ADAM & EVE

[TSBinLV]

No Worries

Nancy,

Don't feel bad. As long as we are civil with each other, public discussions like this can be very productive. I usually find that it is good for me just to organize my ideas into a thoughtful, logical reply so that others can understand my opinion. In other words, I tend to find flaws in my own thinking as soon as I have to explain it to someone else!

Yeah, you could argue that this is supposed to be a forum for discussions on genetics and genealogy, but inevitably, these topics will have some influence on the religious beliefs of many people, and so religion will be discussed now and then - hopefully in a civil manner.

[M.O'Connor]

edit: double post

[M.O'Connor]

Hopefully discussion doesn't turn to preaching.

It's one thing to refer to a group of "people" or a geographical place mentioned in a religious book. Another to go on about miracles or such.

[Jim Denning]

Jim said:
"now most men get so into what they are into they miss the world going by . this is especialy strong in three occupations preaching,scientists, but especially politicians. Maybe you can figure out what they all have in common?"

(1)They live on Earth.?

(2)They are usually on a payroll?

(3)They are made up of men and women?

actually they all want you have faith & believe what they say the first two have a good chance the last one well when i see the devil with an overcoat.........................

[M.O'Connor]

The first 2

(1)Preacher....One is confident they have all the answers.

(2)Scientist....One who has some answers and is still serching for more and better defined answers.


If you want to hang out with number one..go ahead...

If you want to hang out with number 2...go ahead.

number 1 and number 2 are sort of at odds over how things came to be, and other things/issues.


I wish they had all the scientific knowledge back then, that we have today.

[la_roccia]

Good posts on this thread.

My 2¢ about things Biblical. I feel that the Christian Church, the Ecclesia, should function and be seen as a spiritual hospital for curing the maladies of the heart that obstruct our vision of God. To me this is the same basic mission of other religions as well. We all make a choice as to how we pursue our vision or way.

You will see many different positions about its value by many different people. Religious fundamentalists seem to confuse the letter for the truth while secular Bible scholars focus on historical accuracy and the unearthing of contradiction and such.

I see it as a guidebook on how to conduct our lives so that we may be helped in reestablishing our connection with God.

We all have seen where science has demonstrated the impossibility of various events in the Bible. Many translations and mistranslations have produced the Bible we read today. The basic "moral of the story" remains and splitting hairs in regards to thousands or millions of years seem irrelevant to me.

[GregKiroKH]

Men and Women existed before Adam and Eve . . . Adam and Eve were thought to have lived around 4000 BC while the planet is much older. This agrees with the ideas of cell biology.

Cell metabolism begins with glycolysis or something leading up to glucose being converted to lactic acid (2 ATPs). The next logical step would be photosynthesis followed by the redox mechanism of the oxidation of glucose to produce carbon dioxide and water and 36-38 ATPs. It is obvious that the mitochondria become part of an ancestor to both plants and animals while chloroplasts only become a part of plants. By the time humans learnt to communicate, it is obvious that they would debate whether heaven came before the earth or earth came before the heavens and other silly things like that rather than changing from teleological topics in favor of reason and discovery. Mankind found themselves the masters of the land so naturally some assumed themselves to be the supreme life form or creator as others recognized that a higher form of life most likely existed who could not possibly be human.

<<Henceforth the leaders of enlightenment must either seek to reform and deepen traditional religion, like Pythagoras, or oppose it openly, like Xenophanes [father of satire]. . . . http://faculty.evansville.edu/tb2/co...net/ch2.htm#59 >>

<<Aesop (c. 620 to 560 BC) - Fables >>

<<Father of satire. Archil’ochos of Paros (B.C. seventh century, 680 BC - 645 BC).
http://www.bartleby.com/81/14911.html >>

<<HOMER (8th CENTURY) The Greek alphabet was introduced in the early 8th century. There is considerable scholarly debate about whether Homer was actually a real person, or the name given to one or more oral poets who sang traditional epic material.Greek Homēros means "hostage". There is a theory that his name was back-extracted from the name of a society of poets called the Homeridae, which literally means "sons of hostages", i.e., descendants of prisoners of war. As these men were not sent to war because their loyalty on the battlefield was suspect, they would not get killed in battles. Thus they were entrusted with remembering the area's stock of epic poetry, to remember past events, in the times before literacy came to the area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer >>

And so, the only way the ancients could find an answer was to pick the best tales known.

I find the Bible helpful in my daily walk. And it does reveal the desire of the fool to change the law.

[M.O'Connor]

"And it does reveal the desire of the fool to change the law."

what does that mean?

[Jim Denning]

We all have seen where science has demonstrated the impossibility of various events in the Bible. Many translations and mistranslations have produced the Bible we read today. The basic "moral of the story" remains and splitting hairs in regards to thousands or millions of years seem irrelevant to me.

scientist know as much of the bible as preachers do science which is nothing
they fathom stuff but faill to see the connectors but how can you expect a scientist who thinks he doesnt believe in god to know what christians dont know
and how can you expect christians [ and i mean all religions] to know science when no one seems interested in making it for them. and no one dare make those connections

i posted about the flood being to cleanse the blood of humans from the dna of the giants iin genisus the nephalium. lol few and far between are sermons on the giants . so christians cant see it and why would you expect sientists toknow it if christians dont. Its the failure for good teaching in religion and openess to unknown facts to scientists

i know for a fact most of what i post most of you have never heard of before why? things have explainations no one should be scared to cross the others people turf. i mean its not against gods law for a christian to agree with a scientist and vice versa.

pbs does a frontline or nova it has been on this week freud vs lewis
a fantastic show.

[GregKiroKH]

"And it does reveal the desire of the fool to change the law."

what does that mean?

The Fool (Proverbs 26:1-11, http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=618)
7. THE FOOL IS UNPLEASANT, UNLIKED, AND UNDESIRABLE.
6. THE FOOL IS UNTEACHABLE.
5. THE FOOL IS UNRELIABLE.
4. THE FOOL IS UNDISCIPLINED.
3. THE FOOL IS UNREALISTIC.
2. THE FOOL IS UNWISE.
1. THE FOOL IS UNRIGHTEOUS.

Many people just make up thoughts based upon what they have heard instead of reading for themselves.

[Jim Denning]

Can't we find a comfortable spot in the tension between faith and science? Remember "Fiddler on the Roof's 'On the other hand...?'"

Doing any serious historical work on our planet means that one has to confront both faith, science and keeping an open mind to surprises. I notice the Bible invoked many times and basically categorized in the realm of "faith." It is a source of faith as well as being one of the ancient historical records that humanity has produced.

While sitting in a seminary class in the 80's our guest lecturer, Dr. William Dever, said that near east discoveries from every archeological expedition were checked with the Biblical record. His rule was that procedure in doing excavations must be scientific, but his personal faith won't change by the results he comes up with. When pressed as to whether Noah's ark could be found, he said that he didn't personally believe that it ever existed, but even if it was found intact on Ararat or if it was never found it would not affect his faith either way.

I have friends working on digs like the Madaba projects in Jordan. Their scientific method "wins some" and "looses some" when it comes to physically affirming faith. They have discovered some names of OT Kings of neighbouring countries to Israel and Judah, yet no evidence as of yet (also read less and less) that the Hebrews travelled en mass from Egypt.

when you talk to him give him the pitch for genetic testing my moms a dever and my grand uncle ran for president 1948 dem prrimary paul a dever. his cousin was the second irish catholic mayor of chicago my cousins
he was a cousin ide love to see whare william fits

[Marttinen]

I'm in too isolated a place now to rub shoulders with anyone more famous than a Hershey's Chocolate Shoppe employee here in Smiths Falls, Ontario. Last I heard, though, Bill Dever's faith leanings were more towards a Jewish vein. He is into the boring, scientific approach to archeology. No "Indiana Jones" treasure hunting or rebuilding nationalistic edifaces. His method of archeology is testing 1-2 percent of a site, measuring length and depth, jotting down the chemical analysis results and then leaving the place to future archeologists to play with. He must be familiar with the DNA rubbings...

[M.O'Connor]

The Fool (Proverbs 26:1-11, http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=618)
7. THE FOOL IS UNPLEASANT, UNLIKED, AND UNDESIRABLE.
6. THE FOOL IS UNTEACHABLE.
5. THE FOOL IS UNRELIABLE.
4. THE FOOL IS UNDISCIPLINED.
3. THE FOOL IS UNREALISTIC.
2. THE FOOL IS UNWISE.
1. THE FOOL IS UNRIGHTEOUS.

Many people just make up thoughts based upon what they have heard instead of reading for themselves.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Reading what for themselves?.....reading something somebody else wrote.?

Does something writen down have more meaning than something said out of thought? it seems to me that all written things came from thought. It does not make all things written correct. Thoughts written down are still thoughts.
And if re-read they become thoughts again. Sometimes one's written thoughts can be misinterpreted by readers.

7. THE FOOL IS UNPLEASANT, UNLIKED, AND UNDESIRABLE.

(only if people turn their backs on people they label fools.)

6. THE FOOL IS UNTEACHABLE.
(The fool has taught others to find him different.)
(If others refuse to learn from the fool..they are Unteachable themselves)

5. THE FOOL IS UNRELIABLE.

(What kind of statement is that? A Foolish one for sure.)

4. THE FOOL IS UNDISCIPLINED.

(undiciplined makes no sense..i'm sure even the fool has a daily routine)

3. THE FOOL IS UNREALISTIC.

( what is realistic?..is it different from "Real".. what is "Reality" is it thought? )

2. THE FOOL IS UNWISE.

The fool is wise enough to survive and not believe everything they are told or everything written by others.

1. THE FOOL IS UNRIGHTEOUS.

righteous only exists in the minds of some people..others may dismiss it as nonsense.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa

Who gets to decide who the fools are.?

Are fools singular people?..or can a group of people be fools?

If groups of fools exist are they found only in small numbers throughout the World, or can a large group be Fools?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa

Maybe only a Fool knows a Fool.

my opinion

[GregKiroKH]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

. . .

Who gets to decide who the fools are.?

Are fools singular people?..or can a group of people be fools?

If groups of fools exist are they found only in small numbers throughout the World, or can a large group be Fools?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa

Maybe only a Fool knows a Fool.

my opinion

I often find it difficult to answer a question with the ideas of other people. Socrates was quoted by someone to say, "I am Ignorant." A fool would have answered the question rather than to humble himself. We are all ignorant. We cannot know everything. As far as the Bible is concern, the first five books of the Bible is said to have had four authors who are called E, Y, P and D. The four Gospels are Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Each author has viewpoints based upon their prospective. A fool tries to change the law. A fool would add knowledge to someone else’s argument while claiming that it is their truth. A fool would take a law, and the fool would change it to fit his life. A fool does not believe in God. A fool claims his own deity above all else. Is being a fool right or wrong, good or bad, holy or evil? Experience in life will tell. Wise men from the past do not agree with the fool. A fool does not have to be told he is a fool. He is just one as a donkey is not a stallion. The fool may be an authority who leads the world away from peace and cohabitation, or he may just be a greedy or sinful man who does not listen to other people. It is not foolish to wonder if the heavens came before the earth or if the earth came before the heavens. The original sin is with mankind's ability to listen to the Lord's pathway. The Lord was here before I was here, and even a foolish thought may help with ignorance.

[M.O'Connor]

I often find it difficult to answer a question with the ideas of other people. Socrates was quoted by someone to say, "I am Ignorant." A fool would have answered the question rather than to humble himself. We are all ignorant. We cannot know everything. As far as the Bible is concern, the first five books of the Bible is said to have had four authors who are called E, Y, P and D. The four Gospels are Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Each author has viewpoints based upon their prospective. A fool tries to change the law. A fool would add knowledge to someone else’s argument while claiming that it is their truth. A fool would take a law, and the fool would change it to fit his life. A fool does not believe in God. A fool claims his own deity above all else. Is being a fool right or wrong, good or bad, holy or evil? Experience in life will tell. Wise men from the past do not agree with the fool. A fool does not have to be told he is a fool. He is just one as a donkey is not a stallion. The fool may be an authority who leads the world away from peace and cohabitation, or he may just be a greedy or sinful man who does not listen to other people. It is not foolish to wonder if the heavens came before the earth or if the earth came before the heavens. The original sin is with mankind's ability to listen to the Lord's pathway. The Lord was here before I was here, and even a foolish thought may help with ignorance.

You say...A fool does not believe in god? Who are you trying to fool?

I am aware of what ignorance is, and I'm relieved that a fool knows who he is.

If it is foolish to wonder if the Heavens came before the earth..then why did they write it in the bible genesis? ..lot's of stone-age thinking, and some basic geography, and mention of various ethnic groups