It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So, according to a literal reading of Genesis 2
What you are criticizing is the interpretation of the story by a minority of Christians who call themselves Young Earth Creationists. And yes, Creation Science is an oxymoron. It cannot be falsified, therefore it cannot be science. Now if you want to compare and contrast the account in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 you will find pay dirt. IMO, Genesis 1 is the literal account, and Genesis 2 is the account with allegory and symbolism in it.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So, according to a literal reading of Genesis 2, Adam and slightly later Eve were created and became the ancestors of everyone alive to day. Young Earth creationists put this at 6 days shy of about 6000-10000 years ago. I've heard various different time periods for when Adam and Eve existed from Old Earth creationists, so I'll just address the You
However, this becomes a problem. Well....where's the genetic evidence of such a narrow population of humans existing 6000-10000 years ago? Why is it that the common female ancestor (metaphorically dubbed mitochondrial Eve) and the common male ancestor (metaphorically dubbed Y chromosomal Adam) existed thousands of years apart rather than in the same time period?
This is just another obvious instance of the story not adding up literally, though there is allegorical meaning to it.
Originally posted by Caji316
If your trying to go by the bible, which I don't agree with to much there is a six day man, which is ADAM, the white man. But before man (ADAM) there were other men-women made here on earth also. If need be I can look it up in the bible for you but if you read it you will see where man was made twice. You have the six day man and another man....
Genisis chapter 1 v26 is one type man ADAM white man
Genisis Chapter 2 v 7 is the other races
I use the Kolbrin bible now. I use to use KJV until I woke up...
Hope this helps...
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by maskfan
Which is why I specified the group I'm putting this out as a response to...
Also, how do you know it's not supposed to be read literally? That's the thing I never get about non-literalists. The literalists have a single standard, it's all literal unless noted in text to be allegorical (like the stories Jesus told). Non-literalists, do you just pick and choose?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by dashen
Citation needed...
Originally posted by maskfan
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by maskfan
Which is why I specified the group I'm putting this out as a response to...
Also, how do you know it's not supposed to be read literally? That's the thing I never get about non-literalists. The literalists have a single standard, it's all literal unless noted in text to be allegorical (like the stories Jesus told). Non-literalists, do you just pick and choose?
Yes you specified a fanatical sub-group of Christians, who for the sake of this argument represents the dumb kid in the corner who can't stop drooling on himself as your target, but you attacked all of us (followers of the book) with your opening statements.
How do I know it isn't supposed to be read literally? Because its not (and has never) been taught as literal truth by the religion who created that particular book, I could go on to expand on the various ways that trained readers are shown how to read the OT, but I feel it would probably just be wasting my time, as you felt you had to take the most obviously ridiculous literal interpretation of what is clearly a set of parables and use it as an example of why religious people are whackjobs and atheists are clearly in the right.
Well bravo you showed that people who take the book literally are idiots, bravo sir, I bow to your intellectual superioty over those with IQ's less than 80.edit on 16-2-2011 by maskfan because: (no reason given)edit on 16-2-2011 by maskfan because: spelling / grammar
When you say "the religion who created that particular book", which of the 34.000 different christian subsets are you then referring to (many of whom claiming to be THE 'true' christians).
And on what criteria are "the various ways that trained readers are shown how to read the OT" chosen? Some highly a-doctrinal method for textual analysis, a course in logic, knowledge of scientific methodology or (I suspect) some 'authority' telling you what to believe.
How is genesis 1 supposed to be read? Literally or symbolically? extra DIV
Originally posted by maskfan
Yes you specified a fanatical sub-group of Christians, who for the sake of this argument represents the dumb kid in the corner who can't stop drooling on himself as your target, but you attacked all of us (followers of the book) with your opening statements.
How do I know it isn't supposed to be read literally? Because its not (and has never) been taught as literal truth by the religion who created that particular book,
I could go on to expand on the various ways that trained readers are shown how to read the OT, but I feel it would probably just be wasting my time, as you felt you had to take the most obviously ridiculous literal interpretation of what is clearly a set of parables and use it as an example of why religious people are whackjobs and atheists are clearly in the right.
Well bravo you showed that people who take the book literally are idiots, bravo sir, I bow to your intellectual superioty over those with IQ's less than 80.