justlurking

Quote from A_theistnotatheist

The human race had one directive at this point. Be fruitful and multiply. At this stage there are only so many ways to achieve such a result. The state of the world has changed since and different directives have come since. Different rules apply because it is a different world.

Well there you go DP, incest and inbreeding are OK because God said so, at least back then.

On a more serious note, you leave them two choices on this question, incest and inbreeding are OK. Or the bible isn't a reliable source of information, so take those old stories with a grain (Truck load) of salt. I think Nomad/Bede know after the last exchange with you that your simple questions are not so simple, once they try to answer them.

David M. Payne

Quote from A_theistnotatheist:
Do you realy believe that theist-etc? I would say it is biological impossible for all of mankind to have come from one set of parents, (Adam and Eve) or even one family (Noah’s). If the very beginning of mankind is a fairy tale in the bible, how can any of it be true?

Quote from justlurking:
I don't know JL, I have “faith” that the nomad/BT, Bede, Metacrock or any other theists here can answer this question, if they want to. I'm sure it isn't a new question, but perhaps it's a little too much of a challenge for them?

Tercel

I am inclined to take the story of Adam and Eve metaphorically myself. If you are going to take the account literally then the obvious answer would seem to me to be that interbreeding occurred. I recall seeing a Fundamentalist answer to this question which went something along the lines of "It was OK at that stage as it did not cause genetic problems (? I have little knowledge of genetics) and was allowed - and we have the example of Abraham who married his sister Sarah. It was not banned until the Law of Moses by which time there were presumably genetic problems beginning to occur."

Well personally I take the third possibility which is that the Bible is inspired by God (Please do not confuse this with Inerrancy, if you are confused then this might help) and that the early stories in Genesis are metaphorical giving spiritual truths (eg that man has rejected God and chosen his own will above God's) as opposed to literal truths (eg there was a real tree and Adam ate real fruit from that tree).

I have very little knowledge in the subject (so if you know better then please correct me), but my understanding is that modern anthropology posits that mankind is descended from a single pair of humanoids. (I don't mean to try and imply by this a literal Adam and Eve)

BehindTheMoon

Mitochondrial Eve. The most recent individual who's mitochondria are in every living woman today.

Is that right?

Kosh

Yes, Mitochondrial Eve. Although I think the
date is more like 200,000 years, not 6,000.
And I think that would be modern biology,
rather than anthropology. I'm sure a search
on "Mitochondrial Eve" would turn up a website or two.

This of course is the apologists out. "They
were just speaking figuratively". Of course
this now presents us with a dilemna. HOw are we to discern which parts were metaphorical,
and which parts are literal? Were they just
speaking metorphorically about there being
only one God? How about Jesus? Did he really
exist, or was he just a metaphorical figure
as well? Last time I looked, there weren't
any tags in the bible like "</METAPHOR>"...

Liszt

Kosh is right on when he says how are we to decide when it figurative or literal? Esp. when Genesis uses phrases like, "this is the history of" and what not... No true Bible believing apologist ever takes this "out" as you call it. It would be if he did, but then he would be denying God anyway, so...Wasn't it common practice just a hundred years ago for first cousins to marry?
That's considered incest nowadays. hmm...

Kosh

BTW Tercel, didn't mean to beat you over
the head with that again, since I already
did it a previous thread, but I didn't
realize it was you till I'd posted....

But it got me to thinking. What we is NOT
another Bible translation. NOt another
annotated Bible, no.... what we need is
the new XBible, a bible marked up with XML
tags! Here's a start on the tagset definition:

<METAPHOR>...</METAPHOR> Everything between the tags is, well, a Metaphor
<LITERAL>...</LITERAL> self explanatory
<REDACTION>...</REDACTION> editors should exercise self discpline with these tags whenver interpreting with bias...
<CONTEXT>...</CONTEXT> (this is my favorite). Text between these tags must be taken in whole. It CANNOT be quoted or borrowed in part. Because as ol' Josh buddy tells us "Subtext without Context is Pretext!"
<MYTHNAPPED>...</MYTHNAPPED> (see Noah, Moses in the basket, etc)
<ORWELLIAN>...</ORWELLIAN> for those special sections of "history" which have been deemed a fabrication for various motives

So, I think the passage when then look like
this:

<BOOK name="Genisis" author="unknown">
...
<CHAPTER number=1>
<CONTEXT>
<VERSE number=1>
<METAPHOR>
In the Beginning....
</METAPHOR>
</VERSE>
...
</CONTEXT>
</CHAPTER>
</BOOK>


Sometimes I crack myself up!

Tercel

With the application of common sense, context, an understanding of how the passage was composed, what external sources are drawn upon, the writers intent, and your brain.

David M. Payne

Well we got a little off topic here as Nomad/BT would say if he was still around, but it looks like he and Bede have forfeited this round, what a shame. In any event Mitochondrial Eve is not the Eve of the bible, she's much to old. She may be the most common ancestor of us all, though this article Here calls that hypotheses into question somewhat. Here is a snippet of the article below.
By: Tiffany Mayer, May 15, 2001
Put the gloves on, Mitochondrial Eve, because Mungo Man has stepped into the ring.
Mungo Man, an anatomically modern skeleton, was discovered in 1974 in the dry bed of Lake Mungo in New South Wales, Australia. The skeleton made the news again recently when scientists dated his remains to 60,000 years ago. Mungo Man became the oldest human fossil that was physically similar to modern humans. But further analysis of Mungo's mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) could not link him to any human population living today.
His discovery challenges the concept of Mitochondrial Eve, the most accepted argument for human evolution among anthropologists. Mitochondrial Eve is the theoretical African woman who lived 200,000 years ago, and is currently considered the most recent common ancestor of humans today.
"Eve" earned this title after scientists used mtDNA from modern humans to trace our ancestry back to a woman who probably lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago. Mungo Man is the piece that does not fit into this puzzle. Despite his age and modern appearance, his mtDNA differs dramatically from anything in Eve's lineage. So, he doesn't fit into Eve's theory of human origins and couldn't have been part of the "Out of Africa" exodus.
But Mungo Man does fit into the grand scheme of the less popular multi-regional theory of evolution. Multi-regionalists say that between one and two million years ago, Homo erectus - a human ancestor - migrated from Africa. As erectus spread over the earth, different groups went through the process of evolutionary change based on natural selection…

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: David Payne ]

jess

IIRC, Mighty Eve is a misnomer--- there are at least six distinct Eves...


Just what my tired brain remembers from Anthropology classes...