I have a Bible question.

Having been raised mostly agnostic, and having embraced Taoism in early adulthood, my knowledge of the Bible is somewhat ... lacking, shall we say? (I know most of the Old and New Testament general storylines but hardly know the details, and such.) Please excuse my ignorance, if this is a stupid question, but it has always confounded me, as long as I can remember ...

So God created Adam and Eve, and all of mankind came from their offspring, right? How can this be? Wouldn't it have been brothers and sisters producing children? Ummmmm ... isn't that incest? And what do the fundies say about it? (On a lighter note, maybe that's why the species is so stupid ... we're inbred!)

Seriously, though, what's the deal?

Thanks.

1-3 of Genesis you will see it.

By the way, are they going to ship me off to a "re-education" camp for that?

:evilgrin:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/bible3do.htm

If you read Gen. Ch.1 there is one story that takes place. Then is you read Gen. 2, there is another story that takes place; including the order of events.

BTW, I will also try to get the actual chapters.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
The whole King James Version online.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/2.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/3.html

First three chapters of Genesis.

I've heard a lot of people say that there are two stories. But what I see, and what most scholars that I've read are saying, is that chapter 2 of Genesis simply elaborates on the creation of humans as presented in chapter one.

and when. One is definitely not an elaboration of the other.

that is the only Bible question I know the answer to.

.... but I'm sure that in an hour I could come up with 50 such contradictions.

You're not supposed to take it literally, but it is the literal word of god. Get it?

You'll get it all figured out.

361 contradictions, no waiting.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

the creation myth is either totally nonsensical or completely perverted...unless you're from Kentucky...(OK, sorry about Kentucky, in poor taste, everyone knows the inbreds are from Arkansas):rofl:

**Not inbred**

I corrected that error.....

http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=54&qa_id=132

Apparently, the fundies don't have a problem with that.

After Cain kills Abel, God sends him out of the Garden of Eden where Cain finds a woman in the land of Nod (if memory serves me correctly) so who created the woman in the land of Nod? The Bible never mentions any other creations after Adam and Eve.

God have to take a rib from Adam to make Eve. Couldn't he just have winged it as he did Adam?

At least, up until Moses carried down the Big Ten.

According to Fundi's I've talked with Adam and Eve and their offspring were "Genetically Perfect" thereby not making their incest a big deal. However, after Eve and Adam ate the apple somehow their genes were no longer genetically perfect or something like that. Thus that is why incest is bad now.

Yeah, it's whacked out logic. I know. You should hear them talk about Dinosaurs. I've heard two versions of that, one says that people and Dinosaurs lived together and the other says that Dinosaurs never existed but Satan planted their fossils in the ground to "place doubt" in "good Christians".

The mating of siblings did not become a sin until well after the time of Adam & Eve, so at that time it was not wrong. As I remember, it was not until 1500 BC that incest was illegal...

The need for Adam and Eve to mate was necessary for mankinds beginning.

The Bible is clear, every person on this planet is said to be descended from Adam & Eve.

and even the claim that incest did not become illegal until 1500 BCE still does not explain where the other women came from...of course when people try to take the bible literally they often end up making a mockery of faith...silly fundies!

How does that work? Does God pass the law that incest will be a sin, but it doesn't take effect until 1500BC?

Do you think it's possible that the Adam and Eve saga was allegorical?

If it was only Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel & Seth - WHERE did their wives come from?

Some schools think it was only these guys. Those schools simply do not provide an answer to your question. Christianity is like that, who needs facts when you have faith?

And, they're proud of it.


Another school of thought is some say there were like 9 kids in all and yeah, the brothers mated with their sisters.


----------

Another question along those lines is:

Jesus (if He ever existed) had siblings but, his mom was a virgin all her life.

??!!??

So, they're right, you better have FAITH because it's non-sensical.

But, the religious have hijacked the concept of faith. This is faith:

I have faith I will wake up tomorrow - even though I can't be sure and I don't know what might occur this night. But, I have REASON TO BELIEVE I'll wake in the morning.

OR,

A person goes to college with the FAITH they will be able to get a good job, even though they can't be sure of that - they have GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE it.

Religious people took the concept and perverted it to mean:

"Even though I have ZERO PROOF and whatever book I read was written by people I know nothing of, in a language I don't understand and it speaks of things that don't make sense or contradict themselves...

I don't care. I choose to believe in it anyway - for no good reason other than I have a right to believe in it if I want to. And, I'll use the "F" word when someone asks me something logical that I can't answer."

Taoism would seem likely to help a person appreciate that great teachers like Jesus make use of stories, or parables, to convey truths. The world's creation stories fit this same description. In theory, anyone could mistake the story for being intended to be taken literally. But that error would not belong to the story.

(at least the LCMS Lutherans I grew up around say) that yes, it was incest, but that God provided some sort of Special Genetic Protection (TM) during those days to prevent their offspring from being messed up, until the gene pool grew a bit. I'm guessing this genetic diversity was supposed to have occured as the result of mutations, because it wouldn't really grow at all otherwise. No word is this is mentioned in the Bible (obviously, because it was written about 2500 years before Mendel), nor is anything ever said about when or why this protection was lifted.

No joke - that's really what I was taught at my Lutheran elementary and high schools.



Edited because I'm redundant and repeat myself. :)

Think of the Bible as poetry, not documented fact, and it all becomes so much easier. Adam/Eve/Cain/Abel: they were just representative of early humans, archetype early humans. Think of the Bible as poetry, and you can find many great truths and very few historical facts. As an added bonus, the Bible immediately ceases to be in conflict with science, since the Bible and science deal with wholly different subjects.

Of course, there are plenty of fundamentalist types who would love to see me burn for an eternity for saying such a thing, but there it is.

:popcorn:

Yahweh, Eloh, Adonai, Jehovah...

It's been months since I've posted here. I've had to stay away so I get my writing and other stuff done. You all are *way* too addictive! :)

But I can't resist a good Bible question. Here's what I know about the scholarly thought on the Creation story:

Most Bible scholars, even evangelical ones, are leaning toward a non-literal interpretation of the Creation story. I'm not saying that they now have stopped believing that "God created the heavens and the earth" but that the Genesis account was never meant to be a historical rendering of those events. Because of new discoveries of ancient Near-East writings from other cultures (Mesopotamian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc.) they've found that the Genesis account contains some striking similarities to many of the creation myths of those cultures. The interesting part is not so much the similarities, though, but the differences.

For example, most of the other myths portray gods that are fumbling and whose attempts at creation cause greater chaos and confusion. Contrast that to the Bible's account of God "hovering over the waters" and bringing order out of chaos. Also, the gods in the other myths created humans as slaves or by accident. Not so in the Bible. Humans in the Bible were created to be co-regents and care for the creation and are portrayed as having face-to-face access to God.

So the conclusion reached by scholars is that the original purpose of the Genesis creation account was to counterract the other religious teachings of that day and to show how the Hebrew god was different than those of the surrounding nations. In their culture at that time, the idea of whether or not it was literal would never have crossed their minds.

To me, this means that we really don't know the particulars of how God created the world--what method, how long, etc. I don't think God necessarily means for us to know. The point of the creation story is to introduce who God is, who we are, and what our purpose is for being here in this world.

But since we don't have all that "factual" information, there's a lot we just don't know about that time period. It's possible that God created more people than just Adam and Eve. I don't think that God would say "Well, incest is okay for you all, but once we get to Moses, I'm going to put a stop to it." But I can't say for certain. There is mystery in much of the Bible, and that's okay because it keeps us from getting arrogant. Or at least it ought to. :)

Had to be some incest in the repopulation.

Adam and Eve, then we had the other group from Noah after everyone else died. You know, the line that held the american indians, chinese, blacks, aboriginies, hawiians, indians, nords, arabic, norse, irish and eskimo people. You know, the people who must have taken the Ark out for a spin after the great flood to populate the other continents.

that what they meant by "The World" is their locale, or region.

There are many stories that are similar to...

Cinderella
Beauty and the Beast
Jack and the Beanstalk
Pinoochio/Gingerbread Man
Little Red Riding Hood
The list does on and on, each of these legends were chosen because both the Japenese and Native American Indian Cultures shared both or either one. For instance, the Native American version is a storythat involved Coyote instead of a wolf for Little Red Riding Hood who was a guy. They had an 'ugly' man who found the beautiful woman for their version of Cinderella, the beautiful woman was Mother Nature. Beauty and the Beast is prolific in stories where people are cursed with some form of uglyness, the native Americans have one that is similar as well. Every Culture has a story where an inanimate object becomes aware and 'alive' in Japan it has included an umbrella and there are stories in America as well. JAck and the Beanstalk is also prevalent, in America there was a version as well.

and rivers WILL flood.

Ch. 1

http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Genesis%20%201

Ch. 2

http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Genesis%202

Here's the link to the NIV Homepage:

http://www.ibs.org/index.php

Creationist answer:

Adam & Eve were created genetically perfect, therefore inbreeding was not a problem. Genetic damage occured with sin, but it still wasn't enough to be a problem as humans continued to live 900+ year lifespans. After the flood of Noah because there was again an inbreeding problem, this time the previous accumulated gentic damage caused problems and life spans slowly decreased to what they are today.

A more learned answer: It is a story to make a point - that we are all God's children, and that all humans have flaws (Sin) that they need to come to God and his love for help with.

I appreciate you all "clearing" this up for me, sort of.

Contradictions, and all, I believe the Bible to be a worthy read. I will not look to it for scientific purposes, however. In my opinion, Darwin still has the best explanaton, regarding the creation of mankind.

I will, however, continue to view it as a tale for greater understanding of the human condition. That being said, I think I might even be ready to get bible and read some of its poetry.

Peace.

Sorry I couldn't send this privately but i guess i don't have enough posts to qualify.

I, too, am an agnostic although I am studying Buddhism. Taoism has interested me of late. If you send a message privately I would like your recommendations on some books to get a better idea of Tao, the basic beliefs, how it is practiced etc.

Thanks!

Kyle

So I'll recommend some reading in this post:

Of course, there is "Tao Te Ching." There are many translations available, and easy to find. I own a small illustrated version of James Legge's translation, and found it to be all that I could handle. (The classic text is written in Chinese, and I'm told one needs knowledge of the language and traditional Chinese culture, to really absorb Lao Tzu's poetry.)

Strangely, the most helpful book I found, regarding the concepts and rudimentary principles of Taoism, came from Daniel Reid's "The Complete Book of Chinese Health and Healing." The first half of the book is a fairly comprehensive outline of the theoretical foundations of Taoism. Other helpful resources, for me, was Thomas Cleary's "The Inner Teachings of Taoism," as well as "Awakening the Tao.

From there, I began studying Tai Chi Chuan, and focusing more toward Chi Gung (energy work) exercises. Mantak Chia's, "Awaken Healing Energy Through The Tao" was very important in my studies, as well. However, the one exercise that has been most meaningful, regarding my "education" was taking up gardening. No kidding. I learned to observe nature, and began understanding its significance, in everything. Most importantly, myself.

I hope this is helpful. Good Luck.

Peace.

without having read the Bible, go out and buy a copy (I'd suggest a reasonably modern translation) and start reading. It's the most amazing piece of work. A lot of the early parts read like science fiction, I tell you. Be forewarned, there's very little character development, no true sustained narrative -- the Bible is truly for the short attention span -- and a large amount of contradictory stuff.

I was raised Roman Catholic myself, and of course was never encouraged to read the Bible. In my twenties I decided to give it a whirl, and it was quite an experience. It can be quite fascinating if you're really unfamiliar with it. Plus, you won't be reading it with the assumptions of a believer, and trust me, you'll get a lot out of it. Just not what most Bible-thumpers would want you to get.

Really. Read it. Or as much as you have the patience for. You won't regret it.

I, too, was raised Roman Catholic. Now a godless heathen. Did you go to catholic school, too. Oh, we should swap stories.

But I still have some stories. Remember pagan babies?

My best friend went all the way through Catholic school, and he has great stories.

A supernatural power brings forth the world in a flash of will, the universe, the stars, sudden existence. This omnipotent being then creates man, figures man needs a mate, yanks out a rib, boom Eve is born. Like rats in a cage, super daddy gives orders to be obeyed, the rats, oops the humans, disobey and are cast out into a harsh world to create all of human kind.

Now, apply rationality from this point in the story?

The origin of humankind, as depicted in the bible, is ludicrous. The stories in the bible can only be believed through faith, rationality is not needed nor is it desired.

Faith, the power to refuse rationality. Faith, generated from a fear of death. Faith, a mental disorder?


:evilfrown:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Yes, it has a decided non-christian slant, but it IS a great resource for looking stuff up.

Hey, why not. Makes as much sense as the rest of the book.

:shrug:

You are thinking about the birth of Athena from Zeus. She sprang from Zeus' forehead fully grown with armor. Eve came from Adam via his rib.

When I was little I remember a preacher telling me that all men are missing a rib, just like Adam. Seriously.

Genesis is a compilation of Creation myths and pre-history, made up of four distinct strands that are identifiable by style, subject matter, and vocabulary.

Every clergyperson in mainstream seminaries learns this.

I learned this in a religious studies course in a Lutheran college.

When you hear a mainstream clergyperson preaching on Genesis, they're preaching on an allegory, using the Biblical characters as examples of human types and human moral/ethical problems, much as they might do with a character in a novel.

Their genes were thought to be perfect so there would be no mutations. That is what I have always been told when I asked the question like why Rebecca could have a child at 90 with Abraham because they lived for a very long time. They didn't have the genetic predispositions we have today like heard disease and cancer.

Under any theory of the origin of mankind, there had to be the first man and the first woman. So, yes, Cain's wife had to be related to Cain. Either a sister or a neice, or some other relation. Everyone was pretty closely related at the time, because there weren't that many people on Earth yet. This is true regardless of whether you believe in the Bible or not.

Also, God did not prohibit incest at the time, because it was necessary to be fruitful and multiply.

The actual point at which a new species starts is not precise - you get an isolated population, which breeds within itself for a sufficiently long time that mutations spread inside the group prevent it ever successfully producing offspring with the 'original' species. But there may not be one mutation that can be said to have started the species. But the population wouldn't necessarily be closely related at the start (though it might be), and could be bigger than we would call 'related' in the everyday sense (someone may be your 16th cousin, but you probably introduce them as 'related').

are the first male and first female of the species, but without a doubt, there has to be a first male and a first female of any new species. Assuming that the species reproduces sexually, there must be sex between the first male and the first female. Then, the population consists of the first male, the first female and their offspring. For sexual reproduction to continue, there must be sex between members of that first family.

Now, if you are suggesting that evolution might simultaneously create two or more independent populations of a new species, and that such populations are of the same new species, then it might not be necessary to have the inbreeding, if breeding is somehow restricted to inter-population breeding, and intra-population breeding is prevented. But I daresay there is no evidence to support such a conjecture.

as I said before. So even if you had knowledge of the DNA of every single individual in the transition between one species and another, you may not be able to say "that was the point at which a new species began". In addition, even if you did manage to define the first appearance of one particular allele as the point at which a species began, that individual would have mated with an individual of the 'old' species - but one or more of their offspring inherited the allele, and they too had offspring with the allele - but not necessarily by mating with each other. In one population, the new allele continued to survive through the generations, while the old one eventually died out. The chances of this happening become larger with either an advantage the allele confers (natural selection), or in a smaller population (by chance, some alleles could be the only ones that survive, every now and again, in a small population).

Sex between species can sometimes produce offspring that can live, but are normally sterile. For instance a mule, or a lion-tiger cross - the males of which have never been fertile, though fertile females have occasionally been known. So closely related species can occasionally produce viable offspring - and that's after thousands of generations when they haven't been interbreeding, and random mutations that could produce compatibility problems have had the chance to build up in each population. After a couple of generations, individuals of the 'old' population should still be able to produce fertile offspring with individuals that have a new allele.

Jewish legend and fable, not to be confused with history or science.

Let's treat the Bible as a logic puzzle of literature. Assume that it all should make sense, and that it is a piece of literature worth studying. The question then becomes, how do we reconcile the two creation stories that appear so different? I posit that they are two different creation stories, one about the natural world (evolution of homo-sapiens) and one about the chosen created beings of God (Adam & Eve).


The first issue is that if we are to take the Bible as a literal story, then the story contradicts itself. Genesis 1:1-2:4 is the first creation story, then Genesis 2:4-3:24 is a second creation story. Both involve the creation of man, yet they appear in different orders. In the first creation story, mankind is created on day 6 with the animals. In the second creation story, man is created before the plants and animals. If this is the true word, why is there a disconnect in the first two stories of the Bible?

The second problem is that the Bible never says whom the children of Adam and Eve marry and procreate with, though one could argue that Adam and Even had many other children that are not mentioned.

Third, why does God use the term “we” while creating mankind in Gen 1:26? It has been explained away as the royal we with God speaking to the heavenly host, but that seems a stretch in the context of it not being all throughout that way.

Fourth, science shows us that their were many other ape-like creatures (proto-humans, common ancestors, similar species; depending on your beliefs) that came before mankind. The Bible does not look into this, but that is not a major problem, as the Bible is a focusing document on the story of a chosen planet/people/person. Much else is left out, as it is not important to the story of the Bible.


It was while studying the Jewish Study Bible (Tanakh Translation- see resources), that I first learned something that I had never known. The first six days of creation are actually two parallel lines of creation from generalities or domains, to specifics or inhabitants of the domains (Tanakh 12).


If laid out in two stacks of three, the days correlate as follows:

(Day 1) Light / lights: sun, moon stars (Day 4)
(Day 2) Sky, water / birds, fish (Day 5)
(Day 3) Land and plants / land animals and humans (Day 6)
Day 7 – The Sabbath



A symmetrical beauty I had never seen before! It also lay bare that the first 6 days were
the creation of everything in the natural world (possibly through evolution).


The second creation story then lays out the creation of the first human, Adam. This happens before the creation of plants and animals. Thus the stories don’t match up still. Or do they?


What if we lay out the days as stated:

Day 1: Light
Day 2: Sky
Day 3: Land/Plants
Day 4: Lights
Day 5: Fish/Birds
Day 6: Animals Humans


Then, if we study what the second creation story says, it tells us that God fashioned Adam out of clay and breathed life into him. Normally the difference from God calling into existence from afar everything in days 1-6 and his now hands-on approach in the second story is attributed to the second story being from the Priestly documents (a different source). But what if it is trying to tell us something; that the race of mankind (Homo sapiens) is special and different from normal creation. Suppose that days one through 6, God calls into being everything from afar, using the laws of physics and quantum mechanics that He created. Everything is created up through and including all of mankind’s ancestors (ex. Homo habilus, Homo erectus, etc.). Now, if we agree something special is going on, the second creation is not really a second creation, but is pulled out from the basic creation story to show its importance to God. In this story, God tells us that Adam was created from the soil (after land was created) and before plants. This would tell us that Adam was created on Day 3. This also matches that on day 3 God created the plants, and in the second story, right after creating Adam, God creates a Garden in the east of Eden, thus creating plants on the same day the first story claims he is creating plants. This signifies that Eden is special, and Adam is special. Next, God creates the animals in both stories (day 6) and then creates Eve. Thus, Eve was created from Adam on Day 6.


Day 1: Light
Day 2: Sky
Day 3: Land/Plants (Adam)
Day 4: Lights
Day 5: Fish/Birds
Day 6: Animals, humans (Eve)

Now, looking at the completed time-line, we see why God was using the term “we” while creating mankind on Day 6. He had already created Adam and was speaking to him. Creating mankind in the image of God (free-will) and Adam (physicality). This creation of the people of earth (not of Eden, where the special line was kept) allows for the interbreeding of Adam and Eve’s children with the children of mankind who already existed on earth at the time of the expulsion.

Once sin enters the world of Adam and Eve and the rest in the garden of Eden, the infinite lifespan of Adam and Eve would cease, and as they continue to interbreed with the existing homo-sapiens, the average lifespan would drop from perfection (1000yrs symbolically) to the standard human lifespan, as seen throughout the old testament.