Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist

page: 14
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by gunmetal
 


In 1932 Francis Farmer wrote an essay called, God died. www.angelfire.com...

Its not new that most of us don't believe the bible. The reason is quite logical. It is not a divine piece with all the answers and most of it is today irrellevant because its connected to societies no longer existing.

Like the part about Leviticus. It was written for these holy men and what it condemnd also happened to be tradition in the pagan religions they were fighting over.

But this is utterly irrelevant today because it was for men of God, munks. Offcouse they were not to lie with another man or eat shrimps. Why they couldnt use to differen garments is just weird. But these parts are the key to the end of this religon. Like those before it will in the future be a myth. And new religions will take over. With the same message, but with a lighter tone. Just like every religion has done before




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by MrXYZ

I will believe stuff in the bible that's backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence.

Here's what's not backed up by objective evidence:

- People living inside whales or resurrecting from inside whales
- Genesis
- Global flood
- ...

In addition to that, there are over 400 cases where the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong not only scientifically, but also historically: LINK

What's your evidence that Adam lived over 900 years? Please don't tell me you believe it simply because it's in the bible
edit on 11-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure why you would believe any of it if all of it needs to be proven scientifically to you.

Yes, the Bible requires belief through faith. Faith is a major topic discussed in the Bible.

Yes, I believe Adam lived 930 years because the Bible says so.

God will never allow man to scientifically prove everything. Man is imperfect and God knows that if he shared all knowledge with man that man would only corrupt it due to sin. Just like his perfect angels who exercised their free will until they corrupted mankind and became the "fallen angels". Too much knowledge and power combined with free will only leads to a power struggle between the Creator and those He created. It won't happen again. God will destroy those who misused their knowledge and power.

Edit to Add: Man was given a second chance, through Jesus, to be redeemed. The "fallen angels" will not be given that chance. They will be destroyed with no chance of living another angelic or eternal life.
edit on 11-4-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)


Again The part with Lilith clearly shows GOD does blunders over and over again. How he did not forsee that is just ludacris.

And why no daughters? Are we to believe that part? That they came to a city? Where did the city come from. Does this not imply there already were more people. But that Adam and Eve where upgraded



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Garfee
 


The context was attacking the integrity of the Word of God as it's written.
Dude, believe whatever you want to, my point was this is nothing new, not by a long shot.

It's not the word of god until god says it is, right in front of me.

That's included in "believe whatever you want."


Was it okay for Hitler to believe that all non-aryans should be wiped off the planet? To believe that Allah said to kill the infidels? Is it okay to believe that women are inferior? Not only is it wrong to believe in such things, it is also wrong to sit by and let these beliefs infect the entire world.


What are you talking about? We're talking about Genesis 1. People don't get killed because I believe Adam and Eve existed. That's absurd. When you don't have an argument always associate your opponent to Hitler. Does anyone know if this has ever been tried before?

edit on 11-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


Yeah, like I would trust a catholic cardinal even if I were Christian! Who cares what he thinks.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Throw me an example of where the Bible was proven wrong and I'll try to answer your question.

As for your link, it looked like most of the questions revolved around the Bible not giving enough detail to answer them.
edit on 11-4-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)


That link lists over 430 cases where the bible is wrong


Sorry, based on the questions I saw, it only shows that the person asking the questions didn't understand what the Bible said.

Just an example, your link makes it sound like it wasn't possible for plants, trees or vegetation to survive or grow because they were created on the 3rd day of creation and God didn't put the sun or the moon in the sky until the 4th day.

What it overlooks is the fact that God created light and separated it from darkness on the 1st day of creation. Secondly, God didn't separate the sky from the water until the 2nd day. Just because God said, "let there be lights in the expanse of the sky" on the 4th day, doesn't mean that there wasn't some kind of light already in existence when he created plants and trees on the 3rd day.

The Bible tells us that in the afterlife, no sun is needed because God is the light. Regardless of what science thinks is possible, all things are possible with God and the Bible explains that light was created on the 1st day of creation. No, the Bible doesn't elaborate on how or what kind of light it was, but needless to say, there was still light and darkness on the earth when vegetation was created. We can't prove that other light besides the sun is the only light capable of sustaining plant life because we don't have access to it. Or maybe we can. Aren't there plant lights that help plants to grow?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Yes, and they are all based on the biblical quotes, there is nothing there beyond faith alone to "prove" anything. What I am saying is, there has to be more than supporting evidence from the bible for many people to accept it, especially when you are dealing with passages that are highly improbable in today's world.

I have a copy of "Hunger games" beside me, and I could tell you what is in it is true, and if you question any of it, I could say "but the book says!" then go find some in-depth review of the book, and use it as back up, when truly, the only source for the book, and it's review, is the book itself. Where is the independent evidence?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by gunmetal
I just cannot believe that this guys does not believe in the creation story....I hope he comes to peace with his soul. What is the world coming too.


Some people are taught to think for themselves, and not rely entirely on what other people tell them to believe, the world is coming to an enlightened stage, the age of knowledge if you will, but we still have a long way to go.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by lost artistic
 


The only mention of Lilith in the Bible is in a NSRV version and she's only mentioned once as being some kind of demon in the book of Isaiah. There is no story outside of "Jewish folklore" created between the 8th - 10th century of Lilith being tied to Adam or the creation story based on my research.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RyanFromCan
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Yes, and they are all based on the biblical quotes, there is nothing there beyond faith alone to "prove" anything. What I am saying is, there has to be more than supporting evidence from the bible for many people to accept it, especially when you are dealing with passages that are highly improbable in today's world.

I have a copy of "Hunger games" beside me, and I could tell you what is in it is true, and if you question any of it, I could say "but the book says!" then go find some in-depth review of the book, and use it as back up, when truly, the only source for the book, and it's review, is the book itself. Where is the independent evidence?


Yes, I have acknowledged that it requires faith (in a past post) regarding the return of Jesus as proof of His existence:


Until that time, the Bible says we're supposed to have faith. The Bible also says that most won't believe or have faith until then, which should't surprise us since Jesus himself walked the face of the earth with people, performed miracles in front of them, saw Jesus' prophecies come true and yet most still wouldn't believe Him and rejected Him. So, why would we expect anything different now?


There's no doubt that proof of the Bible won't be handed to you unless you study it.

It sounds like you might(?) be interested in this thread:

"The evidence of the truth in the bible from biblical archeaology to biblical astronomy, science has"

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist


au.news.yahoo.com

In comments that may shock some staunch Catholics, Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a myth.

He appeared alongside renowned evolutionary biologist and atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, on the ABC's Q&A program last night.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Few Christians think the Garden of Eden story is literal history, most understand that it's an allegory and a myth for the rise of self-conscious awareness and the introduction of sin via a fall from grace propogating itself through the "sins of the father". We understand more than the narrow minded, two dimensional atheists would have everyone think.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Frankly I'm shocked...
No but seriously...



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Hilariously, some scientific communities had proved the existance of our DNA stemming from one man and one woman. Its not every day that the scientific community finds positive findings on matters of faith that men of the cloth deny.

Here is some info on "Mitochondrial Eve," who donated genetic material to every human on Earth.

And then of course, there is Y-Chromosomal Adam, whom also passed his DNA to every living human.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gps777

How many lives were taken by Starlin/Pol Pot?


Where did Stalin/Pol Pot say that their actions were because of their disbelief in a God?

What about Hitler? Why did you conveniently leave him out? Could it perhaps be because of this?


Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic, and in a speech in 1922 he remarked, "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter..." In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1.2), Hitler stated:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.




How many lives are taken on a daily basis by athiests around the world,how many sell drugs,murder or break and enter or bash or rape etc etc.

How many of those were Christian on a daily basis?


How many of them do it because of their disbelief in a God? And can you show me specific quotes? My wager is that you can not, because it has nothing to do with their lack of belief in a god. You are just making things up.



I`m pretty sure this world is as screwed up as it is because of unbelief.


I'm pretty sure it's not, as atheists only make up around 3% of the world's population.
Guess again


This makes as much sense as blaming the world's problems on midgets!



But hey just another bashing thread which is allowed to continue,so I guess this must be good for ATS.


Oh poor you.
I guess no one should be allowed to criticize your religion, yeah? Everyone should just shut up if they disagree with you.
edit on 4-11-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


You may have missed the fact that I am a Christian, I just don't believe the Bible is a :literal truth, there are two many inconsistencies, and contradictions in it. That being said, the Bible is a body of truth to live by, and also must be taken in context, it is a collection of ancient allegories about morals, taken both from ancient legends, and letters written between people of faith. The big problem with the Bible is there are several versions of it, and I am not talking about NIV vs KJV vs NSRV, but the difference in biblical canon, the apocrypha, the books left out of the Bible by certain denominations, and how those decisions were arrived at by man, fallible man.

If certain biblical scholars of old can make the decision that certain scriptures are of little value or questionable content, and just ignore them, pretend they don't exist, how does that bode the for the books left in, was there an agenda? Why are there different biblical cannons with different branches of the faith? Who is right and who is wrong? What is to stop is from deciding that a certain book is now suspect and saying "hey, lets change the cannon"?

The fact is, even if you believe the Bible was inspired, why were some parts considered more inspired than others, so decisions were made on what to include, and what to leave out. The stories that make up both the Bible and Apocrypha were passed down for generations by word of mouth before they were recorded "on paper", I can't remember the name of the party game we used to play is school were you whispered into a person's ear, ant hey whispered into the next person's ear what they thought you said, but it is a realistic possibility that this happened to the bible, as we humans are fallible, even if we are "inspired".

You also have to look at the fact much could be "lost in translation", take the "logos" concept, it is one word, but encompasses a whole idea, in translation, it is replaced by what was deemed the best word to describe the concept, but much was lost to those who did not understand the concept of "logos", this is just but one example of "lost in translation"

Take another example, the fact that the King James translation was not only to "modernize" the Bible, but also to make it more palatable, as in a pleasant read, using beautiful language, meaning sometimes words were substituted that meant something similar, or the same, but since have lost or changed their meanings. The following examples might seem very simple, but take the word stoned, in biblical time it meant to punish someone by striking them with stones, it now means to alter your thought processes with chemicals. Another word, gay, in only a short time it has changed it's meaning.

As far as the link you suggested to me, sorry, am not really interested, and here is why. When you go into a scientific study with an agenda, in this case, to prove the bible is a factual account of history, you corrupt the evidence, not on purpose, but you only look for the evidence that proves your theory, rather than follow the evidence, all the evidence, to it's logical conclusion. If the police only look for evidence that proves you committed a crime, physical, hearsay, or circumstantial evidence, they will find it. If police loo at eh evidence with no agenda, and follow all the leads, rather than leads that only support one theory, with an open mind, they might just discover that what they thought to be true, is not in fact true, that it happened a different way.

Scientific investigation that is done solely prove an already held belief Is not really science, It is the use of scientific principals to justify an already held belief, it is not an investigation, it is a manipulation to suit your own ends, it carries with it an agenda.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarlboroRedCowgirl
Hilariously, some scientific communities had proved the existance of our DNA stemming from one man and one woman. Its not every day that the scientific community finds positive findings on matters of faith that men of the cloth deny.


Hilariously, they did not! I think you are misunderstanding.


This is a really silly interpretation of a coalescent date for a genetic locus. It is NOT true that "mitochondrial Eve" means that the population size of our ancestors fell to the point where we all have but a single female ancestor. What actually happens is that in all populations, of whatever size, some individuals leave no or few descendants, while other individuals leave many.



Barring new mutations, each generation would lose a certain amount of its pre-existing genetic diversity and, with enough time, all of the pre-existing genetic diversity is lost and all individuals would carry just one of the pre-existing genetic variants. This is what happened in the case of "mitochondrial Eve," enough time has gone by that all of the other mitochondrial DNA variants present more than 200,000 years ago have disappeared except for one. The only reason we don't actually all now have the same mitochondrial DNA is that during this interval there have been many mutations occurring. So over time, the diversity that had existed is lost, while new mutations generate new diversity within the remaining lineages.



Think about it in the sense that there may be nothing special about the oldest tree in a forest other than by chance it is the one that has survived the longest without getting destroyed by fire, pests, etc. And if that tree gets destroyed, then there will be a different oldest tree, one that germinated more recently in time. But the fact that we can identify an oldest tree in the forest does not mean that there were not many other trees around when the tree that is currently oldest first germinated.



It is true that we can trace the origin of all human mitochondrial DNA back to a common mitochondrial ancestor around 200,000 years ago. However, this is simply the common ancestor of our mitochondrial DNA - a far cry from the common ancestor of all of DNA. All of our other genes would trace back to their own common gene ancestors (most of them much farther back in time). Thus, it is erroneous to claim that the individual carrying our common mitochondrial ancestor was THE common ancestor of humans.

To help clarify the fallacy, imagine a hypothetical person named Joe traced the gene responsible for his hairy ears back to his paternal grandfather. It would be erroneous to claim the paternal grandfather as THE ancestor of Joe. Joe had four grandparents that each contributed aspects of his genome. In the same way, "mitochondrial Eve" contributed the mitochondrial DNA to all humans alive today. However, the mitochondrial genome is a very small part of human DNA, and we know that many thousands of other individuals contributed other aspects of our current genetic diversity. Thus, genetics, in no way, supports a literal Adam or a literal Eve. And I say this as a Christian.
andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com...


edit on 4-11-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Sorry, science can't even come close to proving this theory one way or the other. It's already been proven throughout this thread.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RyanFromCan
 


So, what are you telling me, RyanFromCan? That you're a Christian without faith that God is capable of preserving His Word that was meant for us no matter what? Yes, there is much to be learned from the books that were left out of the Bible or the different languages from which they were written, but does leaving them out make the entire Bible as we know it implausible or leave out God's true message as to what He wants us to believe? I say it doesn't.

Here's what we should have faith in. Faith that the Word as we have it and know it is enough. Faith that anyone else that is truly looking for God will find Him through the Holy Spirit no matter what obstacle is thrown in their path. One thing we know from the stories in the Bible, no matter how much proof you have, it's never enough without having a personal relationship with God to lead you. We could provide every proof imaginable that what the Bible says is true and it still wouldn't be enough for the unbelievers. Have faith that everything serves a greater purpose, even if it looks like it's being disguised.

Peace!



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by lost artistic
 


The only mention of Lilith in the Bible is in a NSRV version and she's only mentioned once as being some kind of demon in the book of Isaiah. There is no story outside of "Jewish folklore" created between the 8th - 10th century of Lilith being tied to Adam or the creation story based on my research.

en.wikipedia.org...


The Lilith teaching is from Kabbalistic demonology. Most have no idea.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RyanFromCan
 



You may have missed the fact that I am a Christian, I just don't believe the Bible is a :literal truth, there are two many inconsistencies, and contradictions in it.


Look up the term "Remez".

It's an apparent contradiction that the Holy Spirit uses as sort of a sign that says:

"Not so fast, you're going to miss something. DIG HERE"

edit on 11-4-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by Xaphan
 


Jesus' main mission for coming to earth was to die. He knew it and he preached to his apostles why he would be put to death. It was the only way to cleanse sin in order to achieve salvation.


AHHHH! Please tell me how the two are connected: Death and forgiveness of sins????
Killing a cat will clean your car.
Break a window if you want a tree to grow.
Load up the freezer with ice cream to ensure that your clothes get clean in the washing machine.
Nail someone to a cross if you want your sins forgiven.

IT MAKES NO SENSE!





top topics
 
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join