Adam & Eve

For the Christian evolutionist:

Ok so if we are not to take Adam and Eve literally, then that means we can discredit all their descendants.

Which means Adam/Eve through Noah were all mythical, then Noah to lets say Jesus were all mythical? If this is true, then wouldn't that be like saying the entire Bible is nothing more than a 66 Book fable?

So who exactly would of been the first human (i.e. evolved monkey) to have a conversation with God?

__________________
Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Speaking as a non Christian... What do you mean by "discredit" all their descendants?

The me the bible has it that adam and even did something that greatly harmed all their descendants, seems like we'd be a lot better off without that kind of credit.

The way I see it, some parts of the bible are very accurate accounts of things that actually happened. Other parts are less accurate, and they reange from there to the purely fanciful.

Some parts are poetry, not intended to be taken literally. Hills wont really clap their hands, Jesus wasnt really a lamb.

The Bible came from many sources and from a period of many years. So one part doesnt really reflect on another part. Each section can be taken on its own merit. It was people who decided how to write it, what to put in there and what to leave out.

As for the "evolved monkey" Please. Do we HAVE to go over the "monkey' business again? Nobody says people are descended form monkeys.

There was no 'first person", in the same sense that there was no "first poodle".

As for the first conversation with god..of course, from an atheist pov, there has never been a "conversation with god". The question would be more like, at what point did our ancestors first start thinking in terms of the supernatural. On that, we can only guess, tho the occasional artifact will have something about it that suggests that there may have been some consideration of the supernatural when it was made.

Originally Posted by Hespera

Speaking as a non Christian... What do you mean by "discredit" all their descendants?

Discredit meaning question the existence of, sorry I probably could of found a better word to use.

Originally Posted by Hespera

The me the bible has it that adam and even did something that greatly harmed all their descendants, seems like we'd be a lot better off without that kind of credit.

Whether or not their existence resulted in something bad (i.e. sin) is not the question. Sorry I think I confused you with the word "discredit"

Originally Posted by Hespera

The way I see it, some parts of the bible are very accurate accounts of things that actually happened. Other parts are less accurate, and they reange from there to the purely fanciful.

Some parts are poetry, not intended to be taken literally. Hills wont really clap their hands, Jesus wasnt really a lamb.

Yes I am well aware that God used metaphors and parables in the Bible

Originally Posted by Hespera

The Bible came from many sources and from a period of many years. So one part doesnt really reflect on another part. Each section can be taken on its own merit. It was people who decided how to write it, what to put in there and what to leave out.

The source you speak of were special men God Himself selected, they just were not ordinary men

Originally Posted by Hespera

As for the "evolved monkey" Please. Do we HAVE to go over the "monkey' business again? Nobody says people are descended form monkeys.

There was no 'first person", in the same sense that there was no "first poodle".

Oh for the love of God, can we not start in on the "evolved from a monkey" business, seriously. Would it of been better to if I had said "evolved from a common an ancestor of a monkey". I just shortened it, so for future reference, this is how I am going to refer to it.

__________________
Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

I try to use the correct word for what I mean, and assume that others mean what they say.. so of course, "discredit" and "monkey" are what i assumed you meant. Good reason to ask what people mean rather than assume, and good reason to be careful in the choice of words!

Im still not sure what you meant tho. Question the existance of a and e's descendants? For sure there are people; they just are not the descendants of A and E. There never was an A and E. That is how i see it.

I sure dont want to start in on the 'descended from moneky" stuff either. But then, I wasn the one who said it!

You still got the word "monkey" in there, btw, which of course appears to be intended to try to make some sort of fun of the idea of evolution. Maybe not, just how it looks to me.

If you want to be neutral rather than appear to be getting in a swipe at something, you could just say 'evolved" as opposed to "created:. Future reference and all. Im trying to learn to avoid taking that kind of swipe at religion you are more than welcome to complain if I do.

Originally Posted by Hespera

I try to use the correct word for what I mean, and assume that others mean what they say.. so of course, "discredit" and "monkey" are what i assumed you meant. Good reason to ask what people mean rather than assume, and good reason to be careful in the choice of words!

Im still not sure what you meant tho. Question the existance of a and e's descendants? For sure there are people; they just are not the descendants of A and E. There never was an A and E. That is how i see it.

I sure dont want to start in on the 'descended from moneky" stuff either. But then, I wasn the one who said it!

You still got the word "monkey" in there, btw, which of course appears to be intended to try to make some sort of fun of the idea of evolution. Maybe not, just how it looks to me.

If you want to be neutral rather than appear to be getting in a swipe at something, you could just say 'evolved" as opposed to "created:. Future reference and all. Im trying to learn to avoid taking that kind of swipe at religion you are more than welcome to complain if I do.

Truly and honestly not trying to be rude in any way, shape, or form. But this is why I was asking the Christian Evolutionist.

I am trying to figure out where in the Bible Christians start believing that "humans" are actually conversating with God.

This is where I guess I get confused, you say "of course they were decendants, just not of Adam and Eve's". Genesis clearly states they are the decendants of Adam and Eve. So without Adam and Eve, they could not have existed.

__________________
Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Didnt think you were being rude, so i guess we can dispense with that.

That is an un answerable sounding Q, when did people start talking to God if they evolved from lower life forms!

And as for me talking about careful use of words good grief. i sure didnt say that clearly did I? We are all descendants of someone, but I dont think adam and eve were real. Genesis says there was an adam and eve; i think its a story, not a literal fact.

We each have our reasons for what we think. I will watch to see if any Christians have an answer to your question.

Just as children growing up reach an age of accountability, we as a species reached an age of accountability. This is what I believe A&E is a metaphor of.

__________________
Lacking Inactivity

Originally Posted by [serious]

Just as children growing up reach an age of accountability, we as a species reached an age of accountability. This is what I believe A&E is a metaphor of.

And all the decendants of Adam and Eve? So were they all metaphors too?

Where do you draw a line and say "ok this person the Bible speaks of is truly a person and not just a metaphor."

__________________
Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Erm....

Better.

Firstly, I don't think it follows that you can question the existence of individuals who descended from Adam and Eve. There's probably no records of your great-great-great-great-great (times....e.g. 200) grandfather. Does that mean you don't exist and the things you've done with your life didn't happen? While ancestry is somewhat important, ultimately it doesn't define the actions of your life. I realise there were a couple of prophecies that Jesus need to fulfil that involved genealogy - but if He was not of the house of David, He would still have been the Messiah, fully God, fully man, and would still have saved us.

It's also worth bearing in mind in some translations the genealogy of Jesus is written as "supposed." That word makes me wonder how precise the genealogies were to begin with.

Something else worth thinking about is - so what if one particular person didn't exist in the lines we know? Do you think that would stop God? I'm sure whatever lineage arose, his will would be done.

Well, assuming for the time being that this is a reasonable statement - it depends largely on the individual involved. Regarding Adam and Eve, I find it exceedingly unlikely that they were the SOLE ancestors of the rest of mankind, and this would have been during a comparatively unadvanced time in history, so contemporary records would be thin on the ground.

They carry a somewhat bigger burden of proof than, say, Moses - who was, for some part of his life, a member of the royal family in Egypt, which was a much more advanced civilisation who kept good records. His extraordinary events were on a much smaller scale, in an empirical sense (i.e., him and his wife weren't spawning all of mankind from just the two of them).

To simply say, well Adam and Eve might not have existed, therefore they all mightn't, neglects many additional factors, such as the state of civilisation in which they lived, which would alter the chances of additional pieces of evidence for different individuals surviving to today.

But this is somewhat of an intellectual argument - I personally don't go through historical data to crossreference the Bible myself, although I'm sure it would be a good thing to do. The thing is, most individuals in the Bible aren't claimed to have had such far reaching empirical effects quite like Adam and Eve. Spawning a whole civilisation from just two people simply isn't feasible. Whereas most other people in the Bible don't have those kind of claims made about them. So it's simply a case of them being more plausible to me.

It could well have been Adam and Eve. They may not have been the only first humans - but they could have been the first to encounter Him.

Or...maybe it was just one "clerical" error in one part of the genealogy and the rest is fine?

It is, of course entirely possible that the lineage is accurate all the way through. However, as regards evolution then, the problem with Adam and Eve is simply the concept of a population of ONLY two individuals speciating, and then having ONLY those two creating a vast network of descendants. It's somewhat more plausible if there were others human that existed too.

__________________
____________________


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Genesis is written in a style that makes one question the "clearly states" part. Its written in the same way other legends are. Its a story that makes a point or explanation rather then being history. Just like oedipus and hercules.

I think whats even odder is that Adam and Eve are created, but as av states Adam is writing. That means they were born with language and learning. Or obtained it from fruit. Regardless, in order for the Adam and Eve story to work literally you must accept incest and you must also accept that a single generation later civilized culture and cities came about. That's all pretty far fetched, even ignoring the whole mud men idea.