Dinosaurs Never Existed!

[BVS]

Can I quote you on the next "global warming" thread?

I'm a big believer in freedom of speech, even if I don't believe in the speech...

 

[80sU2isBest]

And if one doesn't accept that tale then the concept of original sin goes out the window and the rest of the theology unwinds

You and I agree on this point.

That has been my point all along, when I say that that if Adam and Eve were not actual living people, then the Gospel itself can't be trusted, because the concept of original sin is such an important point in it. Not only that, but Christ himself spoke of them as if they were living, breathing people, not fictional characters. If people don't believe what Christ himself said, then how can they say they believe in him at all?

We disagree in what we do with that point: I believe in Adam and Eve and you don't. But the point is true, nevertheless.

 

[Devlin]

OK so who was the unknown WOMEN that Cain and Abel, the "first" sons of Adam and Eve- the ONLY people on earth, mated with to make the beginning of the world?

Answer that, will you?

SO I'm not the only one who always wanted to know that?
God, whata relief.

 

[AEON]

From another thread...

Actually, I think there is quite a bit of logical and scientific data pointing toward God’s existence. It seems an increasing number of scientists throughout this century are publicly acknowledging the metaphysical implications of both the ‘Big Bang’ and the ‘fine-tuning’ (ID) characteristics of the universe. Here is a sample of some of the brightest minds of the last century and their take of Intelligent Design. They can hardly be confused as simpletons or religious nuts.

Albert Einstein (Nobel Prize 1921): “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”

Paul Davies (former professor of theoretical physics at the University of Adelaide): “Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.”

Sir Fred Hoyle: “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in Nature.”

Allan Rex Sandage (famous astronomer, dubbed the “Grand Old Man of Cosmology” by the New York Times, and a former atheist): “It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It was only through the supernatural that I could understand the mystery of existence.”

Dr Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist): “I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century’s worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like...In order to achieve consistency with our observations we must...assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well. The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

Professor Vera Kistiakowski (professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former president of the Association of Women in Science): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

Dr Stephen Meyer (a geophysicist with a Cambridge doctorate in origin-of-life biology): “If it’s true there’s a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe. If the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit life, as contemporary physicists are discovering, then perhaps there’s a designer who fine-tuned them. If there’s information in the cell, as molecular biology shows, then this suggests intelligent design. To get life going in the first place would have required biological information; the implications point beyond the material realm to a prior intelligent cause.”

 

[A_Wanderer]

Intelligent design is different than the precice nature of the cosmological constant, the speed of light etc.

ID puports that all life has been designed and created by an outside intelligence and has not arisen through naturalistic means.

The argument that these physicists make is that universe itself is condusive to the stability of matter and energy at this point in time and that if any physical constant was a little different then this wouldn't be possible; you will find that the arguments they are making are not pleas to God rather ones to the anthropic principle - if the universe wasn't the way it is then it wouldn't be the way it is and we wouldn't be around to see it.

 

[melon]

That has been my point all along, when I say that that if Adam and Eve were not actual living people, then the Gospel itself can't be trusted, because the concept of original sin is such an important point in it. Not only that, but Christ himself spoke of them as if they were living, breathing people, not fictional characters. If people don't believe what Christ himself said, then how can they say they believe in him at all?

This conundrum is not an issue with every religion. Roman Catholicism sees no problem with disavowing Adam and Eve, while still believing in original sin.

With that, I disagree with almost the entire doctrine of original sin. Almost all of it is medieval in nature, thanks to St. Augustine of Hippo, and it is an example of a minor aspect of the Bible being blown up into something more important than it is. Even then, I don't believe that we are inherently evil or dirty, as original sin implies.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Not only that, but Christ himself spoke of them as if they were living, breathing people, not fictional characters. If people don't believe what Christ himself said, then how can they say they believe in him at all?

He was very fond of parables.

 

[80sU2isBest]

He was very fond of parables.

Christ did often tell parables. But at the time that he spoke of the creation Adam and Eve, he was not telling a parable.

 

[80sU2isBest]

With that, I disagree with almost the entire doctrine of original sin. Almost all of it is medieval in nature, thanks to St. Augustine of Hippo, and it is an example of a minor aspect of the Bible being blown up into something more important than it is. Even then, I don't believe that we are inherently evil or dirty, as original sin implies.
Melon

I will clarify what I believe, because I'm not necessarily "in tune" with the idea of "original sin", either, in the context of everyone being guilty of sin from the moment they're born.

I want to say first that the following is not something that I am 100% sure of, but that I do believe.

I do believe that every one is born with the "sin nature", which is the predisposition, the urging to commit sin. However, I do not believe that someone is held responsible for his sin until he knows what sin is (the difference between right and wrong) and realizes he has sinned or is sinning. The reason I believe that is because when the Pharisees asked Christ if they were blind, he said "You are not blind because you say you see; if you were blind, there would be no sin".

 

[BVS]

Christ did often tell parables. But at the time that he spoke of the creation Adam and Eve, he was not telling a parable.

Right, but that now contradicts your point...

but Christ himself spoke of them as if they were living, breathing people, not fictional characters.

He spoke about the prodical son in the same exact way

 

[80sU2isBest]

Right, but that now contradicts your point...



He spoke about the prodical son in the same exact way

I don't see the contradiction.

It is quite possible to tell the difference between the instances when Christ is speaking in a parable and when he is not.

A parable takes the form of a fictional story.

When he was talking about Adam and Eve, he was talking to Pharisees and answering their questions about divorce. He was not speaking in a story format/parable.

Mark 10:3-8
(3)And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
(4)And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
(5)And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
(6)But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
(7)For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
(8)And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

In verse 6, Christ is quoting almost verbatim Genesis 1:27, whcih is in the story of the creation, and specifically about Adam and Eve.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

In that last bit (7-8), Christ is quoting Genesis 2:24, which is also about Adam and Eve.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

 

[BVS]

I don't see the contradiction.

Did he ever tell the crowd the prodical son was just a story?

 

[DreamOutLoud13]

OK so who was the unknown WOMEN that Cain and Abel, the "first" sons of Adam and Eve- the ONLY people on earth, mated with to make the beginning of the world?

Answer that, will you?

The bible never actually says they were the ONLY people on Earth. They may have been the first, and were probably the only people in the Garden of Eden. But the assumption that they were the only people on the Earth isn't very Biblically supported.

In Genesis Chapter 1, on the sixth day, God creates man:

26Then God said, "Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life--the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals."
27So God created people in his own image; God patterned them after himself; male and female he created them.
28God blessed them and told them, "Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals."

Then you get down to Chapter 2, which opens with the seventh day (when God rested), and the creation of man is repeated:

4This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. When the LORD God made the heavens and the earth,
5there were no plants or grain growing on the earth, for the LORD God had not sent any rain. And no one was there to cultivate the soil.
6But water came up out of the ground and watered all the land.
7And the LORD God formed a man's body from the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life. And the man became a living person.
8Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he placed the man he had created.

Skip down a bit, and we get to the creation of woman:

15The LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and care for it.
16But the LORD God gave him this warning: "You may freely eat any fruit in the garden
17except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die."
18And the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion who will help him."
19So the LORD God formed from the soil every kind of animal and bird. He brought them to Adam to see what he would call them, and Adam chose a name for each one.
20He gave names to all the livestock, birds, and wild animals. But still there was no companion suitable for him.
21So the LORD God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep. He took one of Adam's ribs and closed up the place from which he had taken it.
22Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib and brought her to Adam.
23"At last!" Adam exclaimed. "She is part of my own flesh and bone! She will be called `woman,' because she was taken out of a man."

From all of that, you can almost assume that God did indeed make people elsewhere, just not in Eden. But he needed people in Eden to tend to the gardens, and so he created Adam and Eve.

And then of course, we get down to Chapter 3, with Original Sin, and we get this bit too:

20Then Adam named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all people everywhere.

This is probably where the assumption that they were the only people on Earth comes from. But in the following chapter, the Bible pretty much debunks that theory.

In Chapter 4, we have Cain murdering Abel:

10But the LORD said, "What have you done? Listen--your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground!
11You are hereby banished from the ground you have defiled with your brother's blood.
12No longer will it yield abundant crops for you, no matter how hard you work! From now on you will be a homeless fugitive on the earth, constantly wandering from place to place."
13Cain replied to the LORD, "My punishment is too great for me to bear!
14You have banished me from my land and from your presence; you have made me a wandering fugitive. All who see me will try to kill me!"
15The LORD replied, "They will not kill you, for I will give seven times your punishment to anyone who does." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain to warn anyone who might try to kill him.
16So Cain left the LORD's presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

If there were no other people on Earth yet, then why was Cain worried about people trying to kill him?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Paranoid Schizophrenia?

 

[DreamOutLoud13]

Paranoid Schizophrenia?

Thank you, I needed that laugh!

 

[80sU2isBest]

Did he ever tell the crowd the prodical son was just a story?

No, but he didn't have to. People know by common sense when you are telling a story (whether fictional or true) and when you are not. Someone who has never even looked at the Bible could look at a passage in the Bible and tell whether Christ is telling a story (whether fictional or true) or whether he is speaking without telling a story. That's because it's not a religious issue: it is a common sense literary issue.

In the passage I posted, is Christ answering the Pharisees' question in a story format or a non story format?

 

[BVS]

No, but he didn't have to. People know by common sense when you are telling a story (whether fictional or true) and when you are not. Someone who has never even looked at the Bible could look at a passage in the Bible and tell whether Christ is telling a story (whether fictional or true) or whether he is speaking without telling a story. That's because it's not a religious issue: it is a common sense literary issue.

Everything you said here I can say about Genesis, or the whole OT for that matter.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Everything you said here I can say about Genesis, or the whole OT for that matter.

You're not understanding my point at all, and I don't know what else I can say that would help you understand.

Actually, I just thought of one and it uses the above quote by you.

Take the Old Testament you referenced. Let's say for example, the story of Esther. From page 1 of the book of Esther to the last page of the book of Esther, it is written in narrative/story form, right? Whether it's true or not, it is in story/narrative form.

Now compare that to the passage I quoted, when Christ is answering the Pharisees' question. Did Christ frame his response in narrative/story format? Was he "telling a story" when he answered them? No, of course not, and anyone who heard him talking that day would know exactly what we know, by common sense: that Christ was not telling a parable when he answered their question in that instance.

 

[BVS]

You're not understanding my point at all, and I don't know what else I can say that would help you understand.

Actually you're not understanding my point. Just because Jesus referenced the story of Adam and Eve doesn't mean it can't be analogy or a parable. Jesus had to speak in a language that would be understood by the people of that time. He could have easily told the people of the time the world wasn't flat but they wouldn't have understood, he spoke in stories they would know.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Actually you're not understanding my point. Just because Jesus referenced the story of Adam and Eve doesn't mean it can't be analogy or a parable. Jesus had to speak in a language that would be understood by the people of that time. He could have easily told the people of the time the world wasn't flat but they wouldn't have understood, he spoke in stories they would know.

I understand what you're saying, but the issue I'm getting at is purely an issue of literary device; there are ways in which analogies/parables/stories are framed, and you can tell when someone using one of those literary devices. Christ was not framing his answer in any of those contexts when he answered the Pharisees' questions.

Would he tell people something about the creation of the world that was not true, without letting people know it was just an analogy, either by coming right out and saying "the following is an analogy" or at least by framing it in the format of an analogy/parable/story? If he did, his "parable" would cease to be a parable and would become a lie, because he made no effort to reveal that it was not true. When Christ was talking to the Pharisees, and mentioned the creation of Adam and Eve, he was not framing it in the context of an analogy, story or parable, so the Pharisees of course would assume that the people about whom he was speaking actually existed.

I also don't even buy the premise that Christ would use Adam and Eve as an analogy for evolution simply because the people at the time might not understand evolution. Christ spoke of many things that he knew went right over the people's heads at the time. So, why would we assume that he would use Adam and Eve as an analogy instead of actually telling people about evolution?

 

[BVS]

I understand what you're saying, but the issue I'm getting at is purely an issue of literary device; there are ways in which analogies/parables/stories are framed, and you can tell when someone using one of those literary devices. Christ was not framing his answer in any of those contexts when he answered the Pharisees' questions.

Would he tell people something about the creation of the world that was not true, without letting people know it was just an analogy, either by coming right out and saying "the following is an analogy" or at least by framing it in the format of an analogy/parable/story? If he did, his "parable" would cease to be a parable and would become a lie, because he made no effort to reveal that it was not true. When Christ was talking to the Pharisees, and mentioned the creation of Adam and Eve, he was not framing it in the context of an analogy, story or parable, so the Pharisees of course would assume that the people about whom he was speaking actually existed.

But he's simply quoting text that they already know, so literary device is moot. I would follow your point if Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve and wasn't directly referencing Genesis.

I also don't even buy the premise that Christ would use Adam and Eve as an analogy for evolution simply because the people at the time might not understand evolution. Christ spoke of many things that he knew went right over the people's heads at the time. So, why would we assume that he would use Adam and Eve as an analogy instead of actually telling people about evolution?

He spoke of concepts that went over their head; concepts of love and forgiveness not of science...

 

[80sU2isBest]

But he's simply quoting text that they already know, so literary device is moot. I would follow your point if Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve and wasn't directly referencing Genesis.

The people of Jesus' time did not understand the creation story to be an analogy. They believed it to be literal. So, would Christ, as a non-liar, even refer to text they believed in, thereby reaffirming their belief in it by quoting it as if it were true, providing not one mention that the story was just an analogy?

 

[BVS]

The people of Jesus' time did not understand the creation story to be an analogy. They believed it to be literal. So, would Christ, as a non-liar, even refer to text they believed in, thereby reaffirming their belief in it by quoting it as if it were true, providing not one mention that the story was just an analogy?

We have no idea as to how they percieved the creation story. Analogy or literal, doesn't matter, requoting it does not make a lie. If Christ had been asked about the true beginnings of the universe addressing this issue would have been completely different.

 

[80sU2isBest]

We have no idea as to how they percieved the creation story.

Yes, we do. They believed it. Remember that Paul, who at one time was a very educated and faithful Pharisee, wrote of Adam on more than one occasion, saying that it was by Adam that sin entered the world.

If Paul, one of the most educated Jews of all believed in Adam and Eve, so did most people. And remember that at that time, the Pharisees basically told the people what to believe. People didn't have the scriptures for themselves.

We have no idea as to how they percieved the creation story.

Analogy or literal, doesn't matter, requoting it does not make a lie. If Christ had been asked about the true beginnings of the universe addressing this issue would have been completely different. [/B][/QUOTE]

I strongly disagree with you.

 

[BVS]

If Paul, one of the most educated Jews of all believed in Adam and Eve, so did most people. And remember that at that time, the Pharisees basically told the people what to believe. People didn't have the scriptures for themselves.

Some of the most educated people today believe in things I don't necessarily believe in...

 

[80sU2isBest]

Some of the most educated people today believe in things I don't necessarily believe in...

You don't live in a society like Israel was at that time, either. Their religion was everything to them. They were a very devout people. The priest and religious leaders were the most respecte dpeople in the society, and were thought of as being God's mouthpiece to teh "common" folk. There is no doubt at all that the people of Israel believed in Adam and Eve.

 

[melon]

The thing is, every ancient culture had scriptural writings that "educated people" believed to be true. To say the Bible is completely factual, with no hint of embellishment or mythology would be highly unlikely.

I'm sure that people 2,000 years ago believed in Adam and Eve, but now we have science to prove to us otherwise, not to mention a vast study of comparative mythology that shows us very direct evidence of the origin of these myths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_eve

In another Sumerian myth the goddess Ninhursag created a beautiful garden full of lush vegetation and fruit trees, called Edinu, in Dilman, the Sumerian earthly Paradise, a place which the Sumerians believed to exist to the east of their own land, beyond the sea. Ninhursag charged Enki, her lover, with controlling the wild animals and tending the garden, but Enki became curious about the garden and his assistant, Adapa, selected seven plants and offered them to Enki, who ate them. (In other versions of the story he seduced in turn seven generations of the offspring of his divine marriage with Ninhursag). This enranged Ninhursag, and she caused Enki to fall ill. Enki felt pain in his rib, which is a pun in Sumerian, as the word "ti" means both "rib" and "life. The other gods persuaded Ninhursag to relent. Ninhursag then created a new goddess named Ninti, (a name made up of "Nin", or "lady", plus "ti", and which can be translated as both Lady of Living and Lady of the Rib), to cure Enki. Ninhursag is known as mother of all living creatures, and thus holds the same position as Eve. The story has a clear parallel with Eve's creation from Adam's rib, but given that the pun with rib is present only in Sumerian, linguistic criticism places the Sumerian account as the more ancient.

By the Babylonian era, Enki's place was taken by Adapa Uan (the Oannes of Berossus), a human created by Enki as advisor to the first king of Enki's city of Eridu. A 14th century BC tablet refers to Adapa as the seed of humankind. One myth recounts that Adapa broke the wings of the wind in anger at being disturbed while fishing, and was called to the heavens to answer for doing so. He was warned by Enki to apologise for his actions, but not to touch the food, in case it had been poisoned in revenge. The gods, impressed by his penitence, set the food and drink of immortality before him, but Adapa heeded Enki's warning and refused the food, thus missing out on immortality. The god who offered the food and drink of immortality was the wily serpent-god Ningishzida. In the Biblical account the serpent offers knowledge, but he also says to Eve that she shall not die.

As the food and drink of the gods originated on earth, somewhere on earth must lie the source of the food and drink of immortality, a Tree of Life. In the biblical account the food is consumed, not rejected, and the couple are punished by being expelled from the garden. Thus any derivation of the biblical account from Sumerian and Babylonian mythology involves the confusion of the tales of Adapa and Enki. Such a conflation may have been influenced by a story preserved in the prologue of Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Underworld. In this tale, the goddess Inanna, who gains knowledge of sex by descending to earth and eating from various plants and fruits, transplants the huluppu tree from the Euphrates to her own garden, but a wicked serpent made its nest amongst the roots of the tree. This tale connects the serpent to the garden, and with the presence of Inanna, the theme of lust. Moving the story of Enki's rib to the start of the Biblical story would allow the failure to gain immortality to be seen as punishment for eating the fruit.

...

The belief that men and women have a differing number of ribs is due to the verse at Genesis 2:20, "[T]he Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and brought her to the man."

One theory of the origin to this story is based on the Sumerian myth of Ninhursag and Enki. Ninhursag was angry with Enki and caused him to fall ill. Enki felt pain in his rib "ti", which in Sumerian means both "rib" and "life", and began to die. Ninhursag relented, and created a new goddess named Ninti, ("Nin", or "lady", plus "ti"), which can be translated as both Lady of Living and Lady of the Rib, to cure Enki. Given that the pun of "life" with "rib" is present only in Sumerian, this hypothesis, based on linguistic criticism, places the Sumerian account as the more ancient.

As an aside, it is very curious how Abraham's traditional birthplace is Ur, a Sumerian city state. It is almost an indirect acknowledgment of the early Old Testament's Sumerian roots.

Melon

 

[Rono]

You don't live in a society like Israel was at that time, either.

This is true for the most of us i guess,....

 

[A_Wanderer]

You don't live in a society like Israel was at that time, either. Their religion was everything to them. They were a very devout people. The priest and religious leaders were the most respecte dpeople in the society, and were thought of as being God's mouthpiece to teh "common" folk. There is no doubt at all that the people of Israel believed in Adam and Eve.

So we are to take bronze age semitic tribal leaders as authoritative compared to the objective evidence all around us? Genesis is a myth and if you choose to take it literally it is a lie.

 

[80sU2isBest]

The thing is, every ancient culture had scriptural writings that "educated people" believed to be true. To say the Bible is completely factual, with no hint of embellishment or mythology would be highly unlikely.Melon

So we are to take bronze age semitic tribal leaders as authoritative compared to the objective evidence all around us? Genesis is a myth and if you choose to take it literally it is a lie.

Guys,
You arrived a little late on the scene. BVS and I were not arguing the merits of creation or evolution, or which is right and which is wrong. I considered asking you to go back a few pages and you would discover what we are discussing, but instead I'll make it easy for you by giving you a recap of all the action.

I stated my agreement with A_Wanderer, that The Gospel doesn't work without Adam and Eve. I stated that one of the reasons this is so is because in my opinion, Jesus spoke about Adam and Eve, as if they had been real living people. BVS is of the opinion that Christ was speaking in parable or as an analogy. This eventually developed into a discussion on what the people in Israel at the time believed.

So you see, those quotes of mine that you refer to really do have nothing to do whatsoever with the issue of whether evolution is true, as I was in fact, not discussing that issue at all.