Interesting that you take all those as going on at once. Similar myths have been written across the world.
Humans all have the same experiences even across cultures and it is seen within our mythology which is how Genesis is written.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Adam and Eve as a Myth
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Interesting that you take all those as going on at once. Similar myths have been written across the world.
Humans all have the same experiences even across cultures and it is seen within our mythology which is how Genesis is written.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
Agnostic75 said:
rusra02 said:
How can you reject evolution when you continue to refuse to discuss Dr. Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum? You are opposing something that you do not even understand. You do not even understand the basics of biology, let alone advanced biology, and geology. This could easily be proven with a quick question and answer session where you would agree not to consult any sources, and only provide answers based upon your own knowledge.
As Dr. Miller said in his article, the flagellum is sometimes referred to as creationists' "poster child" since they believe that it provides excellent evidence for creationism. Well, how much do you know about that "poster child," not things that you can copy, but things that you understand yourself? You criticize other people, but you consistently refuse to show what your scientific academic credentials are.
rusra02 said:
One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. Now then, here you are, with no degree in biology, and not even the equivalent knowledge of a second year college biology student, making an utterly absurd, outrageous comment about examining evidence in spite of the fact that that 99.86% of experts has spent years studying lots of evidence that you have never read, let alone understand.
If creationism is true, so what? That would not tell us anything about who God is, and what his agenda are.
Some black African Christian creationists live in remote jungle regions in the world, do not know how to read or write, and have very little contact with the outside world. Have they "examined the evidence" of evolution in detail? Of course not, not even minimally, and yet you are happy that they became Christians even though they know next to nothing about science. So, "examining the evidence" is not really an issue for you after all as long as people choose to believe what you want them to believe.
So now we have an answer to my question. I said "Do you believe that it is acceptable for people who know very little about science to accept creationism, and the global flood story?" As I just showed with the African scenario, your obvious answer is "yes," which invites the question "Since science doesn't really matter to you after all, why are you making posts in a science forum?
As far as "the popular course" is concerned, you do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Until the 1800s, "the popular course" for most Christians was accepting creationism, and the global flood theory. Christians who did not accept those theories were widely criticized. As science began to develop further, fewer Christians chose to be inerrantists. So, until the 1800s, you had exactly the situation that you wanted, where most Christians accepted creationism, and the global flood theory, but it did not last. Until theistic evolution became popular, it took a lot of courage for some Christians to publically accept theistic evolution. They did not accept "the popular course." They did what they believed what right.
Henry Morris, Ph.D., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He once said that the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that Gods word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture. (Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, 1970, p. 32-33.)
Obviously, Morris only accepted science when he believed that it agrees with the Bible.
It is reasonable to assume that the majority of Christians in the world do not know enough about biology, and geology, to claim from an entirely scientific perspective, that creationism, and the global flood theory, are true.
Last edited:
javajo
Well-Known Member
Hi, I don't believe they all happened at once. I don't believe Genesis is a myth, but is actual fact. I can't prove it, its just what I believe.
gnostic
The Lost One
Javajo said:
Facts required physical evidences that can be tested and verified with more physical evidences.
There are no physical evidences to support of global flood in the last 10,000 years (many evidences large floods but not of global one as given in the bible and definitely not at the same time), no evidences to support the ark (embarrassing supposed claims and finds of the ark @ mount arrarat have been exposed as fraud), no evidences to support creation of life, sun, moon, stars, humans, etc in the last 6000 years, and lastly no evidences to support all of the above claims that a god was involved.
Heck, you can't even prove Abraham, Isaac and Jacob really exist (with evidences) beyond the story of the "bible".
Unless you have actual evidences to prove it is not myth, then you have no "actual fact". It is that simple.
Do not confuse FACT with your FAITH, because they are not the same.
Last edited:
javajo
Well-Known Member
Hi, I believe there is evidence of the Flood of Noah. If you are talking about Ron Wyatts pic's of what he thinks was the Ark, I agree they are not. But there is another Ark that stays covered with ice that satellite images and air force pilots have seen as well as locals. That is in Turkey on the Mountains of Ararat. Abraham is widely accepted to be the Father of the Jewish and Arab people and even at the time of Jesus they all said they came from Abraham. It was not contested and the priests had very well kept records of their ancestry to prove they were of the tribe of Levi to be accepted into the priesthood. The records were destroyed by Titus in AD 70 at the diaspora and the temple destroyed with not one stone left upon the other, precisely as Jesus prophesied some 30 odd years before.
gnostic
The Lost One
javajo said:
Don't be so naive, javajo.
People believe in all sort of things, and tried to make their ancestry greater than they are or were.
Alexander the Great believed that he was descendant of Achilles and his son Neoptolemus (Pyrrhus). Julius Caesar and Augustus believed that he was descendant of Romulus, Mars, and the Trojan hero Aeneas.
If you have read the history of Herodotus or Diodorus Siculus, or ancient geography guide books of Strabo, you will read that many ancient towns and cities where people were descendants of Heracles/Hercules or some other mythological figures, or who found their cities.
Goodness knows how many medieval people and even people today, who think they are/were descendants of King Arthur or Lancelot or Tristan.
And in the Sumerian and Egyptian cultures, both claim some sorts of gods or goddesses to be their parent(s) or they were descendants of them, so they can legitimatize their claims to the throne. And they used priests and priestesses to gain such recognition.
And if you were to look at Jewish history during the Hellenistic or Roman periods, where so many claimed to be the "Messiah" before Jesus.
gnostic
The Lost One
javajo said:
No, javajo. All claims have been either refuted or proven to be mistaken or fake.
Sorry, I had misspelled Ararat earlier.
As far back as Constantine, many Christians claimed to have cross of Jesus' crucifixion. There were enough pieces of woods to remake a small forest of crosses.
The Shroud of Turin is a perfect example of medieval fake.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
all of the flood myth's in the area all surround a real regional flood and a real man Ziusudra when the Euphrates overflowed in 2900 BC and started the flood mythology the Israelites used.
Historians are pretty much unanimous this is what happend, and no credible scholar states otherwise.
No, there is not.
Abraham is said to be a mythical charactor who never existed by all of mainstream scholarships, Israelite mythology.
Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is now generally accepted that nothing in the Genesis stories can be related to the history of Canaan of the early 2nd millennium: none of the kings mentioned are known, Abimelech could not have been a Philistine (they did not arrive until centuries later), Ur would not become known as "Ur of the Chaldeans" until the early 1st millennium, and Laban could not have been an Aramean, as the Arameans did not become an identifiable political entity until the 12th century
The narrative of Abraham originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE as a mirror of the situation facing the Jewish community under the Babylonian and early Persian empires.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham#cite_note-books.google.com.au-6
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
javajo said:
Sources please.
javajo said:
What does that have to do with a global flood?
javajo said:
What does that have to do with a global flood?
javajo said:
Aside from that not being a valid argument, what does it have to do with a global flood?
You cannot possibly date when Jesus prophesied anything because there are not any original first century biblical manuscripts in existence, and hardly even any second century originals.
The fossil record shows that if a global flood occurred, fossils and sediments would not have been sorted like they are sorted.
Well, unfortunately(or fortunately), reality is not on your side.
gnostic
The Lost One
Let's not forget historical Egyptian and Sumerian civilisations have been around 3100 BCE, and prehistorical cultures predate these civilisations.
According to the descendants in Genesis 10, Nimrod, son of Canaan, founded Uruk, Babylon, Akkad and Kalneh. I know that Babylon have been around since 2500 BCE, but it was a minor town throughout the 3rd millennium BCE. Babylon only came into prominency in the 2nd millennium BCE and onward.
And Uruk was one of cities that predated Sumerian civilisation, founded in about 5000 BCE (Uruk XVIII), during the Eridu period (5300–4700 BC). There was also Uruk period (4000-3100), which the archaeologists have named after Uruk. So this Nimrod couldn't have possibly found or built Uruk.
According to the descendants in Genesis 10, Nimrod, son of Canaan, founded Uruk, Babylon, Akkad and Kalneh. I know that Babylon have been around since 2500 BCE, but it was a minor town throughout the 3rd millennium BCE. Babylon only came into prominency in the 2nd millennium BCE and onward.
And Uruk was one of cities that predated Sumerian civilisation, founded in about 5000 BCE (Uruk XVIII), during the Eridu period (5300–4700 BC). There was also Uruk period (4000-3100), which the archaeologists have named after Uruk. So this Nimrod couldn't have possibly found or built Uruk.
javajo
Well-Known Member
We'll see in the end who is living in reality.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
javajo said:
You personal beliefs are only important to you, not to anyone else. Anyone can claim that they believe anything by faith. If faith is all that matters, one worldview is as good as another. If you wish to discuss something other than just faith, what do you wish to discuss?
Consider the following:
Wikipedia said:
Of particular note are "historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines." Christians who are interested in Christian apologetics are not content to merely say "the Bible says so," and try to offer evidence besides just faith since they know that a mere personal declaration of faith is not going to convince anyone of anything. In this thread, you have not been consistent. Sometimes you appealed to just faith. When that did not get you anywhere, you then tried to use some scientific arguments. When that didn't work, you then went back to just faith, which of course, anyone can have, and is just a personal thing that no one else can verify.
A very large scientific consensus of Christians and skeptics accepts naturalistic or theistic evolution, and does not believe that a global flood occurred. Most people in the world are not scientific experts. It is reasonable for those people to accept the opinions of a very large concensus of skeptic and Christian experts.
Are you interested in science or not?
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
How could a God exist who supposedly wants people to hear the Gospel message, but refuses to verbally tell anyone about it himself, and supposedly wants people to have enough food to eat, but refuses to directly give food to anyone himself? That does not make any sense at all.
javajo
Well-Known Member
I'm just saying I believe Adam and Eve were real people and Adam sinned which brought forth death and so death was passed down to all people as all have sinned. I love science, both origins science and the operational science that gave us our pc's. For me, I find in origins science that depending on one's worldview, one will, scientist or layman, come to differing conclusions on what they see. For me, I see no disagreement between science and the Bible, and where some believe science seemingly disagrees, I believe the Bible will be shown to be true. I am not going to try to 'debate' with several people at once who don't believe as I do. I am just saying that I, for one, am somebody who believes it and I believe there is evidence out there for folks to study if they are at all open to it. If you think its totally insane, then that's fine. I believe what I believe, that's all there is to it. What else is there to say? I mean look, I see the oceans they should be saltier, there should be more sediment in the Golf of Mexico for millions of years, whatever, but I see the oceans and I see evidence for the Flood. Someone will say there is not enough water, it could not have got over Mt. Everest or whatever, I say, in pre-flood Genesis, there were only high hills. There may have been plates shifting, mountains being pushed up, ocean basins cooling and sinking, and etc. and there are good models showing that is feasible. For me, I see evidence everyday that leads me to believe in the Flood. Someone else studies fossils or whatnot and believes different. I say, where's all the missing links...They say, well blah, blah, and he said and she said. That's the way it goes with origins, round and round, big bang, big banger...etc. So, look. I believe in Adam and Eve, okay? If you think its nuts, fine.
javajo
Well-Known Member
Where'd that come from? I can only tell you what I believe from scripture. The Bible said God spoke through his prophets and he chose the," 'foolishness of preaching' to confound the 'wise'." This is because in their 'wisdom', they "knew not God', so God chose people to tell the Good News. As far as food, we live in a fallen world due to Adam's transgression. It was not so in the Garden. God provided food not obtained by the sweat of our brow. Our fallen world is just a temporary condition, I believe.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Cor. 1
Again, just my beliefs, sorry if the verses are long, I like to be thorough. Underlined the main parts pertaining to the conversation.
gnostic
The Lost One
javajo said:
Mt Everest have not been a small since the Indian tectonic plate collided into the Euroasian plate over 25 million years ago. The collision actually occurred earlier than that, about 70 million years ago, and it was rising at 15 cm (or 0.15 metre) per year then. The Himalayas haven't been under water for tens of millions of years ago, and man was around when the fossils were formed. Those so-called fossils are far older than 5000 years.
The entire Himalayas is still rising 5 mm per year (4 mm at Everest), because the Indian plate is still pushing into Asia at 67 mm per year.
I did a calculation of the Everest-Himalayas some years ago.
Let's say that Everest is rising at 5 mm per year (instead of 4 mm) for the last 5000 years, ok?
The current elevation of Everest is 8,848 metres. If you were to do the maths:
5mm equals 0.005 metre.
5000 yr x 0.005 mm = 25 metres
So about 5000 years ago, Everest would have been 8823 metre, or 25 metre shorter than today. (At 4 mm, Everest would have only been 20 metres shorter.)
The formation of Everest and much of the Himalayas were due to tectonic movements, and not due to volcanic activities. It would have been different if it was volcanic activity that created Everest, but it wasn't.5000 yr x 0.005 mm = 25 metres
So about 5000 years ago, Everest would have been 8823 metre, or 25 metre shorter than today. (At 4 mm, Everest would have only been 20 metres shorter.)
So you really don't know what you're talking about when you're talking about Everest being a small hill. The Himalayas have not been under water at any point throughout human history. So no humans, no ark.
Last edited:
javajo
Well-Known Member
I don't know that it was even a small hill. And its possible that if the fountains of the deep were broken up and there was all kinds of volcanic and other cataclysmic activity, perhaps even a meteor and whatnot, that resulted in the shifting of the tectonic plates, that it could have been formed much more rapidly at that time and the movement has slowed down. Its like when Mt. St. Helen's erupted and made a miniature version of the Grand Canyon, it all happened real quick, but its not happening now. That's like the Ice Age, I believe in it, but I don't necessarily believe it was as far back or as long as some say. The billions of years thing, its a bit subjective to me. But, I don't know what I'm talking about concerning things that happened long ago, I wasn't there, I'm just saying, I believe the Bible. May seem irrational, unscientific or insane, but its just what I believe. Crazy, huh? Hey, peace, and have a good night, I gtg.
Last edited:
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
We see it right now, no need to wait, It isn't you. There is no magical ending coming where you are miraculously correct.