• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Not if I already explained, or had a friend do so for me, no.

Why would someone need to have thier own writings explained to them?

Most, must mean not all. So why do you put the Bible in the category of most?

Because until proven otherwise that's the most reasonable option.

Exp: I don't know Bob, but I know that most people like being appreciated.

Therefore until proven otherwise it's reasonable for me to assume that Bob likes to be appreciated.

I recall reading some very creative stories. It started from midway; went back to the beginning; then forward to the climax.
The person who went ahead and interpreted, from the beginning, may have been surprised at both the introduction and the conclusion.
The Bible is somewhat like that. You could misinterpret, if you just take some parts, and ignore others... or view them as exclusive.

I know that it's a common Christian practice to view the Bible as one cohesive story beginning with Adam and culminating in Jesus Christ, but this perspective is an element of dogma.

You should understand that to anyone who isn't a Christian and who isn't subject to dogma that and it's just going to appear as something else: a collection of books written by different people, at different times, and different places, under different circumstances, for different purposes.

And in my opinion that's just a common sense perspective. One that isn't compelled to see it a particular way because of religious influences.

Ah. So miracles cannot happen

I believe miracles happen, I just don't believe they happen on the scale described in the Bible. If they did I think we'd find them recorded somewhere in human history, somewhere outside of folklore and myth.

We don't.

because man determines that he knows everything there is to know.

No, no person who's sincerely interested in understanding anything will ever make that claim. There's always more to learn.

Is that it?
So for example, we must find an explanation that fits man's understanding,

No, but if claims are being made that run contrary to my own understanding of how the world works, I'd have to see some pretty convincing evidence before I'd ever change my mind about anything.

Something more convincing than claims made by someone who received those claims by someone who received those claims by someone who received those claims by someone someone else in a long chain of hearsay stretching back into antiquity.

That would be especially true if I knew that the people making those claims had an agenda, as do the people accepting them.

to explain the splitting of the Red Sea, or a scorched earth ruined by burning sulfur.

Or a mule talking, or a chariot of fire swooping down from the sky and carrying a man to heaven, or a woman being turned into a pillar of salt, or a city full of people, each spontaneously developing their own language, . . .

As a Christian you might want to ask yourself: if God was such a show off in the Old testament, why did Jesus instruct his disciples to keep his own miracles a secret in the Gospels?

Oh no. We can't take that Bible seriously. Lol. :grinning:

I would suggest that I take the Bible a lot more seriously than you do, as evidenced by the fact that I've given serious thought and consideration to what it's trying to say.

All you've done is accept what men have told you about it. You've been told to read it literally, and since that approach appeals to you for some reason, you accept it without giving it any serious thought.

Earlier in this conversation I brought up the fact that Paul read some scripture as an allegory. Before that I pointed out that the Bible has God himself using allegory.

How does that fit into your allegory- equal-error theory?

IMO God doesn't want you to be a mindless drone, unquestioningly accepting directions from your religious leaders.

In the Bible, God says:
"Come let us reason together". Isaiah 1:18

I don't see anywhere in the Bible where He's supposed to have said anything along the lines of, "Stop thinking for yourself and just think what your religious leaders tell you to think."

In fact, as I recall Jesus Christ had quite a bit to say about that:

Matt. 15:14
Matt. 23:13

IMO, God doesn't want you to, "reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" Mark 7:8

The way I read the Gospels it's the story of a man born into a time and place where religion had become big business, on a mission to redirect people away from organized religion and into having a personal relationship with God.

In order to do that you have to think for yourself at some point.

I see.
The problem I have with that, is the assumption or misguided view that
  1. there is no knowledge that supersedes man's limited intelligence.

Not at all. I just don't see any reason to accept that a literal interpretation of the Bible qualifies as 'knowledge that supersedes man's intelligence".

There's way too much evidence to suggest that it's something else.

  1. man has always been right, and will continue to be right, because he is so superior in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.

Superior to what? What you really seem to be suggesting is that people who read and interpret the Bible literally are somehow superior in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding then people who've actually put some genuine effort into achieving those qualities.

Btw, the part of your post above starting with "the problem I have . . ." goes on to attack assertions that arent actually inherent to the part of my post that you quoted.

I think the objections you're making here are objections you already intended to make at some point and you just decided to shoehorn them in there.

That isn't arguing in good faith.

You should respond to what people say, not pretend they said something that you already had a response for.
  1. the writings which were passed down contain information which is beyond any man's - ancient or modern - ability to provide on his own.

And you'll miss a lot of that information, probably most of it, if you settle for reading these stories literally and without trying to understand their message.

I don't have my notes with me, but . . .

What you do have is the internet . . .

Martin Luther King, made some good points about those who are in the habit of interpreting almost anything in the Bible as allegory...
Maybe you were thinking of this?:

“When we condemn allegories,” Luther informed his students, “we are speaking of those that are fabricated by one’s own intellect and ingenuity without the authority of Scripture. Other [allegories] which are made to agree with the analogy of faith not only enrich doctrine but also console consciences".
I have seen it here, where some would say, "It is your interpretation, whereas, I interpret it differently. If I see it as allegorical, or myth... it is so".
In other words, there is no way of knowing, so we just accept each person has their own interpretation, and we can accept that.

I think anyone with a sincere desire to understand an allegory will probably come close to uncovering the allegory's true intention.

On the other hand, you have no chance of that if you just read the story literally.

I pointed out that is not the way it was seen by those who followed God's arrangement.

And I'm not seeing how the verses that you linked to support that.

It might be easier to understand if you isolate the line or two that supports your point rather than linking to entire chapters of verse.

Hence it's not God's view.
If you review the post, you will be able to follow the path to get to that point... rather than my having to repeat it.

Again: it's hard to understand someone's point if they're trying to support it with an entire chapter that makes several different points.

So, rather than one having to take the position of, "My interpretation. Your interpretation.", it's a simple case of accepting the help God provides, as was the case with Philip and the Ethiopian. We can know the truth.

If a literal understanding of the Bible is the proper one, why would the Ethiopian need Philip to explain anything to him? He could have just read it for himself and taken everything at face value.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
Why would someone need to have thier own writings explained to them?
To them? Not to them. To the listener, or reader.

I believe miracles happen, I just don't believe they happen on the scale described in the Bible. If they did I think we'd find them recorded somewhere in human history, somewhere outside of folklore and myth.
Why dismiss the collection of ancient documents making up the Bible, something other than history, and then claim we don't find a record in human history. :shrug:

I would suggest that I take the Bible a lot more seriously than you do, as evidenced by the fact that I've given serious thought and consideration to what it's trying to say.

All you've done is accept what men have told you about it. You've been told to read it literally, and since that approach appeals to you for some reason, you accept it without giving it any serious thought.

Earlier in this conversation I brought up the fact that Paul read some scripture as an allegory. Before that I pointed out that the Bible has God himself using allegory.
Earlier, you referred to the book of Revelation as largely allegorical. How did you reach that conclusion, may I ask?
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
To them? Not to them. To the listener, or reader.

That's not what you were saying. Go read your post, the post that I replied to, again.

Why dismiss the collection of ancient documents making up the Bible, something other than history, and then claim we don't find a record in human history. :shrug:

Your question doesn't make any sense: you're asking why dismiss something other than history and then claim that it isn't history.

I don't think that's what you were trying to ask so maybe try rephrasing your question.

Earlier, you referred to the book of Revelation as largely allegorical. How did you reach that conclusion, may I ask?

I explained that already: the book describes a vision, a dream. The Bible itself acknowledges that those are supposed to be interpreted allegorically (for instance see the book of Daniel interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar).

And I'll ask again: how else, other than allegorically, can you interpret Revelations unless you literally believe that the end of the world is going to be heralded by a seven-headed creature crawling out of the ocean?
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?
That's like asking how the story of the tortoise and the hare is compatible with science. Adam and Eve and the whole Garden of Eden is a fictitious story, a creation myth. It doesn't NEED to square with science. The story is a representation of the fact that humanity at one time lacked moral sentience, that we were like the other animals. But we evolved empathy and justice and eventually a conscience. At times, our consciences are at odds with the animal instincts we still have, and this puts us out of harmony with others, with nature, with ourselves, and with God.
 
Last edited:

1213

Well-Known Member
There was no first human.
I think that is as funny as irrational claim. So, if there was not a first human. Do you think humans have always existed? Or do you think that somehow for example 1000 people just appeared from thin air? How do you think humans came to exist, how many humans there was in the beginning of humans?
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Actually it is. We can observe the evidence, and the evidence is very clear. There were no Adan and Eve. The same evidence that allowed Maury Povich to say "You ARE the father!!" Also tells us "You ARE an ape!!"
Sorry, I have no reason to believe you.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
To those that can’t read, perhaps. ;)

But I speak only of contradicting a literal reading. If you, like me, consider the bible contains allegory, myth and metaphor, like other literary works, then indeed there may not be contradictions.
Please show the greatest contradiction you know in the Bible, in literal reading.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Thanks for that image. I think it is very good in this case. The problem with that is, we don't know for example what was the DNA of Adam and Eve.

It doesn't matter, is what I'm explaining to you.
2 individuals can only carry the diversity that 2 individuals can carry.

Regardless if they were the reds, blues, greens, yellows........ What follows after it will be based on the diversity of just 2, not hundreds or thousands.
That's how we recognize bottlenecks.

It could have included all the "colored dots".

No. That would mean that 2 individuals carried the diversity of hundreds. That makes no sense. This is not how genetics works.

Without the accurate information of their DNA, we can't really say they could not have existed.
False.

We don't need original DNA to determine that the predicted bottleneck doesn't exist.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
That's not what you were saying. Go read your post, the post that I replied to, again.
Not if I already explained, or had a friend do so for me, no.
Maybe you interpreted it the way you are thinking. How is that not what I was saying?

Your question doesn't make any sense: you're asking why dismiss something other than history and then claim that it isn't history.

I don't think that's what you were trying to ask so maybe try rephrasing your question.
I'm sorry. I missed one tiny word. It was so tiny I missed it. :D
Why dismiss the collection of ancient documents making up the Bible, as something other than history, and then claim we don't find a record in human history.
Does it make sense now?

I explained that already: the book describes a vision, a dream. The Bible itself acknowledges that those are supposed to be interpreted allegorically (for instance see the book of Daniel interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar).

And I'll ask again: how else, other than allegorically, can you interpret Revelations unless you literally believe that the end of the world is going to be heralded by a seven-headed creature crawling out of the ocean?
I just wanted to know your reason, because, the book of Revelation does say it is given in symbolism.
The book of Genesis does say that it is given as history.
So, I was curious as to your reason. That's all.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Sorry, you have offered nothing for to believe anything you said is a real fact.
It's what science has demonstrated.


Nobody has ever demonstrated that the Adam and Eve story written in the Bible is factual in any way, shape, or form.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Okay.


Yes.

Some scientists do believe that, but they debate many things concerning "human origins".
For example in this article...
Modern humans and Neanderthals may have overlapped, shared culture in Western Europe
But findings, based on a reevaluation of radiocarbon dating data, aren’t swaying some experts
Other scientists, however, say the wide margins of error for many of the dates analyzed in the study undercut strong claims about the identities of the inhabitants and whether they indeed overlapped. It’s “a good starting point,” but the conclusions could change based on more accurate dating, says Sahra Talamo, a chemist who directs a radiocarbon laboratory at the University of Bologna.

Evidently they are not really sure of those things they believe.
Even if some feel certain, it's not the case that all the experts agree.
So we do know that humans existed more than 6000 years ago. Cool.
We just aren't sure of the exact dates in which humans and Neanderthals may have shared the planet.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think that is as funny as irrational claim. So, if there was not a first human. Do you think humans have always existed? Or do you think that somehow for example 1000 people just appeared from thin air? How do you think humans came to exist, how many humans there was in the beginning of humans?
I wrote that there was no first human. You are correct that once there were no human beings on earth and now there are, but there was never a creature that was the first human being, because the transition was gradual, and there is no definite definition of what a human being is. The term human is what's known as a vague predicate. There are multiple examples of this. I wish that I could find it again, but it was a large paragraph of text that starts out blue, gradually changes color, and ends red, and asks where the first red letter appears. When was the exact instant that night ended and daylight appeared? At what precise instant did you go from unconscious to conscious this morning when you awakened? What do allof these have in common? Gradual transitions between states with no clear test for inclusion in either that would allow for a definite determination.

The matter is known as the sorites paradox:

"The sorites paradox originated in an ancient puzzle that appears to be generated by vague terms, viz., terms with unclear (“blurred” or “fuzzy”) boundaries of application. ‘Bald’, ‘heap’, ‘tall’, ‘old’, and ‘blue’ are prime examples of vague terms: no clear line divides people who are bald from people who are not, or blue objects from green (hence not blue), or old people from middle-aged (hence not old). Because the predicate ‘heap’ has unclear boundaries, it seems that no single grain of wheat can make the difference between a number of grains that does, and a number that does not, make a heap. Therefore, since one grain of wheat does not make a heap, it follows that two grains do not; and if two do not, then three do not; and so on. This reasoning leads to the absurd conclusion that no number of grains of wheat make a heap."

Now apply this to the last human ancestors that we would agree aren't human. Which one delivered the first human baby? The question has no answer, and that's the paradox - humans weren't always here, but still, there was never a first one.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sorry, I have no reason to believe you.
That is only your fault. You refuse to learn even the basics of science so of course you have no clue whenever you speak of any scientific matters.

By the way your phrasing appears to be a breaking of the rules of the forum. You might want to think about that.

And it would be in your best interest to learn at least the basics of science. Let's say that the Christian God is real. How would he react to you if you kept calling him a liar? Because that is what it looks like you are doing. I am not so sure that willful ignorance would be a valid excuse for that sin if you do not repent of it during your lifetime.
 
Top