Adam And Eve, Noah And The Origion Of Man

[Son of Belial]

I'm not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean - that your judgment is a valid as God's? Hardly. Only God sees all clearly, is in command of all the facts and is completely impartial. In the end, all will agree with His judgment.

I've struggled with this argument since hearing my father quote Martin Luther's criticism of Erasmis (Your thoughts of God are too human). All the debating and discussion about this God is between humans whose thoughts can only be human. What good does it do us to discuss the unknowable counsel of God? It's unknowable! Of course we are capable of judgment as humans and are duty bound to make judgments in our lives. A fact that God must be aware of when we stand before him. Your argument suggests that we are to accept what the Bible tells us without critical thought and THAT is what creates systems of "Christians" who chant "God Hates Fags".

History is replete with examples of one group of Christians interpreting the Bible one way and calling down God's support for their position against another group of Christians who interpret the Bible another way. Who is right? How can we know for certain? At some point this whole system is revealed for what it is...a house of cards that collapses under the weight of even mild scrutiny.

You assign all these attributes to God...omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence...because this book told you to. Ultimately, this whole debate turns on the validity of this book and the historic evidence just doesn't support the popular claims of it's authorship or divine inspiration. If this is true, the entire argument collapses and it's time to talk about something else.

[MaryLupin]

Ultimately, this whole debate turns on the validity of this book and the historic evidence just doesn't support the popular claims of it's authorship or divine inspiration. If this is true, the entire argument collapses and it's time to talk about something else.

As an aside: Here is a video on the death of Jerry Falwell in which Christopher Hitchens speaks. It reminds me strongly, at times, of this forum's debates.

Treasure hunt: re Hitchens' comments re Jerry Falwell...how can Falwell fit in a matchbox?

Belialson, I agree. So what "something else" do you have in mind?

[Redzeppelin]

What good does it do us to discuss the unknowable counsel of God? It's unknowable!

That is the function of the Bible: it shows us God's character - the stories enable us to understand at least some things about Him. That's why you can't "piecemeal" God and the Bible, the miracles, the OT and the NT, Christ's divinity, the Genesis creation apart from each other: they interlink. Once the Bible has no authority, then we cannot know God, and there is really no good reason for us to believe anything about Him.

Of course we are capable of judgment as humans and are duty bound to make judgments in our lives. A fact that God must be aware of when we stand before him. Your argument suggests that we are to accept what the Bible tells us without critical thought and THAT is what creates systems of "Christians" who chant "God Hates Fags".

Our judgments are far from objective, fair, and just - because we can never completely empty ourselves of self-interest. My arguments suggest that the Bible has authority. I don't ask/expect anybody to simply take my word for what the Bible says. I arrived at my conclusions after years of reading, study and discussion with knowledgeable people. You are free to examine the Bible as much as you wish - but if the Bible has no authority, then we cannot know God.

The "God hates fags" bit is not due to accepting the Bible at its word, but misinterpreting it. The criteria I list next explain why this interpretation is invalid (it is not reflective of God's character).

History is replete with examples of one group of Christians interpreting the Bible one way and calling down God's support for their position against another group of Christians who interpret the Bible another way. Who is right? How can we know for certain? At some point this whole system is revealed for what it is...a house of cards that collapses under the weight of even mild scrutiny.

We know who is right by two signs:
1. The interpretation is consistent with the entire Bible
2. The interpretatin is consistent with the character of God.

Don't fault the Bible because its prone to misinterpretation - all written works are (like the US Constitution); nonetheless, the document is still valuable.

You assign all these attributes to God...omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence...because this book told you to. Ultimately, this whole debate turns on the validity of this book and the historic evidence just doesn't support the popular claims of it's authorship or divine inspiration. If this is true, the entire argument collapses and it's time to talk about something else.

I "assign" nothing - those attributes are listed in the Bible in numerous places. So what if I got them from the Bible - what source would you suggest besides the Book that claims to be the revelation of God's character? Let's hear the "historic evidence." The Bible (NT especially) has perhaps the highest textual integrity of almost all ancient manuscripts. Those who cite "historical evidence" against its veracity assume that God gets His message to us by the same methods we value and trust. Maybe - maybe not.

[kiobe]

As an aside: Here is a video on the death of Jerry Falwell in which Christopher Hitchens speaks. It reminds me strongly, at times, of this forum's debates.

Treasure hunt: re Hitchens' comments re Jerry Falwell...how can Falwell fit in a matchbox?

Belialson, I agree. So what "something else" do you have in mind?

Why should 'we' show any tolerance or reverance regarding the passing of a man that showed no tolerance or reverance to the innocent victims of 9/11. That being said, I think we need a voice like Mr. Hitchens now more than ever.

[The Atheist]

Before we begin, any posts should be directly related to the thread title. Please be respectful.

dam and Eve, Noah and the origion of man.

The catholic bible states that Adam and Eve were created aprox. 6,000 years ago in the garden of eden. Mid eastern religious texts place the Garden of Eden in Messopotamia. After the great flood, all that were left on earth were Noah and his family and theologins place the final resting place of the arc, and therefore Noah and his family in the area of what is known today as Turkey. Today, scientists have shown through DNA mapping that humanity seems to have begun in eastern Africa about 50,000 years ago. My question is, are the Old Testiment stories a kind of fable or fact and just where did we origionate from?

I've missed a fair bit of this thread and I note that you've had it explained that the RCC accepts the totally allegorical nature of the story.

One reason why the RCC gave away Gensis is because it's so demonstrably incorrect that no serious church would accept it as having any truth value beyond the parable.

Adam and Eve were the only humans? If so, humans would have died out in three generations due to inbreeding and its associated genetic failure. Adam & Eve's grandchildren would have been gibbering mutations, although fundamentals could of course claim that god allowed for that in his manufacture and genetic rules applicable to the entire world of living tissue didn't apply then. Or, obviously in the case of Noah, when god wiped out all humans apart from Noah and his family.

Little things like that are why only a small percentage of christians worldwide believe any of Genesis is literally true*. A few minor churches which started in USA seem to be the main home of this blind acceptance of an obvious "Just So" story.

I did see one howlingly funny bit on the way through - a comment on Pangaea and its relevance to the Noah story. Given that Pangaea broke up some 250 million years before Noah, that's the kind of blatant error I've come to expect from YEC defenders and their allies.

* Churches which accept evolution fully include Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox, which churches make up some 77% of all non-tribal christian sects. (I have no idea what those tribal sects might believe and they are a tiny number anyway.)

link.

[MaryLupin]

That being said, I think we need a voice like Mr. Hitchens now more than ever.

Kiobe!!!! We agree!!! I am going straight out to the kitchen and getting a glass of wine to celebrate.

[kiobe]

Kiobe!!!! We agree!!! I am going straight out to the kitchen and getting a glass of wine to celebrate.

Yehaww, I'll meet ya there. Do you have a Petit Sirah?

Other than a politician, I think it would be difficult to find anyone that would agree with the fat faced fool.

I think we got off on the wrong foot, after reading a lot of your posts we are of a very similar mind.......although, yours being more inteligent, well read and having a considerably better memory, we actually are simpatico.

[kiobe]

I've missed a fair bit of this thread and I note that you've had it explained that the RCC accepts the totally allegorical nature of the story.

One reason why the RCC gave away Gensis is because it's so demonstrably incorrect that no serious church would accept it as having any truth value beyond the parable.

Adam and Eve were the only humans? If so, humans would have died out in three generations due to inbreeding and its associated genetic failure. Adam & Eve's grandchildren would have been gibbering mutations, although fundamentals could of course claim that god allowed for that in his manufacture and genetic rules applicable to the entire world of living tissue didn't apply then. Or, obviously in the case of Noah, when god wiped out all humans apart from Noah and his family.

Little things like that are why only a small percentage of christians worldwide believe any of Genesis is literally true*. A few minor churches which started in USA seem to be the main home of this blind acceptance of an obvious "Just So" story.

I did see one howlingly funny bit on the way through - a comment on Pangaea and its relevance to the Noah story. Given that Pangaea broke up some 250 million years before Noah, that's the kind of blatant error I've come to expect from YEC defenders and their allies.

* Churches which accept evolution fully include Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox, which churches make up some 77% of all non-tribal christian sects. (I have no idea what those tribal sects might believe and they are a tiny number anyway.)

link.

And a cool spring rain of common sence falls over a parched dry land giving way to the seedlings of thought.

[MaryLupin]

Yehaww, I'll meet ya there. Do you have a Petit Sirah?

I have never tried it, but since I like Shiraz I will try it. And Kiobe, thank you for the compliment.

[Redzeppelin]

One reason why the RCC gave away Gensis is because it's so demonstrably incorrect that no serious church would accept it as having any truth value beyond the parable.

Perhaps the RCC's capitulation is an attempt to revise the Bible in order that it appear to reconcile with science and "reason" - a move that in reality simply tries to "edit" the handiwork of God so that Naturalists might be inclined to take the Bible more seriously (as if God needs that kind of help).

Adam and Eve were the only humans? If so, humans would have died out in three generations due to inbreeding and its associated genetic failure. Adam & Eve's grandchildren would have been gibbering mutations, although fundamentals could of course claim that god allowed for that in his manufacture and genetic rules applicable to the entire world of living tissue didn't apply then. Or, obviously in the case of Noah, when god wiped out all humans apart from Noah and his family.

You assume that the first humans possessed an identical genetic makeup as we do today. Doubtful. God creates perfection. You'll note that it was in the book of Leviticus that we hear about the restriction against incest; there is good reason to believe that the purer genes of Adam and Eve permitted "inbreeding" without the risk of malformities. The entrance of sin affected our genetics to where - as time passed - the action of inbreeding (necessary in the beginning for obvious reasons) became untenable. But please don't assume that handiwork directly from God's hand functioned like ours does today.

Little things like that are why only a small percentage of christians worldwide believe any of Genesis is literally true*. A few minor churches which started in USA seem to be the main home of this blind acceptance of an obvious "Just So" story.

"Blind acceptance" - right. I'll repeat myself (since you essentially do the same thing): worshipping at the altar of "reason" and "empiricism" might make one feel smarter and more "logical" - but God transcends our finite brains and what we can comprehend/understand. Just as children cannot fathom the complexities of astrophysics, don't be so sure that our vision of reality is truly correct. I know that - as a teacher - I rarely show my students ALL of the knowledge I possess; we make the mistake of assuming that the physical laws that we're aware of are the only ones that exist. We may be wrong - there is a good chance we've yet to discover God's "higher" laws of reality - higher laws that could, effectually, shatter non-believers rather limited idea of what is truly real.

[MaryLupin]

You assume that the first humans possessed an identical genetic makeup as we do today. Doubtful.

So you believe in a kind of devolution? Before I start, how much do you know about the workings of genes? I mean why don't you just posit that Adam and Eve had no genes at all (along with their missing belly buttons) and that genes wormed their way into human beings from the apple.

[kiobe]

Perhaps the RCC's capitulation is an attempt to revise the Bible in order that it appear to reconcile with science and "reason" - a move that in reality simply tries to "edit" the handiwork of God so that Naturalists might be inclined to take the Bible more seriously (as if God needs that kind of help).



You assume that the first humans possessed an identical genetic makeup as we do today. Doubtful. God creates perfection. You'll note that it was in the book of Leviticus that we hear about the restriction against incest; there is good reason to believe that the purer genes of Adam and Eve permitted "inbreeding" without the risk of malformities. The entrance of sin affected our genetics to where - as time passed - the action of inbreeding (necessary in the beginning for obvious reasons) became untenable. But please don't assume that handiwork directly from God's hand functioned like ours does today.



"Blind acceptance" - right. I'll repeat myself (since you essentially do the same thing): worshipping at the altar of "reason" and "empiricism" might make one feel smarter and more "logical" - but God transcends our finite brains and what we can comprehend/understand. Just as children cannot fathom the complexities of astrophysics, don't be so sure that our vision of reality is truly correct. I know that - as a teacher - I rarely show my students ALL of the knowledge I possess; we make the mistake of assuming that the physical laws that we're aware of are the only ones that exist. We may be wrong - there is a good chance we've yet to discover God's "higher" laws of reality - higher laws that could, effectually, shatter non-believers rather limited idea of what is truly real.

Hi Red, I think that the 'assumptions' fall equally on both sides as presented here by the Atheist and yourself. If I may, the Atheist, (I love capitalizing that), is assuming through scientific fact that there is a genetic breakdown or malady that occures in ALL human, plant and animal life when there is a lack of genetic diversity. This is proven to lead to, reduced fertility, genetic disorders, loss of immune system function, smaller adult size, among other issues that would lead to a collapse in humanity over an extended period. This assumption is a proven fact today but without the DNA from Adam and Eve, we will never know thier make-up. Eve was created from Adam's rib and assuming that Adam's DNA was contained in that piece of his rib, Eve would have the same DNA make-up and therefore a genetic copy of Adam. Now if Eve was a genetic copy of Adam, adam would have a twin....called Eve. If the piece of rib was used, we know today that an issue of rejection will occure if not matched properly. Non-rejection occures, usually, in family members, so we will assume that the match was a good one because thier lineage. But because of thier lineage, the issue of genetic malady resurfaces. Remember in a previous post about the 'mental contortions'a non-beliver must make in order to see where a beliver is comming from, this is what I was talking about. Now you assume, without any facts, outside the biblical text, that everything we know today didn't count back then. You assume that God made execptions for the questions that occure today. But without factual proof to support your claims.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Perhaps the RCC's capitulation is an attempt to revise the Bible in order that it appear to reconcile with science and "reason" - a move that in reality simply tries to "edit" the handiwork of God so that Naturalists might be inclined to take the Bible more seriously (as if God needs that kind of help).

That is of course a possibility, but an equally plausible - and more charitable one - might be that they have recognized some or even much validity in naturalism.

You assume that the first humans possessed an identical genetic makeup as we do today. Doubtful. God creates perfection.

And perfection, being an absolute, cannot be improved upon so it would follow thast we would indeed have precisely the same genes as the first progenitors!

You'll note that it was in the book of Leviticus that we hear about the restriction against incest; there is good reason to believe that the purer genes of Adam and Eve permitted "inbreeding" without the risk of malformities. The entrance of sin affected our genetics to where - as time passed - the action of inbreeding (necessary in the beginning for obvious reasons) became untenable. But please don't assume that handiwork directly from God's hand functioned like ours does today.

It has been the habit of believers and non-believers alike to assume MUCH about the nature and true intentions of God. Why stop now?

"Blind acceptance" - right. I'll repeat myself (since you essentially do the same thing): worshipping at the altar of "reason" and "empiricism" might make one feel smarter and more "logical" - but God transcends our finite brains and what we can comprehend/understand. Just as children cannot fathom the complexities of astrophysics, don't be so sure that our vision of reality is truly correct.

Mutatis mutandis, nor that our understanding of God is correct.

I know that - as a teacher - I rarely show my students ALL of the knowledge I possess; we make the mistake of assuming that the physical laws that we're aware of are the only ones that exist. We may be wrong - there is a good chance we've yet to discover God's "higher" laws of reality - higher laws that could, effectually, shatter non-believers rather limited idea of what is truly real.

How did you arrive at this calculation of the "good chance"? I can tell you with equal and possibly greater conviction that there is NO chance whatever that your truly hard-core believers are ever going to surrender one iota of their beliefs no matter what is discovered about the origins and functioning of the universe.

Like Gulliver in Lilliput, such believers are tied to the ground by innumerable puny strings, any one of which they might break but the collective force of which keep them chained & immobile.

[MaryLupin]

adam would have a twin....called Eve.

Oh goody, the incest motif. Boy, does this have a long and diverse heritage in literature!

[Redzeppelin]

So you believe in a kind of devolution? Before I start, how much do you know about the workings of genes? I mean why don't you just posit that Adam and Eve had no genes at all (along with their missing belly buttons) and that genes wormed their way into human beings from the apple.

In a way I do believe we have "de-evolved." Sin - that which is opposite of God's character, destroys what it comes into contact with. I believe that Adam and Eve's sin not only affected their spiritual existence, but their physical existence as well - not only would they now be subject to death and not only would their will no longer control their bodies, but they would suffer the effects of sin even to the genetic level. It's silly to assume that Adam and Eve weren't built like we are - Christianity does not teach that Adam and Eve were some kind of alien-type of creatures; they were human beings - but the only "pure" human beings that ever existed - at least for a while. Once they gave in to temptation, their bodies began to degrade. Remember that the Bible tells us that people used to live for hundreds of years - why wouldn't a purer genetic makeup also coincide with this phenomena?

Hi Red, I think that the 'assumptions' fall equally on both sides as presented here by the Atheist and yourself. If I may, the Atheist, (I love capitalizing that), is assuming through scientific fact that there is a genetic breakdown or malady that occures in ALL human, plant and animal life when there is a lack of genetic diversity. This is proven to lead to, reduced fertility, genetic disorders, loss of immune system function, smaller adult size, among other issues that would lead to a collapse in humanity over an extended period. This assumption is a proven fact today but without the DNA from Adam and Eve, we will never know thier make-up. Eve was created from Adam's rib and assuming that Adam's DNA was contained in that piece of his rib, Eve would have the same DNA make-up and therefore a genetic copy of Adam. Now if Eve was a genetic copy of Adam, adam would have a twin....called Eve. If the piece of rib was used, we know today that an issue of rejection will occure if not matched properly. Non-rejection occures, usually, in family members, so we will assume that the match was a good one because thier lineage. But because of thier lineage, the issue of genetic malady resurfaces. Remember in a previous post about the 'mental contortions'a non-beliver must make in order to see where a beliver is comming from, this is what I was talking about. Now you assume, without any facts, outside the biblical text, that everything we know today didn't count back then. You assume that God made execptions for the questions that occure today. But without factual proof to support your claims.

Why should I assume that God built creatures with inherent flaws in them? God does not create that which deforms naturally; He creates that which is perfect in all ways; the entrance of sin into this world changed reality - all the way down to a genetic level in my opinion. This is where it gets difficult - non-believers simply see "sin" as bad choices or behavior; the Christian sees it as something that destroys all that it touches - like a cancer. God didn't "make exceptions" - His creation got "altered" by the entrance of sin into the world. When we sin and turn from God, we essentially turn towards "death" - not instant death, mind you, but a slow-motion death at all levels: physical, emotional, spiritual.

That is of course a possibility, but an equally plausible - and more charitable one - might be that they have recognized some or even much validity in naturalism.

Perhaps - but it's still a matter of editing the Bible (a divinely inspired document) in favor of Naturalism (a human-oriented way of seeing reality).

And perfection, being an absolute, cannot be improved upon so it would follow thast we would indeed have precisely the same genes as the first progenitors!

No - sin has degraded our genetic material. Perfection was destroyed the second Adam and Eve chose serving their own wills instead of God's.

It has been the habit of believers and non-believers alike to assume MUCH about the nature and true intentions of God. Why stop now?

But the believer bases his assumptions on what the Bible says - the book that God left us in order that we understand some fundamental things about Him.

How did you arrive at this calculation of the "good chance"? I can tell you with equal and possibly greater conviction that there is NO chance whatever that your truly hard-core believers are ever going to surrender one iota of their beliefs no matter what is discovered about the origins and functioning of the universe.

I make my assumptions based on a firm belief that God is who He claims to be: an omniscinet, omnipotent, omnipresent being. Follow me for a second: if God is all these things - then why wouldn't I trust Him - even in the face of that which appears to contradict Him? This discussion comes down to authority and where you place it: I place my authority in God; you place yours in humanity: fine - but humanity can never be as smart as God; as such, I think it the height of arrogance for us to think that we've unraveled the universe with our 5 senses. I believe God to be complex enough that reality as created by Him must be even more than we can currently fathom. Any being that can always have existed and can speak the universe into being is certainly capable enough of creating a reality with multiple "layers" of existence. Non-believers assume that because we haven't found them they don't exist. Many things once deemed nonexistent we have discovered do indeed exist.

Like Gulliver in Lilliput, such believers are tied to the ground by innumerable puny strings, any one of which they might break but the collective force of which keep them chained & immobile.

That's how we Christians feel about non-believers.