(10-12-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 07:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Curious on your thoughts about this. I promise no arguments from me - just want to see how people view human origins when taking into account the Genesis creation stories and the scientific discoveries made when studying human origins. Some questions may be:

• Where in Africa was the Garden of Eden?
• Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens, or were they an ancestor species like Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus?
• Could the Neanderthals be the Nephalim?
  

The stories in what we now call the Bible were written by men who had no idea at all how humans or the cosmos came into existence. Not surprising, since they had no way of knowing those things. Those stories were likely never meant to be taken as "history" nor were they likely taken that way by the people to whom they were told.

So asking questions as if a mythical "Garden of Eden" and "Adam and Eve" were anything more than symbolic representations makes little sense.

Tell that to Ben Carson.

Why?

You haven't heard?

Haven't heard what?

(10-12-2015 09:23 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Isaiah 40:22

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth".

Wow it is a circle now is it not ?

What do you mean by this comment?

(10-11-2015 07:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Curious on your thoughts about this. I promise no arguments from me - just want to see how people view human origins when taking into account the Genesis creation stories and the scientific discoveries made when studying human origins. Some questions may be:

• Where in Africa was the Garden of Eden?
• Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens, or were they an ancestor species like Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus?
• Could the Neanderthals be the Nephalim?
  

The stories in what we now call the Bible were written by men who had no idea at all how humans or the cosmos came into existence. Not surprising, since they had no way of knowing those things. Those stories were likely never meant to be taken as "history" nor were they likely taken that way by the people to whom they were told.

So asking questions as if a mythical "Garden of Eden" and "Adam and Eve" were anything more than symbolic representations makes little sense.

I don't believe in the Genesis stories, including the creation stories, Tower of Babel, The Flood, the mass enslavement of millions of Israelites in Egypt and I even doubt if the patriarchs of Israel were real people or were legends based on real people. However, a number of people who are Christian have various beliefs about the bible, and if you believe the bible to be essentially true in the creation stories, I was curious to see how people reconcile that with what we know of human evolution and genetics.

(10-12-2015 12:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 07:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Curious on your thoughts about this. I promise no arguments from me - just want to see how people view human origins when taking into account the Genesis creation stories and the scientific discoveries made when studying human origins. Some questions may be:

• Where in Africa was the Garden of Eden?
• Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens, or were they an ancestor species like Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus?
• Could the Neanderthals be the Nephalim?
  

The stories in what we now call the Bible were written by men who had no idea at all how humans or the cosmos came into existence. Not surprising, since they had no way of knowing those things. Those stories were likely never meant to be taken as "history" nor were they likely taken that way by the people to whom they were told.

So asking questions as if a mythical "Garden of Eden" and "Adam and Eve" were anything more than symbolic representations makes little sense.

I don't believe in the Genesis stories, including the creation stories, Tower of Babel, The Flood, the mass enslavement of millions of Israelites in Egypt and I even doubt if the patriarchs of Israel were real people or were legends based on real people. However, a number of people who are Christian have various beliefs about the bible, and if you believe the bible to be essentially true in the creation stories, I was curious to see how people reconcile that with what we know of human evolution and genetics.

It's actually very simple.

Generally speaking, some people who share your beliefs 'bend' their interpretations of the scripture to make it incompatible with 'science', and then challenge 'believers' based not on THEIR interpretation of the scriptures, but on YOURS. Frankly I don't see this as being any different than those 'believers' who similarly 'bend' their interpretations of science (like young earthers) to make it compatible with their faith.

MOST Christians believe that the Bible is a collection of stories. That the stories are parables and examples given to a 1AD population. I find it funny how many people see the Constitution as a 'living breathing document', but can't see the Bible as one.

Surely you wouldn't expect a 1AD population to understand the human genome and shared DNA? They MIGHT understand that man and beast are all made up of essentially the same things... with only minor differences. Darwin's theories which really seem banal in this day and age (survival of the fittest, weak traits being 'bred' out) weren't that long ago, relative to when the bible was written. Today we have Bubba and Sissy practicing that science in their back yard puppy mill.

It was a comment towards ken d, and his opinion of " how the Bible us just stories written by man without the full knowledge of the cosmos blah , blah .."

(10-12-2015 01:30 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  It was a comment towards ken d, and his opinion of " how the Bible us just stories written by man without the full knowledge of the cosmos blah , blah .."

I'm pretty much in agreement with that... or at least it ins't inconsistent with what i believe....

and Kens comment, like mine was in response to the OP

(10-12-2015 10:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 07:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  The stories in what we now call the Bible were written by men who had no idea at all how humans or the cosmos came into existence. Not surprising, since they had no way of knowing those things. Those stories were likely never meant to be taken as "history" nor were they likely taken that way by the people to whom they were told.

So asking questions as if a mythical "Garden of Eden" and "Adam and Eve" were anything more than symbolic representations makes little sense.

Tell that to Ben Carson.

Why?

You haven't heard?

Haven't heard what?

What Ben Carson said.

Carson must be doing well in whatever polls the Dems are being told to look at. They certainly seem to have it in for everything he has to say, and it's INCREDIBLY petty stuff.

Anyone who is deciding who to vote for based on their interpretation of scripture isn't voting for Carson... Of course, they aren't voting for Bernie or Hillary either. For democrats to be so worried about their own candidates that they're arguing about the bible is pretty telling I think. Rather than arguing FOR their candidate, they're arguing AGAINST others.... even when their own candidates hold the same (essential) positions.

(10-12-2015 01:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 07:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Curious on your thoughts about this. I promise no arguments from me - just want to see how people view human origins when taking into account the Genesis creation stories and the scientific discoveries made when studying human origins. Some questions may be:

• Where in Africa was the Garden of Eden?
• Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens, or were they an ancestor species like Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus?
• Could the Neanderthals be the Nephalim?
  

The stories in what we now call the Bible were written by men who had no idea at all how humans or the cosmos came into existence. Not surprising, since they had no way of knowing those things. Those stories were likely never meant to be taken as "history" nor were they likely taken that way by the people to whom they were told.

So asking questions as if a mythical "Garden of Eden" and "Adam and Eve" were anything more than symbolic representations makes little sense.

I don't believe in the Genesis stories, including the creation stories, Tower of Babel, The Flood, the mass enslavement of millions of Israelites in Egypt and I even doubt if the patriarchs of Israel were real people or were legends based on real people. However, a number of people who are Christian have various beliefs about the bible, and if you believe the bible to be essentially true in the creation stories, I was curious to see how people reconcile that with what we know of human evolution and genetics.

It's actually very simple.

Generally speaking, some people who share your beliefs 'bend' their interpretations of the scripture to make it incompatible with 'science', and then challenge 'believers' based not on THEIR interpretation of the scriptures, but on YOURS. Frankly I don't see this as being any different than those 'believers' who similarly 'bend' their interpretations of science (like young earthers) to make it compatible with their faith.

MOST Christians believe that the Bible is a collection of stories. That the stories are parables and examples given to a 1AD population. I find it funny how many people see the Constitution as a 'living breathing document', but can't see the Bible as one.

Surely you wouldn't expect a 1AD population to understand the human genome and shared DNA? They MIGHT understand that man and beast are all made up of essentially the same things... with only minor differences. Darwin's theories which really seem banal in this day and age (survival of the fittest, weak traits being 'bred' out) weren't that long ago, relative to when the bible was written. Today we have Bubba and Sissy practicing that science in their back yard puppy mill.

The OP was more innocent than you assume. I have found that what people believe about the bible run along a continuum from pure literalist to pure mythology. Most people are clustered somewhere in the center - roughly speaking. I know a whole slew of people who do not believe that God created the universe, earth and life in 6 literal days. Yet many of them still believe that there was an actual Adam and Eve. Also, most people I know or spoke to believe that the nation of Israel was enslaved in Egypt. It's more of a mixed bag on the Flood, but I don't think the assumption that "most believe the bible was largely made up of stories" - assuming OT only - is accurate.

(10-12-2015 02:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 07:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Curious on your thoughts about this. I promise no arguments from me - just want to see how people view human origins when taking into account the Genesis creation stories and the scientific discoveries made when studying human origins. Some questions may be:

• Where in Africa was the Garden of Eden?
• Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens, or were they an ancestor species like Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus?
• Could the Neanderthals be the Nephalim?
  

The stories in what we now call the Bible were written by men who had no idea at all how humans or the cosmos came into existence. Not surprising, since they had no way of knowing those things. Those stories were likely never meant to be taken as "history" nor were they likely taken that way by the people to whom they were told.

So asking questions as if a mythical "Garden of Eden" and "Adam and Eve" were anything more than symbolic representations makes little sense.

I don't believe in the Genesis stories, including the creation stories, Tower of Babel, The Flood, the mass enslavement of millions of Israelites in Egypt and I even doubt if the patriarchs of Israel were real people or were legends based on real people. However, a number of people who are Christian have various beliefs about the bible, and if you believe the bible to be essentially true in the creation stories, I was curious to see how people reconcile that with what we know of human evolution and genetics.

It's actually very simple.

Generally speaking, some people who share your beliefs 'bend' their interpretations of the scripture to make it incompatible with 'science', and then challenge 'believers' based not on THEIR interpretation of the scriptures, but on YOURS. Frankly I don't see this as being any different than those 'believers' who similarly 'bend' their interpretations of science (like young earthers) to make it compatible with their faith.

MOST Christians believe that the Bible is a collection of stories. That the stories are parables and examples given to a 1AD population. I find it funny how many people see the Constitution as a 'living breathing document', but can't see the Bible as one.

Surely you wouldn't expect a 1AD population to understand the human genome and shared DNA? They MIGHT understand that man and beast are all made up of essentially the same things... with only minor differences. Darwin's theories which really seem banal in this day and age (survival of the fittest, weak traits being 'bred' out) weren't that long ago, relative to when the bible was written. Today we have Bubba and Sissy practicing that science in their back yard puppy mill.

The OP was more innocent than you assume. I have found that what people believe about the bible run along a continuum from pure literalist to pure mythology. Most people are clustered somewhere in the center - roughly speaking. I know a whole slew of people who do not believe that God created the universe, earth and life in 6 literal days. Yet many of them still believe that there was an actual Adam and Eve. Also, most people I know or spoke to believe that the nation of Israel was enslaved in Egypt. It's more of a mixed bag on the Flood, but I don't think the assumption that "most believe the bible was largely made up of stories" - assuming OT only - is accurate.

No, it really wasn't. You just can't see your own logic flaws... because you believe what you believe.

You admit yourself that people are 'somewhere in the middle' and have a 'mixed bag'... but you don't see that as a book made up of stories that are a collection of parables and examples for a 1ad audience? If they were absolutely demonstrable facts, they wouldn't be a mixed bag, nor would they be parables or examples. They are (imo) a mixture of facts and 'poetic license' or perhaps better said, 'small words' designed to elicit an understanding, not create an alibi.

I think your description fits 100% with mine. If you can't, it's because of what seems to me to be your inability to imagine that someone who 'believes' could in any way be rational in their beliefs. It started with your OP, and continues through your latest post.

MAYBE the problem you have is that all of these details you seem to think are REALLY important just aren't that important in the grand scheme of things (to those who believe in God). Most depictions of 'the big bang' are consistent with us going from 'nothing' to the beginnings of 'everything' in a very short period of time. 6 days? Maybe... why not? I simply don't buy it as a literal 6 days because I can't imagine why God would measure time in 'earth days'.... but the point is that it happened quickly. Some are convinced it was 6 days. I don't think God really cares which we believe.

Even scientists believe that there was at some point an 'adam and an eve'... meaning the first two 'humans' somewhere along the evolutionary scale... Whether that was Australopithecus Lucy and her 'mate' from 3 million years ago or 'homo sapien sapiens' of 200,000 years ago or Adam Levine and Eve Schwartz from 500 BC is certainly subject to debate, primarily over how you define time and 'man'... and whether that was an actual story that happened to those two, or merely an anecdote/parable is similarly subject to debate.

If the belief that there actually was a garden of eden and a snake and an adam and eve is important to your understanding of God, then you will find this significant. If it is not, you won't. It's more a question of 'CARING' than believing. I 'believe' it because I believe the bible... but I don't care because I don't think God cares... and if God doesn't care, then why would the details matter rather than the 'point'... and just as politicians today always trot out some person who is going to be better off because of their proposed policy... I think humanizing concepts is important to getting understanding and acceptance.

You said you weren't going to argue, yet that is all I see you doing. You ask people to explain... they explain... you don't agree, so you insist they explain more. Well, I can't explain any more than that. God doesn't care if you believe in a literal Adam and Eve or not... What he cares about (imo) is that you believe that he is 'powerful' and that sin is not a good thing.... and that sin is what keeps distance between 'us' and 'heaven'.

Bottom line, we tend to believe stories that help us get to that understanding, and we tend to gloss over those that don't... but for MOST of us, the details of ANY story really aren't important.

You SURE aren't explaining the big bang theory and evolution or likely even the concept of millions of years to a 1st century audience. These are people (generally) who think that the sun is pulled across the sky by a chariot and that the earth ends and you fall off at the horizon.

As far as either/or or both/and... the answer is 'yes'. It is. Sorry that doesn't fit with your preconception, but it is the most true response any of us could give you. They are ALL possible and likely and not inconsistent with each other... it all depends on your perspective.

w/o reading any of what this thread contains, I would suggest the following for 'folks'......

Carl Sagan - Cosmos (on youtube)....he couldn't make any simpler nor enjoyable as a viewing en macro....

not gonna link it....do the due yourself.....

(10-12-2015 01:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 07:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 03:19 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Curious on your thoughts about this. I promise no arguments from me - just want to see how people view human origins when taking into account the Genesis creation stories and the scientific discoveries made when studying human origins. Some questions may be:

• Where in Africa was the Garden of Eden?
• Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens, or were they an ancestor species like Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus?
• Could the Neanderthals be the Nephalim?
  

The stories in what we now call the Bible were written by men who had no idea at all how humans or the cosmos came into existence. Not surprising, since they had no way of knowing those things. Those stories were likely never meant to be taken as "history" nor were they likely taken that way by the people to whom they were told.

So asking questions as if a mythical "Garden of Eden" and "Adam and Eve" were anything more than symbolic representations makes little sense.

I don't believe in the Genesis stories, including the creation stories, Tower of Babel, The Flood, the mass enslavement of millions of Israelites in Egypt and I even doubt if the patriarchs of Israel were real people or were legends based on real people. However, a number of people who are Christian have various beliefs about the bible, and if you believe the bible to be essentially true in the creation stories, I was curious to see how people reconcile that with what we know of human evolution and genetics.

It's actually very simple.

Generally speaking, some people who share your beliefs 'bend' their interpretations of the scripture to make it incompatible with 'science', and then challenge 'believers' based not on THEIR interpretation of the scriptures, but on YOURS. Frankly I don't see this as being any different than those 'believers' who similarly 'bend' their interpretations of science (like young earthers) to make it compatible with their faith.

MOST Christians believe that the Bible is a collection of stories. That the stories are parables and examples given to a 1AD population. I find it funny how many people see the Constitution as a 'living breathing document', but can't see the Bible as one.

Surely you wouldn't expect a 1AD population to understand the human genome and shared DNA? They MIGHT understand that man and beast are all made up of essentially the same things... with only minor differences. Darwin's theories which really seem banal in this day and age (survival of the fittest, weak traits being 'bred' out) weren't that long ago, relative to when the bible was written. Today we have Bubba and Sissy practicing that science in their back yard puppy mill.

The Genesis stories weren't aimed at a 1AD population. They were likely at least a thousand years old by then, and maybe several or even many thousands of years before. The point I was making is that these stories were't somehow given by God to some Jewish author through divine inspiration. They were early man's crude efforts at imagining how and where we might have come from.

I wonder whether the Jewish audience who read or heard one version of these stories (and there were many similar versions in that part of the world) ever believed them to be true, or merely perpetuated them for their children much like the way we perpetuate the Santa Claus story for our children.

I think modern Christians ascribe much greater veracity and reliability to Old Testament stories than ancient Jews did. Just as Christians are more likely to believe that belief in a Messiah was widespread within Judaism, as opposed to being a belief of a relatively small Jewish sect that sprung up not long before their designated "Messiah" actually came on the scene.

(10-12-2015 07:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  The Genesis stories weren't aimed at a 1AD population. They were likely at least a thousand years old by then, and maybe several or even many thousands of years before.

That was merely a 'catch all' for me. Anything true of a 1AD audience would be just as true of a 200AD audience even more true of a 1000bc audience.

Quote: The point I was making is that these stories were't somehow given by God to some Jewish author through divine inspiration. They were early man's crude efforts at imagining how and where we might have come from.

Even if someone believes they were given to a Jewish author, they had to make sense to him... so they would have been told in a way that he could imagine. It's the same net result, regardless of which one you believe. I tend to agree with you, but again, I don't think that God really cares about that.

Quote:I wonder whether the Jewish audience who read or heard one version of these stories (and there were many similar versions in that part of the world) ever believed them to be true, or merely perpetuated them for their children much like the way we perpetuate the Santa Claus story for our children.

I think enough people died to 'protect' those stories that it wasn't like Santa Claus. I'd certainly not die to protect something I knew wasn't true, would you?

Quote:I think modern Christians ascribe much greater veracity and reliability to Old Testament stories than ancient Jews did. Just as Christians are more likely to believe that belief in a Messiah was widespread within Judaism, as opposed to being a belief of a relatively small Jewish sect that sprung up not long before their designated "Messiah" actually came on the scene.

Well, there's really no way to know... but I think it's easy for Christians to accept the old testament simply because it isn't really that important to most of us. The laws and rules and customs were all rendered far less important than a belief in Jesus. I hope I'm saying that clearly.... It's far easier to accept something if the consequences of being wrong are relatively immaterial. If it really matters, you want to be sure you've got it right.

(10-12-2015 09:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 07:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  The Genesis stories weren't aimed at a 1AD population. They were likely at least a thousand years old by then, and maybe several or even many thousands of years before.

That was merely a 'catch all' for me. Anything true of a 1AD audience would be just as true of a 200AD audience even more true of a 1000bc audience.

Quote: The point I was making is that these stories were't somehow given by God to some Jewish author through divine inspiration. They were early man's crude efforts at imagining how and where we might have come from.

Even if someone believes they were given to a Jewish author, they had to make sense to him... so they would have been told in a way that he could imagine. It's the same net result, regardless of which one you believe. I tend to agree with you, but again, I don't think that God really cares about that.

Quote:I wonder whether the Jewish audience who read or heard one version of these stories (and there were many similar versions in that part of the world) ever believed them to be true, or merely perpetuated them for their children much like the way we perpetuate the Santa Claus story for our children.

I think enough people died to 'protect' those stories that it wasn't like Santa Claus. I'd certainly not die to protect something I knew wasn't true, would you?

Quote:I think modern Christians ascribe much greater veracity and reliability to Old Testament stories than ancient Jews did. Just as Christians are more likely to believe that belief in a Messiah was widespread within Judaism, as opposed to being a belief of a relatively small Jewish sect that sprung up not long before their designated "Messiah" actually came on the scene.

Well, there's really no way to know... but I think it's easy for Christians to accept the old testament simply because it isn't really that important to most of us. The laws and rules and customs were all rendered far less important than a belief in Jesus. I hope I'm saying that clearly.... It's far easier to accept something if the consequences of being wrong are relatively immaterial. If it really matters, you want to be sure you've got it right.

There's no way to know, but its a pretty big stretch to think the ancient Jews didn't really believe those stories.

(10-12-2015 04:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 07:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  The stories in what we now call the Bible were written by men who had no idea at all how humans or the cosmos came into existence. Not surprising, since they had no way of knowing those things. Those stories were likely never meant to be taken as "history" nor were they likely taken that way by the people to whom they were told.

So asking questions as if a mythical "Garden of Eden" and "Adam and Eve" were anything more than symbolic representations makes little sense.

I don't believe in the Genesis stories, including the creation stories, Tower of Babel, The Flood, the mass enslavement of millions of Israelites in Egypt and I even doubt if the patriarchs of Israel were real people or were legends based on real people. However, a number of people who are Christian have various beliefs about the bible, and if you believe the bible to be essentially true in the creation stories, I was curious to see how people reconcile that with what we know of human evolution and genetics.

It's actually very simple.

Generally speaking, some people who share your beliefs 'bend' their interpretations of the scripture to make it incompatible with 'science', and then challenge 'believers' based not on THEIR interpretation of the scriptures, but on YOURS. Frankly I don't see this as being any different than those 'believers' who similarly 'bend' their interpretations of science (like young earthers) to make it compatible with their faith.

MOST Christians believe that the Bible is a collection of stories. That the stories are parables and examples given to a 1AD population. I find it funny how many people see the Constitution as a 'living breathing document', but can't see the Bible as one.

Surely you wouldn't expect a 1AD population to understand the human genome and shared DNA? They MIGHT understand that man and beast are all made up of essentially the same things... with only minor differences. Darwin's theories which really seem banal in this day and age (survival of the fittest, weak traits being 'bred' out) weren't that long ago, relative to when the bible was written. Today we have Bubba and Sissy practicing that science in their back yard puppy mill.

The OP was more innocent than you assume. I have found that what people believe about the bible run along a continuum from pure literalist to pure mythology. Most people are clustered somewhere in the center - roughly speaking. I know a whole slew of people who do not believe that God created the universe, earth and life in 6 literal days. Yet many of them still believe that there was an actual Adam and Eve. Also, most people I know or spoke to believe that the nation of Israel was enslaved in Egypt. It's more of a mixed bag on the Flood, but I don't think the assumption that "most believe the bible was largely made up of stories" - assuming OT only - is accurate.

No, it really wasn't. You just can't see your own logic flaws... because you believe what you believe.

You admit yourself that people are 'somewhere in the middle' and have a 'mixed bag'... but you don't see that as a book made up of stories that are a collection of parables and examples for a 1ad audience? If they were absolutely demonstrable facts, they wouldn't be a mixed bag, nor would they be parables or examples. They are (imo) a mixture of facts and 'poetic license' or perhaps better said, 'small words' designed to elicit an understanding, not create an alibi.

I think your description fits 100% with mine. If you can't, it's because of what seems to me to be your inability to imagine that someone who 'believes' could in any way be rational in their beliefs. It started with your OP, and continues through your latest post.

MAYBE the problem you have is that all of these details you seem to think are REALLY important just aren't that important in the grand scheme of things (to those who believe in God). Most depictions of 'the big bang' are consistent with us going from 'nothing' to the beginnings of 'everything' in a very short period of time. 6 days? Maybe... why not? I simply don't buy it as a literal 6 days because I can't imagine why God would measure time in 'earth days'.... but the point is that it happened quickly. Some are convinced it was 6 days. I don't think God really cares which we believe.

Even scientists believe that there was at some point an 'adam and an eve'... meaning the first two 'humans' somewhere along the evolutionary scale... Whether that was Australopithecus Lucy and her 'mate' from 3 million years ago or 'homo sapien sapiens' of 200,000 years ago or Adam Levine and Eve Schwartz from 500 BC is certainly subject to debate, primarily over how you define time and 'man'... and whether that was an actual story that happened to those two, or merely an anecdote/parable is similarly subject to debate.

If the belief that there actually was a garden of eden and a snake and an adam and eve is important to your understanding of God, then you will find this significant. If it is not, you won't. It's more a question of 'CARING' than believing. I 'believe' it because I believe the bible... but I don't care because I don't think God cares... and if God doesn't care, then why would the details matter rather than the 'point'... and just as politicians today always trot out some person who is going to be better off because of their proposed policy... I think humanizing concepts is important to getting understanding and acceptance.

You said you weren't going to argue, yet that is all I see you doing. You ask people to explain... they explain... you don't agree, so you insist they explain more. Well, I can't explain any more than that. God doesn't care if you believe in a literal Adam and Eve or not... What he cares about (imo) is that you believe that he is 'powerful' and that sin is not a good thing.... and that sin is what keeps distance between 'us' and 'heaven'.

Bottom line, we tend to believe stories that help us get to that understanding, and we tend to gloss over those that don't... but for MOST of us, the details of ANY story really aren't important.

You SURE aren't explaining the big bang theory and evolution or likely even the concept of millions of years to a 1st century audience. These are people (generally) who think that the sun is pulled across the sky by a chariot and that the earth ends and you fall off at the horizon.

As far as either/or or both/and... the answer is 'yes'. It is. Sorry that doesn't fit with your preconception, but it is the most true response any of us could give you. They are ALL possible and likely and not inconsistent with each other... it all depends on your perspective.

In the movie on the Scopes monkey trial, the attorney pointed out that the Sun wasn't created until after the 3rd day. So how do you know how long the first days were? And the sea creatures (and birds) were created on the 5th day, other land animals on the 6th and man later on the 6th. All pretty consistent with evolution in the order.

Do you guys think the genealogy is real?

(10-12-2015 10:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Do you guys think the genealogy is real?

Joseph's probably was. They really kept track of that stuff. Their tribes were important. The rest is too perfect, 3 groups of 14. David's assumed geneology was probably a well known parable. And maybe Joseph's got shortened to make the 14. The Jews had a thing about the number 7.

(10-12-2015 10:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 04:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 12:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't believe in the Genesis stories, including the creation stories, Tower of Babel, The Flood, the mass enslavement of millions of Israelites in Egypt and I even doubt if the patriarchs of Israel were real people or were legends based on real people. However, a number of people who are Christian have various beliefs about the bible, and if you believe the bible to be essentially true in the creation stories, I was curious to see how people reconcile that with what we know of human evolution and genetics.

It's actually very simple.

Generally speaking, some people who share your beliefs 'bend' their interpretations of the scripture to make it incompatible with 'science', and then challenge 'believers' based not on THEIR interpretation of the scriptures, but on YOURS. Frankly I don't see this as being any different than those 'believers' who similarly 'bend' their interpretations of science (like young earthers) to make it compatible with their faith.

MOST Christians believe that the Bible is a collection of stories. That the stories are parables and examples given to a 1AD population. I find it funny how many people see the Constitution as a 'living breathing document', but can't see the Bible as one.

Surely you wouldn't expect a 1AD population to understand the human genome and shared DNA? They MIGHT understand that man and beast are all made up of essentially the same things... with only minor differences. Darwin's theories which really seem banal in this day and age (survival of the fittest, weak traits being 'bred' out) weren't that long ago, relative to when the bible was written. Today we have Bubba and Sissy practicing that science in their back yard puppy mill.

The OP was more innocent than you assume. I have found that what people believe about the bible run along a continuum from pure literalist to pure mythology. Most people are clustered somewhere in the center - roughly speaking. I know a whole slew of people who do not believe that God created the universe, earth and life in 6 literal days. Yet many of them still believe that there was an actual Adam and Eve. Also, most people I know or spoke to believe that the nation of Israel was enslaved in Egypt. It's more of a mixed bag on the Flood, but I don't think the assumption that "most believe the bible was largely made up of stories" - assuming OT only - is accurate.

No, it really wasn't. You just can't see your own logic flaws... because you believe what you believe.

You admit yourself that people are 'somewhere in the middle' and have a 'mixed bag'... but you don't see that as a book made up of stories that are a collection of parables and examples for a 1ad audience? If they were absolutely demonstrable facts, they wouldn't be a mixed bag, nor would they be parables or examples. They are (imo) a mixture of facts and 'poetic license' or perhaps better said, 'small words' designed to elicit an understanding, not create an alibi.

I think your description fits 100% with mine. If you can't, it's because of what seems to me to be your inability to imagine that someone who 'believes' could in any way be rational in their beliefs. It started with your OP, and continues through your latest post.

MAYBE the problem you have is that all of these details you seem to think are REALLY important just aren't that important in the grand scheme of things (to those who believe in God). Most depictions of 'the big bang' are consistent with us going from 'nothing' to the beginnings of 'everything' in a very short period of time. 6 days? Maybe... why not? I simply don't buy it as a literal 6 days because I can't imagine why God would measure time in 'earth days'.... but the point is that it happened quickly. Some are convinced it was 6 days. I don't think God really cares which we believe.

Even scientists believe that there was at some point an 'adam and an eve'... meaning the first two 'humans' somewhere along the evolutionary scale... Whether that was Australopithecus Lucy and her 'mate' from 3 million years ago or 'homo sapien sapiens' of 200,000 years ago or Adam Levine and Eve Schwartz from 500 BC is certainly subject to debate, primarily over how you define time and 'man'... and whether that was an actual story that happened to those two, or merely an anecdote/parable is similarly subject to debate.

If the belief that there actually was a garden of eden and a snake and an adam and eve is important to your understanding of God, then you will find this significant. If it is not, you won't. It's more a question of 'CARING' than believing. I 'believe' it because I believe the bible... but I don't care because I don't think God cares... and if God doesn't care, then why would the details matter rather than the 'point'... and just as politicians today always trot out some person who is going to be better off because of their proposed policy... I think humanizing concepts is important to getting understanding and acceptance.

You said you weren't going to argue, yet that is all I see you doing. You ask people to explain... they explain... you don't agree, so you insist they explain more. Well, I can't explain any more than that. God doesn't care if you believe in a literal Adam and Eve or not... What he cares about (imo) is that you believe that he is 'powerful' and that sin is not a good thing.... and that sin is what keeps distance between 'us' and 'heaven'.

Bottom line, we tend to believe stories that help us get to that understanding, and we tend to gloss over those that don't... but for MOST of us, the details of ANY story really aren't important.

You SURE aren't explaining the big bang theory and evolution or likely even the concept of millions of years to a 1st century audience. These are people (generally) who think that the sun is pulled across the sky by a chariot and that the earth ends and you fall off at the horizon.

As far as either/or or both/and... the answer is 'yes'. It is. Sorry that doesn't fit with your preconception, but it is the most true response any of us could give you. They are ALL possible and likely and not inconsistent with each other... it all depends on your perspective.

In the movie on the Scopes monkey trial, the attorney pointed out that the Sun wasn't created until after the 3rd day. So how do you know how long the first days were? And the sea creatures (and birds) were created on the 5th day, other land animals on the 6th and man later on the 6th. All pretty consistent with evolution in the order.

Just want to point out that while the order of the creatures is (very roughly) correct, the creation of the sun after the earth is wrong.

(10-13-2015 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Do you guys think the genealogy is real?

Joseph's probably was. They really kept track of that stuff. Their tribes were important. The rest is too perfect, 3 groups of 14. David's assumed geneology was probably a well known parable. And maybe Joseph's got shortened to make the 14. The Jews had a thing about the number 7.

There is a lot of numerology used throughout the bible. A lot of stories were built around the numbers 3, 6, 7, 12, 40 and 1000. In interesting example is in the book of Revelation where 144,000 for the number of sealed - which is 12*12*1000.

(10-13-2015 09:17 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 08:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:36 PM)Claw Wrote:  Do you guys think the genealogy is real?

Joseph's probably was. They really kept track of that stuff. Their tribes were important. The rest is too perfect, 3 groups of 14. David's assumed geneology was probably a well known parable. And maybe Joseph's got shortened to make the 14. The Jews had a thing about the number 7.

There is a lot of numerology used throughout the bible. A lot of stories were built around the numbers 3, 6, 7, 12, 40 and 1000. In interesting example is in the book of Revelation where 144,000 for the number of sealed - which is 12*12*1000.

I suspect numerology also played a role in the concept of the Trinity. It was somehow easier to accept the idea of more than one God if you could sell it as three persons in one God. Otherwise, the whole Holy Spirit thing would seem unnecessary.

As it was, the Jews, who had evolved from monolatry to monotheism by this time, were a much harder sell on the Trinity idea (and on the divinity of Jesus) than gentiles who had always been more OK with plural gods.