@ghost-of-a-duke said1 Timothy 2:14:
“Sin entered the world through one MAN, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people” (Romans 5:12).
"And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression."
They both sinned and are arguably equally responsible for the fall.
@vivify saidIt's a complete mystery to me why "org a ns of re pro duction" is blocked when I post and not when you do.
[quote]@moonbus said
In medieval times, it was hotly debated, whether Adam had a navel, since he was not of woman born. This is the explanation for some paintings of Adam in Eden with his midriff hidden by a leaf.
Adam did need to use the bathroom, so presumably his bladder had an exit. He would not, however, have needed organs for reproduction. Nor would Eve have n ...[text shortened]... ns before the fall.
And that brings us back to whether Adam was created with that organ or not.
Well, I can only say, the Book of Genesis cannot be taken as a literal history of what really happened as described. It's just too incoherent for that.
282d
@moonbus saidEver heard of Urantia Book? It is a detailed description of the creation. Much of it matches Genesis. It really does not read like a human wrote it... its too detailed and intricate. Interesting to read but too long. If you have not yet come across it, Google it and read a little bit of it. Its kinda weird ... but one gets drawn in by the details
Well, I can only say, the Book of Genesis cannot be taken as a literal history of what really happened as described. It's just too incoherent for that.
@moonbus saidTesting the word: excrete
It's a complete mystery to me why "org a ns of re pro duction" is blocked when I post and not when you do.
Well, I can only say, the Book of Genesis cannot be taken as a literal history of what really happened as described. It's just too incoherent for that.
EDIT: no auto-mod for that one
282d
@rajk999 saidIt is well known, at least among people who have studied the history of religions, that the Book of Genesis is cobbled together from two much more ancient myth-stories which have nothing to do with each other. It's just an historical accident that the two happen to be juxtaposed in the Jewish OT.
Ever heard of Urantia Book? It is a detailed description of the creation. Much of it matches Genesis. It really does not read like a human wrote it... its too detailed and intricate. Interesting to read but too long. If you have not yet come across it, Google it and read a little bit of it. Its kinda weird ... but one gets drawn in by the details
@moonbus saidThere is more to Genesis than just A&E (or specifically Creation) and the flood.
It is well known, at least among people who have studied the history of religions, that the Book of Genesis is cobbled together from two much more ancient myth-stories which have nothing to do with each other. It's just an historical accident that the two happen to be juxtaposed in the Jewish OT.
And I might remind you that what Christians call the OT is the only testament for the Jews.
282d
@vivify saidReally, how is this a serious question?
This is going to seem like I'm making some cheap joke but I'm completely serious about this question.
Does God have a penis?
If God made Adam in his image does that mean Adam was created with a penis? Or was a penis added after Eve? If it was added after, then Adam walked as a Ken doll for a while before Eve? Did God add a penis when removed Adam's rib?
Let's get ...[text shortened]... be God doesn't have a penis but Jesus does? Does that mean Jesus is more masculine than his Father?
@moonbus saidI'm just reflecting your Grammar Stasi persona back to you over your use of "Jewish OT", that's all. And Genesis was cobbled together from far more stories and legends than just two. Just burned out from correcting spelling in Debates. 🙂
I was aware of that, yes.