Adam & Eve (Breeding) Watch

Airel
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#21
Report 11 years ago
#21
Why the hell did god only make 2 people in the first place, if he did, of course.
0
reply
o-e-s-j
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#22
Report 11 years ago
#22
(Original post by TML)
NB: It's worth pointing out that the laws seen in the Pentateuch [books of law - first five books of the Bible] which were given to the authority were written AFTER Genesis, so the incest laws, or indeed many other laws, did not strictly nor formally apply. More to the point, Genesis is arguably a figurative book within Christian theology.
oh, this one's a classic! you've had your bull**** torn apart by rational and logical reason and unequivocal proof; so all of sudden it becomes a "metaphor", a fable, "figurative". :rolleyes:

lol :rolleyes:
0
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 11 years ago
#23
(Original post by Airel)
Why the hell did god only make 2 people in the first place, if he did, of course.
he wanted them to have lots and lots of fun in the garden?
0
reply
o-e-s-j
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#24
Report 11 years ago
#24
0
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 11 years ago
#25
(Original post by o-e-s-j)
oh, this one's a classic! you've had your bull**** torn apart by rational and logical reason and unequivocal proof; so all of sudden it becomes a "metaphor", a fable, "figurative". :rolleyes:

lol :rolleyes:
No, it's not actually. Any notable theologian would tell you that Genesis is a figurative book. Just look at the style of written - the even more ambiguous imagery and poetic style despite uncovering the semetic (Hebrew) language. It's as figurative as pandora's box. It's was merely a way to demonstrate how the earth was created through a way that the people at the time would understand. Their was an oral culture, and stories such as Creation were used as a way to describe how God created the earth, not a scientific analysis of it. So refrain from you :rolleyes: smilies and actually do some research.

Genesis has been known to be figurative for a long time after scholars have researched the books of the Bible. There is a clear difference between Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch [books of law - first five books of the Old Testament]. Compare Genesis to, say, Mark's Gospel. Clear difference in culture, period and tone. Events were recorded in a factual account in the latter book.

You wouldn't take Revelations, with all it's splendid imagery and poetic themes, literally, so don't do it with Genesis. You wouldn't take Songs of Songs literally either, however you would take the Gospels literally. It is not a case of us moving the goalposts, but a case of interpreting each book for their individual value.

Why the hell did god only make 2 people in the first place, if he did, of course.
Why not, lol?
0
reply
o-e-s-j
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#26
Report 11 years ago
#26
(Original post by TML)
No, it's not actually. Any notable theologian would tell you that Genesis is a figurative book. Just look at the style of written - the even more ambiguous imagery and poetic style despite uncovering the semetic (Hebrew) language. It's as figurative as pandora's box. It's was merely a way to demonstrate how the earth was created through a way that the people at the time would understand. Their was an oral culture, and stories such as Creation were used as a way to describe how God created the earth, not a scientific analysis of it. So refrain from you :rolleyes: smilies and actually do some research.

Genesis has been known to be figurative for a long time after scholars have researched the books of the Bible. There is a clear difference between Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch [books of law - first five books of the Old Testament]. Compare Genesis to, say, Mark's Gospel. Clear difference in culture, period and tone. Events were recorded in a factual account in the latter book.

You wouldn't take Revelations, with all it's splendid imagery and poetic themes, literally, so don't do it with Genesis. You wouldn't take Songs of Songs literally either, however you would take the Gospels literally. It is not a case of us moving the goalposts, but a case of interpreting each book for their individual value.


Why not, lol?
you've clear misunderstood my objection.

1. some people do believe the bible word for word - they're what i like to call spɹɐʇǝɹ

2. even if you think of it as figurative, why do you pay any more attention to it than hamlet, the simpsons movie or that episode of friends where joey loses his health insurance.

3. "intended to describe how the earth was created, not a scientific analysis of it" - well duh. but why would anyone in the 21st century pay any attention to the opiate-induced campfire fairytales of 2000 year old arabs. i have no idea how the earth/universe was created but i like to think i'm not so small minded as to believe that i could/would ever know the answer [or need an answer].

4. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:tsr2:
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#27
Report 11 years ago
#27
(Original post by Airel)
Why the hell did god only make 2 people in the first place, if he did, of course.
He only made one in the first place, if you recall correctly. However that one, it would appear, shagged all the animals and plants in God's garden. God realised this wasn't really satisfactory, and made another one from his rib.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#28
Report 11 years ago
#28
(Original post by o-e-s-j)
oh, this one's a classic! you've had your bull**** torn apart by rational and logical reason and unequivocal proof; so all of sudden it becomes a "metaphor", a fable, "figurative". :rolleyes:
How many people do you know that interpret the Genesis story literally? Near zero.
0
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 11 years ago
#29
I'm impresssed that an 800 year old Adam can still get it up. Must have been those Viagra laced apples in the garden.

Wait! That's what the snake offered him! Guys, I think we've just made a breakthrough!
0
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 11 years ago
#30
you've clear misunderstood my objection.

1. some people do believe the bible word for word - they're what i like to call spɹɐʇǝɹ
The minority of Christians do, and they are called fundamentalists. That does not substantiate your attack against traditional Christianity - that we are somehow changing our beliefs to suit science, which is clearly untrue - the evidence suggests that Genesis was always meant to be figurative.

2. even if you think of it as figurative, why do you pay any more attention to it than hamlet, the simpsons movie or that episode of friends where joey loses his health insurance.
Genesis, although being figurative, conveys key theological principles. The key concepts that we are all sinful, that God was our Creator, that God wants us to rest on one day in seven, that the principle of earthly stewardship still applies (the earth is in a state of dual ownership - we have a responsibility to take care of the earth), that sin is our fault (we are accountable and responsible for it), that we must work in life amongst other key principles.

3. "intended to describe how the earth was created, not a scientific analysis of it" - well duh. but why would anyone in the 21st century pay any attention to the opiate-induced campfire fairytales of 2000 year old arabs. i have no idea how the earth/universe was created but i like to think i'm not so small minded as to believe that i could/would ever know the answer [or need an answer].
Christians are willing to admit that they do not have proof of their God, thus your point is quite irrelevant. I'm glad you accept that nobody is 100% of the answer. You also raise the point of why we should pay attention to Genesis although it is not scientific, which I've addressed in my last point.

4. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:tsr2:
My word, what a compelling argument... :rolleyes:
0
reply
_jackofdiamonds
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#31
Report 11 years ago
#31
I'm related to the talking snake.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 11 years ago
#32
(Original post by TML)
The minority of Christians do, and they are called fundamentalists. That does not substantiate your attack against traditional Christianity - that we are somehow changing our beliefs to suit science, which is clearly untrue - the evidence suggests that Genesis was always meant to be figurative.
If you fancy believing Genesis, so what? If you're going to believe things, believe something that's nice and poetic.

Don't fall victim to the modern trend for believing as fact every theory came up with to explain what we observe on this planet.

Logically, we should all be absolute sceptics anyway - in which case, I believe the only thing we can actually be certain about is our own existence in some way. Therefore, it we're going to make logical jumps, we might as well make them pleasant ones.

Equally though, the person to whom you are responding is a bit of a dolt.
0
reply
da_nolo
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report 11 years ago
#33
(Original post by o-e-s-j)
oh, this one's a classic! you've had your bull**** torn apart by rational and logical reason and unequivocal proof; so all of sudden it becomes a "metaphor", a fable, "figurative". :rolleyes:

lol :rolleyes:
Im still waiting for proof you pwans...nothing logical has been said.




oh and yea.....
0
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 11 years ago
#34
(Original post by Libertin du Nord)
If you fancy believing Genesis, so what? If you're going to believe things, believe something that's nice and poetic.

Don't fall victim to the modern trend for believing as fact every theory came up with to explain what we observe on this planet.

Logically, we should all be absolute sceptics anyway - in which case, I believe the only thing we can actually be certain about is our own existence in some way. Therefore, it we're going to make logical jumps, we might as well make them pleasant ones.

Equally though, the person to whom you are responding is a bit of a dolt.
If truth be known, I don't care what other people believe so long as they don't make assumptions on what I believe.
0
reply
mermania
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#35
Report 11 years ago
#35
(Original post by TML)
that sin is our fault (we are accountable and responsible for it),
it might be your fault, but it's certainly not mine!
0
reply
Meliae
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 11 years ago
#36
(Original post by Libertin du Nord)
He only made one in the first place, if you recall correctly. However that one, it would appear, shagged all the animals and plants in God's garden. God realised this wasn't really satisfactory, and made another one from his rib.
Men :rolleyes:
0
reply
Sundous
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#37
Report 11 years ago
#37
How does the evolution theory justify the "breeding" of man then? Ok to put it bluntly, we were a cell then fish, then some kind of pseudo-monkey then a monkey then finally humans. How and why did we exactly reach that stage? And does that mean that over a few thousand years, man will evolve in something else? Perhaps giant robots with fish fins. Depending on the circumstances and state of the earth that is.

Anyway, I find it rather simple to say that creationism is "BS" thus denying presence of an all-mighty deity, yet not giving any constructive criticism and not stating how man eventually bred and evolved in an alternate and acceptable manner by those who confide in such a statement. A manner that is of course, no "BS" in the eyes of an evolutionist and/or something else :rolleyes:
0
reply
ForeverIsMyName
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#38
Report 11 years ago
#38
(Original post by Sundous)
How does the evolution theory justify the "breeding" of man then? Ok to put it bluntly, we were a cell then fish, then some kind of pseudo-monkey then a monkey then finally humans. How and why did we exactly reach that stage? And does that mean that over a few thousand years, man will evolve in something else? Perhaps giant robots with fish fins. Depending on the circumstances and state of the earth that is.
Read...

Anyway, I find it rather simple to say that creationism is "BS" thus denying presence of an all-mighty deity,
God and evolution are compatible, I should think.
0
reply
Sundous
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 11 years ago
#39
(Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
Read...



God and evolution are compatible, I should think.

Was referring to the Abrahamic God.


Not sure what you're trying to point out with that article. I've (reluctantly) studied the evolution theory and that is the proper basis . One celled amoebe-like organisms is the basis of mankind being the fundament.
0
reply
ForeverIsMyName
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#40
Report 11 years ago
#40
(Original post by Sundous)
Was referring to the Abrahamic God.
So was I - One can be a Christian or Muslim without thinking the world is 6000 years old

Not sure what you're trying to point out with that article. I've (reluctantly) studied the evolution theory and that is the proper basis . One celled amoebe-like organisms is the basis of mankind being the fundament.
Essentially the answer to your question is that small mutations and adaption to our environment has made us turn out like this; we can discover why by looking at the fossil record and transitional fossils, as well as observing evolution in labs and in the world around us.

As to whether humans are still evolving; there's an ongoing debate in the field of science. I personally believe we are.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1377)
79.5%
Leave (355)
20.5%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise