Adam and Eve riddle

[Smuckers]

All I know is, if we begat these days like the the begatting that went on in the Old Testament, we'd be getting into a lot of trouble.

That was lol funny

[bdbnkr]

I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God. It is the word of man (and woman) about God.

Anytime anyone writes anything it is colored by their own perceptions. All history is tainted by the paradigms of the authors.

I do not think that the authors of the Bible intended it as a factual history. I think that it was intended as a testimony to God revealing himself in peoples' lives. It is a wonderful book that can provide insight and guidance on many aspects of life. It is not and was never intended to be a factual history.

That being said... many of the events in the Bible have been supported by evidence. Anyone who would like an interesting perspective on this should read "From Eden to Exile" by David Rohl. It is a facinating book that really bring some interesting things to light....

[dirtrider]

I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God. It is the word of man (and woman) about God.

Anytime anyone writes anything it is colored by their own perceptions. All history is tainted by the paradigms of the authors.

I do not think that the authors of the Bible intended it as a factual history. I think that it was intended as a testimony to God revealing himself in peoples' lives. It is a wonderful book that can provide insight and guidance on many aspects of life. It is not and was never intended to be a factual history.

That being said... many of the events in the Bible have been supported by evidence. Anyone who would like an interesting perspective on this should read "From Eden to Exile" by David Rohl. It is a facinating book that really bring some interesting things to light....

You're assuming again bnkr, I know from experience through the "hail and brimstone" sermons, I use to get that a lot of people in fact take the writing of the bible as literal. That Adam and Eve were in fact the first man and woman......that's not to say that there are just as many sects that don't, either. I like to go on but don't have too much time today.....so if your reading this riki, we'll talk in a couple of days in the you know which thread. Oh, which "from eden to exile"....so it's Rohl and not Cline?

http://xrl.us/bhvuf

http://xrl.us/bhvu6

[bdbnkr]

I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God. It is the word of man (and woman) about God.

Anytime anyone writes anything it is colored by their own perceptions. All history is tainted by the paradigms of the authors.

I do not think that the authors of the Bible intended it as a factual history. I think that it was intended as a testimony to God revealing himself in peoples' lives. It is a wonderful book that can provide insight and guidance on many aspects of life. It is not and was never intended to be a factual history.

That being said... many of the events in the Bible have been supported by evidence. Anyone who would like an interesting perspective on this should read "From Eden to Exile" by David Rohl. It is a facinating book that really bring some interesting things to light....

You're assuming again bnkr, I know from experience through the "hail and brimstone" sermons, I use to get that a lot of people in fact take the writing of the bible as literal. That Adam and Eve were in fact the first man and woman......that's not to say that there are just as many sects that don't, either. I like to go on but don't have too much time today.....so if your reading this riki, we'll talk in a couple of days in the you know which thread. Oh, which "from eden to exile"....so it's Rohl and not Cline?

http://xrl.us/bhvuf

http://xrl.us/bhvu6

The one I read was by David Rohl... he is an Egytologist.... and it was a facinating book.

I never assumed anything. I thought I was pretty clear in stating what "I believe" and what "I think". Other people are free to interperet the Bible in anyway that they want. I stated that I do not believe that the authors of the bible intended for it to be interpreted as a factual history. It is not their fault that so many people today choose to do so....

[dirtrider]

..... many of the events in the Bible have been supported by evidence. Anyone who would like an interesting perspective on this should read "From Eden to Exile" by David Rohl. It is a facinating book that really bring some interesting things to light....

Sorry I should have been a little more specific.....and I did notice the I believes and I thinks.

It seems Mr. Rohl has a way of bending history a little.

".........Rejecting the Revised Chronology of Immanuel Velikovsky and the Glasgow Chronology presented at the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies' 1978 'Ages in Chaos' conference, the New Chronology lowers the Egyptian dates (established within the traditional chronology) by up to 350 years at points prior to the universally accepted fixed date of 664 BC for the sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal.

While Rohl's theories have been rejected by many Egyptologists, Rohl's most vocal critic has been Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University. One of Kitchen's major objections to Rohls' arguments concerns his alleged omission of evidence that conflicts with Rohl's theories. Kitchen has pointed out that the genealogies Rohl references to date Ramesses II omit one or more names known from other inscriptions.[1] Similarly, Egyptologists have pointed out that no other known king of Egypt fits the identification as well as Shoshenq I.[citation needed] Redating the floruit of Ramesses II three centuries later would not only reposition the date of the Battle of Qadesh and complicate the chronology of Hittite history, it would require a less severe revision of the chronology of Assyrian history prior to 664 BC."

[bdbnkr]

read the book dirtrider... not just the reviews of it. he put some very interesting theories forward. I will not pretend to have enough knowledge to make a truly informed decision as to whether or not he theories are correct but they seem resonable.

additionally, anyone who brings forward theories that go against what the majority of people consider to be true are usually the subject of pretty harsh critiques. The opinion's of Mr Rohl's critics are probably just as colored by their own perceptions as his are.

Anyway... enough on that subject... I am interested in hearing some other people's views on the "Adam and Eve riddle".

[dirtrider]

read the book dirtrider... not just the reviews of it. he put some very interesting theories forward. I will not pretend to have enough knowledge to make a truly informed decision as to whether or not he theories are correct but they seem resonable.

additionally, anyone who brings forward theories that go against what the majority of people consider to be true are usually the subject of pretty harsh critiques. The opinion's of Mr Rohl's critics are probably just as colored by their own perceptions as his are.

Anyway... enough on that subject... I am interested in hearing some other people's views on the "Adam and Eve riddle".

Well, since you brought up David Rohl, you must know that his timeline for Adam and Eve was circa 6000 BC. "....In Legend, Rohl dated Adam to ca. 6000 BC, at the early end of this range He has since moved his estimate to ca. 5375 BC" I see that he also thinks he has found the "Garden of Eden".

http://www.ramsdale.org/dna6.htm

Now in the context of this thread, would this be a metaphorical Adam or a literal one?

[Agondonder]

[quote][/quote]
'ADAM AND EVE arrived on URANTIA from the year A.S. 1934, 37,848 years ago...
The Planetary Adam and Eve of Urantia were... a little more than eight feet in height." When they began their sojourn on this world, their place of abode is often called the Garden of Eden...
The Garden site was a long narrow peninsula - almost an island- projecting westard from the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea." Page 823 of the Urantia book. www.urantia.org or www.urantiabook.org It is facinating to read the real story of who they were and where they are now.

[Glacier]

All I know is, if we begat these days like the the begatting that went on in the Old Testament, we'd be getting into a lot of trouble.

That is what happens when people were supposedly living over 900 years old.

[Tumult]

I agree The bible should not be understood as a literal "history book of the universe". Many cultures with creation stories understand the events described or depicted as not literal but metaphors which can only be fully understood by their makers (writers/artists).