Hoops22 Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Gen 1 also said that a snake spoke to Adam and Eve and that God cursed the snake so that it would crawl on its belly and eat dust.That sounds pretty specific. How did the serpent get around before God cursed it? Do snakes eat dust or small mammals?I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I believe the account in Genesis, but I believe that some of what is described there is figurative. I'll agree that it's a bit tough at times to decipher what is figurative and what is literal.Wouldn't you agree?It seems, in this case at least, that it's pretty clear what's figurative and what isn't. Gen 1 is pretty straightforward, though. Which is what the op is about.No, I don't think you're giving me a hard time. It's what the board is for.Though if you do it again, we will throw!
katherine the great Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Literal. A stem-cell was taken from the rib and from it, God formed the body of woman.Either that or dust. Which makes more sense?A stem cell from a man's rib to make a female human being? I don't think so.
charity's child Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 A stem cell from a man's rib to make a female human being? I don't think so.why not?
Ron Beron Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Gen 1 also said that a snake spoke to Adam and Eve and that God cursed the snake so that it would crawl on its belly and eat dust.That sounds pretty specific. How did the serpent get around before God cursed it? Do snakes eat dust or small mammals?Legend has it that it had legs.
BCSpace Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Isochron Radiometric Dating on uranium-lead isotopes or lead-gelana and helioseismic verification. Actually, there are about 40 or so different ways to do it. The precision seems to be within about 1%. 4.55 or 4.54 billion years.Did I say it did?Your dating method makes some assumptions that have not been validated, and some which are suspect at best.Such as?But He did. Gen 1. In fact, He's pretty well specific.How so? The word "day" can mean an epoch of time. Just as "land" in the Flood story can mean a locality, a region, a country, or the world.Isochron Radiometric Dating on uranium-lead isotopes or lead-gelana and helioseismic verification. Actually, there are about 40 or so different ways to do it. The precision seems to be within about 1%. 4.55 or 4.54 billion years.Did I say it did?Then it's not a fact. It's your opinion.That science has dated the earth is a fact.So should I assume that you reject the biblical account of creation in Genesis?Not one iota.
katherine the great Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 why not?Because gender is eternal. A male clone cannot be female.
charity's child Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Because gender is eternal. A male clone cannot be female.no one said clone. the basic genetic material is present in the male. the only difference is an x and a y chromosome. So take the right cells, manipulate them so there are two x instead of an x and a y, and presto, female. Scientists are either there or around the corner from that level of ability. I think God has them beat.
katherine the great Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 no one said clone. the basic genetic material is present in the male. the only difference is an x and a y chromosome. So take the right cells, manipulate them so there are two x instead of an x and a y, and presto, female. Scientists are either there or around the corner from that level of ability. I think God has them beat.And suddenly a full grown woman appears?
Connolly Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 It seems clear that God isn't really interested in telling us exactly how and when the Creation occurred or how and when other earths have existed. That's okay with me.Actually, it seems to me that he is interested in telling us. He left the book open and laying out for us to see. The problem is that some of us aren't willing to read it, and some of us haven't read it enough yet.The book:
BCSpace Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 And suddenly a full grown woman appears?Well, Athena, the serpent's eve, was born full grown (and fully armored).
Hoops22 Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Such as?Half lives of radionuclides have remained constant over billions of yearsminerals found today that contain both uranium and lead originally contained no lead at all, or at least no Pb-206the mineral deposit remained a closed system for billions of years (no uranium or lead or any of the daughter products in the chain from U to Pb either migrated away from or into the mineral being datedHow so? The word "day" can mean an epoch of time. Just as "land" in the Flood story can mean a locality, a region, a country, or the world.But in Gen 1 it means 1 24 hour day.Not one iota.All iotas. If Gen is true, then evolution can not be true, man is roughly 6 thousand years old, and creation took 6 days.Actually, it seems to me that he is interested in telling us. He left the book open and laying out for us to see. The problem is that some of us aren't willing to read it, and some of us haven't read it enough yet.The book: And this book in no way disrupts the commonly understood (until about 1800) narrative of Gen 1.
kawikadave Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 How so? The word "day" can mean an epoch of time. Just as "land" in the Flood story can mean a locality, a region, a country, or the world.But in Gen 1 it means 1 24 hour day.Hmmm... how do you know that?
consiglieri Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 The word for rib in Sumerian, ti, is the same for the word "to make live". Therefore, a pun is intended by Hebrew transcriber who formed the first Hebrew Bible to equate the "Lady of the Rib" with the "Lady who Gives Life", a pun that was lost in translation by whichever scribe that incorporated Babylonian writings into the Bible.So Eve is the "mother of all ribbing"? Cool.I appreciate understanding these types of word plays in the original languages because they help make sense out of the text. I wonder if the Sumerians also thought that life originated from the rib itself?_______________What I find especially interesting about this thread is the degree to which the Adam-God Theory continues to haunt the theology of the Latter-day Saints, in spite of the fact that his teachings have been largely repudiated by the Church as a whole.The idea that the formation of Eve from a rib was "figurative" stems, I think, from the teachings of Brigham Young, who included with this concept that Eve was brought to this earth with Adam as resurrected and glorified persons.It is common for Latter-day Saints to hew to this particular teaching of the Adam-God Theory while eschewing the rest, seemingly unaware of its origin or implications.All the Best!--Consiglieri
Lachoneus Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Was it a literal rib or a figurative one?Figurative."The story of the rib, of course, is figurative." Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign 70 (March 1976).Eve "was taken from the side or bowels of her father. this explains the mystery of Mose's dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve." Brigham Young, L. John Nuttall Journal,
kawikadave Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Figurative."The story of the rib, of course, is figurative." Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign 70 (March 1976).Eve "was taken from the side or bowels of her father. this explains the mystery of Mose's dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve." Brigham Young, L. John Nuttall Journal,
consiglieri Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Well, according to Consig, SWK must have been an AdamGod-ite, or was unaware of BY's pronouncements. My thinking is that anyone can believe it was figurative without any other significance. Isn't that okay Consig?Well, of course it is okay! But I think it possible to look at this nugget of doctrine which is prevalent in the Church even today, and trace it back to Brigham Young, and wonder how it is that certain teachings of Brigham Young managed to survive while other closely related teachings did not.But if Adam and Eve came her from somewhere else, where was it they came from? What type of bodies did they come here with? And how was it that they obtained those types of bodies in the first place?Those are the types of questions that this concept raises, and the most logical answers to those questions ineluctably lead us full-circle back into Brigham Young's other teachings.All the Best!--Consiglieri
kawikadave Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Those are the types of questions that this concept raises, and the most logical answers to those questions ineluctably lead us full-circle back into Brigham Young's other teachings.I think these kinds of questions are why God refused to discuss with Moses the other worlds he had seen. It just opens up a very large can of worms that God isn't willing to open.So you have a few options for the life on this planet, including Eve:- God created a spark of life early on and through evolution all animal and plant life, including man, came to be.- God created all animal and plant life out of the dust and animated it with their spirits.- God brought all animal and plant life from elsewhere. Or maybe he just brought man from elsewhere.The great thing, is that people are free to believe any of these options or a combination of all three. I'm not sure what I believe and I sleep just fine at night.I have friends that believe the earth is 6,000 years old, but I haven't had a chance to ask them how they account for the fossil and geologic record as well as dinosaurs.God hasn't given us all the information, that seems clear to me. Must not be that important.
Hoops22 Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 I have friends that believe the earth is 6,000 years old,And enemies, as well
consiglieri Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 And enemies, as well Enemies or friends, believing the earth is only 6,000 years old is so short school bus.Don't you think so?I mean, really?All the Best!--Consiglieri
kawikadave Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 And enemies, as well Ahhhh... come on Hoops. No enemies here. I just don't think that God is trying to fool us by creating a very complex fossil record or that man is dating these things incorrectly and that the fossil record is really only 6,000 years old.What other option is there?
consiglieri Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 What other option is there?The devil put the fossils there to draw people away from God.At least, that's what my JW brother says.All the Best!--Consiglieri
kawikadave Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 The devil put the fossils there to draw people away from God.At least, that's what my JW brother says.All the Best!--ConsiglieriThe Devil made God do it!At least, that must be what happened since God formed the earth (last time I checked Genesis). Well, the Jehovah Witness do have some interesting takes on the Bible. This would just be another one, I'm guessing.
consiglieri Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 The Devil made God do it!At least, that must be what happened since God formed the earth (last time I checked Genesis). Well, the Jehovah Witness do have some interesting takes on the Bible. This would just be another one, I'm guessing.Funny that Hoops would be in bed with the Jehovah's Witnesses on this one!All the Best!--Consiglieri
Jason Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 With regards to the OP, my opinion is that it is unimportant exactly how Eve was formed so long as we understand that God did it.
Hoops22 Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Enemies or friends, believing the earth is only 6,000 years old is so short school bus.Don't you think so?I mean, really?All the Best!--ConsiglieriReally? I've been on this board for some time now. In that time, I think I've been fairly rational, able to form and express decent arguments, and generally easy to get along with. Sometimes I've caused a laugh or two - either on purpose or otherwise.But now I'm a short busser?I think what's important here is the approach we take to the Bible. I'm presupposing that the Bible is true and that it has primacy over extra-biblical sources. The claims of science can not be taken as facts established independent of Scripture. Rahter, science must be constrained by Scripture.I am NOT avoiding evidence in spite of the bible. The billion year old case is not as strong as we are led to believe. I am filtering the alleged facts of science through the filter of Scripture.I realize lds do not have the same regard for the bible as I do. And, surely, that Gen 1:1 contradicts lds doctrine. Therefor, it becomes difficult to accept it's truth. But, truth it is.The Devil made God do it!At least, that must be what happened since God formed the earth (last time I checked Genesis). Well, the Jehovah Witness do have some interesting takes on the Bible. This would just be another one, I'm guessing.Well, just to be clear - God CREATED from nothing all the matter from which He formed the earth.And, no, I don't blame the devil. Or mormons.Ahhhh... come on Hoops. No enemies here. :)I just don't think that God is trying to fool us by creating a very complex fossil record or that man is dating these things incorrectly and that the fossil record is really only 6,000 years old.What other option is there?Nope, the fossil record is very real. And it got there somehow. The flood perhaps? You remember that one?Ahhhh... come on Hoops. No enemies here. I was kidding.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.