Spirituality
08 Aug 15
08 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterWell, I was also thinking about the naming of the more recent new discoveries of mammals: where is Adam when you need him?
I think the names may have been changed, just a teeny bit.
Maybe he just named the dog, cat, goat, cattle and camels.
I doubt whether he named the African Paradise Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis in my garden, a truly magnificent bird. I believe the SA Ornithological Society named that.
Sorry, Adam.
08 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustBetter not go there, you'll agree with me on evolution. 🙂
Well, I was also thinking about the naming of the more recent new discoveries of mammals: where is Adam when you need him?
Maybe he just named the dog, cat, goat, cattle and camels.
I doubt whether he named the African Paradise Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis in my garden, a truly magnificent bird. I believe the SA Ornithological Society named that.
Sorry, Adam.
08 Aug 15
Just in case somebody thinks I am making fun of the Bible, here's my point with this thread.
I have pointed out innumerable times that the Genesis creation story (as is Noah's Ark) is a beautiful poem, a myth full of meaning and signifcance, but it is NOT a literal historical event.
However, there are those that vigorously proclaim it to be literraly true and must be read in that way.
To those I say: Genesis 2, 19 and 20 is written in exactly the same style of writing. Do you also take it to literally true, and if so, what about the animals that were only discovered in more recent times, or the animals that were historically (even in Hebrew and Aramaic) named by others, such as scientific societies?
08 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustDo you also take it to literally true, and if so, what about the animals that were only discovered in more recent times, or the animals that were historically (even in Hebrew and Aramaic) named by others, such as scientific societies?
Just in case somebody thinks I am making fun of the Bible, here's my point with this thread.
I have pointed out innumerable times that the Genesis creation story (as is Noah's Ark) is a beautiful poem, a myth full of meaning and signifcance, but it is NOT a literal historical event.
However, there are those that vigorously proclaim it to be literraly t ...[text shortened]... at were historically (even in Hebrew and Aramaic) named by others, such as scientific societies?
You don't seem to have thought this through very well, so here's a thought experiment. Presumably Native Americans had names for animals that were unknown to European settlers. Just because those settlers "discovered" and "named" the animals, doesn't mean that the Native Americans hadn't named them. So too for Adam.
I understand what you're going for, but this one....
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThanks, ToO. That's exactly what I mean.
You don't seem to have thought this through very well, so here's a thought experiment. Presumably Native Americans had names for animals that were unknown to European settlers. Just because those settlers "discovered" and "named" the animals, doesn't mean that the Native Americans hadn't named them. So too for Adam..
My question then relates to what, exactly, animals did Adam name? Presumably all the animals that were present in the Garden of Eden. What were these? The animals of the Old World?
But it clearly says that God took ALL the animals to Adam, and he named them. But this could NOT have been ALL the animals, so this passage should not be taken too literally.
And, of course, there is then a link to the animals that were taken into the Ark, not so?
Originally posted by CalJustMany, and in fact I'd say most, of the Christians here are unable to differenciate between the truth of the Bible and the literalness of it. Much of the abuse I receive from these Christians stems from this problem.
However, there are those that vigorously proclaim it to be literraly true and must be read in that way.
For examples: the tree of life is not a literal tree planted in soil with roots feeding on substance in the soil. Hell is not a literal place where billions of people will be char-broiled while being kept alive supernaturally by the loving Jesus, the beast with seven heads and ten horns is not a literal monster akin to a stop-motion creature from the Valley of Gwangi or Jason and the Argonauts.
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustWhy couldn't it have been all the animals? Did God miss a couple that He did not present to
Thanks, ToO. That's exactly what I mean.
My question then relates to what, exactly, animals did Adam name? Presumably all the animals that were present in the Garden of Eden. What were these? The animals of the Old World?
But it clearly says that God took ALL the animals to Adam, and he named them. But this could NOT have been ALL the animals, so this ...[text shortened]... ly.
And, of course, there is then a link to the animals that were taken into the Ark, not so?
Adam? Was Adam to busy watching TV? What would have stopped this from happening?
10 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, for one thing, the elephants and giraffes were in Africa 6000 years ago, and the kangeroos in Oz. I doubt whether there were either of them in Eden for Adam to name.
Why couldn't it have been all the animals? Did God miss a couple that He did not present to
Adam? Was Adam to busy watching TV? What would have stopped this from happening?
Or do you think that they were there?
And that is only the mammals. Do you think Adam named the beetles, the aphids, the snakes and scorpions indigenous to South Africa, or does the word "animals" in Genesis 2 only refer to mammals?
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJust"Beasts of the field and birds of the air"
Well, for one thing, the elephants and giraffes were in Africa 6000 years ago, and the kangeroos in Oz. I doubt whether there were either of them in Eden for Adam to name.
Or do you think that they were there?
And that is only the mammals. Do you think Adam named the beetles, the aphids, the snakes and scorpions indigenous to South Africa, or does the word "animals" in Genesis 2 only refer to mammals?
10 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustThe problem here is that you are using as argument, claims that a YEC doesn't believe anyway. Why aren't you asking how Adam named a shell fish that went extinct 10 billion years ago? Because you know they believe the earth is only circa 6000 years old. So why do you think they accept the findings that elephants and giraffes were in Africa 6000 years ago if they already reject most of science anyway?
Well, for one thing, the elephants and giraffes were in Africa 6000 years ago, and the kangeroos in Oz.