I remember watching some video about evolution with my mom once. It was a bit ignorant of me I guess because it was kind of challenging her world view. I just thought she would like the animation. She loved animals. The Precambrian explosion sounded like the book of Genesis to her since there was a sudden explosion of new life forms all at once. I mean it was probably more the result of the planet thawing out and making a greater habitable zone for life to flourish but I can see why she might see it as God’s effort. ‘My dad would be like “They don’t know that. How could they know that? They don’t know that.” And I would say, you are right, they don’t know it but it seems most likely based on available information. To which he would say “They don’t know that. How could they know that? They don’t know that.”
All of them offspring of Adam and Eve. So, sisters or nieces. Unless there were other humans populating the earth earlier than 7000 yrs ago. Which is very much true.
Sure anything is possible. And anything could be happen or be true. Which comes down to whatever anyone wants to believe. But, there's very few Christians I've interacted with, if any, that doens't believe God is omniscient. The Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence of God Definition The three “omni” attributes of God characterize him as all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. Each of these involves the other two, and each provides a perspective on the all-embracing lordship of the true God. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/omnipotence-omniscience-omnipresence-god/ This is what the vast majority of Christians are taught. But I gather from your earlier comment on hell, you have a different brand of Christian.
at one time mary magdalene had equal power with her male coherts, empirical roman culture corrupted Christianity at it almost beginning, mary was slowly lowered to prostitute status in the male roman viewpoint
Yeah I don’t think sisters and neices get mentioned. Adam and Eve had three sons but girls probably don’t rate getting mentioned due to being female.
Yeah because Romans judged women for having sex./sarcasm Have you ever read City of God by St Augustine? In it he defends Christianity for allowing Rome to get sacked because some people felt the old gods were pissed. As an aside he discusses women getting raped by Barbarians and says that those who enjoyed getting raped should repent for their sins. If you didn’t enjoy getting raped though you can feel good about yourself. Ask yourself which culture had temple prostitutes and exonerated them and which culture created myths about beautiful women luring men to their death with their beautiful hair and burned them at the stake if they floated on water.
Just to be clear, I am not trying to explain the literal meaning of scripture-- first off, because I think it is often more symbolic, than literal, but also because I think multiple analog, or even alternative, explanations can all be true. So I am more interested in symbology, and the connections that can be drawn from it. I start from the assumption that there is not a single voice speaking, in the Bible, but multiple voices: those of historical fact, including those which can be inferred from the clear intents of the human authors, but also of imagination, striving, self-justification, fear, really a panoply of human emotion and thought, all mixed together, to come out as something of a communal dream, from the human subconscious; something containing truths, but not in a literal way. That said, I just wanted to chime in, for whatever it's worth, that many serious scientists give a lot of credence to the idea of pan spermia: that life came to Earth from elsewhere. In fact Francis Crick, one of the two men credited with discovering the structure of human DNA-- though I have heard that there may have been a woman who'd been ahead of them, from whom they may have copped some ideas, but I need to look deeper into this-- was firmly of the opinion that it had been engineered, and come from elsewhere. Without getting into the speculation about beings designing life for our planet (or later altering human DNA), pan spermia can also occur naturally. Simple life can exist in well protected places, such as within rock, and within glacial ice. It is completely feasible for this life to survive some planetary trauma, which ejects it into space. The greatest challenge for life, making such an interplanetary journey, would not be a lack of air, but rather exposure to radiation, in space. And it turns out, that an EXCELLENT RADIATION SHIELD, is water or, in its frozen form, in which it exists, on comets, ice.
That would be an understatement. I share many of the same doctrinal beliefs that the majority have, but I'm able to think outside the box because I have no attachment to any denomination. My position on God's alleged omniscient is based on my observation of the human power of predicting outcomes. Parents are able to predict what their children might do on some matters. Bookies make bets on statistical data and some are good at it. For me it just seems logical that God, being the Creator would have a much better grasp of what may transpire based on certain conditions.
I think the tendency to view scripture as allegorical is a relatively modern thing that has evolved due to the fact that people are educated enough now to not think of it as literal. I don’t know what benefit the Genesis depiction of Earth is supposed to have, allegorical or otherwise. It’s only a step away from thinking of earth as a tortoise shell.
If you look at the predominant figure of speech used in Genesis 1 it becomes quite clear what is emphasized; and it's not God's creation but rather that whatever God says is so. In other words, the power of God's words is established in the very first chapter of the Bible and that theme carries throughout the rest of it.
That does NOT address these issues. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that the bible is confused and wicked. And important points in my post come from the bible. God HAS changed his mind on more than one occasion according to the Bible. As for evolution, there is constant and serious testing of evolution theory at all levels. It's a foundation of all biological sciences. It is counter to the preferred view of large numbers of educated people who have religious beliefs that aren't consistent with evolution. It's a fact that science gives its highest rewards to those who find superior or more comprehensive solutions. Writing off science as confused, wicked, and unstable is also not supportable.
Well there are first instances. Then there are translations. Then there are versions. Then there are interpretations. In Christianity this has resulted in tens of thousands of differing denominations, no two exactly alike. So if the Bible teaches one gospel and Christ, then how can there be tens of thousands if it is so clear on its face. And evolution and creation are mutually exclusive.
True. But, there is a dramatic change between the OT and the NT that isn't covered up by translations or interpretations, I think. Also, the Noah story stays quite constant no matter who tells the story. Yes, it is absolutely true that one can design a creation story that isn't consistent with the story we see when examining the universe. But, nobody can claim that what science could possibly discover would challenge the existence of a God or alter the central premises of any Abrahamic faith - or ANY faith, for that matter. The methods used by science and religion to examine this universe are MONUMENTALLY different and totally incompatible. There is NO CHANCE that they would come up with the same answers. And, we see that over and over again from ancient times to today.
I’m just referring specifically to the way Earth is depicted in Genesis. It has nothing to do with how it actually is. Personally, I think the Great Pyramid does a better job of depicting earth than the Bible does. This is how the Bible depicts earth.
Not really and it may be a bit inaccurate since I didn’t go over it but the general idea is correct. It certainly doesn’t match the NASA photos, which is fine but what value is there in viewing this as allegorical?
Well, it seems to suggest the flat earth concept which is inaccurate scripturally. So I'm curious as to what level knowledge of the Bible the artist had. Plus the reference to Sheol is definitely allegorical, although its depiction of a dark place has its purpose of a place where no light enters and is symbolic of the literal darkness of death.
I strongly suspect the ancients had to have a creation story, regardless of what they knew about the universe. I don't know of a religion that doesn't have that. Are there any? Surely the allegory speaks to the power and nature of their god and what that implies for man. Allegories can carry more meaning than facts. For example, the Eden allegory describes issues that are well beyond the idea that Adam merely disobeyed God and actually identifies a flaw in humans that we can see today. (The view of some theologians, maybe not all?) Maybe the issue with the two creation stories is that we have lost the local cultural context that allegories often depend on, thus we can only look at them as if they are facts.
I think this point is one that most of mankind has been dealing with throughout history. It's the age old question of origins. How did we get here? The creation story gives purpose/meaning to our existence.
