How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?

[Quagmire]

Yes, it still works that way. And it also allows one to legitimately wave away the cruelty and incompetence of God if one reads the story literally. I can't understand why believers do not jump at an explanation that cures some of the worst problems of the Bible and improves the PR of their God.

I think in most cases asking people to take the time and effort required to understand these stories allegorically would be expecting too much.

I think that's actually the function of a good preacher or pastor: to present these stories to their congregation in a way that focuses on their message rather than dwelling on the details.

After all, whether a story is literally true or not the message is what's important.

 

[nPeace]

That's not my point. You said, referring to the list of people leading up to Jesus,

"They must be allegorical, as well, including Jesus, on which Christianity depends".

My point is that if one entry on a list is incorrect (or allegorical) that doesn't imply that all entries are incorrect (or allegorical). In other words, if Adam is allegorical, it doesn't follow that Jesus is also allegorical.

It does.
Why, because Jesus confirmed Adam's historicity.
If Adam was allegorical, and Jesus is historical, and Luke mentioned both as historical, then either Luke made an error in adding Jesus to the list, along with the mistake of adding Adam. Or, all the characters are allegorical... or Jesus lied.
In which case, Christianity is in trouble.

 

[nPeace]

Umm, I don't know. The only deja-vu I'm having is with you not answering a question posed to you.

The question does not follow the post.
It's like me saying to someone. This icecream tastes bad, and you asking, "You look at icecream that people like, and say it tastes bad?'
How would you answer if you were me?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The question does not follow the post.
It's like me saying to someone. This icecream tastes bad, and you asking, "You look at icecream that people like, and say it tastes bad?'
How would you answer if you were me?

I'd respond to the question being asked.

 

[nPeace]

I'd respond to the question being asked.

...and say what.
Bare in mind I did respond.

 

[SkepticThinker]

...and say what.
Bare in mind I did respond.

... And say the answer.
Yes.
Or.
No.
Then perhaps some sort of explanation.
Your claim contradicts the evidence you provided.

So you're claiming that "we don't know humans existed more than 6000 years" while providing an article indicating that we have existed for much longer than that?

 

[Jose Fly]

It does.
Why, because Jesus confirmed Adam's historicity.
If Adam was allegorical, and Jesus is historical, and Luke mentioned both as historical, then either Luke made an error in adding Jesus to the list, along with the mistake of adding Adam. Or, all the characters are allegorical... or Jesus lied.
In which case, Christianity is in trouble.

And there ya' have it....humans existing earlier than 6,000 years ago is incompatible with Christianity. Good to know.

 

[Quagmire]

It does.
Why, because Jesus confirmed Adam's historicity.
If Adam was allegorical, and Jesus is historical, and Luke mentioned both as historical, then either Luke made an error in adding Jesus to the list, along with the mistake of adding Adam. Or, all the characters are allegorical... or Jesus lied.
In which case, Christianity is in trouble.

A lot of historical figures in the ancient world claimed descent from mythical heroes or even the gods themselves.

Or even more common, had those claims made for them posthumously.

That's almost certainly what the gospel authors did here.

 

[nPeace]

... And say the answer.
Yes.
Or.
No.
Then perhaps some sort of explanation.
Your claim contradicts the evidence you provided.

Okay.

So you're claiming that "we don't know humans existed more than 6000 years" while providing an article indicating that we have existed for much longer than that?

Yes.

Some scientists do believe that, but they debate many things concerning "human origins".
For example in this article...
Modern humans and Neanderthals may have overlapped, shared culture in Western Europe
But findings, based on a reevaluation of radiocarbon dating data, aren’t swaying some experts
Other scientists, however, say the wide margins of error for many of the dates analyzed in the study undercut strong claims about the identities of the inhabitants and whether they indeed overlapped. It’s “a good starting point,” but the conclusions could change based on more accurate dating, says Sahra Talamo, a chemist who directs a radiocarbon laboratory at the University of Bologna.

Evidently they are not really sure of those things they believe.
Even if some feel certain, it's not the case that all the experts agree.

 

[nPeace]

A lot of historical figures in the ancient world claimed descent from mythical heroes or even the gods themselves.

Or even more common, had those claims made for them posthumously.

That's almost certainly what the gospel authors did here.

For persons who agree with that, and claim Jesus is their savior, and they follow him, they are accepting myths as the basis for their beliefs and faith, right?

 

[Quagmire]

For persons who agree with that, and claim Jesus is their savior, and they follow him, they are accepting myths as the basis for their beliefs and faith, right?

I suppose that would vary to some degree from person to person.

 

[nPeace]

I suppose that would vary to some degree from person to person.

I don't understand. Can you explain, please.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How it is not [compatible]?

The religious and scientific accounts of the advent of man contradict one another and can't both be correct.

I believe it proves that people easily misinterpret scripture.

Yes, especially those motivated to see it as the words of a perfect and good god. But for the disinterested reader, there are no difficulties. Where it contradicts itself, it means both. Where it is ambiguous or vague, it has no definite meaning.

DNA research world wide has proven that we're all descendants s of one woman and one man.

That's already been rebutted a few times, but I would add that even if they were mates, that doesn't make them the first human beings.

The use of metaphor and allegory is a wonderfully human skill.

Are you referring to Bible myths? They are neither. Those are specific literary forms with characteristics not found in mythology. The myths are nothing more or less than best guesses to explain the world, and they were wrong guesses, not metaphors or allegories.

I can refute your science when it is fact less guess work.

No, you cannot. You can only dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Why don’t you supply evidence that has facts.

Evidence doesn't have facts. Sound and unsound conclusions can be drawn from them.

The Bible can only be disproved by facts

The Bible need not be disproved. It is sufficient to disregard it according to Hitchens' Razor.

your evolution theory remains unproven

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. If it wrong, then something extremely unlikely must be the case: a deceptive superhuman presence filled the earth with false leads and was found out when a falsifying find was uncovered. Everything else is already ruled out by that deceptive evidence, including the god of the Christian Bible.

When you see God exists it is you who will have the problem ... Try to respond rationally why I should worry and not you, see if you can do that at least.

OK. How about this? Though it is extremely unlikely that either of us will have a problem after death, if we do, it's more likely that it will be you that. First of all, "God" is already ruled out if you mean the god of Abraham, so you won't be seeing Jesus ever.

Here is what is likelier:

[1] There is no afterlife (very likely)
[2] There's an afterlife, but no judgmental gods or punishments
[3] We will be judged, and those that that put their gifts - the reasoning and moral faculties - to good use will do better.

Hey, but I'll tell you what. If you and I do find ourselves before judges that value reason and kindness and punish for rejecting that gift, I'll but a good word in for you. He knew not what he was saying. He was lied to and believed it.

It’s sad how the natural science community has filled minds with incredulity to the point its complete theory is believed as actual fact.

The science works. The alternative is sterile:

"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a supercomputer on a mass server.

"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of manmade hogwash."- anon.

the arrogance of man, scientists wanting desperately to be right.

Here an old favorite trope of mine. Abrahamic religions have been trying to teach people to stop thinking since its inception. Reason is the enemy of faith, and the religion can only be believed by faith. Furthermore, there is evidence that it contains error. The dutiful believer is chastised whenever he questions dogma and learns to stop. He is taught that it's hubris, that it's trying to usurp the role of God. He's taught that doubt and cognitive dissonance are the voice of Satan trying to steal his soul and to chase if from his thoughts, which are verging on blasphemy, and you know who is listening. The freethinker is called a shameless hedonist who only wants to indulge his impure desires and so runs from God. And he buys it more often than not.

It’s easier for me just accepting the whole of the Bible

I'm sure it was, at least at first. For me, life has been easier because I did NOT accept that story. Sure, it was more difficult up front, but once one learns to live with the understanding that consciousness might be extinguished at death and that the universe may be godless, that morals come from within and not from a book, and masters critical thought, life will be better for it.

I left what you call the easier life over four decades ago. Let's say that had I remained a Christian, I would have devoted two hours a day on average to Bible reading, prayer, church, and other religious activities. And let's say I tithed that whole time as well (I made a good living). How many dollars and hours would that be? My wife wouldn't have gone out with me after finding out I was religious, and I've had a very good marriage. Would the other wife that I would have married instead also agreed to not have had children if she were religious? How much time and money would that consume, and what opportunities would be lost? This life turned out to be more comfortable and more interesting, but it took some effort up front. You've heard of Pascal's Wager. Pascal was wrong that there is no cost in erroneously choosing a religious life.

Non-creation science has no empirical evidence.

I think you have science and religious faith confused.

 

[Quagmire]

I don't understand. Can you explain, please.

I mean, for instance, there are plenty of believers who accept Jesus Christ's divinity as fact, but still read much of the Bible --- the OT in particular --- as allegorical.

I suspect the higher up you go on the educational ladder among Christians, the more Christians you'll meet who look at the bible that way.

 

[CG Didymus]

So, do you mean, God could say a Myth in the Bible to teach a moral lesson?

Or people could tell a myth about their God and the first people he created.

 

[1213]

As a Christian you should be happy that the Adam and Eve myth is false.

Why should anyone believe that claim, when you have nothing substantial to support it?

 

[1213]

The New Testament has had edits and errors in copying over the cnturies before the printing press. By then many errors were established, so there is no one true correct version. And then there are the many translations and interpretations, and readers can pick one and call it the "Word of God", which is ironic.

Please show one example.

The real errors is in how diverse Christians interpret the Bible. The more conservative the Christian the more likely they are to interpret various bits literally. It's laughable that Christians will interpret Genesis literally when even Jews don't do that, and it's their book!! To my mind Christians shouldn't interpret the OT in any way that deviates from how Jews interpret it. So the interpretations are what need fixing.

I think the error is in that people interpret. I don't think it is good. People should let the Bible explain what it means, without adding own ideas in it. But, that is not an error in the Bible, it is error that people make.

Well does it matter when different Christians have wholey different interpretations that are inconsistent? I often suggest that nothing in the Bible can be interpreted literally, and however a believer sees any meaning in the stories they are better interpreted symbolically. Even the whole Jesus myth is absurd at face value, but can work symbolicially. I think one of the reasons Christians ar so cinfused and inconsistent in their beliefs is that they are trying to make all these stories make literal sense wen they just don't.

Have you ever thought, if something doesn't make sense, maybe you have not understood it correctly?

 

[1213]

It's not an argument. It's just the facts.

Sorry, you have offered nothing for to believe anything you said is a real fact.

 

[1213]

A population of just 2 predicts a grotesk genetic bottleneck. But this genetic bottleneck doesn't exist in the human genome.
Noah's flood predicts such grotesk bottlenecks in the genome of pretty much ALL species.

I have not seen any good evidence for that, and even the communisque Wikipedia says: "...That said, the possibility of a severe recent species-wide bottleneck cannot be ruled out..."

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The problem with your claim is that it is just an assumption, based on nothing meaningful. In Biblical point of view things were good at the beginning. After God was rejected, everything has been corrupted and become weaker, for example people lived longer. To think what was the "bottleneck" should look like, one should know correctly what was the starting point.

 

[1213]

As a Christian you should be happy that the Adam and Eve myth is false.

I understand that the opinions of high priests of science are in contradiction with the Bible. But, I hoped something more substantial, real scientific proof.