Questions About Adam and Eve

It's more that the implications of an explanation are actually more relevant than its actual explanatory power. Evolution or Genesis? Hey, one lets me continue my literalist view on the Bible to convince myself I will receive eternal life, so the choice is clear, isn't it.

Now let me look for some arguments why it might be right.
 
I suppose so. But even that doesn't help me.

Believing in evolution doesn't prevent me from believing in an eternal life*. Nor does believing in genesis convince me that I'll receive eternal life.

I don't see there's any explanatory power here.

*what tends to prevent me is a non-dualistic model of the universe. And even this doesn't guarantee it, to my mind.
 
No offense to anyone who believes, but it seems very sketchy to me that every single organization that offers eternal life hinges this promise on your belief in something mysterious and not fully evident. "You will see it if you want to". Again, no offense, but my scamdar just goes off when I hear something like that, no matter if it's religious in nature or a guy on the street offering me a great deal on a speaker system.

I would gladly accept eternal life if someone offered it to me in circumstances that were not so.. sketchy.
 
Do you want me to quote the whole article?

I'd prefer to hear a summary in your own words, as well as your take on what the article said, which parts you agree with, which parts you disagree with, and how it relates to what we're discussing.

Otherwise it's just kind of pointless :)

Invariably this means you'd gladly accept temporal life unless you decide it's worth your effort to discern what is "sketchy" and what is not.

The thing is I have no reason to believe that immortality exists, much like I have no reason to believe that a $100 speaker system exists that can operate at the same level as a $2,000 valued one.

So I accept what I perceive as reality until a deal that doesn't seem as sketchy comes a-knocking
 
So you believe the creation of the Bible has been influenced by several different beings with conflicting agendas?

Isn't that even worse news for the legitimacy of the Bible as a religious document?
 
http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions
This my last post here in this thread.

Setup....

and punchline!
Spoiler :
Do you want me to quote the whole article?

Don't bother - I will :D

genesis contradictions resolved before your very eyes in less than 1200 words or your money back! said:
Between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve, the KJV/AV Bible says (Genesis 2:19) ‘out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air’. On the surface, this seems to say that the land beasts and birds were created between Adam and Eve. However, Jewish scholars apparently did not recognize any such conflict with the account in chapter 1, where Adam and Eve were both created after the beasts and birds (Genesis 1:23–25). Why is this? Because in Hebrew the precise tense of a verb is determined by the context. It is clear from chapter 1 that the beasts and birds were created before Adam, so Jewish scholars would have understood the verb ‘formed’ in (Genesis 2:19 to mean ‘had formed’ or ‘having formed’. If we translate verse 19 as follows (as one widely used translation1 does), ‘Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’, the apparent disagreement with Genesis 1 disappears completely.

The question also stems from the wrong assumption that the second chapter of Genesis is just a different account of creation to that in chapter 1. It should be evident that chapter 2 is not just ‘another’ account of creation because chapter 2 says nothing about the creation of the heavens and the earth, the atmosphere, the seas, the land, the sun, the stars, the moon, the sea creatures, etc. Chapter 2 mentions only things directly relevant to the creation of Adam and Eve and their life in the garden God prepared specially for them. Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God’s perspective; it is ‘the big picture’, an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man’s perspective.

Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.

‘Generations’ is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin’ or ‘record of the origin’. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.

Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1–2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as ‘author’ of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The toledoths acknowledge the sources of the historical records Moses used. This understanding underlines the historical nature of Genesis and its status as eyewitness history, contrary to the defunct ‘documentary (JEDP) hypothesis’ still taught in many Bible colleges. [Ed. note: for a refutation of this fallacious and anti-Christian theory, see Did Moses really write Genesis?.]

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation.

The differences in the toledoth statements of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1 affirm that chapter 1 is the overview the record of the origin of the ‘heavens and earth’ (2:4)—whereas chapter 2 is concerned with Adam and Eve, the detailed account of Adam and Eve’s creation (5:1,2). The wording of 2:4 also suggests the shift in emphasis: in the first part of the verse it is ‘heavens and earth’ whereas in the end of the verse it is ‘earth and heavens’. Scholars think that the first part of the verse would have been on the end of a clay or stone tablet recording the origin of the universe and the latter part of the verse would have been on the beginning of a second tablet containing the account of events on earth pertaining particularly to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:4b–5:1a).

Let us apply this understanding to another objection: some also see a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9. We have already realized that Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct import to Adam and Eve, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general.

Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation.

The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”

Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female he created them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts.

Initial criticism:
Each record was probably originally a stone or clay tablet. There is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1–2:4), because it refers primarily to the origin of the whole universe, not any person in particular (Adam and Eve are not mentioned by name, for example). Also, only God knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, possibly to Adam who recorded it. Moses, as ‘author’ of Genesis, acted as a compiler and editor of the various sections, adding explanatory notes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

For such an important tale as how the universe was created, these folks employed a remarkably lax quality assurance system.

I'll leave it to others flesh out the criticism this line of reasoning deserves.
 
How do you know for sure he didn't take a wife? I suspect you are correct, of course, but I don't recall The Bible actually stating categorically anywhere that he did not take a wife. It just never mentions him doing so.
 
Look. These ancient Hebrews venerated their documents for the age of the documents, not necessarily for their content. Right?
 
How do you know for sure he didn't take a wife? I suspect you are correct, of course, but I don't recall The Bible actually stating categorically anywhere that he did not take a wife. It just never mentions him doing so.
Don't ask, don't tell.
 
And non-sketchy deals won't come knocking often, if at all.

Oh, they do. I bought a $912 return ticket to Bangkok from Toronto the other day. :cool: Wasn't even skeptical, was directly through united.com.. which is probably the worst airline in the world to fly with to a far away place, but.. I save $400-$700

Either way, relating this back to what we were talking about, if a site called betterthanunited.com tried to sell me such a ticket for $200.. That's what I mean by sketchy.

How do you know for sure he didn't take a wife? I suspect you are correct, of course, but I don't recall The Bible actually stating categorically anywhere that he did not take a wife. It just never mentions him doing so.

Hmm, most of his life isn't documented in the Bible, right? So that seems plausible. But wouldn't his wife be there lamenting his death, at some point or other? Seems like she'd be mentioned by *someone*.
 
Adam and Eve is merely an allegory for the creation of private property as also described by Rousseau.
 
Back
Top Bottom