1 edit
@caissad4 saidWe can say that with absolute certainty. - To have any kind of credibility, a theist must accept the Adam and Eve narrative isn't a literal account.
Science has proven that the Adam and Eve thing is impossible .
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe absolute is a place where no man has gone before. I'm absolutely certain. However, I do agree that the Bible is full of text for the illiterate. Back then, I hear that only a few were literate. And the best way to communicate abstract concepts to the illiterate is through story telling, as one does with very young children before they are taught how to read and write, and also before being taught to distinguish between childish fairy tales, and grownups' fairy tales.
We can say that with absolute certainty. - To have any kind of credibility, a theist must accept the Adam and Eve narrative isn't a literal account.
How do you make a whisky marmalade sandwich? Literally! Whisky marmalade also goes well on ice-cream, to give it an extra kick, in taste.
The Adam and Eve narrative, once properly understood, can give a real kick to faith.
@pettytalk saidOne pops along to Fortnum & Mason.
How do you make a whisky marmalade sandwich? Literally! Whisky marmalade also goes well on ice-cream, to give it an extra kick, in taste.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidDr Robecca Cann (USA) and her team established via Mitochondrial Eve (from Ethiopia) common ancestry through the female line back in the eighties.
We can say that with absolute certainty. - To have any kind of credibility, a theist must accept the Adam and Eve narrative isn't a literal account.
She certainly did NOT prove Adam and Eve, but they did establish a common female ancestor which they named "Eve".
Can we split the difference?
@medullah saidProve Adam sir and we can talk.
Dr Robecca Cann (USA) and her team established via Mitochondrial Eve (from Ethiopia) common ancestry through the female line back in the eighties.
She certainly did NOT prove Adam and Eve, but they did establish a common female ancestor which they named "Eve".
Can we split the difference?
@pettytalk saidI've always wondered if there was a bit more in Paddington Bear's sandwiches than met the eye- I think that you have just cracked it; a large splash of Famous Grouse.
The absolute is a place where no man has gone before. I'm absolutely certain.
How do you make a whisky marmalade sandwich? Literally! Whisky marmalade also goes well on ice-cream, to give it an extra kick, in taste.
The Adam and Eve narrative, once properly understood, can give a real kick to faith.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIf you don't accept the beginning, everything that follows goes with it. I see any reason why anyone who calls themselves a Christian who rejects Genesis should be taken seriously as a Christian. You can call yourself a theist for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with scripture. There are some here who think the Bible should be rewritten who call themselves Christian, or they ignore parts of scriptures they don't like in favor of some they do, they can get very selective on what portions of scriptures they can agree with.
We can say that with absolute certainty. - To have any kind of credibility, a theist must accept the Adam and Eve narrative isn't a literal account.
@medullah saidIn all seriousness, we have evidenced that the modern human at the very least evolved from a much more primitive state, so Adam and Eve would certainly not be humans as we recognise them today.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
That's what i wanted to split it, I can only go as far as Eve.
@kellyjay saidThere 'was' a beginning (on this planet) but it didn't originate in a garden. (It really didn't).
If you don't accept the beginning, everything that follows goes with it. I see any reason why anyone who calls themselves a Christian who rejects Genesis should be taken seriously as a Christian. You can call yourself a theist for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with scripture. There are some here who think the Bible should be rewritten who call themselves C ...[text shortened]... vor of some they do, they can get very selective on what portions of scriptures they can agree with.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidunquestionable evidence with certainty?
In all seriousness, we have evidenced that the modern human at the very least evolved from a much more primitive state, so Adam and Eve would certainly not be humans as we recognise them today.
I wouldn't subscribe to the evolutionary theory of man coming from apes up through neanderthals as there has been work that destroys that way of thinking.
I would subscribe to the idea that as a species we were greater than we are today, and it's almost as if we have become debased by comparison (e.g. Pyramids).
Concluding, may I suggest that one way or another mankind was terraformed onto the planet?
Thoughts anyone, or shall I open this as a new thread?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt was spoken into being Creatio ex nihilo, it did, it did.
There 'was' a beginning (on this planet) but it didn't originate in a garden. (It really didn't).