Jump to content

Menu

(CC) If you don't believe in a literal creation


Recommended Posts

I'm sorry. I have a science background but I'm still not understanding how the MCRA can be that recent.

 

Your example is that a person shipwrecks in an isolated area and joins up with an isolated tribe and procreates. That's fine but unless he's the ONLY one procreating in that tribe, the rest of the tribe is not going to trace back to him ancestrally. In a bunch of generations, a good portion of the tribe may be able to trace back to him but unless it was a very small tribe to begin with, it's unlikely to be 100%.

 

2,000 years ago people were spread all over the world. There were already various races. How could a common ancestor come from that time period? Every other line of decent died off in just 2000 years? I understand the exponential increase in each generation but if so many blood lines were dying off population growth would show a different kind of pattern.

 

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the claims about a 2,000 year old MCRA. :001_huh:

 

You're looking at things too short-term. After many generations, all living members of that tribe will have that one guy as a common ancestor, via numerous paths. That one guy might have five children that survive to adulthood and reproduce. Each of of them marries and has children. And so on, down through the generations. Meanwhile, those descendants continue to intermarry with other lines, as well as with their own lines. After not all that many generations, every living member of that tribe will share that guy as a common ancestor (as well, as many other shared common ancestors).

 

That's what I was talking about earlier. Each of us has, say, a quadrillion 50-times great grandparents, from a time when the population of the planet was numbered only in the tens of millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know if MCRA (most recent ancestor) is the best approach to the question.

 

After all, the belief in a literal Adam and Eve (as described in Genesis) requires one to believe that they were the FIRST humans, not just the most recent common ancestors. Such a belief is mutually exclusive with the evidence for evolution.

 

Or, to put it another way: if you accept that evolution is true, then there could not have been a "first human" in any practical sense of the word. There was no point at which two members of homo erectus species mated and suddenly gave birth to the first homo sapien.

 

Does that make sense?

 

I don't necessarily think so. The Bible doesn't say that God created the first homo sapiens. He created the first man and woman, the first people. Theologically that is usually understood to mean that there was a very particular quality to the kind of soul they had, not so much that they had specific physical characteristics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point; that's certainly possible because my education on this is that of a layman.

 

Still, as I understand it, homo sapiens most certainly DID get down to quite a bottleneck -- as low as 600 mating couples -- roughly 195,000 years ago. We were amazingly close to going the route of every other hominid species that has existed (fourteen that we know of) AND also 99% other species that has ever existed on our planet: completely extinct.

 

It's hard to believe because there are 7 billion of us on the planet today. But, yes....while we never got down to anything close to "two individuals", we certainly were diminished to a critically dangerous point that could have just as easily devastated our species.

 

I've never read anything that indicates any reason to think that our MRCA is anywhere as recent as 1,000 to 4,000 years ago as mentioned in a previous post.

 

It seems unlikely -- for the most part -- because homo sapiens had already begun to leave Africa about 70,000 years ago and started migrating into Eurasia, India, Asia and Australia. By 30,000 years ago, the Asian group had moved northwest into Europe. And within 20,000 years ago, a group had moved across the Bering Strait to populate North America and -- eventually -- South America.

 

So, to place a MRCA in the last few thousand years would require us to throw away all we know about man's migration out of Africa and imagine that all humans were descendent from a single group that had not split up as recently as a few thousand years ago.

 

Would it be safe to say that a claim of "an MRCA only 2,000 years ago" relies on a young-earth creationist view?

:iagree:Yes, this exactly.

 

I get how MRCA comes about, just not as early as 1000 years ago.

Edited by Parrothead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're looking at things too short-term. After many generations, all living members of that tribe will have that one guy as a common ancestor, via numerous paths. That one guy might have five children that survive to adulthood and reproduce. Each of of them marries and has children. And so on, down through the generations. Meanwhile, those descendants continue to intermarry with other lines, as well as with their own lines. After not all that many generations, every living member of that tribe will share that guy as a common ancestor (as well, as many other shared common ancestors).

 

That's what I was talking about earlier. Each of us has, say, a quadrillion 50-times great grandparents, from a time when the population of the planet was numbered only in the tens of millions.

 

 

I agree and to add other food for thought:

In the island tribe scenario, there is another component that we don't think about much today-shorter life spans.

 

How many of you use ancestry.com? I can trace back to my third great-grandparents for all branches of my family. I can trace back further for some, but not others.

 

I had actually been having an issue with one branch of my mom's family. Last night, she found a paper that explained why-remarriage. All I needed to dig up more info was the one name, and then I had more info than the person who wrote that info down for my mom years ago.

 

You see, there were two sisters married to two brothers. They each had a bunch of kids. The brother from couple A died fairly young. When they were all much older, the sister from couple B died. After a few years alone, the widowed in-laws married. Later family members thought they descended from brother B, but they didn't.

 

Then, there was another issue-I kept losing track of this one woman and her kids, but it was because her husbands kept dying on her and she would remarry. Some of her kids belonged to 4 different husbands. I still haven't *completely* unraveled that mystery, mostly because some census takers are more thorough than others. So, I am related to a lot more people through her than I am through any of her husbands.

 

*That* is part of how you wind up with lots of people with one common ancestor. This is not even to mention how often men went off to war for years at a time.

Edited by Mrs Mungo
Typing from phone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe the early hominids were truly human with souls. Like other animals, they had what the ancient Hebrews called a nephresh or life essence. The first people to be true humans with souls were Adam and Eve.

 

On the other hand, if the body isn't the issue, why would you assume they did not have souls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're looking at things too short-term. After many generations, all living members of that tribe will have that one guy as a common ancestor, via numerous paths. That one guy might have five children that survive to adulthood and reproduce. Each of of them marries and has children. And so on, down through the generations. Meanwhile, those descendants continue to intermarry with other lines, as well as with their own lines. After not all that many generations, every living member of that tribe will share that guy as a common ancestor (as well, as many other shared common ancestors).

 

That's what I was talking about earlier. Each of us has, say, a quadrillion 50-times great grandparents, from a time when the population of the planet was numbered only in the tens of millions.

 

I don't remember where, but some documentary I watched once had a visual representation of this idea that made it much more clear. I have no idea where I saw it but if anyone else has seen such a thing it was very useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if the body isn't the issue, why would you assume they did not have souls?

 

It is long, but here is an excellent article explaining the Catholic Christian POV, to which I ascribe. The Church does not take an official position on whether or not there was evolution of the body, but holds as doctrine that there was a literal Adam and Eve and the special creation of the human soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason the MRCA stays fairly recent?

 

Pasting from wiki because it has a fairly simple explanation:

It is incorrect to assume that the MRCA passed all of his or her genes (or indeed any gene) down to every person alive. Because of sexual reproduction at every generation, an ancestor passes half of his or her genes to each descendant in the next generation. Save for inbreeding, the percentage of genes inherited from the MRCA becomes smaller and smaller in individuals at each generation, sometimes decreasing to zero, as genes inherited from contemporaries of MRCA are interchanged via sexual reproduction.

 

And this argument is completely different, since it is about genealogy versus DNA:

http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html

 

But, the two reach roughly the same conclusions.

Edited by Mrs Mungo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're looking at things too short-term. After many generations, all living members of that tribe will have that one guy as a common ancestor, via numerous paths. That one guy might have five children that survive to adulthood and reproduce. Each of of them marries and has children. And so on, down through the generations. Meanwhile, those descendants continue to intermarry with other lines, as well as with their own lines. After not all that many generations, every living member of that tribe will share that guy as a common ancestor (as well, as many other shared common ancestors).

 

That's what I was talking about earlier. Each of us has, say, a quadrillion 50-times great grandparents, from a time when the population of the planet was numbered only in the tens of millions.

 

I did a little reading on this today. I was especially interested because of reading (a book totally unconnected with this subject) about Australian aborigines and the discovery of skeletons estimated to be up to 40,000 years old. The Australian aborigines had been separated from the rest of the world for thousands of years before Europeans. Apparently, even current aborigines' MRCA is in tune with the rest of the world which confused me a little until I read some info that explained it in a way similar to what you have done here. It also said that the Exploration of the world by Europeans and others from about the 16th century on could be one of the reasons why the MRCA is so recent. If a completely isolated, uncontacted society had their blood tested it could change the results drastically.

 

Interesting stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is long, but here is an excellent article explaining the Catholic Christian POV, to which I ascribe. The Church does not take an official position on whether or not there was evolution of the body, but holds as doctrine that there was a literal Adam and Eve and the special creation of the human soul.

I'm afraid your link doesn't work, but I don't expect it has much to do with what I said. I know the Catholic position, which doesn't say what sort of hominids Adam and Eve might have been. Since you seem to realize that human-ascribed species lables are not directly connected to whether a being has an immortal soul, I wondered why you would then take the view that immortal souls could only be attributed to homo sapiens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to check out these articles:

http://www.answersincreation.org/interpret.htm

 

...This is dealt with on the page that I linked. There is an article that specifically deals with those genealogies.

 

I went through and I read what you linked. I did not read all of the information linked there of course, but I specifically read the link about Adam. Honestly, it did not answer my questions regarding the bible mentioning the genealogy of Adam as not being a real man (I am specifically interested in seeing how he refutes scripture referencing Adam as a man if he wasn't "real" to begin with). But I did enjoy what he shared, and it seemed to me that he does believe Adam was made from dust and he does believe in original sin. So that did confuse me.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Bible contains a God-inspired description of the preparation of the Garden of Eden, the section of this planet that mankind was initially given charge of. It describes the first man, who we call Adam and who was made without sin and death and who communed with God, and the Bible describes a bad choice made by that man, bringing sin and death to mankind and separating mankind from God. The Bible also describes another man, Jesus Christ, who made the right choices and paid the price for the sin of mankind, making a way for us to have communion with God by His Holy Spirit if we choose to lay down our life and take up that communion. Yes, I believe that the Bible describes God’s relationship to humankind, and I teach those things to the children entrusted to my care. Those are the vital things our children need to know. More importantly, I point children to the living God, and I tell them that it is not what they know, but Who they know, that is most important (10). None of those vital issues our children need to know, including the role of the Garden of Eden in human history, the death and resurrection of Christ, or the nature of a relationship with God, are the subject of scientific inquiry, and I doubt they ever will be. Anything I know about those things comes from God, and has nothing to do with the intellectual pursuit of science.

 

Some anti-evolutionists may read the previous paragraph and be disappointed or even angry that I don’t take a stand about exactly how God formed Adam from the dust of the earth or exactly how all life on this planet originated (seems to imply he believes this, just doesn't feel the need to explain it). As a scientist, I have published nothing in this field and therefore it is completely impossible for me to add anything valid to what the scientific experts say. As a Christian, I should be silent except for the message that God gives me to deliver by His Holy Spirit, and the message here has nothing to do with those issues. Rather, the message has to do with why many church-raised children in the next generation are falling away from God, and why many in our generation do not walk in His Spirit, but rather in the flesh. God is not concerned with our science nearly so much as He is concerned with our heart.

 

_____________________________________

 

 

Even when he addresses genealogy (I clicked on that link too), it is a rebuttal against the age of the earth - not Adam and Eve.

 

Anyway, you are more familiar with this than I am. Can you please link from the website you shared his specific thoughts regarding Adam & Eve and that they are not literal.

 

Thank you,

 

Susan

Edited by susankenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wondered why you would then take the view that immortal souls could only be attributed to homo sapiens.

 

I really think this is going to be a matter of personal opinion. Why would immortal souls be ascribed to other species? You could argue that either way.

 

I went through and I read what you linked. I did not read all of the information linked there of course, but I specifically read about Adam. Honestly, it did not answer my questions regarding the bible mentioning the genealogy of Adam as real. But I did enjoy what he shared, and it seemed to me that he does believe Adam was made from dust and he does believe in original sin. So that did confuse me.

Even when he addresses genealogy, it is a rebuttal against the age of the earth - not Adam and Eve.

<snip>

Anyway, you are more familiar with this than I am. Can you please link from the website you shared his specific thought regarding Adam & Eve and that they are not literal.

 

Just for clarity's sake, the website isn't written by one man; it is a collection of articles written by different people. Some OECs believe in a literal Adam and some do not. Even most of those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve *and* agree with the doctrine of original sin believe that it was *spiritual* death that was introduced into the world, not physical death.

 

The reason the author in question did not give a specific lay-out of his views? Probably has a lot to do with what Peter Enns said in this article:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2011/11/two-final-recurring-mistakes-in-the-adamevolution-discussion-4/

 

Here are a couple of links that explain the non-literal position:

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall (I know someone linked this site earlier, there is a lot of info there about it)

 

Literal Adam and Eve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then, there was another issue-I kept losing track of this one woman and her kids, but it was because her husbands kept dying on her and she would remarry. Some of her kids belonged to 4 different husbands. I still haven't *completely* unraveled that mystery, mostly because some census takers are more thorough than others. So, I am related to a lot more people through her than I am through any of her husbands.

 

 

This story sounded almost exactly like one in my own family line--the great-great grandmother that my parents named me for, in fact. She was married a total of 6 times, and had children by all but one of those husbands (the last one--she was probably getting past childbearing age by then!) Talk about a complicated family situation...

 

How many of us here on this list do you think would find a common ancestor or two if we could go back, say 10 generations? I bet a good number of us would be cousins at that point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe they were literal, but that they were the first humans where the bodies and brains had finally advanced to the point that they were in the image of God and ready to house our spirits. I also believe that the death spoken of in the Garden that was introduced to the earth by the Fall was spiritual death/separation from God, and that there was physical death on the earth since there were living things on it. IMO.

 

:iagree: That's my take on it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of us here on this list do you think would find a common ancestor or two if we could go back, say 10 generations? I bet a good number of us would be cousins at that point!

 

Well, I recently discovered that one of the other scout parents (who also used to work for dh) and I are related through my dad's mom's mom's mom's dad. He said something about the lawsuit that his tribe is in, and that set things in motion to discovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Christian, not conservative though. I do firmly accept evolution. No, I do not believe in literal Adam and Eve. It is an oral tradition with some variations that carries meaning to my faith. I am not unversed in the Bible- as a child and teen I read it 6 times and had many long studies and discussions with priests, nuns and teachers. I intended at the time to become a nun. I am presently mostly done with a second reading of the Jerusalem bible (translated rather than retold from previous English versions.)

Edited by kijipt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think this is going to be a matter of personal opinion. Why would immortal souls be ascribed to other species? You could argue that either way.

 

 

 

Just for clarity's sake, the website isn't written by one man; it is a collection of articles written by different people. Some OECs believe in a literal Adam and some do not. Even most of those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve *and* agree with the doctrine of original sin believe that it was *spiritual* death that was introduced into the world, not physical death.

 

The reason the author in question did not give a specific lay-out of his views? Probably has a lot to do with what Peter Enns said in this article:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2011/11/two-final-recurring-mistakes-in-the-adamevolution-discussion-4/

 

Here are a couple of links that explain the non-literal position:

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall (I know someone linked this site earlier, there is a lot of info there about it)

 

Literal Adam and Eve?

 

Thank you. It does make much more sense to know the authors vary from article to article on that website, and that all OEC have various opionions (as do YEC). I did read the links you shared. I do not agree with them and find the argument a little weak, especially since Adam is referred to twenty something times in the bible, has children, grandchildren, other children, etc. But obviously my argument seems weak to you, and that's okay.

 

I really do appreciate your sharing though, and I definitely have a clearer understanding and no longer feel confused regarding others POV regarding this topic.

 

Truly, thanks again to everyone that shared links, thoughts, etc. I appreciated all of your thoughtful replies.

 

Susan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think this is going to be a matter of personal opinion. Why would immortal souls be ascribed to other species? You could argue that either way.

 

 

Sure. It is an unanswerable question really whether they did, though there could be clues - art, evidence of religious worship, that sort of thing. But a lot of people seem to be assuming that modern homo sapiens are the first people, which doesn't seem a necessary conclusion to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. It does make much more sense to know the authors vary from article to article on that website, and that all OEC have various opionions (as do YEC). I did read the links you shared. I do not agree with them and find the argument a little weak, especially since Adam is referred to twenty something times in the bible, has children, grandchildren, other children, etc. But obviously my argument seems weak to you, and that's okay.

 

I really do appreciate your sharing though, and I definitely have a clearer understanding and no longer feel confused regarding others POV regarding this topic.

 

Truly, thanks again to everyone that shared links, thoughts, etc. I appreciated all of your thoughtful replies.

 

Susan

 

There are basicly two things that could be goin on in the story from the perspective of evolution. One is that Adam was a real, individual guy. The other is that he is kind of an archetype who stands in for humanity and its beginnings. And then some people also think it happened literally to some degree and don't believe in evolution.

 

With all of those views, the creation/fall account is considered to be a poetic theological narrative. Historically there have been in Christianity people who took it as a history and people who didn't - though I think it would be accurate to say that seeing Adam as an archetype alone, and not a real person, is a modern thing. It isn't like the text tells us right out one way or the other, and the same was true for people recorded speaking in Scripture.

 

But, all of these people talk about Adam as if he were a real person. Those who believe that Adam represents an archetype still think that archetype is real, and so they would still talk about Adam and what happened to him in the Creation account, because for them he represents something at the core of the human experience. God communicated his truth to us in this form, presumably, for a reason, and so that is probably the best form to use when discussing theological or spiritual issues.

 

As for the genealogy - genealogies in Scripture are often a bit suspect. What is to be considered is why the genealogy is there, what is it telling us? One thing it tells us as far as his decent from Adam is that Jesus is truly man, he is descended from the first man, he is part of that universal category of humanity that we all belong to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I get that there are a huge array of opinions on this topic. Truly, I get that. I've read the links posted here, along with every post shared. I've read through many threads with CC and definitely understand that most of us do not fully agree on anything, lol.

 

To be clear though, I'm not confused about what I believe. I was confused about how my friend was reconciling her own thoughts and trying to make sense of that. I believe Adam was a real person, with real children, and that he had other children outside of Cain and Abel. I believe the bible has some allegorical, poetic, and historical things to offer. I do not take each word literally. I do believe he existed though, and I believe the fall of mankind came through him and Eve.

 

Susan

 

There are basicly two things that could be goin on in the story from the perspective of evolution. One is that Adam was a real, individual guy. The other is that he is kind of an archetype who stands in for humanity and its beginnings. And then some people also think it happened literally to some degree and don't believe in evolution.

 

With all of those views, the creation/fall account is considered to be a poetic theological narrative. Historically there have been in Christianity people who took it as a history and people who didn't - though I think it would be accurate to say that seeing Adam as an archetype alone, and not a real person, is a modern thing. It isn't like the text tells us right out one way or the other, and the same was true for people recorded speaking in Scripture.

 

But, all of these people talk about Adam as if he were a real person. Those who believe that Adam represents an archetype still think that archetype is real, and so they would still talk about Adam and what happened to him in the Creation account, because for them he represents something at the core of the human experience. God communicated his truth to us in this form, presumably, for a reason, and so that is probably the best form to use when discussing theological or spiritual issues.

 

As for the genealogy - genealogies in Scripture are often a bit suspect. What is to be considered is why the genealogy is there, what is it telling us? One thing it tells us as far as his decent from Adam is that Jesus is truly man, he is descended from the first man, he is part of that universal category of humanity that we all belong to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our small group is working through The TruthProject. We just watched and discussed the two part science segment today. I think it is an excellent video series. I would take a look at it. It is very thought provoking.

 

For someone interested in seeking information about a non-literal interpretation? Why? Are you hoping to lead them back to the "correct" path?

http://thetruthproblem.info/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone interested in seeking information about a non-literal interpretation? Why? Are you hoping to lead them back to the "correct" path?

http://thetruthproblem.info/

 

Did I say I believe in a fully literal interpretation. I said it was interesting. I have agreed with most, yes. But not all. It is a very interesting series, all I said. You can agree with part of something and still learn from it and find it interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say I believe in a fully literal interpretation. I said it was interesting. I have agreed with most, yes. But not all. It is a very interesting series, all I said. You can agree with part of something and still learn from it and find it interesting.

 

But, why would you recommend a video series that purports that the ONLY truth is in a literal interpretation? When the person was asking about a non-literal interpretation? Your recommendation begs the question. The video series insists than any interpretation *other than* a strictly literal interpretation is a pernicious lie and must have demonic influence. where have we heard that before? Oh, right, kerfuffle.

 

Check out the link I gave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are Christian and do not believe in a literal creation story from a biblical POV, do you believe Adam & Eve were literal? This came up in a coversation I had recently, and I am very interested to read what others think. I know many of you do not believe in a literal Genesis, so I am curious regarding your thoughts on Adam & Eve.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Susan

 

I guess I qualify to answer the thread, according to your specifications.

 

I believe in a Creation - a God who created the science that resulted in the universe, this earth, and all the nature and life on it.

 

I believe "Genesis" to be like other creation myths (I use that word technically, not meant to insult). I believe that the Judeo-Christian creation story is born of the same things as the multitude of other stories - a desire of people to understand the existential meaning to the world. I'm sure creation myths correspond in fascinating ways to the culture in which they emerge. They are likely related to issues of sophistication, technical advancement, ritual, superstition, geography, language, custom, etc.

 

"Adam and Eve" are the specifics of the Judeo-Christian orientation. I believe I am influenced most highly by that spiritual orientation by virtue of timing and geography.

 

While at some point, there had to be the first humans, I do not believe Adam and Eve to be literal. I *also* don't believe it is SUPPOSED to be literal. I think we strip the Bible of nuance, ambiguity, universality, and passion when we literalize it to absurdity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the bible to be the absolute truth...cover to cover. I don't believe you can pick and choose what is true and what is not, IMO. To me, the bible is not filled with "stories" but actual accounts in history.

 

That's very nice, but not what the OP asked.

 

Also, those of us with alternate views don't think of it as "picking and choosing". We have a completely different orientation towards the Christian Bible; picking and choosing (and the connotations usually associated with it) don't apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the bible to be the absolute truth...cover to cover. I don't believe you can pick and choose what is true and what is not, IMO. To me, the bible is not filled with "stories" but actual accounts in history.

 

Nobody takes the whole Bible literally. Everybody believes parts of it are metaphorical and/or can see that some of the literal text is inconsistent with itself.

 

Do you believe it was a talking snake that deceived Eve or do you believe it was Satan? The Bible doesn't say it was Satan. Most church-goers believe that the serpent is a metaphor for Satan. He's even called the serpent later on.

 

Do you believe that Moses *literally* wrote the entire Pentateuch, including writing about his own death?

 

So Moses the servant of HaShem died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of HaShem. And he was buried in the valley in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor; and no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day

 

Until what day? Does this make sense if it was written *by Moses* or shortly after his death? No, it doesn't.

 

Or look at other parts of the Pentateuch:

And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom HaShem knew face to face. (Deuteronomy 34:10)

 

These were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before there was any king reigning over the descendants of Yisrael. (Gen. 36:1)

 

And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued as far as Dan. (Genesis 14:14)

 

These don't make sense if written by Moses. They only make sense if they were written down and/or compiled or edited later. That doesn't mean Moses had no hand in it. It doesn't mean these weren't oral traditions stemming from Moses that were eventually handed down. (Oh, and Dan wasn't called Dan until much later, in case you're wondering about that one.) But, The Bible says Moses wrote them. It doesn't mention an editor or compiler or any of that.

 

How about the wife of Moses? Was Zipporah from Midian or was she from Ethiopia? Exodus and Numbers give her two different homelands.

 

The gospels, themselves, have numerous inconsistencies with one another.

 

There are tons and tons of examples like these. Does*any* of this make The Bible less *true* in the bigger, spiritual sense of the word? I don't think so. But, it does mean that you *cannot* take everyone word literally.

 

Ever heard of Origen Adamantius? He was an early theologian who had a problem with people taking The Bible literally. In 230 AD he wrote:

What man of sense will argue with the statement that the first, second and third days, which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars? What man is found such a fool as to suppose that God planted trees in Paradise like a husbandman?... I believe every man must hold these things for images under which a hidden sense is concealed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The God of second creation story in Genesis has a body, makes noise when he walks in the garden, he can't find Adam and Eve, and he doesn't even know that they've eaten from the forbidden tree, or how they know they're naked.

 

I'm not sure how to read that literally if you believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful God.

Edited by Jana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody takes the whole Bible literally. Everybody believes parts of it are metaphorical and/or can see that some of the literal text is inconsistent with itself.

 

Yes, even the most fundamentalist Christians pick and choose. Otherwise, they'd have to stone their children to death for disobeying them, not to mention a lot of other disgusting stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, even the most fundamentalist Christians pick and choose. Otherwise, they'd have to stone their children to death for disobeying them, not to mention a lot of other disgusting stuff.

 

Oh, you mean I wasn't supposed to be doing that? Woops...

 

Oh wait, I just counted my children and they're all still here. Guess I'm OK. Maybe they've never disobeyed me...:tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the bible to be the absolute truth...cover to cover. I don't believe you can pick and choose what is true and what is not, IMO. To me, the bible is not filled with "stories" but actual accounts in history.

 

I don't believe in "picking and choosing" either but I do believe the biblical mandate to STUDY and rightly divide the Word. To me, this includes studying the bible in its proper context, taking into consideration biblical languages, biblical culture, and scientific knowledge that God has given us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The God of second creation story in Genesis has a body, makes noise when he walks in the garden, he can't find Adam and Eve, and he doesn't even know that they've eaten from the forbidden tree, or how they know they're naked.

 

I'm not sure how to read that literally if you believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful God.

Of course God was aware that Adam and Eve had disobeyed Him and knew where to find them. When He called out to Adam in Genesis 3:9 "Where are you?" and asked Adam in Genesis 3:13 "What have you done?" those were rhetorical questions.

 

As a parent, I have asked similar rhetorical questions of my children when they have disobeyed because I want them to own up to their transgressions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course God was aware that Adam and Eve had disobeyed Him and knew where to find them. When He called out to Adam in Genesis 3:9 "Where are you?" and asked Adam in Genesis 3:13 "What have you done?" those were rhetorical questions.

 

As a parent, I have asked similar rhetorical questions of my children when they have disobeyed because I want them to own up to their transgressions.

 

You have to read into and extrapolate from the text to assume this. If I believed in a literal Genesis, I would probably agree with you on this. But it requires an extra Biblical assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course God was aware that Adam and Eve had disobeyed Him and knew where to find them. When He called out to Adam in Genesis 3:9 "Where are you?" and asked Adam in Genesis 3:13 "What have you done?" those were rhetorical questions.

 

As a parent, I have asked similar rhetorical questions of my children when they have disobeyed because I want them to own up to their transgressions.

 

I agree, but that is not a strictly literal interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course God was aware that Adam and Eve had disobeyed Him and knew where to find them. When He called out to Adam in Genesis 3:9 "Where are you?" and asked Adam in Genesis 3:13 "What have you done?" those were rhetorical questions.

 

As a parent, I have asked similar rhetorical questions of my children when they have disobeyed because I want them to own up to their transgressions.

 

It says no where in the text that this is a rhetorical question. The author could have easily put that information in, but the author didn't.

 

God also asks, "Where are you?" Do you view that as a rhetorical question as well?

 

I just don't think your interpretation is consistant with the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to read into and extrapolate from the text to assume this. If I believed in a literal Genesis, I would probably agree with you on this. But it requires an extra Biblical assumption.

 

Not really. It requires one to think about the setting, the tone, the audience and the author's intent which we have to do in most everything we read (including posts on this board). These things are not stated directly but inferred. Without inference, most of the books we read would make no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. It requires one to think about the setting, the tone, the audience and the author's intent which we have to do in most everything we read (including posts on this board). These things are not stated directly but inferred. Without inference, most of the books we read would make no sense.

 

Why do you need to infer? The story quite simply presents God as having a body, and asking Adam and Eve for information he doesn't have. The text is quite comfortable with this image of God, so no inference necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot wrap my head around Genesis being literal. This passage right here does it for me:

 

Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden. 17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch

 

 

First of all, who are these others who would kill Cain if Cain and Abel were the only two from Eve/Adam?

 

Second, how did he build a city if there were so few on earth?

 

 

 

 

I'm not even going to get into the rest of it. This sums up the unlikeliness right there that there would be any ounce of truth to a story written by men who told it orally for hundreds of years before writing it down. Inspired, maybe. Literal? No way.

 

 

Keep in mind that when the Bible lists the begats they are talking in terms of generations. Adam lived to be something like 900 years old before he died -certainly enough time for him to have a LOT of children. All of his offspring (besides Abel) lived to be very old as well - again plenty of time for them to have a ton of kids. Not all of them are mentioned - it would take too much time and page space -so only the ones with historical significance are mentioned.

 

Gen 5:3-4

3 ¶And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own alikeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

4 And the days of aAdam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

 

 

Chapter 5 then goes on to list all the generations down to Noah making special note that they begat sons and daughters. Noah himself begat Shem, Ham and Japheth when he was 500 years old - I'm sure he had plenty more children before he reached that age :D

 

Noah built an Ark with just himself and his family - I'm sure Cain could have built a city with the help of his offspring.

Edited by sewingmama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you need to infer? The story quite simply presents God as having a body, and asking Adam and Eve for information he doesn't have. The text is quite comfortable with this image of God, so no inference necessary.

 

Then I suppose the same goes for all written texts? So, for instance, when you write a post here, who you are writing to, the purpose of it, the tone behind it, what has come before it to prompt your writing, etc., none of that matters? Language with zero context? The Bible written in a contextual void? Is that how you see it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I suppose the same goes for all written texts? So, for instance, when you write a post here, who you are writing to, the purpose of it, the tone behind it, what has come before it to prompt your writing, etc., none of that matters? Language with zero context? The Bible written in a contextual void? Is that how you see it?

 

No, she is saying the opposite. She is saying that there is interpretation and context wrapped into everything we read. That is why strictly literal interpretations do not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, she is saying the opposite. She is saying that there is interpretation and context wrapped into everything we read. That is why strictly literal interpretations do not work.

 

But that is a false dichotomy. It's like saying if we even consider context then we must automatically assume there is symbolism, figurative language, alternate meanings and so on.

 

In reality, context serves to clarify the literal intent (like how being able to hear tone would clear up a lot of the arguments on this board). Literal simply means that it's not figurative... That there is one meaning or intent to what was said and not multiple meanings.

 

There is a saying in the world of hermeneutics that goes "when the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense". It reminds me of when I taught AP English and the students tried to make a symbol out of everything and I told them sometimes a fence is just a fence.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is a false dichotomy. It's like saying if we even consider context then we must automatically assume there is symbolism, figurative language, alternate meanings and so on.

 

Either you are taking every word literally or you are not. That is the dichotomy set up by YECs, not the other way around. I know it is pretty convenient to ignore issues like those I brought up, but did you read them?

 

In reality, context serves to clarify the literal intent (like how being able to hear tone would clear up a lot of the arguments on this board). Literal simply means that it's not figurative... That there is one meaning or intent to what was said and not multiple meanings.

 

But, there *are* often multiple meanings to what people say here. They might say, "bless your heart" and mean, "drop dead."

 

There is a saying in the world of hermeneutics that goes "when the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense". It reminds me of when I taught AP English and the students tried to make a symbol out of everything and I told them sometimes a fence is just a fence.

 

And if you interpret everything literally and without symbols, then you will miss the intent of many works. Can you read Robert Frost without interpretation? Absolutely not. He laughed a people who tried it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either you are taking every word literally or you are not. That is the dichotomy set up by YECs, not the other way around.

 

I think the "taking the bible literally" argument is being misconstrued. I am YEC and I take the bible to mean what it says it means unless it is clear that it is using figurative language (like the parables). You can take the bible "literally" meaning you believe it means what it says and still be able to spot figurative language when it is clear that it is meant figuratively. Did Jesus LITERALLY know a foolish man who built his house on the sand? Of course not. Jesus was speaking figuratively. But do I believe Jesus really told that story? Yes. That is literal. See what I mean?

 

And if you interpret everything literally and without symbols, then you will miss the intent of many works. Can you read Robert Frost without interpretation? Absolutely not. He laughed a people who tried it.

 

I agree. See above. He wrote poems which are by nature figurative language. But if he wrote you a note asking you to meet him for lunch, would you have gone or would you think he was speaking figuratively? That's what I mean.

 

 

.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you taught me something here. Being a Southern Boy, I'd always just assumed that "bless your heart" *always* meant "drop dead."

 

LOL, not *always*, sometimes it means, "you poor thing." I will admit that it usually means drop dead.

 

from Heather:

I think the "taking the bible literally" argument is being misconstrued. I am YEC and I take the bible to mean what it says it means unless it is clear that it is using figurative language (like the parables). You can take the bible "literally" meaning you believe it means what it says and still be able to spot figurative language when it is clear that it is meant figuratively. Did Jesus LITERALLY know a foolish man who built his house on the sand? Of course not. Jesus was speaking figuratively. But do I believe Jesus really told that story? Yes. That is literal. See what I mean?

 

The story of God walking in the garden doesn't take place in the context of a parable. I think it is clear that the creation story is figurative. Many early church fathers agreed. Interpreting it as figurative is not a new idea precisely *because* much of the beginning of Genesis is written in figurative language. God walking in the garden, Satan (as a serpent) tempting Eve, etc.

 

I agree. See above. He wrote poems which are by nature figurative language. But if he wrote you a note asking you to meet him for lunch, would you have gone or would you think he was speaking figuratively? That's what I mean.

 

You are proving my point here, I think.

Edited by Mrs Mungo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible has many verses stating that God knows all. Job 37:16 calls Him "perfect in knowledge". Psalm 147:5 states that "His understanding is infinite". Hebrews 4:13 says "there is no creature hidden from His sight".

 

In the context of the above verses and similar ones throughout Scripture, it is clear that God's questions to Adam were rhetorical ones. Genesis does not explicitly state that they were, but OTOH it does not explicitly state that they were not. To assume that they were not rhetorical questions would mean that all the Bible verses about God's omniscience are false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible has many verses stating that God knows all. Job 37:16 calls Him "perfect in knowledge". Psalm 147:5 states that "His understanding is infinite". Hebrews 4:13 says "there is no creature hidden from His sight".

 

In the context of the above verses and similar ones throughout Scripture, it is clear that God's questions to Adam were rhetorical ones. Genesis does not explicitly state that they were, but OTOH it does not explicitly state that they were not.

 

Right. So, The Bible does not need to explicitly state that figurative language is being used. This is the point that was being made.

To assume that they were not rhetorical questions would mean that all the Bible verses about God's omniscience are false.

 

But, interpreting the creation story as figurative does *not* make any other Bible verses false. Again, this is exactly the point being made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...