posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:23 PM
Not sure I agree with your theory, but I do agree that things are lost in translation.
When I see things like in Genesis, I do not see them as being literal. I see them as a rough and general explanation that was meant for the time.
People grade it based on todays understandings, and take it literally and do not see how science doesn't go against it.
For example, where it says on this day this happened, on the next day this happened. These are not meant to be taken as literal days. But rather
as a sequence of time periods. And if you look at the creation story in that way, then you see it pretty much goes along with the genesis story.
Animals came before man and so on. It was just a more general description. Over time we discover more details about it. It seems to me people
only argue over the literal meanings.
I think when it talks about adam and eve, it is kind of recognition that there had to be 2 at the start of it, and all others came from them. Is that
not the same as what evolution says?
So not sure I agree with your exact theory, but I do agree on not taking it to be so literal.