Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Adam and Eve were Homo Erectus?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    Matthew and Luke provide genealogies tracing Jesus' lineage back to King David, who comes from Adam (I don’t believe this stuff. Just playing along.)
    Except for a lineage tracing back to Adam.
    Matthew's genealogy is flawed, dropping names to make the lineage fit into a 3x14 generation pattern of descent. Both Matthew and Luke provide a heritage through Joseph's line back to Adam. They both deny that Joseph was Jesus' natural father. So no, the authors do not trace Jesus' ancestry back to Adam.


    You’re extrapolating way too much from way too little. Millennia of oral tradition finally compiled haphazardly in written form is a more sensible explanation for the discrepancy.
    The extrapolation involves acknowledgement that the tree of life is stated to be in Eden in Genesis and in Paradise in Revelation, which makes Eden and Paradise the same place. I don't deny the possibility of a haphazard and garbled tradition, I do deny that there is no alternative and equally viable explanation

    It is clear enough it is a myth and that you’re imagining a wild scenario to avoid force fitting them into the true story of human evolution.
    The claim that it must be entirely mythical is based on a worldview that denies the possibility of divine intervention and inspiration. Each of us can accuse the other of imagining a wild scenario to force fit the story into our world views.

    Please pay attention because this is getting repetitive and tiresome. You said "Your own comment regarding death being part of the world system from the first - (it is still on the back-burner)."
    It was not my intention to indicate that death might not have been part of the world system from the get-go. Checking my actual statement ... I said it: I have no idea why.


    My comment was that death is woven into biological existence—an undeniable fact
    Agreed

    (BTW, please do me the courtesy of responding to my reply in the Revelation thread.)
    I'll go have a look.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Matthew's genealogy is flawed, dropping names to make the lineage fit into a 3x14 generation pattern of descent. Both Matthew and Luke provide a heritage through Joseph's line back to Adam. They both deny that Joseph was Jesus' natural father. So no, the authors do not trace Jesus' ancestry back to Adam.
      You’re an odd bird. You perform gymnastics to prove John was fully inspired, then turn right around and insist Luke wasn’t inspired. Luke says "the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Whether you like it or not, this verse explicitly includes Adam in Jesus' genealogy, so we’re going with that.

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      The extrapolation involves acknowledgement that the tree of life is stated to be in Eden in Genesis and in Paradise in Revelation, which makes Eden and Paradise the same place. I don't deny the possibility of a haphazard and garbled tradition, I do deny that there is no alternative and equally viable explanation
      The most cryptic, symbolic, and argued-about book in the Bible has alternative interpretations. Surprisingly, every believer thinks his interpretation is the most viable.

      All kinds of possibilities here. Feel free to mix and match:

      John’s not inspired but being creative.
      John’s not inspired and inhaled ergot or some other hallucinogen.
      John’s not inspired and isn’t the John the apostle.

      Everyone of those makes just about much sense as saying Luke WASN’T inspired.

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      The claim that it must be entirely mythical is based on a worldview that denies the possibility of divine intervention and inspiration. Each of us can accuse the other of imagining a wild scenario to force fit the story into our world views.
      Says the guy who believes God somehow forgot to inspire or intervene in Luke’s Jesus Genealogy Report.

      We can reasonably surmise, suppose, and assume that the Adam and Eve story is about as inspired as any other creation myth. Unlike you, I’m not shoving a square peg into a round hole but starting from the more respectful basis of doubting ALL of them.


      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by whag View Post

        You’re an odd bird. You perform gymnastics to prove John was fully inspired, then turn right around and insist Luke wasn’t inspired. Luke says "the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." Whether you like it or not, this verse explicitly includes Adam in Jesus' genealogy, so we’re going with that.
        I'll pay attention to the "as was supposed" bit in addition to the rest:
        23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

        The most cryptic, symbolic, and argued-about book in the Bible has alternative interpretations. Surprisingly, every believer thinks his interpretation is the most viable.
        Along with every unbeliever who addresses the issue, yes.

        All kinds of possibilities here. Feel free to mix and match:

        John’s not inspired but being creative.
        John’s not inspired and inhaled ergot or some other hallucinogen.
        John’s not inspired and isn’t the John the apostle.

        Everyone of those makes just about much sense as saying Luke WASN’T inspired.
        You'll have to take that up with someone who denies the possibility that relevant records were inspired. For mine, I'll accept a record as inspired unless satisfactory evidence to the contrary exists.

        Says the guy who believes God somehow forgot to inspire or intervene in Luke’s Jesus Genealogy Report.
        Matthew's genealogical record is demonstrably flawed, the same cannot be said of Luke's.

        We can reasonably surmise, suppose, and assume that the Adam and Eve story is about as inspired as any other creation myth. Unlike you, I’m not shoving a square peg into a round hole but starting from the more respectful basis of doubting ALL of them.
        Whilst simultaneously rejecting any possibility that other concepts even might be viable.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          I'll pay attention to the "as was supposed" bit in addition to the rest:
          23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
          Rather, for the sake of your pet theology, you’ll rely on ancient conceptions of lineage and ignore Mary’s ovum altogether.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Along with every unbeliever who addresses the issue, yes.
          Unbelievers don’t argue about revelation but challenge you on the indicators of manifest inspiration—a question I’ve asked several times and you’ve ignored repeatedly. A man wrote a weird book is the most likely explanation sans your long-awaited apologia to the contrary.

          How about next time you take that on instead of pretending I haven’t explicitly asked it?

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          You'll have to take that up with someone who denies the possibility that relevant records were inspired. For mine, I'll accept a record as inspired unless satisfactory evidence to the contrary exists.
          You don’t need a record, just basic knowledge of biology.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Matthew's genealogical record is demonstrably flawed, the same cannot be said of Luke's.
          If it supposes Joseph as Jesus’ father, it’s flawed. Now take that another step.

          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Whilst simultaneously rejecting any possibility that other concepts even might be viable.
          Name a viable creation myth that you folded into your protology. Don’t haphazardly include it to win the argument but prove it was an essential part of your view of primeval beginnings all along. I’ll wait.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by whag View Post

            Rather, for the sake of your pet theology, you’ll rely on ancient conceptions of lineage and ignore Mary’s ovum altogether.
            So far, you haven't shown evidence suggesting that the "pet" theology is flawed. Mary's ovum would have been involved if Logos had not become flesh, but that would have made Jesus a demi-god, not human.

            Unbelievers don’t argue about revelation but challenge you on the indicators of manifest inspiration—a question I’ve asked several times and you’ve ignored repeatedly. A man wrote a weird book is the most likely explanation sans your long-awaited apologia to the contrary.
            I don't spend a lot of time studying Revelation. Beyond the first couple of chapters, in which the tree of life is stated to be in Paradise, the record seems to be locked pending events that reveal the meanings of the work. The section where the statement is made, the letters to the seven churches, is straightforward. I don't expect that it will ever be appropriate for me to write an apology based on Revelation. Do I regard Revelation as inspired? Given that there is no firm evidence to indicate the contrary, I regard it as inspired.

            You don’t need a record, just basic knowledge of biology.
            A basic knowledge of biology is quite useful. According to the text, Adam was created, and Eden populated, at a time before the Earth had ever received rain. That was a time while the Earth's atmosphere was still developing, and before it was possible for any advanced life forms to survive the existing conditions. It is likely therefore, either that Eden was not on Earth or that the story is (AFAIK) a unique myth; having no ANE counterparts for those particular pieces of the story. Given that Eden is Paradise, the concept that Eden was not on Earth is viable. Usually however, a basic knowledge of biology or any other science is not particularly helpful when miracles are in play - it's sort of implicit in the use of the term, "miracle."

            If it supposes Joseph as Jesus’ father, it’s flawed. Now take that another step.
            As is common when something is said to "have been supposed" - the usage indicates an unfounded supposition or assumption, as when Mary and Joseph supposed that Jesus was travelling in the caravan when in reality he was still at the temple in Jerusalem. (Luke 2:44).

            Name a viable creation myth that you folded into your protology.
            What possible purpose would that serve? The viability of the concept would be demonstrated or denied by whether there is something in the text under review that calls the concept into question.



            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #36
              The Garden of Eden myth originated in Egypt under Akhenaton. It was called the Garden of Aten which was Akhenatos God, the first monotheistic God. Akhenaton and Nefertiti were the original Adam and Eve along with the snake and the fruit tree. The bible also describes the place of the Garden where the river splits into 4 branches, and there is only one place in the middle east where that is true which is in Armarna in mid Egypt.
              It also fits with the fact that the Moses character in the biblical story led the "Hebrews" out of Egypt at the time of Akhenaton rule. So whatever truth there might be in that story, they would have been well aware of a monotheistic God and the Idea of the Garden of that God i.e. The Garden of Aten.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                The Garden of Eden myth originated in Egypt under Akhenaton. It was called the Garden of Aten which was Akhenatos God, the first monotheistic God. Akhenaton and Nefertiti were the original Adam and Eve along with the snake and the fruit tree. The bible also describes the place of the Garden where the river splits into 4 branches, and there is only one place in the middle east where that is true which is in Armarna in mid Egypt.
                It also fits with the fact that the Moses character in the biblical story led the "Hebrews" out of Egypt at the time of Akhenaton rule. So whatever truth there might be in that story, they would have been well aware of a monotheistic God and the Idea of the Garden of that God i.e. The Garden of Aten.
                Where do you get this nonsense? youtube?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                  Where do you get this nonsense? youtube?
                  Books Sparko, books. But I'm sure you could probably Google "The Garden of Aten" or the Egyptian Eden or something and come up with it if you're interested.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post

                    Books Sparko, books. But I'm sure you could probably Google "The Garden of Aten" or the Egyptian Eden or something and come up with it if you're interested.
                    I am guessing the books are written by the same idiots who make the youtube videos for this type of nonsense.


                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                      I am guessing the books are written by the same idiots who make the youtube videos for this type of nonsense.
                      Well, like I said, you can find out for yourself if you choose to do so.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post

                        Well, like I said, you can find out for yourself if you choose to do so.
                        I would rather spend my time doing something at least a little productive, like flossing my teeth or watching paint dry.

                        This crap is on the same level as the nonsense about Jesus was based on Horus and other idiotic space alien junk.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                          I would rather spend my time doing something at least a little productive, like flossing my teeth or watching paint dry.

                          This crap is on the same level as the nonsense about Jesus was based on Horus and other idiotic space alien junk.
                          Suit yourself my friend.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                            I would rather spend my time doing something at least a little productive, like flossing my teeth or watching paint dry.

                            This crap is on the same level as the nonsense about Jesus was based on Horus and other idiotic space alien junk.
                            You'd be correct. Ralph Ellis is the author of this nonsense. In his previous book, "Tempest & Exodus", he went over the top with his conclusion that little gray aliens are the Grand Secret behind the Masons...
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                              You'd be correct. Ralph Ellis is the author of this nonsense. In his previous book, "Tempest & Exodus", he went over the top with his conclusion that little gray aliens are the Grand Secret behind the Masons...
                              you mean they're not?

                              I looked him up. Reminds me of John Loftus with his goofy hat



                              eta: Oh noes! He is an AGW denier too! How can you believe this guy JimL?
                              Last edited by Sparko; 08-18-2023, 04:02 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post

                                Oh I see, you made it up. It isn't the teaching of the church though, right..........................................?
                                Hi Jim, I can see that your thread is for Christians, but can a Deist sneak in, please?

                                Genesis is not taught by all churches, Jim. Wiki tells it simply:-

                                What denominations believe in Genesis?
                                The Book of Genesis is regarded as a religious text by several faiths..............many adherents of those faiths interpret Genesis literally, while others interpret it as a metaphor or symbolism.

                                And so there isn't that much for you to discuss unless you can find a 'literal Genesis' advocate.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 12:52 PM
                                74 responses
                                309 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 01:46 PM
                                60 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 06:06 AM
                                144 responses
                                721 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-03-2024, 09:07 AM
                                62 responses
                                317 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post eider
                                by eider
                                 
                                Started by whag, 01-26-2024, 01:08 PM
                                53 responses
                                311 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X