in the population of the world that at one point in time there was a devistating decrease in the population and estimates are at about 2,000 people. Is there a correlation between the real decrease in population and the flood story in the bible?

[NikolaiI]

Well, this is not supposed to be about evolution, which is the title of the other thread. This, hopefully will be about the origion of man, not the evolution of mankind.

Ah, you could be correct. Also, I only read the first page of that thread (was in 2004?). Another thing is how alternate topics pop up, and we want to talk about them, like how I spilled water and orange juice on the keyboard yesterday, and took it apart and cleaned it and let it dry outside.

{edit} One of my favourite poems is Hertha, by A.C. Swinburne, forty stanzas of 5 lines each, and some very beautiful ones. It begins with

I am that which began;
Out of me the years roll;
Out of me God and Man;
I am that which is whole;
God changes, and man, and the source of them bodily; I am the soul.

But that is hardly the best stanza.

Oh, and back to and about the thread OP; on the other thread about evolution, one person says that the genesis story doesn't specificy that it is one god; in response to this, isn't that very clear, when it says God created the heavens and Earth? One God, montheistic?

As my mom taught me, this was an important step for monotheism, as it said that Yahweh was superior to all the polytheistic gods, that ruled this and that or caused this or that, it was greater than them, what they represented, it was in fact greater than the heavens and the earth, since it created them. My mom told me that this was one important function of the creation story, to establish monotheism, one God who created everything, as opposed to a lot of little gods running around.

[NikolaiI]

You know, I realize people could misquote on here. That would be interesting...I might correct someone's spelling and grammar sometime.

Anthropolgists have shown that after the initial increase in the population of the world that at one point in time there was a devistating decrease in the population and estimates are at about 2,000 people. Is there a correlation between the real decrease in population and the flood story in the bible?

I dunno Kiobe. I remember overhearing something from the TV saying that at one point, they thought there were only 35 people on earth. No source, just the history channel.

I also heard that maybe the flood was not world-wide but only in the mesopotamic area?

[kiobe]

You know, I realize people could misquote on here. That would be interesting...I might correct someone's spelling and grammar sometime.



I dunno Kiobe. I remember overhearing something from the TV saying that at one point, they thought there were only 35 people on earth. No source, just the history channel.

I also heard that maybe the flood was not world-wide but only in the mesopotamic area?

I read the same things. Could it be that the bible stories are imbelished to make a point?

[NikolaiI]

I read the same things. Could it be that the bible stories are imbelished to make a point?

I guess my answer is that if it is true - that the flood did not cover the entire earth as they say in the bible, but only a much smaller area - then no, the two are not correlated. The flood would not have decreased the population of the earth like that. I believe it was an entirely different reason that caused the population to go down to 35.

[kiobe]

Didn't Noah say that [he] could see distant mountians? This would be a biblical reference that it was a local flooding and actually not global. If the flooding was local, then the biblical begining of man would be in Messopotamia. We have to give at least some creedence to science as we wouldn't be where we are today without it. So why would the DNA maps show something completely different. A longer timeline and a starting place on a different continent.

[NikolaiI]

Messopotamia? I agree that it was probably a local flood, it doesn't make sense that it would be a global flood, for instance; where would the water come from, and where would it go? I think it was local but I think it was recorded as global out of ignorance and transferrence, not out of purposive hyperbole.

What do you mean by longer timeline?

I know this is off-topic, but I wonder, did the writers of the bible know that the earth was round, or did they think it was flat?

It is not a non-believer thing. .

Of course it's not. That word doesn't mean anything.

The bible here in my house, sponsored by the catholic church states it is a allegorical myth.
I do not mind what C.S.Lewis said; A Myth is by definition the history of formation of a nation - The Genenis is exactly like this. There is considerable more humanity in Oedipus than in Abraham, Adam, Eve - Anyone would consider that the bible have texts that can be classificated as a myth.
And the reason of why the story is a myth is not even because they are contraditory - any kid know that there is no vegetation without sunlight, so first story can not be true. And the second story just leave man without food and since we know female and male are equal, with a bit of problem there.

Hm...

All celestial bodies are dim reflections/imitations of the true source of light that is provided by the presence of God Himself; His presence IS the embodiment of life force - the sun need not exist when the light of God is present to nourish vegetation.

Can you prove this?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Of course it's not. That word doesn't mean anything.



Hm...



Can you prove this?

Whether he can or not there is this by Flannery O'Connor: "Faith has to take in all the other possibilities." A great heroine of mine and a deeply devout Catholic.

[kiobe]

Messopotamia? I agree that it was probably a local flood, it doesn't make sense that it would be a global flood, for instance; where would the water come from, and where would it go? I think it was local but I think it was recorded as global out of ignorance and transferrence, not out of purposive hyperbole.

What do you mean by longer timeline?

I know this is off-topic, but I wonder, did the writers of the bible know that the earth was round, or did they think it was flat?

Anthropologists feel that the timeline of humanity is about 50,000 years as opposed to the biblical theroisits that believe it to be close to 6,000.

The writers referred to the earth as having 4 corners, "the four corners of the earth". This could be a type of a saying or they may have believed that [it] was flat. Aristotle said that it was common knowlege amoung the learned, so we've known for at least 2,500 years.

[Niamh]

Your discussion of the flood just made me think of something. Maybe there is something in the flood story. When the glaciars melted at the end of the ice age the water had to go some where. Maybe the flood is just a sujestive reference to rising sea levels at the time? Geology shows that many land masses shrunk because of the glacial melt water. Both britain and Ireland were once part of mainland Europe and became isolated after the Ice Age. Maybe the large glacial mass that covered northern Europe aslo caused problems for contenents close by. It shaped the area of Europe and North africa as we see it today so it is possible to have caused some form of swelling in around israel and Mes-. Just a thought. Have to go and think about that a bit more.....

[kiobe]

Your discussion of the flood just made me think of something. Maybe there is something in the flood story. When the glaciars melted at the end of the ice age the water had to go some where. Maybe the flood is just a sujestive reference to rising sea levels at the time? Geology shows that many land masses shrunk because of the glacial melt water. Both britain and Ireland were once part of mainland Europe and became isolated after the Ice Age. Maybe the large glacial mass that covered northern Europe aslo caused problems for contenents close by. It shaped the area of Europe and North africa as we see it today so it is possible to have caused some form of swelling in around israel and Mes-. Just a thought. Have to go and think about that a bit more.....

Good q. What's the elevation of Iraq? (formerly Messopotamia)

[Pendragon]

Well, back in my mountains, there is a place where I can get nice fossils of seashells, so it was once underwater. The problem is, there is only a narrow strip from which the fossils may be harvested. I love the sea, and Cape Hatteras is my favorite vacation spot. I know the Atlantic from Virginia Beach down to Myrtle Beach in SC. I've been on the Eastern Shore of both VA and MD. I know what shells look like, even what the crabs look like and older fossils. I don't know why the narrow strip is there, but it is. Flood drainage? I won't guess without facts. The facts are the fossils are there in a narrow but long strip. The rest, how they got there in such a narrow stip would be guesswork. We have enough of that already.