My Eve Challenge

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No. Adam and Eve of the Genesis story were not real people.

 

[VirOptimus]

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

This is just preaching.

Failed op as usual.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It’s a funny thing to me that you believe whole limbs can appear or disappear (given enough time of course), but don’t think a rib can grow back.

National Scoliosis Foundation
How humans regenerate ribs decoded - Times of India

I don't even think you checked your own source. None of them mention the regeneration of a FULL rib. The Times of India source even clearly says that they saw regeneration in the removal of small segments of bones in the rib. The human example even says that eight centimetres of bone and one centimetre of cartilage were missing six months before the rib bone regenerated.

Now, you can try and spin that with the Biblical story by claiming that God removed a part of Adam's rib bone to make Eve from, but since the Bible clearly says God took one of Adam's ribs... I'm afraid you're up a creek with no paddle.

Although of course, it's God, so He can do anything.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't even think you checked your own source. None of them mention the regeneration of a FULL rib. The Times of India source even clearly says that they saw regeneration in the removal of small segments of bones in the rib. The human example even says that eight centimetres of bone and one centimetre of cartilage were missing six months before the rib bone regenerated.

Now, you can try and spin that with the Biblical story by claiming that God removed a part of Adam's rib bone to make Eve from, but since the Bible clearly says God took one of Adam's ribs... I'm afraid you're up a creek with no paddle.

Although of course, it's God, so He can do anything.

You got it!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You got it!

Except if you try and approach by pairing it with science, then, as I said, you're up a creek with no paddle.

 

[inquiring mind]

Except if you try and approach by pairing it with science, then, as I said, you're up a creek with no paddle.

I'm really not pairing it. Like I said, I just find it interesting that the Bible account involved a rib, even if a partial one. It does have a regenerative ability, whereas say a finger or toe doesn't. Can you explain why a 3,000+ year old writing would have been so lucky as to have picked that body part?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm really not pairing it. Like I said, I just find it interesting that the Bible account involved a rib, even if a partial one. It does have a regenerative ability, whereas say a finger or toe doesn't. Can you explain why a 3,000+ year old writing would have been so lucky as to have picked that body part?

I can't really explain it because I don't know the Ancient Middle Eastern significance of the rib. Although something could be argued that it was written to show that, while Adam was created from the dust, Eve was created from flesh and blood, and someone just went "... hey, how about a rib?"

Any attempt to try and say "Oooh! THey knew something modern scientists and doctors don't! Therefore: divinely inspired!" is nothing more than a classic example of post hoc logic.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It does have a regenerative ability, whereas say a finger or toe doesn't. Can you explain why a 3,000+ year old writing would have been so lucky as to have picked that body part?

Even supposing this regenerative ability, that is not a part of the Genesis account.

 

[inquiring mind]

I can't really explain it because I don't know the Ancient Middle Eastern significance of the rib. Although something could be argued that it was written to show that, while Adam was created from the dust, Eve was created from flesh and blood, and someone just went "... hey, how about a rib?"

Any attempt to try and say "Oooh! THey knew something modern scientists and doctors don't! Therefore: divinely inspired!" is nothing more than a classic example of post hoc logic.

"They" didn't... God did, therefore divinely inspired is my point.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"They" didn't... God did, therefore divinely inspired is my point.

Proving my point: saying that is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[inquiring mind]

Proving my point: saying that is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

But, with the Bible there seems to be a lot of event y's following event x's... too many to just be coincidence it seems.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But, with the Bible there seems to be a lot of event y's following event x's... too many to just be coincidence it seems.

Yeah... no. We have no evidence that shows that the Bible was written before many of the events, that can be accurately shown to have happened, described took place.

Really, all you're doing is saying that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true because the Bible says it's true. Circular logic.

 

[inquiring mind]

Yeah... no. We have no evidence that shows that the Bible was written before many of the events, that can be accurately shown to have happened, described took place.

Really, all you're doing is saying that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true because the Bible says it's true. Circular logic.

No, I’m saying the Bible gives us a story about Adam, who was created perfect in every way, then it picks the one body part to remove, which can regenerate itself, to create Eve and still leave him in a perfect state (not missing a toe or something etc.). And, it was all written before modern science… coincidence???

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I’m saying the Bible gives us a story about Adam, who was created perfect in every way, then it picks the one body part to remove, which can regenerate itself, to create Eve and still leave him in a perfect state (not missing a toe or something etc.). And, it was all written before modern science… coincidence???

... Yes! Again: you are using post hoc logic to describe it. Believe it or not: coincidences can happen.

 

[inquiring mind]

... Yes! Again: you are using post hoc logic to describe it. Believe it or not: coincidences can happen.

That's just more 'hoc' than I'm willing to accept.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's just more 'hoc' than I'm willing to accept.

You can do that. But if you want anyone to accept your claims, you're going to have to show massive amounts of evidence. And the Bible isn't the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

From Adam Clarke's Commentary:

God could have formed the woman out of the dust of the earth, as he had formed the man; but had he done so, she must have appeared in his eyes as a distinct being, to whom he had no natural relation. But as God formed her out of a part of the man himself, he saw she was of the same nature, the same identical flesh and blood, and of the same constitution in all respects, and consequently having equal powers, faculties, and rights. This at once ensured his affection, and excited his esteem.

 

[AV1611VET]

From Matthew Henry's Commentary:

That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved. Adam lost a rib, and without any diminution to his strength or comeliness (for, doubtless, the flesh was closed without a scar); but in lieu thereof he had a help meet for him, which abundantly made up his loss: what God takes away from his people he will, one way or other, restore with advantage. In this (as in many other things) Adam was a figure of him that was to come; for out of the side of Christ, the second Adam, his spouse the church was formed, when he slept the sleep, the deep sleep, of death upon the cross, in order to which his side was opened, and there came out blood and water, blood to purchase his church and water to purify it to himself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK, there. It started as a "challenge" without any sort of challenge, but instead a couple of verses from genesis about cloning and ribs (no eyes). Now it's devolved into some sort of bible study. I thought this sub-forum was about creationism v. evolution not general bible study.

 

[SelfSim]

I'd never heard that one so I looked it up in Google.

https://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rnorris/papers/n255.pdf

It's "almost inconceivable" because it ain't true. Aboriginal art is full of astronomical objects and observations in the same way that aboriginal mythology (the 'Dreamtime') is full of entities representing astronomical formations.

Reading through some of the stuff I suspect that the way sun/moon is depicted may not be readily recognisable to western eyes. A drawing depicting a crescent moon for instance, could be seen as a boomerang and a sun may be wheel like. If you've ever been in the desert of Central Australia after dark you'd be overwhelmed at the size and clarity of the night sky in a flat, dry treeless landscape.

It's an astronomical experience.

OB

Thanks kindly for your search effort and for that interesting paper - much appreciated.

Since the Stonehenge thread I have drifted more into more modern Archaeology finds (via some BBC documentaries about recent digs the UK). Somewhere they provided verified evidence of moon rock images dating back to the mesolithic period (IIRC?), and claimed this as being the first known moon images from anywhere in the world .. which prompted me to wonder how that stacks up with Aboriginal recorded history (given the far older culture of the Aboriginals). Unfortunately, Aboriginal art is hard to date and is wide open to interpretation/corruption by modern westerner viewers/interpreters (eg: missionaries). Most Aboriginal observations are embedded in their 'Dreamtime' stories with comparatively fewer rock images, I think.

The interesting aspect here is the more direct Denisovan lineage followed by 'intense' isolation of the Australian Aboriginals (and far older civilisation). A comparison between what astronomical objects meant to them and the more culturally mixed UK mesolithic and neolithic artist, starting from the very first carved/painted images, could provide us with baseline information on the evolution of human thinking about objects they both had visibility of.

Very interesting .. meanwhile its back to Adam's forced anatomical extraction story ...
(which I might add, was recorded well after the initial concepts Christianity were originally conceived .. according to the objective evidence, that is ).