"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve"

[metis]

But what if?

We are just interpreting it wrong?

Shock!!! You, of all people, could interpret it wrong?! And here I was preparing to elevate you to sitting on God's left hand*. I'm so crushed.


* a reminder that the left hand in ancient Jewish tradition is considered the "potty hand".

 

[exchemist]

You do realize that interpreting Genesis as a series of morality tales could be a correct way of interpreting it, don't you? The Bible at no point says it should be taken literally. At best one can quote a passage on how all scripture, and unidentified term at best, is God breathed or inspired and is useful for teaching etc. Nothing there about it being the literal word of god.

Treating Genesis, and Exodus while we are at it, as morality tales makes them still useful for instruction.

Indeed. And of course this is what theologians and religious scholars have done for centuries, resulting in the teaching of the various established churches on the subject.

It seems to be only in relatively recent history that the vogue has grown up for casting aside all this and attempting to reinvent the wheel (often badly) for oneself.

 

[exchemist]

Shock!!! You, of all people, could interpret it wrong?! And here I was preparing to elevate you to sitting on God's left hand*. I'm so crushed.


* a reminder that the left hand in ancient Jewish tradition is considered the "potty hand".

And also in the Arab world to this day........

 

[Kenny]

Shock!!! You, of all people, could interpret it wrong?! And here I was preparing to elevate you to sitting on God's left hand*. I'm so crushed.

* a reminder that the left hand in ancient Jewish tradition is considered the "potty hand".

LOL!!!!!

I thought there was something more to the "right hand of fellowship"!

Don't put me too high.... the fall is harder!

 

[Kenny]

You do realize that interpreting Genesis as a series of morality tales could be a correct way of interpreting it, don't you? The Bible at no point says it should be taken literally. At best one can quote a passage on how all scripture, and unidentified term at best, is God breathed or inspired and is useful for teaching etc. Nothing there about it being the literal word of god.

Treating Genesis, and Exodus while we are at it, as morality tales makes them still useful for instruction.

there is hope!

 

[Kenny]

Shock!!! You, of all people, could interpret it wrong?! And here I was preparing to elevate you to sitting on God's left hand*. I'm so crushed.


* a reminder that the left hand in ancient Jewish tradition is considered the "potty hand".

What we won't argue about is whether I am right or you are wrong there is much to learn from what was written.

 

[Subduction Zone]

there is hope!

So you are saying that you might yet learn? I am impressed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed. And of course this is what theologians and religious scholars have done for centuries, resulting in the teaching of the various established churches on the subject.

It seems to be only in relatively recent history that the vogue has grown up for casting aside all this and attempting to reinvent the wheel (often badly) for oneself.

Perhaps it is because some Christians see it as the biggest threat to their religion since Galileo came down on the side that the Earth moved. Geologists refuting the Noah's Ark myth did not seem to be nearly as threatening as evolution for some reason and the only reaction that some saw was a rejection of science altogether.

 

[Kenny]

Geologists refuting the Noah's Ark myth did not seem to be nearly as threatening as evolution for some reason and the only reaction that some saw was a rejection of science altogether.

Not really... just realizing that people want to see what they want to see. Just too many assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really... just realizing that people want to see what they want to see. Just too many assumptions.

That is usually a problem in the creationist side. For example, to preclude them from seeing anything else creationists that work at sites such as Answers in Genesis have to promise not to use the scientific method.

Perhaps you should try to learn why we know that there was no global flood and a mere local flood makes the Ark superfluous. The geology may be easier to understand than the biology.

 

[Kenny]

That is usually a problem in the creationist side. For example, to preclude them from seeing anything else creationists that work at sites such as Answers in Genesis have to promise not to use the scientific method.

Perhaps you should try to learn why we know that there was no global flood and a mere local flood makes the Ark superfluous. The geology may be easier to understand than the biology.

So how long does it take to make a canyon like this one?

View attachment 21263

 

[Subduction Zone]

So how long does it take to make a canyon like this one?

View attachment 21263

Hard to say from a picture alone.

Though I could show you a picture of a canyon that took millions of years why and explain why we know that from just that picture. Your picture has too many unanswered questions that to with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My first attempt at copy and paste with my Kindle,

Rats, not working for image. Perhaps the link works

File:2009-08-20-01800 USA Utah 316 Goosenecks SP.jpg - Wikipedia

Follow that link. That canyon could not have been made by a flood and it tells us that Noah 's flood never happened.

 

[Kenny]

Hard to say from a picture alone.

Though I could show you a picture of a canyon that took millions of years why and explain why we know that from just that picture. Your picture has too many unanswered questions that to with it.

I'm sure...

But it only took a couple of days. At one point, just like you, they said "Bretz’s hypothesis was not just “wholly inadequate,” in the words of one critic, but “preposterous” and “incompetent.”"

But now they have accepted that the Scablands were done mostly through one massive flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure...

But it only took a couple of days. At one point, just like you, they said "Bretz’s hypothesis was not just “wholly inadequate,” in the words of one critic, but “preposterous” and “incompetent.”"

But now they have accepted that the Scablands were done mostly through one massive flood.

You are making a terrible logical error. Even though there are some features that may have formed quickly that does not mean that all features formed quickly.

and the Scablands were formed by on the order of forty cataclysmic floods. You failed there too.

 

[Kenny]

You are making a terrible logical error. Even though there are some features that may have formed quickly that does not mean that all features formed quickly.

and the Scablands were formed by on the order of forty cataclysmic floods. You failed there too.

That was your assumptions-an error.

I'm just pointing out how geologists made a HUGE mistake and no geologist wanted to admit it.

What other mistakes have they made?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was your assumptions-an error.

I'm just pointing out how geologists made a HUGE mistake and no geologist wanted to admit it.

What other mistakes have they made?

If you can't own up to your mistakes you will never learn. I did not make an error unless you were trying to be dishonest. I am assuming that you are trying to be honest right now.

What supposed "huge" mistake did geologists make by the way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was finally able to search the picture you linked, it was from the Scablands. It is hard to say how many floods it took to make that particular canyon. As I already pointed out the channeled scablands were made by a series of post glacial floods:

That probably did not happen in just one year:

"When the topsoil was all washed away the floodwaters scoured thousands of square miles of basalt bedrock and created the coulees we see today. Once Glacial Lake Missoula drained and the flood stopped, the ice dam gradually formed again and the glacial lake was re-created. Eventually, the second ice dam collapsed and another mega flood was unleashed. Geologists believe this happened more than forty times over a period of several thousand years, and only stopped when the last ice age ended. Each mega flood compounded the erosion of the previous one and culminated in the bizarre landforms we now call the Channeled Scablands."

Please note, more than forty, not one.

Channeled Scablands

If you relied on a creationist source for your information they probably lied to you.

Now do you want to discuss the photo that I linked. Now that I am home I can do it properly:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure...

But it only took a couple of days. At one point, just like you, they said "Bretz’s hypothesis was not just “wholly inadequate,” in the words of one critic, but “preposterous” and “incompetent.”"

But now they have accepted that the Scablands were done mostly through one massive flood.

Sorry, but that did not take a couple of days. What source made that claim?

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps it is because some Christians see it as the biggest threat to their religion since Galileo came down on the side that the Earth moved. Geologists refuting the Noah's Ark myth did not seem to be nearly as threatening as evolution for some reason and the only reaction that some saw was a rejection of science altogether.

Actually I think your "for some reason" touches on the heart of the matter and I am surprised this question does not get more attention in attempts to understand what drives creationism.

What I believe lies behind the focus on the origin of life, as opposed to all the other areas where science has refuted the literal biblical account of how the world came to be, is to do with the theology of the relationship between God and Man: Man being made in God's image, original sin and redemption. I suspect that creationists fear that viewing Man as an animal generated by evolution undermines that whole construct. Rather as Ken Miller points out in that excellent article you cited, in fact.

Miller, as a Catholic, will be well aware of all that and can see his way through it without it threatening his faith. But to those Protestants that have chosen to throw out church teaching and insist on building their own theology themselves, directly from the bible, one can see they could easily feel very threatened by it.