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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hey, they is one of my favourites -- and with a little study, can be very revealing about how these things come to be written. So, on with the story...

1. Most mammals (the males, anyway) are possessed of a bone -- a supporting structure, called a "baculum" -- in the penis that supports erections. Humans (and spider monkeys, which being new world the Jews didn't know about) do not. The Israelites of long ago, since they slaughtered and ate mammals, and slaughtered (even though didn't eat) humans, would be aware of this.

2. Human males have a very noticeable scar between their scrotum and anus, called a "rafe." Human males do NOT (usually) have a scar where a rib might have been removed -- at least not until after a surgeon actually gets involved.

3. The "rib" in Genesis is actually "tsela" (I won't provide the Hebrew, I couldn't read it anyway -- but it is more structural as in a "supporting" piece which many Hebrew scholars definitely do not suppose means rib.)

Thus, it seems incredibly likely to me that this was all hashed together and then "reasoned" out to mean that Eve was not created out of one of Adam's ribs (the Israelites knew full-well that men had the same number -- on both sides -- as women), but out of his penis-bone, his baculum, which left him with no bone but a scar.

 

[Quagmire]

I'm talking about people here.

I know. What did you think I was talking about.

People considered by other people as living beings - who actually existed in history.

Considered so by some. Considered symbolic characters by others.

If a person professing to be a Christian, considers the person whom the founder of Christianity, as well as his early followers, as historical figures, rather than mythical, and allegorical, then that person is not in agreement with the founder of Christianity, and his early followers.

I don't know if you meant to, but read as written you basically just said that if someone considers the founder of Christianity (I'm assuming you mean Jesus of Nazareth) an actual, historical person, that person can't be a Christian.

Maybe you should try rephrasing that.
I don't think your post as written is conveying the thought that you meant it to.

Therefore, ____________________________________________________________________________


Yes. Some people do "go beyond the things written" 1 Corinthians 4:6, and, or, "add and take away from what is written". Revelation 22:18, 19

That's not what I meant.

Interpreting things literally isn't the same thing as taking things at face value, especially if those things were written intentionally as metaphors or analogies.

Interpreting an analogy as an analogy doesn't amount to, "go[ing] beyond the things written" or "adding and taking away from what is written". It just amounts to honoring the author's intention.

For that matter, interpreting something as literal history when it was meant as an analogy is actually a deviation from the author's intentions if it causes you to lose focus of the message he was trying to get across.

It's ironic that you use a quote from Revelation to condemn the use of analogy, since the book of Revelation itself is almost completely based on analogy.

That is unless someone literally believes that the end of the world is going to be heralded by a seven-headed beast emerging from the ocean.

I understand that does happen. I remember Luther speaking about that scourge. Why it happens though, is an important question.
Why do you think it happens?

I think one reason is that most persons do not follow the arrangement of God.
As I recall, God's arrangement went like this... Luke 8:1 -> Luke 10:1 -> Matthew 28:19, 20
I'm not aware of that being no longer a requirement.
Actually I always reflect with admiration on that guy from Africa.

The spirit said to Philip: “Go over and approach this chariot.” Philip ran alongside and heard him reading aloud Isaiah the prophet, and he said: “Do you actually know* what you are reading?” He said: “Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” So he urged Philip to get on and sit down with him. Acts 8:29-31

If it were not for his humility, he likely would have paid no mind to Phillip - a disciple of Jesus, who was having a full share in the arrangement of God.
If more people were like him, there would be less of what you described. What do you think?

I think you're trying to cloud the issue.

 

[Trailblazer]

Does that prove the Bible cannot be from God?

No, because the story can be interpreted figuratively rather than literally.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet science corrects its errors, the Bible doesn't.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's no such thing as "creation science."

*WINNER*

 

[Trailblazer]

Youve got that backwards. All the sciences harmonize to prove old earth and the evolution of life.

*WINNER*

 

[nPeace]

I know. What did you think I was talking about.

Considered so by some. Considered symbolic characters by others.

I don't know if you meant to, but read as written you basically just said that if someone considers the founder of Christianity (I'm assuming you mean Jesus of Nazareth) an actual, historical person, that person can't be a Christian.

Maybe you should try rephrasing that.
I don't think your post as written is conveying the thought that you meant it to.
If someone professing Christianity, considers characters, as mythical figures, that Jesus Christ and his disciples consider historical figures, then_________________________________________________________________


That's not what I meant.

Interpreting things literally isn't the same thing as taking things at face value, especially if those things were written intentionally as metaphors or analogies.

Interpreting an analogy as an analogy doesn't amount to, "go[ing] beyond the things written" or "adding and taking away from what is written". It just amounts to honoring the author's intention.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that you are "honoring the author's intention"?

For that matter, interpreting something as literal history when it was meant as an analogy is actually a deviation from the author's intentions if it causes you to lose focus of the message he was trying to get across.

How would you know that you are interpreting the author correctly?

It's ironic that you use a quote from Revelation to condemn the use of analogy, since the book of Revelation itself is almost completely based on analogy.

That is unless someone literally believes that the end of the world is going to be heralded by a seven-headed beast emerging from the ocean.

I think you're trying to cloud the issue.

I'm trying to have a discussion.

 

[Quagmire]

How do you arrive at the conclusion that you are "honoring the author's intention"?

If you wrote something wouldn't you want your audience to interpret it the way that you intended?

How would you know that you are interpreting the author correctly?

Are you asking how would you know the authors intention or how would you interpret the meaning of the story?

If you're asking how would you interpret the story, I suppose that's up to the reader. Most stories are open to interpretation.

If you're asking how would you deduce the author's intention: generally speaking if a story from antiquity includes elements that contradict natural law, history as we know it, or just basic common sense it's fair to assume it wasn't intended as a strictly historical account.

Then add to that the fact that most of the stories we're talking about were created and passed done through oral tradition long before anyone ever attempted to write them down, and you have a sort of double assurance as to the intent:

1. Stories passed down through oral tradition tended to use analogy pretty freely.

2. Whatever scribes finally put these stories on paper (or papyrus, or sheep skins, . . .) would have had some sort of agenda of their own and would have structured these stories to convey whatever point they were trying to make accordingly.

I'm trying to have a discussion.

Ok then, could you explain how this last part of your post relates to what we're discussing?

 

[viole]

Does that prove the Bible cannot be from God?

No. It just proves that if it does come from God, then He did not want to complicate things beyond necessity, and just used a symbolic language. Imagine the acceptance of the theory of relativity, or evolution, for goat herders in the Bronze Age.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

How it is not? The history of science is full of errors, why believe it would be correct about possibility of Adam and Eve?

Non sequitur. Even in the unlikely event that science is wrong about this, the fact remains that science totally refutes the idea of a literal Adam and Eve. The fact that they are potentially wrong, does not make Adam and Eve compatible to science. Otherwise, everything would be compatible with science.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sand Dancer]

It’s drivel, it doesn’t upset. It can all be debunked by rigorous scrutiny. It all started with science estimating the date of a rock which they keep shifting so that it fits with a theory. It’s so sad for those that believe the nonsense. They will be upset when they find the truth.

Not sure there is any reason to be upset about it.

 

[nPeace]

If you wrote something wouldn't you want your audience to interpret it the way that you intended?

Not if I already explained, or had a friend do so for me, no.

Are you asking how would you know the authors intention or how would you interpret the meaning of the story?

If you're asking how would you interpret the story, I suppose that's up to the reader. Most stories are open to interpretation.

Most, must mean not all. So why do you put the Bible in the category of most?
I recall reading some very creative stories. It started from midway; went back to the beginning; then forward to the climax.
The person who went ahead and interpreted, from the beginning, may have been surprised at both the introduction and the conclusion.
The Bible is somewhat like that. You could misinterpret, if you just take some parts, and ignore others... or view them as exclusive.

If you're asking how would you deduce the author's intention: generally speaking if a story from antiquity includes elements that contradict natural law, history as we know it, or just basic common sense it's fair to assume it wasn't intended as a strictly historical account.

Ah. So miracles cannot happen because man determines that he knows everything there is to know. Is that it?
So for example, we must find an explanation that fits man's understanding, to explain the splitting of the Red Sea, or a scorched earth ruined by burning sulfur.
Oh no. We can't take that Bible seriously. Lol.

Then add to that the fact that most of the stories we're talking about were created and passed done through oral tradition long before anyone ever attempted to write them down, and you have a sort of double assurance as to the intent:

1. Stories passed down through oral tradition tended to use analogy pretty freely.

2. Whatever scribes finally put these stories on paper (or papyrus, or sheep skins, . . .) would have had some sort of agenda of their own and would have structured these stories to convey whatever point they were trying to make accordingly.

I see.
The problem I have with that, is the assumption or misguided view that

1. there is no knowledge that supersedes man's limited intelligence.
2. man has always been right, and will continue to be right, because he is so superior in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.
3. the writings which were passed down contain information which is beyond any man's - ancient or modern - ability to provide on his own.

Ok then, could you explain how this last part of your post relates to what we're discussing?

I don't have my notes with me, but Martin Luther King, made some good points about those who are in the habit of interpreting almost anything in the Bible as allegory... I have seen it here, where some would say, "It is your interpretation, whereas, I interpret it differently. If I see it as allegorical, or myth... it is so".
In other words, there is no way of knowing, so we just accept each person has their own interpretation, and we can accept that.

I pointed out that is not the way it was seen by those who followed God's arrangement. Hence it's not God's view.
If you review the post, you will be able to follow the path to get to that point... rather than my having to repeat it.

So, rather than one having to take the position of, "My interpretation. Your interpretation.", it's a simple case of accepting the help God provides, as was the case with Philip and the Ethiopian. We can know the truth.

 

[1213]

2 individuals can only have, and pass on, the genetic diversity that just 2 individuals can carry.
That is what the bottleneck is....

View attachment 74061

Consider the 2 individuals a red and blue one.
The individuals carrying the yellow, green, etc variations die without passing on their genes.
Only a red and blue one survive.
Now the yellows, greens, etc are no longer part of the population.
The genetic diversity before the event is greater then after it.

Thanks for that image. I think it is very good in this case. The problem with that is, we don't know for example what was the DNA of Adam and Eve. It could have included all the "colored dots". Without the accurate information of their DNA, we can't really say they could not have existed.

 

[1213]

...And of evidence there is an abundance ...

Unfortunately it seems to be invisible.

 

[1213]

Non sequitur. Even in the unlikely event that science is wrong about this, the fact remains that science totally refutes the idea of a literal Adam and Eve. The fact that they are potentially wrong, does not make Adam and Eve compatible to science. Otherwise, everything would be compatible with science.

It depends on what is meant with science. If science is what really can be observed, it is not against Adam and Eve story.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

we don't know for example what was the DNA of Adam and Eve.

Since according to mythology one was cloned from the other, we know that they had the same DNA. The DNA of Jesus is another interesting subject, since he was born by parthenogenesis, making him haploid. It's probably not a good idea to combine the magisteria. They're often incompatible.

It depends on what is meant with science. If science is what really can be observed, it is not against Adam and Eve story.

Science has ruled out the Adam and Eve story. There was no first human. No human being was without human parents, whatever your definition of human is. Assuming that we're talking about natural reproduction, if the offspring is called human, so must its parents be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for that image. I think it is very good in this case. The problem with that is, we don't know for example what was the DNA of Adam and Eve. It could have included all the "colored dots". Without the accurate information of their DNA, we can't really say they could not have existed.

How would that be possible? I do not think you understood what the picture represented.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It depends on what is meant with science. If science is what really can be observed, it is not against Adam and Eve story.

Actually it is. We can observe the evidence, and the evidence is very clear. There were no Adan and Eve. The same evidence that allowed Maury Povich to say "You ARE the father!!" Also tells us "You ARE an ape!!"

 

[exchemist]

Unfortunately it seems to be invisible.

To those that can’t read, perhaps.

But I speak only of contradicting a literal reading. If you, like me, consider the bible contains allegory, myth and metaphor, like other literary works, then indeed there may not be contradictions.

 

[Viker]

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

It is not. If taken literally instead of figuratively it is way off the mark.