Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Monad · 03-08-2005, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exile

Exactly. Eve exercised free will. What she did was not knowingly evil - after all did not know good from evil until AFTER eating the fruit. Like a child she was testing the limits of obedience - and why did God create the serpent if not to allow these limits to be tested.

Any being that created Human beings with free will, and then provided temptation, should not have been surprised at the consequences. Defences against the Argument from Evil depend on a free existence with the ability to commit sin as being superior to life as an obedient robot or slave. If we are to accept this then surely Eve was merely doing God's will and did us all a favour
by giving us existence (if Adam and Eve had obeyed God they would still be alone in Eden).

Can any Christian on here explain what exactly was Eve's sin? I really can't understand that she did anything that justified condemning humanity to thousands of years of pain, suffering and death.

What was the point in even having an apple of knowledge if no-one could take a bite out of it anyway? The whole myth is just an excuse for christian (and hebrew and islamic) misogyny and for perpetuating ignorance in order to keep people under control. Knowledge is power.

GenEric2 · 03-08-2005, 09:25 AM

I see the Genesis 1 account as being an overview account of creation and possibly was taken from verbal history or a familiar and authoritative source. Genesis 2 then narrows the focus and increases the detail to the 6th day's creation of man(kind) and the garden.

Hasn't there been recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome studies that indicate a single male and a single female ancestor?
And if I have heard correctly, the mitochondrial Eve is dated to earlier than the Y-chromosomal Adam. Interesting how this compares to the Biblical story that the Y-chromosomal Adam is actually the Y-chromosomal Noah since all the males were from Noah and the females were not of the same family, allowing the female common ancestor to be earlier.

spin · 03-08-2005, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenEric2

I see the Genesis 1 account as being an overview account of creation and possibly was taken from verbal history or a familiar and authoritative source. Genesis 2 then narrows the focus and increases the detail to the 6th day's creation of man(kind) and the garden.

Is this import or export?

spin

GenEric2 · 03-08-2005, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Is this import or export?

Not sure what you are asking.

Toto · 03-08-2005, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenEric2

I see the Genesis 1 account as being an overview account of creation and possibly was taken from verbal history or a familiar and authoritative source. Genesis 2 then narrows the focus and increases the detail to the 6th day's creation of man(kind) and the garden.

Hasn't there been recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome studies that indicate a single male and a single female ancestor?
And if I have heard correctly, the mitochondrial Eve is dated to earlier than the Y-chromosomal Adam. Interesting how this compares to the Biblical story that the Y-chromosomal Adam is actually the Y-chromosomal Noah since all the males were from Noah and the females were not of the same family, allowing the female common ancestor to be earlier.

The subject of mitochondrial Eve (and Y-chromosome Adam) has been covered in the E/C forum. See this thread: Genetic Eve?

Mitochondrial Eve does not support the Biblical account of creation.

Amaleq13 · 03-08-2005, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenEric2

Hasn't there been recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome studies that indicate a single male and a single female ancestor?

No. That is an inaccurate description of the actual findings. The woman should be understood as the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. The genetic evidence suggests she existed about 150,000 years ago. That is not the same as claiming science has discovered that the entire human race descended from a single woman though creationists love to spread that misrepresentation.

Read here to learn more details or visit the Evolution/Creationism forum where this topic is more appropriate.

Quote:

And if I have heard correctly, the mitochondrial Eve is dated to earlier than the Y-chromosomal Adam.

That is true. The most recent common male is thought to have existed around 60,000 years ago.

Quote:

Interesting how this compares to the Biblical story...

Yes it is interesting that the data is not consistent with either of the biblical myths you mention.

Feel free to take this to E/C to obtain a more accurate understanding of the genetic evidence.

Toto · 03-08-2005, 01:21 PM

Chili vs spin split off here.

deltin7 · 03-08-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Yes, yes they were. Indeed, the entire planet and the whole cosmos were affected (cursed) by one little bite of magic fruit. Amazing, huh?

That makes sense, but my question is, if their were other's created just like A&E why were they not mentioned in the bible?

Which questions the whole theory of Gen.

deltin7 · 03-08-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

From a Jewish POV it wouldn't have made sense for God to create other humans other than A&E since one of the messages of the creation stories is that all humans are related, and a single couple has the potential of populating the world. This message was used to dissuade witnesses trials for capital offenses from bearing false witness. It was also seen as evidence for God's greatness - the ability to create such human variety from a single model.

From a Christian POV - what becomes of Original Sin if some humans were descended from humans created independently of A&E? Of course the flood introduces a bottleneck, since Noah was descended from Adam through his paternal line, but what about his wife and the wives of his sons? And what about Noah's other ancestors? (And if Original Sin is inherited paternally, what becomes of immaculate conception?)

The prohibition against incest is considered in Jewish tradition one of the Noachide laws that were given to all of humanity when Noah et al emerged from the ark (though I don't see how it is derived from Genesis 9). Before that the prohibition isn't supposed to have existed.

(Another Cain question: The first time murder is explicitly forbidden is in Genesis 9. Was Cain supposed to know murder was wrong on his own? If he didn't, what does that tell us about the 'fruit of knowledge of good and evil'?)

:thumbs: Your last paragraph was really interesting :thumbs: . I wonder about the same question too.
I say we make a thread about that sometime.
Because if Cain was descended from A&E definately his eye's should already been opened to Good and Evil due to the fact that A&E ate that fruit. :huh:

Arvel Joffi · 03-08-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agemegos

The Bible never says that God did not create other men and women aside from Adam and Eve. In fact, it doesn't even say that He created them first.

Genesis 1:27 says that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" on the sixth day of creation. Several men and women, created on the same day.

I don't see how that necessarily refers to several men and women. I could speak of John and Jane, male and female, call them "them," but I would still only have one of each. I think it could lean either way, but it seems more likely to me that the myth is referencing only a single man and woman.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2005, 09:25 AM	#32
GenEric2 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Arizona Posts: 32	I see the Genesis 1 account as being an overview account of creation and possibly was taken from verbal history or a familiar and authoritative source. Genesis 2 then narrows the focus and increases the detail to the 6th day's creation of man(kind) and the garden. Hasn't there been recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome studies that indicate a single male and a single female ancestor? And if I have heard correctly, the mitochondrial Eve is dated to earlier than the Y-chromosomal Adam. Interesting how this compares to the Biblical story that the Y-chromosomal Adam is actually the Y-chromosomal Noah since all the males were from Noah and the females were not of the same family, allowing the female common ancestor to be earlier.

03-08-2005, 01:21 PM	#37
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Chili vs spin split off here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.