"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve"

[Subduction Zone]

Take the prinicple, my friend, and the nutrition as an "easy to screw up" excuse doesn't fly.

Your post makes no sense. Care to try again in English?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can we equally apply that to interpretation of scripture? (open to change or improvement)

I suppose. And sometimes the correct interpretation would be that stories in the Bible are just morality tales and have nothing to do with the real world.

 

[Audie]

I'm sure, Audie, you can figure it out.

If you must, call it "any camp"

I figured out a while back that there is no point in
trying to talk to you, but, foolish me, I tried one more
time. forget it.

 

[Audie]

I suppose. And sometimes the correct interpretation would be that stories in the Bible are just morality tales and have nothing to do with the real world.

Actual data is far less open to free form interpretation than is "scripture".

In science nobody claims that god is showing them the
right answers.

The bible interprets to say whatever a person wants it to say. That helps explain the popularity.

Want to justify a war? slavery? torture? Its all there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actual data is far less open to free form interpretation than is "scripture".

In science nobody claims that god is showing them the
right answers.

The bible interprets to say whatever a person wants it to say. That helps explain the popularity.

Want to justify a war? slavery? torture? Its all there.

And it is simply amazing how often the God of the Bible agrees with the interpreter. It is eerily almost as if the person is interpreting it to match his own prejudices, but that would never happen

 

[Audie]

And it is simply amazing how often the God of the Bible agrees with the interpreter. It is eerily almost as if the person is interpreting it to match his own prejudices, but that would never happen

"Me and my bud here, God, find that...."

 

[Kenny]

I figured out a while back that there is no point in
trying to talk to you, but, foolish me, I tried one more
time. forget it.

Have a great day.

 

[Kenny]

I suppose. And sometimes the correct interpretation would be that stories in the Bible are just morality tales and have nothing to do with the real world.

It is a viewpoint, granted. Certainly does have morality points... wouldn't that be applicable to the real world?

 

[exchemist]

Can we equally apply that to interpretation of scripture? (open to change or improvement)

You tell me, mate! I'm not the scriptural expert here. But the difference is that scripture seems often to be regarded by adherents as unalterable "truth", in a way that science never can be.

In my opinion, the sensible denominations of religions are those that are willing to re-examine their interpretations of scripture in the light of what other branches of knowledge are learning. For example I have somewhere the text of a lecture given in Rome by Cardinal Wiseman in the 1840s, around the time Hutton was announcing his new discoveries in geology. Wiseman was re-examining Genesis in the light of these findings and showing how the essential messages of the bible were not undermined by the new data about the age of the Earth and its epochs. If only the Catholic church had been equally quick off the mark with Copernicus, perhaps the whole Galileo fiasco could have been avoided!

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a viewpoint, granted. Certainly does have morality points... wouldn't that be applicable to the real world?

Any lesson that teaches children morals applies to the real world. Other than that, not so much.

 

[Kenny]

You tell me, mate! I'm not the scriptural expert here. But the difference is that scripture seems often to be regarded by adherents as unalterable "truth", in a way that science never can be.

In my opinion, the sensible denominations of religions are those that are willing to re-examine their interpretations of scripture in the light of what other branches of knowledge are learning. For example I have somewhere the text of a lecture given in Rome by Cardinal Wiseman in the 1840s, around the time Hutton was announcing his new discoveries in geology. Wiseman was re-examining Genesis in the light of these findings and showing how the essential messages of the bible were not undermined by the new data about the age of the Earth and its epochs. If only the Catholic church had been equally quick off the mark with Copernicus, perhaps the whole Galileo fiasco could have been avoided!

And that has been my point but apparently viewed differently by others when I stated that.

When I stated "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth", which does not denote time, it fits with "billions of years".

And although I have stated it as such, it seems like I still but heads with science adherents, even though I accepted it. I just can't figure that out.

Talking about "mate", my daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren live in Australia. Is it that type of "mate"?

 

[ecco]

Instead the best [religious] people can do is to reinterpret [holy scripture]. Again and again and again.


How are errors in religious beliefs corrected?

Gee, you must be prescient!

You answered your question before you asked it!

 

[ecco]

I suppose. And sometimes the correct interpretation would be that stories in the Bible are just morality tales and have nothing to do with the real world.

Morality tales indeed.

• Slavery is not moral.
• Killing the old wives and sons of a defeated army is not moral.
• Taking the young females of a defeated army and raping them is not moral.
• Denigrating other races is not moral.
• Women being subservient to their husbands is not moral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Morality tales indeed.

• Slavery is not moral.
• Killing the old wives and sons of a defeated army is not moral.
• Taking the young females of a defeated army and raping them is not moral.
• Denigrating other races is not moral.
• Women being subservient to their husbands is not moral.

It is a good thing for us that human morality has improved over the ages. Your morals are clearly superior to biblical morals.

 

[tayla]

According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7)

The Bible is mostly fiction so of course it collides with science.

 

[outlawState]

"According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam's rib.​

.

I think you're misinterpreting it. By Gen 2;7 God had already formed mankind, in Gen 1:26 in fact. Adam and Eve were special types of men and women i.e. "living beings" alive to God. Adam and Eve were spiritual people, as opposed to the rest of unspiritual mankind. I think that in the Adam and Eve story is the justification for referring to unspiritual persons as "wild beasts" 1 Corinthians 15:32.

 

[gnostic]

No... One is from Joseph's side and one from Mary's.

In Luke 3:23, it explicitly says “Joseph son of Heli”, not “Mary daughter of Heli”.

Neither gospels explicitly say whose Mary’s parents were.

Beside that both gospels state that Joseph is from the line of King David, and none of the gospels claimed that Mary herself was David’s descendant.

And in Luke 1:36 indicated that Elizabeth was related to Mary:

36 And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren.

But before that, the gospel says Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron:

5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

So wouldn’t that imply Mary was also a descendant of Aaron, and of Levi?

 

[Skwim]

I think you're misinterpreting it. By Gen 2;7 God had already formed mankind, in Gen 1:26 in fact. Adam and Eve were special types of men and women i.e. "living beings" alive to God.

Just to be clear, this isn't my interpretation, but that of Barbara Bradley Hagerty who wrote the piece for NPR. See the "source" at the bottom of the quote.

Adam and Eve were spiritual people, as opposed to the rest of unspiritual mankind.

How do you know?

I think that in the Adam and Eve story is the justification for referring to unspiritual persons as "wild beasts" 1 Corinthians 15:32.

Why?

.

 

[outlawState]

Just to be clear, this isn't my interpretation, but that of Barbara Bradley Hagerty who wrote the piece for NPR. See the "source" at the bottom of the quote.

It's like the 6 day version of creation approach. Someone comes up with a false intepretation and then pretends that science overthrows religion.

How do you know?

Because Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God and God talked with Adam and Eve.

Why?

Because in Adam and Eve, God shows that even amongst "mankind" there is a vast chasm between those who seek God and those who don't, who are, in his eyes, little better than animals.

 

[Skwim]

It's like the 6 day version of creation approach. Someone comes up with a false intepretation and then pretends that science overthrows religion.

Well, not really religion, but one story of one religion.

Because Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God and God talked with Adam and Eve.

Don't see the reasoning here, but

Because in Adam and Eve, God shows that even amongst "mankind" there is a vast chasm between those who seek God and those who don't, who are, in his eyes, little better than animals.

WOW! this is some stretch. In fact, way too much. Sorry, but I can't buy it.

.

.