Help me out here guys.

[AV1611VET]

I don't see what it has to do with making the earth seem billions of years old as criteria for creating Adam and Eve, from dirt, at the age of 30. I like to think I have a pretty creative imagination but I can't grasp where your coming from.

Do you want to answer the question though, please?

Or is it just easier to say, "I don't understand"?

Please rise above the level of these other guys who are so dead-set against proving me wrong, they won't answer even the simplest questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

My problem is the claim '30 year old' man made in one day. It is self contradictory.

No --- it is paradoxical --- care to answer it?

 

[Braunwyn]

Do you want to answer the question though, please?

Or is it just easier to say, "I don't understand"?

Please rise above the level of these other guys who are so dead-set against proving me wrong, they won't answer even the simplest questions.

I'm not sure I understand the question to even answer it but I'll give it a go. I understand a 30-yr-old marrying a 30-yr-old. I do not understand a 1-day-old-30-yr-old let alone a 1-day-old-30-yr-old marrying another 1-day-old-30-yr-old. How's that?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure I understand the question to even answer it but I'll give it a go. I understand a 30-yr-old marrying a 30-yr-old. I do not understand a 1-day-old-30-yr-old let alone a 1-day-old-30-yr-old marrying another 1-day-old-30-yr-old. How's that?

That's fine --- thank you.

Now what would you think of anyone who would insist that Adam and Eve were one day old?

 

[Braunwyn]

That's fine --- thank you.

Now what would you think of anyone who would insist that Adam and Eve were one day old?

Some people do believe and insist that Adam and Eve were both 1 day old and 20-30 yrs old at the same time. I can't say I think much of it although maybe it's related to being born again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some people do believe and insist that Adam and Eve were both 1 day old and 20-30 yrs old at the same time. I can't say I think much of it although maybe it's related to being born again.

Adam didn't need to be born-again in Genesis 1.

I put it this way:

• Adam was thirty years old --- physically.
• Adam was one day old --- existentially.

 

[Braunwyn]

Adam didn't need to be born-again in Genesis 1.

I put it this way:

• Adam was thirty years old --- physically.
• Adam was one day old --- existentially.

huh, I think this fits born-again well (as I understand it). eta: or maybe it's the other way around. I fall short when it comes to philosophy.

etaa: I went to wiki for a look at existentialism. "Existentialism is a philosophical movement that posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to deities or authorities creating it for them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

Why would a diety create Eve and Adam (before the fall obvioulsy) with a premise that opposes his/her role in his/her creation?

 

[Split Rock]

Death is portrayed as an enemy of God ---

How can an all-powerful, all-knowing god have any enemies?

So why would there be death in Genesis 1?

Why would there be a Tree of Life that grants immortality to those who eat its fruit if there was no death? Why would God be afraid to let Adam eat from it if Adam could not die? Why would Adam even need to eat? What would happen if he didn't, since he could not starve to death?

 

[Braunwyn]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought it was the tree of knowledge they weren't supposed to munch on.

 

[Split Rock]

Let me ask you a question, Braunwyn --- which statement makes more sense to you:

1. 30-year-old man weds 30-year-old woman.
2. 1-day-old man weds 1-day-old woman.

You know, AVET, you are just confusing people with this. "Adam was 30 years old and one day old," stuff. Just say God created Adam as a mature adult, and stop there. You don't know he was equivalent to a 30 year old anyway.

Frankly I have no problem with God creating an adult (mature) Adam (any more so than otherwise). My problem is when you try to apply this embedded age stuff to the earth. You claim the earth was created mature (like Adam), but not with a false history, only embedded age. The problem is, it bears the scars of its history in its rocks. This would be like Adam being created with scars from wounds he never received. That is my problem with your embedded age idea, not Adam.

 

[Split Rock]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought it was the tree of knowledge they weren't supposed to munch on.

Yes, but after he did munch on the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, God was afraid Adam would also eat of the Tree of Life and then become immortal as well just like him (or "us" which raises some interesting questions in itself). That is why he banished Adam from the Garden of Eden.

 

[flatworm]

Possible? Well, sure, but who would want to worship that kind of a deity? One who knows so little about biology that he has to use a trial and error process to find the "right" organism? One who is content to kill off nearly all species that ever live on a regular basis? One that is just fine with letting organisms perish, sometimes in horribly painful ways, simply because they were born with the wrong combinations of genes?

Hey, I said it was possible, not that I believe it or I expect it to be popular. What I would have trouble with is simultaneously describing a god as "good" or "loving" and "infinite" and "transcendental". It seems the former are projections of human traits while the latter suggest a profoundly alien and aloof being who neither demands nor is gratified by worship.

Meh, a theologian I'm not.

Besides, it's as valid to believe that God guides evolution as it is to believe that God makes planets move in their orbits, and gravity is only an illusion of this motion that God likes.

True- personally I think the idea of guided evolution is a cop-out.

 

[AV1611VET]

huh, I think this fits born-again well (as I understand it). eta: or maybe it's the other way around. I fall short when it comes to philosophy.

We're not talking Philosophy though --- we're talking Theology.

Why would a diety create Eve and Adam (before the fall obvioulsy) with a premise that opposes his/her role in his/her creation?

I don't use that word in its philosophical sense. I use it to mean: time in existence.

• QV definitions 1 and 2 here.

 

[flicka]

If the focus is on the truth and literalism of the Bible I don't think Christianity can survive. Look, I'm not a Christian but even I can see that the focus should be on God and the "relationship" Christians apparently have with him. If you've got that going for you the the Bible doesn't HAVE to be literal "words out of Gods mouth to man's ears", but man's inspired words ABOUT God. By "inspired" I mean they used the relationship they had to form the words that they wrote. That is different than channeling God/Holy Spirit who guided their pen.
It's a disservice to teach kids a 6 day creation and literal Adam and Eve and it guarantees a loss of faith by a certain % of them. It's going to be interesting to see how this Christianity thing plays our over the next 50 years or so when generations of people raised in the bubble come face to face with the facts. I predict another "revival" of sorts, only less Bible based.

 

[Braunwyn]

You know, AVET, you are just confusing people with this. "Adam was 30 years old and one day old," stuff. Just say God created Adam as a mature adult, and stop there. You don't know he was equivalent to a 30 year old anyway.

yes it is confusing but for me the most reasonable conclusion for a 1-day-old-30-yr-old is that he's born again. Problem solved lol.

This would be like Adam being created with scars from wounds he never received. That is my problem with your embedded age idea, not Adam.

excellent analogy.

Yes, but after he did munch on the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, God was afraid Adam would also eat of the Tree of Life and then become immortal as well just like him

I thought they were allowed to chew on the TOL but yes, I'm recalling that it would cause Eve to become like the gods and that wouldn't be ok.

(or "us" which raises some interesting questions in itself).

Yes, it does. The christian god is supposed to have mulitple personalities. It's also interesting that humans define this as mental illness.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would there be a Tree of Life that grants immortality to those who eat its fruit if there was no death?

Picture Adam and Eve eating from that tree after the Fall, then growing old, teeth falling out, arthritis, aches and pains, bone degeneration, cancer, etc., and they can't die. What do you think they would look like today, if they lived next door to you?

 

[Braunwyn]

We're not talking Philosophy though --- we're talking Theology.

You used the term existentially. That's not in referance to existentialism?

I don't use that word in its philosophical sense. I use it to mean: time in existence.

• QV definitions 1 and 2 here.

If you look into the wiki article I linked all 4 of those definitions are expounded upon in the philosophy of existentialism (from what I can tell). I don't see "time in existence" in your link unless I missed it.

 

[AV1611VET]

My problem is when you try to apply this embedded age stuff to the earth. You claim the earth was created mature (like Adam), but not with a false history, only embedded age. The problem is, it bears the scars of its history in its rocks.

These scars you see came after Genesis 1, not during it.

Your explanation above is an Omphalos explanation, and I don't adhere to Omphalism.

Omphalism is embedded history --- but Embedded Age is maturity without history.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the focus is on the truth and literalism of the Bible I don't think Christianity can survive. Look, I'm not a Christian but even I can see that the focus should be on God and the "relationship" Christians apparently have with him. If you've got that going for you the the Bible doesn't HAVE to be literal "words out of Gods mouth to man's ears", but man's inspired words ABOUT God. By "inspired" I mean they used the relationship they had to form the words that they wrote. That is different than channeling God/Holy Spirit who guided their pen.
It's a disservice to teach kids a 6 day creation and literal Adam and Eve and it guarantees a loss of faith by a certain % of them. It's going to be interesting to see how this Christianity thing plays our over the next 50 years or so when generations of people raised in the bubble come face to face with the facts. I predict another "revival" of sorts, only less Bible based.

[bible]Matthew 4:4[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought they were allowed to chew on the TOL but yes, I'm recalling that it would cause Eve to become like the gods and that wouldn't be ok.

Wrong tree --- it's the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil ---

[bible]Genesis 3:4-5[/bible]