Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A slight bit off-topic, but I find it humorous when religious artwork depicts Adam and Eve with belly buttons. Why would they need those?
There is a belly -button thread, but a through -provoking point. About how the artists just painted what was in front of them without thinking about it.
In fact you post prompted me to recall the Symposium of Plato where Aristophanes produces a fantastic legend about an original all in one human split apart to make male and female and the introduction pointed out that the physician who was at the symposium says nothing, though he would have known that the account of the creation of the human navel couldn't be right.
Thus early on, I began to doubt that Plato was always writing factual accounts of Socrates and what he did and said, and in fact, much of it may be Plato's invention.
Enough was known about childbirth to know that the reason for the existence of a navel did not obtain. The conclusion is obvious. Adam and Eve did not have navels, but their children did.
In fairness, the commentary about leaving father and mother is by the author, not Adam or Eve. And the point is that god created the desire of men & women for each other that causes them to form their own families together. And the story is supposedly about how that came to be.
There are plenty of holes in the Bible without straining this hard to manufacture one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
It looks like v 24 is merely an editorial comment outside of the quotes as an explanation, directed to the reader who has a mother and father. I wouldn't expect this to get any attention as a supposed goof.
I've only read the first page, but these two posts seem to have summed up the intent of the passage. It is an etiological tale of what happens when the parents give up the legal obligation to care for their children when they are given in marriage. The same type of etiological tale can found all over Genesis (why the snake has no legs; why we die; why we must work; why men in a patriarchal society dominate women; why we have different languages; and on and on and on). It is a very common literary technique of the Yahwist Author, and to a lesser degree the Priestly Author with his explanation for the Sabbath. The same applies to many names that are borne by individuals and tribes.
The author was not an idiot - we know that from his writings. If we expect perfect Aristotelian logic to be espoused by him at all times, however, that is a bit unrealistic and anachronistic on our part. Forgive me if this has been gone into with more detail after page one.
Isn't it obvious God is setting the standard for marriage here, as the reader already knows Adam and Eve do not have parents, but generations to come, will have parents? Silly question!
I can, and did. I agree. Chango is right in that it is an effort to use a tale to illustrate the idea of becoming 'conscious' in the sense of thinking about things rather than just behaving instinctively.
Thank you for that, Arq. You have never lacked insight . . . just a lack of faith in the writings that support belief in God. You have plenty of reasons not to have faith in the writings the way they have been presented and taught. But your personal experiences are either non-existent or insufficient to support belief. Your expectations of God have been predetermined by what you have been taught (mine were not). The failure of those expectations (like with mordant) is probably why you don't believe in God, my friend. As I have pointed out in my thread . . . faith in the knowledge supporting phenomena and personal experience confirming it are what is necessary for belief. If you have neither . . . you really do have "no reason to believe."
Quote:
<snip>
The real point of the thread, however, is not those who see the story as metaphor, symbolic or best- guess myth, but is about those who see it as fact. Historical actually happened fact.
They are here saying that it really happened that way. It may be objected that these are a deluded minority, but I am not so sure.
I am not so sure either, Arq . . . but it matters little in the grand scheme of things IF the central message of love is accepted. What I fear is that the central message has been thoroughly corrupted by retaining the ancient fear and ignorance of our ancestors superstitions and beliefs about God. The true minority may be those who follow Christ's instructions to "love God and each other" daily and repent when they don't.
Damn... now I have to throw away my Anthropology degree, those last 20 years of study, thought and earnest searching for understanding.
Well, that is a good start.
Quote:
If only I had realized Christ is special because he was a direct descendant of Adam, the first man on earth... who all humans are literally descended from only about 6000 years ago. I feell so dumm now.
You misspelled "feel" and "dumb."
The important thing to realize is that, among other things, the Bible is an historic book of lineages leading up to the promised Messiah.
If Adam was a fictitious person, why would he be in everyone's genealogy in the historic record called the Bible?
As noted, science has proven that the Genesis story is bogus.
To spare you time and a possible series of furious posts from you.....
Unless you have something other than declarations and assertions which come with no supporting evidence, I am uninterested in your position on these issues. So....please do not bother.
Umm, Grandstander, first off, I don't post "furious posts" here so please spare us the melodrama.
Unless you can absolutely PROVE with scientific PROOF God did not create Adam in the process written down in Genesis then I would kindly suggest you don't have the proverbial leg to stand on.
Umm, Grandstander, first off, I don't post "furious posts" here so please spare us the melodrama.
Unless you can absolutely PROVE with scientific PROOF God did not create Adam in the process written down in Genesis then I would kindly suggest you don't have the proverbial leg to stand on.
Kindly insert Adam into this timeline and we'll go from there.
If Adam was a fictitious person, why would he be in everyone's genealogy in the historic record called the Bible?
historical record...... oh my, that's rich. It is a timeline of the ignorance and superstitions of ancient goat-herders, but factual record , you theists really crack me up at times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, you theists really crack me up at times.
