Adam & Eve's Children - Incest?

Quite amazing really...a strawman would be holding up an argument that you are not making. You ARE making the argument that science is not trustworthy, and that your interpretation of the Bible supercedes scientific discovery. If I misunderstand your position, then clarify it! There is no intent to misrepresent your position. I think your own words have clearly laid it out. My position is quite clear...where a literal interpretation of Genesis contradicts solid scientific discovery, Genesis is either:

1. Not trying to convey scientific theory
or
2. To be interpreted allegorically

I see no sensationalism here at all. If I have not correctly understood your position vis-a-vis science, then tell me. Otherwise it appears you are just caught in a web of your own making and cannot find a way to extricate yourself.

 

Science has no agenda, no need to lie.</font>[/QUOTE]As in Piltdown Man, Peking Man, and Java Man? What a joke! </font>[/QUOTE]You forgot my favorite: Ernst Haeckel and his infamous recapitulation theory (ontogeny repeats phylogeny) -- the bogus drawings of a fetus going through the various stages of evolution. People still believe this occurs, even though it was debunked ages ago.

 

Again, science is self-correcting. This has been rejected by modern evolutionary theory.

 

Again, science is self-correcting. This has been rejected by modern evolutionary theory. </font>[/QUOTE]Is that what you call it? Self-correcting? I call it lies and fraud being exposed.

 

Science is self-correcting because it needs to be, it is sometimes wrong. The Bible isn't because it is never wrong. Much is made of the fact that the Bible is not a science book, as though that is a profound statement, yet I have never even heard of a Christian who said that it was.

On topic: The reason incest was accpetable in the beginning was because God said that it was, and the reason it is not acceptable now is because God said that it isn't. Everything else is simple conjecture as to the reasons God had for doing what He did. It is fun to speculate and worthwhile to try and understand but, it is not necessary.

 

Are there any passages in the Bible that ARE alleghory? How do we know that they are alleghory?

 

I have told you. You just don't listen well. I can see that your pride prevents you from admitting that going from my challenging you on relying more heavily on science than the Bible to your accusing me of being anti-science is merely a diversion tactic and counter-productive to intelligent debate. Explain how you naturally arrived at my being totally anti-science quoting what I have said! </font>[/QUOTE]Oh...back to the ad hominems! I don't listen well, I am prideful. LOL

This in itself is not productive to intelligent debate. Your own words have convicted you of being anti-science. You said you believe the Bible where it is contrary to science. I will accept that you claim you only believe science where it doesn't challenge your pet theological beliefs, however irrational IMO that view may be.

Hurts? Hardly. Talk about strawmen! What "science god" have I mentioned? I don't think I said I doubt God, I refute your interpretation of God.

No, it doesn't have to explicitly say "Hey Wells! This is allegory!!" God gave you a reasoning mind and expects it to be used.

I believe my answer that I am not a biblical literalist was sufficient. The geneologies are meant to show a connection to the ancient patriarchs for theological reasons. The geneology in Matthew is very different than the one in Luke. I know some say, "one is through Joseph and one through Mary". To that I say, to use your favorite word, "RUBBISH!". Nowhere in the Bible does it say this is the explanation.

It is not rational for people today to believe literally in talking snakes & donkeys, dirt men, rib women, a deity who punishes his creation for eating from a tree he planted there and which gave them knowledge of good & evil, and sticks that turn into snakes. Pure mythology, and not that much different than the mythology of other cultures. You can gain many things from these stories, but a literal view of creation is not one of them. The divergent order of creation from Gen 1 to Gen 2 is enough to see that this is a melding of two distinct tellings of these accounts from at least two sources. The stars are not fixed upon a firm dome over the earth (firmament) with floodgates that allow rain to fall to earth. This all reflects an ancient cosmology and not knowledge of a civilization that has travelled to the moon. Which, BTW, should God not have swatted the Apollo capsules down for going even higher toward heaven than the Tower of Babel, to which he took great offense? Oh wait...maybe he DID try to do it to Apollo 13 by blowing up the service module. Never mind.

I suspect in your mind, one cannot be a Christian without being a fundamentalist, Biblical innerrantist. I assure you (if this is the case...don't want to bring up a strawman) that opinion is incorrect.

Bear in mind, I am NOT attacking the Bible...I am presenting a view that it is not to be taken literally in all areas.

So, once again, we have drifted off topic through creation / evolution to Biblical inerrancy.

 

The context, grammar and style makes it pretty clear when text is meant to be metaphor or allegory. The parables, with one possible exception, are easy to identify as allegory. Metaphor is usually very easy to identify based on style and grammar.

 

Of course you think that, but to isolate the Bible is to only do circular logic. The fact is for any idea to be true, it must be falsifiable. I am perfectly willing to amend my understanding at any time the evidence demonstrates I am wrong. From your Biblical-island view, there is no data that you would consider able to falsify your views, nor which would move you from them. You believe DESPITE the evidence merely because you hold one source as being beyond the realm of reason. You have insulated the Bible from the realm of critical examination.

Not entirely, but that is one piece of data.

Not true. If there were a global flood, the mixing of salt water and fresh water would kill all the lifeforms dependent upon their specific environment. Do you think the ark of Noah had aquariums for every aquatic lifeform?

How did penguins and koalas get to the middle east from Antarctica and Australia and then back? Koalas eat only specific euacalyptus leaves indiginous to Australia. Did they carry them in a cooler? The Noah account is another ancient myth. Can we learn any truth from it? Of course. But the truth has nothing to do with geologic history.

Not true. They do have their limits, but when applied correctly, they are quite accurate indeed.

I have never said you are not entitled to your opinion. Every day I am amazed at how people distrust what God has revealed through his creation and will defend the literal stories written by and for ancient people with a very different cosmology. I take it you also accept the Noah's ark story view of the firmament? The hard, semitransparent dome that had stars affixed to it and water above it. This same firmament had floodgates that opened to release the flood?

No death before Adam? Tsk tsk. The United Negro College Fund had it right with their slogan..."A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

You are entitled to your views, just don't try to pass them off as "creation science", when you honestly know, they are based upon the Bible, hence they are religious views and should not be taught as science in public schools.

OOPS!! Was that the sound of another can of worms being opened?

 

Amazing how some fundamentalists cannot engage in a debate without resorting to ad hominems when they run out of arguments or cannot answer the other side's questions.

 

Archaeologists have made a stunning discovery. Here is a picture of what is apparently the first man & woman and their family. Could this be how Adam & Eve looked?

 

John, I have never put anyone here on ignore, but you are close due to your continual name calling.

 

John,

I might add that saying I "slink"; that I need to "grow up", using scripture to beat me up, insinuating I am a dog or a pig means you have lost what very little credibility you have. I have never called you names, but apparently this is your M.O. You once referenced scholarly debate, but I see that is truly beyond your capabilities. You continually resort to ad hominems, hence you have lost the debate regardless of the merits of anything else you have to say.

You are a rude person, and certainly no gentleman. Not very Christlike at all.