Hey Prof Mth, So didnt they all do incest anyway? I mean Cain's wife comes out nowhere but she'd have to be related to Cain, like a sister or something. So the first humans, like the Greek Gods had to interbreed. Great logical video that topples the whole regime...and you still look about 15 :). Thanks again.
Evolutionary biology &evolutionary psychology's take on human behavior always worries me, and a lot of it is simply based on "Flintstonization". Yes, we are VERY capable of doing horrible things, but we're also capable of the complete opposite.
Sadly, a lot of these researchers look to *ONE* of our nearest great ape cousins, the chimp, and completely ignore the other, which is just as close, the bonobo. Prof I strongly recommend Sex at Dawn to you. That book brought my hope in humanity back.
As a weird mix between scientist and Christian, I was at first wary that this video wouldn't be well founded on fact and would be heavily biased- but it's not which made me happy. However I was upset to see that the terms Adam and Eve were not looked into further, which made the whole basis of the video somewhat moot; Adam is ancient Hebrew for the common interpretation "All Men", as Eve is Hebrew for "All Women". Without this understanding, the arguments are essentially irrelevant.
1:God made Adam first, told him not to eat of the tree, “/then/” made Eve...2:God told Adam, because you listened to the voice of your wife, notice that God did “/not/” say to Eve, because you did “/not/” listen to your husband...3: God used the word “/curse/” to what the Serpent and Adam did in the garden, but “/not/” to what Eve did in the garden, reply?
Profmth, Just a comment, As a Christian I am both challenged by this video and impressed by its well thought through presentation and content. I believe it's your best video. Peace.
An Adam who's not historical poses less of a threat to Christianity than the likely historical Jesus we're about to rediscover, or even the idea that Jesus never existed being finally proven as fact. Either way, the very core of Christianity, it's raison d'etre, is finally and irrevocably exploded.
@ProfMTH Of course we know this because there is nothing to agree ON because it's all a bunch of b.s. inconsistencies lol. Gary Demar's vids are worth checking out though sometime, if you ever get a chance. He's the opposite of a Jack Van Impe Christian.
@ProfMTH Once again great vid. I was just wondering if you've ever heard of Gary Demar? He's a more down to earth christian who speaks out against all the doomsday rhetoric of christianity. He's a "preterist" I believe. You can find him on youtube; you might like him because he's just a good example of how christians basically debunk themselves cause they can never agree really on anything anything related to prophecy and when it comes to interpretation.
Humans have to question. We have so much brain dedicated to thought that the need of each neuron to be stimulated will cause us to think and ask questions.
For christians, after so many points have been discussed from the bible, one can only notice that it only goes in circles. One has to look outside of the bible for answers. Thus thing like this do happen and will continue to happen.
Hopefully we can all leave religion behind and focus on more important things that gods (like other humans).
Genesis warns that as large brained creatures all we could become is evil and destructive in our attempts to be godlike.
and that we would destroy the planet and animals..the only things He loved. why He didn't love us anymore because we were no longer innocent creatures once we began eating flesh.
I find it strange that Christians continue to believe sin, death and everything that negatively impact our lives, did not exist until that very day Adam & Eve disobeyed God. Yet, it's been more than 2000 years since Christ died and the work of God's creation still can't be restored to it's original "perfect" state. If the bible itself have Christ making the claim that he came to undo the work of the devil which purportedly ruined creation within one day, why is it that Christ....
redemptive work could not restore it in one day also? Is it fair to conclude that contrary to what the bible says, Christ death is not enough to provide restitution for creation? Or is Yahweh just a pessimistic and implacable God? The claims of christianity just don't add up. And that's the reason i relinquished my faith. Thanks in part to you and the honest arguments you presented in your videos, ProfMTH.
Genesis doesn't say anything about the size of our brains. It doesn't say all we could become is evil and destructive. Neither does it say we would destroy the planet and animals. God was the one who destroyed the "planet and animals" in that particular story.
And I'm pretty sure the Bible puts a great deal of emphasis on how God has never STOPPED loving us, even when he's busy drowning us and commanding genocide, it's usually for our own damn good.
The whole "innocence" thing got fucked up because Eve ate a magical fruit that made her know the difference between good and bad. So God got mad. Technically Eve couldn't have known she was doing anything wrong, since she didn't know the difference between good and bad when she ate it. Nonetheless God, like Wu Tang Clan, ain't nothin' to fuck with. So he smited the shit out of everyone.
I have to ask, have you even read Genesis or are you just making it up as you go?
biblical text is very dense symbolic language that if actually understood, it's very much in tune with modern sciene. nobody understands genesis, though. and those that do, lied and turned the apple into sex.
how could God have said be fruitful and multiply and prohibit sex?
the apple means that God never intended apes to eat flesh, which is what made our brains grow. (CONTD)
the apple signifies man's first stint in becoming
What about suicide? Are there any examples of non-human animals that intentionally end their lives (lemmings running off a cliff not included of course)?
So in other words, if you believe in young earth Creationism, you must also believe in an insane sort of "hyperevolution," as opposed to the gradual evolution that scientists accept today. Either way, there must have been change over time.
When Mohler says, "sets up our understanding of our need for a savior", he's admitting the story is a "setup" to criminalize humanity for being human. Setting up victims to make an argument appealing is an example of the "hurt & rescue" technique of persuasion. Bible-god hands you the rope of choice & calls it a gift, then stands back & watches you hang yourself with it & calls that love. To accept a gospel that damn's first & then saves is to swallow the poison along with the cure.
bible-god built potential for disobedience into Adam-Eve & without prior consent exposed them to dangerous fruit & tempting snake then held them responsible for doing what he knew they'd do, even though they couldn't have understood until AFTER the knowledge of good-evil & instead of saving Adam-Eve, kept ensouling billions in spiritual death & added laws they couldn't keep, all just to create a setup to blame the victims & put jesus into a protection racket trading escape from hell for worship.
@ProfMTH I would recommend Peter Enns book, "The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins". It deals with the very issue you're bringing up.
It's either ALL true or it's all a lie. I personally don't believe in 600 year olds or unicorns. So I will have to assume it's all a lie. However if anyone finds a talking snake, I'm open to persuasion.
Is your question, "Can one have a sophisticated "meta" analysis of one aspect of one's religion and maintain a "comic book " understanding of other aspects?"
Duh!
Latter parts of the vid are more problematic. I'm inclined to believe animals' conciousness is like our own, but what evidence is there for "Pride," a subjective state? It's hard enough to prove your next door neighbor's mental state, much less your dog's (and I say that as someone who once taught a dog an abstract concept!).
Or, that "an original state of grace" is a myth but "original sin" is a biological fact?
Surely the goal is a sophisticated, literate understanding of the entire faith, and other faiths as well; a difficult task for the believer, but probably even more difficult for the current "new atheist," reluctant to grant any legitamacy (even metaphorical!) to ancient myths...
"What happens to these allegedly inspired portions of scripture if there was no historical Adam and Eve? "
My guess is that they would become allegorical. Though being that Adam is portrayed as being connected historically, Through the passages of Luke as well as Genesis 5. To name but two. I see this as a difficult task for the Christians.
It yet again also brings to light the question, Does the Bible determine reality or does reality determine the bible.
Maybe the same christians trying to combine evolutionary Biology and christianity , should also write a paper on the obsessive, overwheleming need to keep mythical beliefs, and reality linked at any cost.
Wow! Absolutely fascinating. Evangelical scholars rejecting Adam and Eve? Evolutionary Theology? This is stuff I had no idea was happening.
At worst, it is encouraging to see one generation of the religious meme clearly dying off. At best, I see this death and rebirth as a path to evidentially unjustified beliefs in general being pinned into a corner where they are finally forced to give in to evidence-based thinking.
@ProfMTH well no adam and eve means no original sin no fall of man,means no need for god to send his only begotten son to redeem the world,christianity is finished and so is islam wich regards d fictional adam as its first prophet,no first prophet means no first revelation,if thr was no first revelation forget about d supposed last one to mohammad it did not happen either all made up nonsense,dats all bullshit,evolution destroys abrahamic religions,hope people wake up from these death cults
thescorpionking2020, I give some props to this sub-set of Christians who are at *least* thinking about the implications shown by science (i.e., humans did not come from 1 man/1 woman) and their ability to possibly modify their doctrines to conform, Sadly I have no hope that Islam would ever change or adapt to modern thinking. It's never undergone any reformation, is too rigid, too intertwined into the culture of the adherents with severe penalties here on earth, not just the afterlife.
That only humans can reason and that reason cannot be explained in naturalistic terms. Also that we all share one common ancestor with a man, for example.
@werewolf873 Because the ability to reason *cannot* be explained in material or naturalistic terms. The ability to form abstract concepts, the ability to think math or logic is immaterial. When I say immaterial I do not mean made with a “soul” or “ectoplasm”, I mean such concepts do not have weight, mass, volume, temperature, etc.
If you are still unsure about the above take a number (say, 7) or a concept, say "envy" and name its physical properties... you won't be able to mention even one.
@WilliamofWare your misinterpreting the question, im asking why it isnt possible for evolution to evolve our brains with the ability to reason.our brains are built specificaly for problem solving and different parts of our brain take care of different parts of the problem solving process. whether such things are immaterial or not is,in itself,immaterial.
@werewolf873 You asked why a natural process like evolution can’t explain reason. Well, reason is *not* a natural (it's not measurable, does not have weight, parts, volume, etc.) process to begin with. Evolution or any other natural process cannot create anything that non-natural like our ability to make abstractions.
I understood your question. You just did not understand my answer.
Incidentally, problem solving is not the same as reason. Think of ants, bees and beavers if you doubt me.
That our ability to reason is not shared by other animals and cannot be explained in naturalistic terms. And that we all share a common ancestor with a man in the past, for example.
@TheGreatestProject And I (being God) will put enmity (hostility) between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed (unbelievers) and her seed; (the Messiah since seed is always spoken of the male with this exception) it ( The messiah) shall bruise thy head,( He did that on the cross) and thou shalt bruise his heel.( at the cross) So no you are wrong period.
To say that the chances are so small that we came from one couple shows the purest hypocrisy at work. How can one say that with one breath and then claim that the origin of life gets a free pass? Did you forget the chances of life originating from non life?
Scientists now think that there may be something faster than light. If that is true then again science got it wrong, and continue to be wrong. Why laugh at creation when you keep changing that which is "proven true" Remember science is limited. To base your faith on that is to limit oneself. BTW how does one prove that one is in love. Mr Profmth can you prove that you are in love? Can it be put in a petri dish and prove you love your partner?
@RepresentingTruth "Scientists now think that there may be something faster than light. If that is true then again science got it wrong, and continue to be wrong. "So if those scientists have got it right then they still got it wrong? Ridiculous argument, science does not work on faith, it enhances our understanding of reality by getting rid of theories that are falsefied, or adding to it or adjusting them in light of new discoveries. Basing your faith on a 2000 year old book limits even more.
@MadDogKeithMcFrenzy Wrong. They are wrong and continue to be wrong. How can they be right until new evidence shows otherwise and then right again with new evidence? How can they say that the earth is so many years old (let's say 3 billion) then 3.5 then 4 and then 4.8. In less than a 100 years the earth gets a lot older but the actually age is always the same. If they "prove" that light is not the fastest thing then why can't you see the error of science?
@RepresentingTruth You're the one who's wrong here. Finding new evidence does not automatically render the theory in question useless, usually it gets revised, or added to if the new evidence permits it and generally deepens our understanding of the universe. New evidence can be discovered because of the availability of technology not present at the time the theory was published and peer reviewed, Einsteins theory of general relativity did not suddenly make it impossible for us to .......
@RepresentingTruth fly to the moon using Newtonian physics. Science makes models and theories that tries to best enhance our understanding of the universe at that time, through new technology, like CERN, which wasn't present in Einsteins time, theories may be revised, enhanced or discarded if the evidence does not permit the first two options. If you had taken the time to actually look up this information on how science works and done your own reseearch, you'd have know that.
@MadDogKeithMcFrenzy That is the point. People laugh at Christians and yet the bible remains the same. Science on the other hand is only a tool. Though helpful, people treat it like a god. I now will coin a new phrase. I will call it the science delusion. If science says it one is stupid to believe something then it must be right. I think it is based on the fallacy that it is right until proven wrong. One should not mock unless their track record is accurate.
@RepresentingTruth Their track record is accurate, you sad deluded person. Religions track record is abysmal compared to it, whats even worse is even though it has been proven time and time again that the bible is inaccurate on almost everything that's in it, not strange considering that it was never meant to be a science book, it does not change. And you think that's a good thing? Not recognising ones mistakes leads to continually repeating it.
@MadDogKeithMcFrenzy I am tired of people being wrong and mocking a book that spoke of things that only until recently we know. However you are free to have your opinion as I am free to mine.
@RepresentingTruth "I am tired of people being wrong and mocking a book that spoke of things that only until recently we know."
This is damning news for science. OK! What I'm hearing here is that there is a disagreement in the scientific community on this issue. On one side you have the full weight of the scientific establishment and on the other side you have RepresentingTruth citing the New England Journal of Some Old Book I Believe in. I say teach the controversy.
@RepresentingTruth " If science says it one is stupid to believe something then it must be right. I think it is based on the fallacy that it is right until proven wrong." Not to be a grammar Nazi, but I truly can't decipher what you are argueing here, sorry. People do not laugh at Christians, there are plenty of Christians who accept science and are willing to do the work required to learn and understand how science works. And that's about the amount of time I am willing to give you.
@RepresentingTruth Lastly, being in love has physiological effects when one is near or thinking about their object of affection. "Like eating large quantities of chocolate." Can't remember who said that. But it releases chemicals which gives us that feeling so it could be put in a putri dish.
@MadDogKeithMcFrenzy " But it releases chemicals which gives us that feeling so it could be put in a putri dish." Still no proof. I can continue to nail you on this.
@RepresentingTruth "being in love has physiological effects when one is near or thinking about their object of affection." This IS studied and published, just because I refuse to show you the data in bite sized chunks does not mean it's not proof, it just means you are to lazy to look this up yourself and expect those that actually do read more then one book to just hand it to you on a silver platter, again do your own homework!
Evolution and creation are not able to co exist. Question at what point would the soul come into play? At what point would one be accountable for heaven and hell?
@ProfMTH You are joking right? Do you agree with them? I know better. If one believes in evolution then there is no place for an immortal soul. Am I wrong yes or no?
In Gen 3:15 it clearly speaks of a messiah. We don't have to wait until the NT to find that out. My video on the virgin birth explains that. So Genesis does speak concerning sin.
One Jesus clearly believed in a first family. Either it is true or he lied.
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias," Matt. 23:35
Why do people overlook this? Like it has been said. Jesus is either lunatic, liar or Lord.
Current genetics is consistent with us descending from a specific man.
If a man appeared long ago (let's call him "Adam") that far surpassed others in his tribe, say, in that he could reason or had some other talent then his children would mate with others in the tribe passing his ability to his offspring.
They would slowly supplant their slower, more brute neighbors and a hundred thousand years later the statement, "we all descend from that Adam," would be true.
3-Then it is possibly true that the children and granchildren of "Anjuma", mated with others in the tribe and slowly replaced all that lacked anjuma's genes.
The statement "we all descend or share a common ancestor with Anjuma," and "the population never went lower than 10,000" would both be and can be true.
Fascinating video Profmth. Just a comment: I'm not sure that a world in which selfishness is an inborn trait, necessary for the survival of the species is the only possible world. If God exists then it seems He could have created a species that was inherently altruistic. I would think that would be more effective at promoting the survival of the species.
@wlemusic "Just a comment: I'm not sure that a world in which selfishness is an inborn trait, necessary for the survival of the species is the only possible world."
Just to be clear, that's not my claim, but rather the evolutionary theologians' claim (at least some of them).
If the Bible as a literal entity is a Jenga tower, Adam & Eve are the two pieces at the very base of the tower. Remove either, and the whole thing collapses as a coherent entity. That won't stop people cherrypicking a 'working' religion out of the pieces... but they'd do that anyways. I'd even say that the tower collapsed ages ago, and all flavours of Christianity are merely people cobbling together their own towers from the pieces willy nilly.
god USED to come down and hang out ,eat some lunch ,do some wrestling even ..he used to speak in a booming voice ,drop chinese take out and mcnuggets from the sky..make chunnells in the sea so folks could dodge hamas ,hezbolla ,the IRS and the einsatzgruppen ...now he cant be bothered with answering his email ..or even burning a talking bush or two ..
christians ,if there really was a powerful , all knowing god that truely loved mankind ,pls explain the existance of benny hinn .hmm, no ?
I would like to hear your opinion of the common allegorical interpretation of the Genesis story--to wit:
- Evolution created reason (symbolized as the tree of knowledge)
- Humans developed a sense of right and wrong, and were thus able to do things that they knew were wrong (original sin?)
- Because doing the wrong thing is often easier than doing the right thing, Jesus's redemption is in the form of freeing us from that destructive tendency and strengthening our will to do good.
@Ongarukat Thanks. I gave my opinion about that sort of recasting of Genesis vis-a-vis Jesus in the video: it's a fascinating idea, a move away from some of the mythology that underpins Christianity, and probably doesn't solve the problem created by the absence of a historical Adam and Eve.
Evolutionary theology may contain the seeds of Christianity's destruction, but it might also contain the seeds of an entirely new religion. Either way, I think that traditional Christianity's days are numbered. Modern science and the free sharing of ideas may prove too much for the aging religion.
astero..if the penalty for doubting the veracity of this contradictory and poorly writen book is everlasting pain ,severe burns and horror on the rack ,i would think that he could do a better job of getting it written in a somewhat sensible manner.
actually,since he is allpowerful ,he could easily alter it right now and fix it so that nobody ever knows any better ..right ?
one would think that the creator of the universe could have written a text that was clear,concise,,unambiguous and easily understood by ordinary people .instead we have a mashup of rambling,incoherant ,inconsistant ,self refuting and terribly BORING text which is widely open to variouis ,conflicting interpretations as can be clearly seen even here in YT comments .
why write such a massivly crappy ,obtuse and unreadable book ? is god a practical joker ,lazy ,evil or merely inept .?
I think there are 2 traditions for Adam. Paul hinges on one because it supports his doctrine. What ever happened to the Adam (dual people - male and female) of Gen 1:27 and 5:2? Did they sin too? Christiandom is so latched on trying to dodge reality that we still subscribe to myths we can't PROVE (but have 'faith' in). Adam was not made immortal (as confirmed by the Garden story) and if the snake was in the garden, God put it there. God allowed (and thus made) Adam to sin. Paul should have known
Liked this video Prof, if I remember it right, Adam needed to sin or else we would not be like G-d. If we are to be created in G-d's image not physically but in our thoughts we must know good and evil. Hence, Adam must sin. I can't remember where in Genesis but G-d did say, man has become like us (G-d talking to his angels or messengers) he knows evil... not sure if these are the exact words though. But these r not what Christians would view, this is what I remember in Judaism.
It really makes no sense without the original sin of Adam. Without original sin there is no need for a savior. I don't think it would destroy the religion though. Christians believe all sorts of things for no good reason and in the face of evidence to the contrary. What is amusing to me, is how when the bible and a science book are put next to each other, its always the infallible word of god that changes to conform to science.
Adam & Eve as historical figures are a necessity to maintain the fiction of original sin. The evolutionary sin track will eventually derail the entire theology, as it is an extremely weak foundation. This comment is from a former ultraconservative christian who is now an atheist with regard to any gods identified in "holy" books
Well.....we don't take this little part literally.....its a symbol....but this part, where zombie jesus busted through a rock after he was nailed to a cross and died....we believe that part....it defiantly happened
@ProfMTH Well, I suppose, if the Spirit is considered God. However, perhaps a better argument for the plural is the royal plural. If there is actually a vestige of polytheism here, there should be more evidence in the text. Context counts, you know. But I can see no indication that any other God is involved in the narrative.
@ProfMTH So without evidence within the narrative for more than one God, polytheism would not be the first conclusion one would come to. Better would be the royal "we". That fits the context, which is God speaking.
There is, of course, the larger context of the history and culture at the time of writing. But that doesn't seem support a remnant of polytheism either. If Moses is the author who put this story together, Moses is preeminently monotheistic.
@campdon (1) - From, what I've read from a few sources that I've looked at the royal "we" isn't likely to apply. For one there is only one other potential example of a royal "we" in the Old Testament and that is in Ezra 4:18. And, considering the surrounding text it isn't exactly clear if the plural is referring to King Artaxerxes and the state or to the King Artaxerxes and his other members of court that were present to translate the letter for him.
@lobothesacred3 What about Gen. 11:7? So I wonder what is the similarity between the verses in Genesis. One is that in both cases God is consulting himself rather than speaking to a man. Another is that they are both prior to the flood and the new post-flood world. A third might be that these stories are very old, perhaps retaining a manner of speaking that became less common later. (I am allowing that the author collected the stories rather than wrote them by revelation. )
@campdon (1) - The source I looked at never brought up Gen. 11:7. Though, I imagine it was bypassed over the fact that it was referring back to "God" in the plural. Since, the concept of the royal "we" would seem to apply to earthly kings as well.
Though, one could argue you that only "God" in the eyes of the Jews was truly considered a king and thus the only person a royal "we" could apply to. I think, much of the problem with the Bible is that it is a collection of ancient texts that
@campdon (2) - sometimes contradict one another. It also isn't clear what the original intent or meaning was due to the changing nature of theology in various religions.
Many Christians today reject the concept of a literal six day creation. But, the story in genesis seems to fit better with a literal interpretation rather than a metaphorical or symbolic one. Looking at the Bible through the eyes of being literature is limited in how helpful it is, due to the ability of people to attribute
@campdon (3) - different meanings to symbols and interpretations to literature overtime due to changes in the construction of poetry and narratives.
This problem is probably the main reason why there are so many different interpretations of the various texts in the Bible and why Christians and Jews are so divided on what their various religious books say and mean.
Another issue might be in translation since it is possible that the word "Elohim" used in Gensis can be translated as "Gods".
The "if" in your statement is the main problem. Were not sure if Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament or not. Some believe that he wrote most or all of The Pentateuch, while others believe that he potentially didn't write any of it. This seems to be largely based on the fact that doublets or sometimes triplets of the same stories appear and all of them with minor changes that in some cases can't be reconciled.
@lobothesacred3 My own somewhat educated guess is that the pericopes were written or collected by Moses, but the final form of the Pentateuch came later. I'm a literature teacher and belief that looking at the Bible through the lens of literature is helpful. If we do that with Genesis, it seems the stories meet the need of a dislocated people needing to know their roots. That fits the exodus better than any other period of Israel's history.
I did a video some time ago that argued that the story of The Fall made a lot more sense if taken metaphorically. As a metaphor it works pretty well, especially as Dr Niemann points out that painful childbirth is the result of our increased mental ability.
I am in the camp where you have to believe in a literal Adam/Eve or else the doctrine of original sin and redemption from it makes no sense. Most of my Christian friends do as well, but they are Southern Baptist. When I pose this question to them, they basically believe that science is an ever-changing field that will eventually be proven wrong. They think that perservering in the midst of doubt is a feather in their cap, because otherwise "who would need faith".
How important are Adam and Eve to christianity? Answer: very important. How important are Adam and Eve for the survival of christianity? Answer: not important whatsoever. Christians will continue to be deluded into thinking this fairy tale was real, No matter how vast is the amount of evidence that is found that depicts the contents of the bible for what they really are. Pastors and religious leaders all over the world can always work through these mis-happenings
So Adam and Eve were likely actual human beings. But the story of Genesis 2 -4, while based in actual history, is told as theology not history. And as theology, as you note, Prof, it is woven inextricably into the theology of the rest of the Bible.
So was there an original sin? Yes. Was that sin passed on to the rest of mankind? How can that be denied? Look around. Was it necessary for Jesus, also a real person, to die for sin? Yes. If sin is actual in time and space, so must the remedy be.
@campdon "Was the first man immortal? The Bible itself says otherwise."
To be precise, Genesis says otherwise. According to Paul, there was no death prior to Adam's transgression. Death came into the world only after & as a consequence of it.
"And as theology, as you note, Prof, it is woven inextricably into the theology of the rest of the Bible."
I don't think I ever said that. But OK.
Bottom line, you agree with Paul: sin and death entered the world via Adam, yes?
@ProfMTH The Bible implies that his immortality was dependent upon continuing to eat from the tree of life. Gen. 3:22 Death entered the world of men with the sin of Adam (Not the world of all living things. Romans 5 is about human beings.) That is self-evident. Adam and Eve were at the time the only human beings. There was no death among humans before that time.
Yes. No man died until Adam sinned. BTW death (Gen. 2:17) refers first to spiritual death, secondarily to physical death.
@ProfMTH The infinitive absolute in biblical Hebrew, which "to eat" is, does not limit the idea of the act to either a single act or a continued act. So grammatically it could be either. Usually the infinitive follows the idea of the verb in the clause. The verb is "stretch." is in the Qal tense/aspect. That tense expresses simply the action without reference to time or whether it is a point action or continuing. English must express that so the translation confuses us.
@campdon The Septuagint, which is an early Greek translation of the Old Testament doesn't help with the verb. "Stretch forth" is in the aorist, as is "eat." The aorist considers the action as simply occurring - much like the Qal. The syntax of Rev. 2:7 also is indefinite. But Rev. 22:2 ,which refers to the tree of life, is pretty clear that the tree produces multiple crops through the seasons. The expectation is that people will be regularly eating of the tree.
Was the first man immortal? The Bible itself says otherwise. His immortality depended upon his eating of the tree of life, which whether a literal tree or a metaphor, was the source of life. The tree of life shows up in Revelation as a metaphor of Christ, where it is implied that eating of the fruit of the tree of life is the continued reliance upon God for life. Even in Revelation people do not independently have eternal life.
With the creation of the first man, there was also a imparting of a moral conscience, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Animals lack this. So animals do not sin even if their behaviors are selfish, destructive, and condemned in humans. So in fact, there could have been and undoubtedly was a moment when knowing something was wrong, a human being violated that moral principle.
@Arteanor Our moral nature is part of the image of God (Gen. 1:26). I know of no animal that distinguishes by nature between right and wrong. They can learn what is approved or not by a human master, but that is learned behavior not a moral conscience.
In the Bible sin is 1) the violation of a known moral principle either a command given by God (which you learn) or conscience, 2) the inborn rebellion toward God we all have.
Animals can't sin. They have no knowledge of any divine command.
@Arteanor Read the entire pericope. It is not that Adam and Eve did not know what was right and wrong. They had God's command. But there knowledge of good and evil was in the abstract. After their disobedience they knew the difference between good and evil in the concrete of experience.
Learning was not the sin. Disobedience and the failure to trust what God said was the sin.
Your comment reflects the rebellion that is the product of that original sin.
"It is not that Adam and Eve did not know what was right and wrong. They had God's command. But there knowledge of good and evil was in the abstract."
you may want to rethink this, Eve was still in adam's chest. and he hadn't named the animals yet.
HE had god's command.
i think YOU ought to go and read genesis 2 again....
your still LYING about what it says..... and isn't that one of the worst sins?????
sin is imaginary, a tool of oppression, and you sir, are a fool.
"I know of no animal that distinguishes by nature between right and wrong. They can learn what is approved or not by a human master, but that is learned behavior not a moral conscience."
don't you understand that the 2 are the exact same thing???
WE EVOLVED MORALITY! its part of our behavioral development, and it is flexible. morals are NOT universal, because development isn't.
"Animals can't sin. They have no knowledge of any divine command. "
@Arteanor "don't you understand that the 2 are the exact same thing???" No. And I don't agree that we evolved morality.
That is an assumption based on evolution, and while I don't deny evolution in a broad sense, I don't believe evolution has any part in the spiritual nature of man.
Interesting puzzle. Here's my take. The creation of Adam and Eve refers to the point at which a pre-human became human by the imparting to him the breath of life, which results not in physical animation but the spiritual animation. It is the spiritual that makes man man, not the physical. So, if fact, there could have been a first man. The appearance in history of the first man is seen archaeologically in the appearance of religious artifacts.
Proof that the story of Adam & Eve (and Cain & Abel) were fabricated can actually be found within the Bible itself. If one starts reading Genesis from Chapter 1:1 through to Chapter 5, you'll find all the proof you need. Gen 2:3 is the end of the ORIGINAL creation story, with no mention of Adam, Eve, or Eden. Gen 2:4 - 4:26 is exclusively the story of Adam & Eve in Eden and Cain & Abel (2nd Creation story) which was written at a much later date by a 2nd author and ADDED to the book of Genesis
ok i just realized how bad my last post sounded towards mormons. I only added them because egwpisteuw said they weren't christians. Those are one of the few christian sects who i actually respect and they are really good people.
I don’t understand theologian reasoning. There is no problem with a guy that can walk on water, create food from nothing, and come back to life after dying. Faced with the genetic problems of a single couple creating all humanity, however, they begin to get nervous and reformulate things.
For many individuals, and therefore churches, theological "problems" like this are not problems at all. We all know those who say that nothing will ever change their religious beliefs. For them information means almost nothing, and most churches just encourage this mentality by belittling information from wherever it originates. So, I think answers to questions like yours boil down to why the brain so strongly defends its beliefs despite evidence and more plausible alternatives.
its not like science and evidence has ever put a damper on the christian faith, so i would have a hard time believing proving adam and eve were not real would make a difference.
@ProfMTH well maybe a little bit. but i mean, really. the earth isnt 6000 years old, its not flat, man wasnt created by god but by evolution. the evidence to disprove god has grown soooo much over the years but people just dont seem to care. they're beliefs aren't based on evidence, so no evidence will prove their god wrong. but we have to keep fighting the good fight i guess, so whatever helps.
Christian fundamentalists do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe that every word is "god breathed" per II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:20,21. Obviously, the psalms, etc. are poetic. If the plain text meaning is ambiguous, it is you - mortal man - who are in error. You must approach the text with the right spirit - with the Holy Ghost Inside(TM), and all will be revealed. This is their big Get out of Jail Free Card.
@Arteanor --->...evolutions still the best guess (aka SCIENCE,)
Science is a guess? "If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific."
You cannot evolve a man from goo via an experiment that fits the above criteria and I cannot create a man from dust via an experiment that fits the above criteria so neither Evolution nor Biblical Creationism is Science.
Both are belief systems based on faith as a system of perception (aka RELIGION).
Hey Prof Mth, So didnt they all do incest anyway? I mean Cain's wife comes out nowhere but she'd have to be related to Cain, like a sister or something. So the first humans, like the Greek Gods had to interbreed. Great logical video that topples the whole regime...and you still look about 15 :). Thanks again.
MercuryRis 1 month ago in playlist Logic & Reason
@MercuryRis "you still look about 15 :)"
lol Then I should be getting carded when I buy liquor. ;-)
ProfMTH 1 month ago
Evolutionary biology &evolutionary psychology's take on human behavior always worries me, and a lot of it is simply based on "Flintstonization". Yes, we are VERY capable of doing horrible things, but we're also capable of the complete opposite.
Sadly, a lot of these researchers look to *ONE* of our nearest great ape cousins, the chimp, and completely ignore the other, which is just as close, the bonobo. Prof I strongly recommend Sex at Dawn to you. That book brought my hope in humanity back.
palerider1775 1 month ago
As a weird mix between scientist and Christian, I was at first wary that this video wouldn't be well founded on fact and would be heavily biased- but it's not which made me happy. However I was upset to see that the terms Adam and Eve were not looked into further, which made the whole basis of the video somewhat moot; Adam is ancient Hebrew for the common interpretation "All Men", as Eve is Hebrew for "All Women". Without this understanding, the arguments are essentially irrelevant.
anerdwithcoffee 2 months ago
1:God made Adam first, told him not to eat of the tree, “/then/” made Eve...2:God told Adam, because you listened to the voice of your wife, notice that God did “/not/” say to Eve, because you did “/not/” listen to your husband...3: God used the word “/curse/” to what the Serpent and Adam did in the garden, but “/not/” to what Eve did in the garden, reply?
hemet92544 2 months ago
Profmth, Just a comment, As a Christian I am both challenged by this video and impressed by its well thought through presentation and content. I believe it's your best video. Peace.
wlemusic 2 months ago
@wlemusic Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 months ago
An Adam who's not historical poses less of a threat to Christianity than the likely historical Jesus we're about to rediscover, or even the idea that Jesus never existed being finally proven as fact. Either way, the very core of Christianity, it's raison d'etre, is finally and irrevocably exploded.
EdM021 2 months ago
@ProfMTH Of course we know this because there is nothing to agree ON because it's all a bunch of b.s. inconsistencies lol. Gary Demar's vids are worth checking out though sometime, if you ever get a chance. He's the opposite of a Jack Van Impe Christian.
doobdoob2 3 months ago
@ProfMTH Once again great vid. I was just wondering if you've ever heard of Gary Demar? He's a more down to earth christian who speaks out against all the doomsday rhetoric of christianity. He's a "preterist" I believe. You can find him on youtube; you might like him because he's just a good example of how christians basically debunk themselves cause they can never agree really on anything anything related to prophecy and when it comes to interpretation.
doobdoob2 3 months ago
Humans have to question. We have so much brain dedicated to thought that the need of each neuron to be stimulated will cause us to think and ask questions.
For christians, after so many points have been discussed from the bible, one can only notice that it only goes in circles. One has to look outside of the bible for answers. Thus thing like this do happen and will continue to happen.
Hopefully we can all leave religion behind and focus on more important things that gods (like other humans).
shade9592 3 months ago
Matthew 7:15 - "“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves."
gilbert4321 3 months ago
Genesis warns that as large brained creatures all we could become is evil and destructive in our attempts to be godlike.
and that we would destroy the planet and animals..the only things He loved. why He didn't love us anymore because we were no longer innocent creatures once we began eating flesh.
millerlois23 4 months ago
@millerlois23 "why He didn't love us anymore because we were no longer innocent creatures once we began eating flesh."
Genesis 9:3-4 has God telling Noah that he and other humans may eat "[e]very moving thing that is alive" in addition to plants.
ProfMTH 4 months ago 3
@ProfMTH Maybe the problem is the fact that we kill things and stop them from moving before we eat them. ;)
GoblinXXX 4 months ago
@ProfMTH
I find it strange that Christians continue to believe sin, death and everything that negatively impact our lives, did not exist until that very day Adam & Eve disobeyed God. Yet, it's been more than 2000 years since Christ died and the work of God's creation still can't be restored to it's original "perfect" state. If the bible itself have Christ making the claim that he came to undo the work of the devil which purportedly ruined creation within one day, why is it that Christ....
tmat04 4 months ago
@ProfMTH
redemptive work could not restore it in one day also? Is it fair to conclude that contrary to what the bible says, Christ death is not enough to provide restitution for creation? Or is Yahweh just a pessimistic and implacable God? The claims of christianity just don't add up. And that's the reason i relinquished my faith. Thanks in part to you and the honest arguments you presented in your videos, ProfMTH.
tmat04 4 months ago
@millerlois23
Genesis doesn't say anything about the size of our brains. It doesn't say all we could become is evil and destructive. Neither does it say we would destroy the planet and animals. God was the one who destroyed the "planet and animals" in that particular story.
And I'm pretty sure the Bible puts a great deal of emphasis on how God has never STOPPED loving us, even when he's busy drowning us and commanding genocide, it's usually for our own damn good.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
@millerlois23
The whole "innocence" thing got fucked up because Eve ate a magical fruit that made her know the difference between good and bad. So God got mad. Technically Eve couldn't have known she was doing anything wrong, since she didn't know the difference between good and bad when she ate it. Nonetheless God, like Wu Tang Clan, ain't nothin' to fuck with. So he smited the shit out of everyone.
I have to ask, have you even read Genesis or are you just making it up as you go?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
biblical text is very dense symbolic language that if actually understood, it's very much in tune with modern sciene. nobody understands genesis, though. and those that do, lied and turned the apple into sex.
how could God have said be fruitful and multiply and prohibit sex?
the apple means that God never intended apes to eat flesh, which is what made our brains grow. (CONTD)
the apple signifies man's first stint in becoming
millerlois23 4 months ago
It is sad that people actually believe we were formed from dirt, then a rib, then thousands of generations of incest.
micometer 4 months ago
"no known behavior that we call sin"
What about suicide? Are there any examples of non-human animals that intentionally end their lives (lemmings running off a cliff not included of course)?
eier 4 months ago
wow, this is the proverbial bitch-slap from the back hand of reality showing that your religion is a myth, Christians.
accept it , it will only hurt for a little bit.
galerouth 5 months ago
So in other words, if you believe in young earth Creationism, you must also believe in an insane sort of "hyperevolution," as opposed to the gradual evolution that scientists accept today. Either way, there must have been change over time.
feee99 5 months ago
When Mohler says, "sets up our understanding of our need for a savior", he's admitting the story is a "setup" to criminalize humanity for being human. Setting up victims to make an argument appealing is an example of the "hurt & rescue" technique of persuasion. Bible-god hands you the rope of choice & calls it a gift, then stands back & watches you hang yourself with it & calls that love. To accept a gospel that damn's first & then saves is to swallow the poison along with the cure.
NothingButSocksOn 5 months ago
bible-god built potential for disobedience into Adam-Eve & without prior consent exposed them to dangerous fruit & tempting snake then held them responsible for doing what he knew they'd do, even though they couldn't have understood until AFTER the knowledge of good-evil & instead of saving Adam-Eve, kept ensouling billions in spiritual death & added laws they couldn't keep, all just to create a setup to blame the victims & put jesus into a protection racket trading escape from hell for worship.
NothingButSocksOn 5 months ago
Eve is pretty sexy :)
Atchuu2004 5 months ago
@Atchuu2004 Glad you like her.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH I would recommend Peter Enns book, "The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins". It deals with the very issue you're bringing up.
BronyEditor 1 month ago
@BronyEditor Thanks for the recommendation.
ProfMTH 1 month ago
Hopefully this will be the beginning of the end of the cults of willful ignorance. Rational thought is a beautiful thing.
cos2mwiz 5 months ago
AND... PEOPLE LIVED FOR LIKE 800 YEARS BACK THEN RIGHT?
Mapnapkin 5 months ago
Well seeing that adam an eve were black, not white, then jesus must also of been black....
TamaNewb 5 months ago
It's either ALL true or it's all a lie. I personally don't believe in 600 year olds or unicorns. So I will have to assume it's all a lie. However if anyone finds a talking snake, I'm open to persuasion.
wwwdotgodisimaginarydotcom
wwwdotwhywontgodhealamputeesdotcom
wwwdotevilbibledotcom
garysgreat 5 months ago
Is your question, "Can one have a sophisticated "meta" analysis of one aspect of one's religion and maintain a "comic book " understanding of other aspects?"
Duh!
Latter parts of the vid are more problematic. I'm inclined to believe animals' conciousness is like our own, but what evidence is there for "Pride," a subjective state? It's hard enough to prove your next door neighbor's mental state, much less your dog's (and I say that as someone who once taught a dog an abstract concept!).
(cont.)
ThePeaceableKingdom 5 months ago
@ThePeaceableKingdom (cont.)
Or, that "an original state of grace" is a myth but "original sin" is a biological fact?
Surely the goal is a sophisticated, literate understanding of the entire faith, and other faiths as well; a difficult task for the believer, but probably even more difficult for the current "new atheist," reluctant to grant any legitamacy (even metaphorical!) to ancient myths...
ThePeaceableKingdom 5 months ago
"What happens to these allegedly inspired portions of scripture if there was no historical Adam and Eve? "
My guess is that they would become allegorical. Though being that Adam is portrayed as being connected historically, Through the passages of Luke as well as Genesis 5. To name but two. I see this as a difficult task for the Christians.
It yet again also brings to light the question, Does the Bible determine reality or does reality determine the bible.
Foxcanine1 5 months ago
Maybe the same christians trying to combine evolutionary Biology and christianity , should also write a paper on the obsessive, overwheleming need to keep mythical beliefs, and reality linked at any cost.
groovyengineer 5 months ago
The catholic church is "literally", and '"historically" evil.
The vatican must fall and burn.
shangrigreige 5 months ago
Wow! Absolutely fascinating. Evangelical scholars rejecting Adam and Eve? Evolutionary Theology? This is stuff I had no idea was happening.
At worst, it is encouraging to see one generation of the religious meme clearly dying off. At best, I see this death and rebirth as a path to evidentially unjustified beliefs in general being pinned into a corner where they are finally forced to give in to evidence-based thinking.
Evid3nc3 5 months ago 6
@Evid3nc3 Thanks! It is fascinating stuff. And you're right: encouraging to some extent, too. Good to hear from you, as always. :-)
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH well no adam and eve means no original sin no fall of man,means no need for god to send his only begotten son to redeem the world,christianity is finished and so is islam wich regards d fictional adam as its first prophet,no first prophet means no first revelation,if thr was no first revelation forget about d supposed last one to mohammad it did not happen either all made up nonsense,dats all bullshit,evolution destroys abrahamic religions,hope people wake up from these death cults
thescorpionking2020 4 months ago
thescorpionking2020, I give some props to this sub-set of Christians who are at *least* thinking about the implications shown by science (i.e., humans did not come from 1 man/1 woman) and their ability to possibly modify their doctrines to conform, Sadly I have no hope that Islam would ever change or adapt to modern thinking. It's never undergone any reformation, is too rigid, too intertwined into the culture of the adherents with severe penalties here on earth, not just the afterlife.
Turandot29 3 months ago
@TheGreatestProject I wonder what the King of the Jews would say to that?
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
Comment removed
dekreek78 5 months ago
@TheGreatestProject Yes we have one at our church. Sorry to bust your bubble but that felt good.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@TheGreatestProject
"And the evidence you have is... what exactly?"
That only humans can reason and that reason cannot be explained in naturalistic terms. Also that we all share one common ancestor with a man, for example.
WilliamofWare 5 months ago
@WilliamofWare uhh why? why cant that be explained in naturalistic terms? why couldnt we evolve brains built for reasoning?
werewolf873 5 months ago
@werewolf873 Because the ability to reason *cannot* be explained in material or naturalistic terms. The ability to form abstract concepts, the ability to think math or logic is immaterial. When I say immaterial I do not mean made with a “soul” or “ectoplasm”, I mean such concepts do not have weight, mass, volume, temperature, etc.
If you are still unsure about the above take a number (say, 7) or a concept, say "envy" and name its physical properties... you won't be able to mention even one.
WilliamofWare 5 months ago
@WilliamofWare your misinterpreting the question, im asking why it isnt possible for evolution to evolve our brains with the ability to reason.our brains are built specificaly for problem solving and different parts of our brain take care of different parts of the problem solving process. whether such things are immaterial or not is,in itself,immaterial.
werewolf873 5 months ago
@werewolf873 You asked why a natural process like evolution can’t explain reason. Well, reason is *not* a natural (it's not measurable, does not have weight, parts, volume, etc.) process to begin with. Evolution or any other natural process cannot create anything that non-natural like our ability to make abstractions.
I understood your question. You just did not understand my answer.
Incidentally, problem solving is not the same as reason. Think of ants, bees and beavers if you doubt me.
WilliamofWare 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGreatestProject
"And the evidence you have is... what exactly?"
That our ability to reason is not shared by other animals and cannot be explained in naturalistic terms. And that we all share a common ancestor with a man in the past, for example.
WilliamofWare 5 months ago
@TheGreatestProject My video on the virgin birth discusses this in detail. Case solved.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@TheGreatestProject And I (being God) will put enmity (hostility) between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and between thy seed (unbelievers) and her seed; (the Messiah since seed is always spoken of the male with this exception) it ( The messiah) shall bruise thy head,( He did that on the cross) and thou shalt bruise his heel.( at the cross) So no you are wrong period.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@RepresentingTruth "it ( The messiah) shall bruise thy head."
The word "it" is from Hebrew text and refers to Eve's offspring. Your understanding of bible texts equals your ignorance of science.
dekreek78 5 months ago
@dekreek78 You forget that Satan is a spiritual being and it would be the messiah that would kick his behind. I guess you like being clueless.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
To say that the chances are so small that we came from one couple shows the purest hypocrisy at work. How can one say that with one breath and then claim that the origin of life gets a free pass? Did you forget the chances of life originating from non life?
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
Scientists now think that there may be something faster than light. If that is true then again science got it wrong, and continue to be wrong. Why laugh at creation when you keep changing that which is "proven true" Remember science is limited. To base your faith on that is to limit oneself. BTW how does one prove that one is in love. Mr Profmth can you prove that you are in love? Can it be put in a petri dish and prove you love your partner?
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@RepresentingTruth "Scientists now think that there may be something faster than light. If that is true then again science got it wrong, and continue to be wrong. "So if those scientists have got it right then they still got it wrong? Ridiculous argument, science does not work on faith, it enhances our understanding of reality by getting rid of theories that are falsefied, or adding to it or adjusting them in light of new discoveries. Basing your faith on a 2000 year old book limits even more.
MadDogKeithMcFrenzy 5 months ago
@MadDogKeithMcFrenzy Wrong. They are wrong and continue to be wrong. How can they be right until new evidence shows otherwise and then right again with new evidence? How can they say that the earth is so many years old (let's say 3 billion) then 3.5 then 4 and then 4.8. In less than a 100 years the earth gets a lot older but the actually age is always the same. If they "prove" that light is not the fastest thing then why can't you see the error of science?
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@RepresentingTruth You're the one who's wrong here. Finding new evidence does not automatically render the theory in question useless, usually it gets revised, or added to if the new evidence permits it and generally deepens our understanding of the universe. New evidence can be discovered because of the availability of technology not present at the time the theory was published and peer reviewed, Einsteins theory of general relativity did not suddenly make it impossible for us to .......
MadDogKeithMcFrenzy 5 months ago
@RepresentingTruth fly to the moon using Newtonian physics. Science makes models and theories that tries to best enhance our understanding of the universe at that time, through new technology, like CERN, which wasn't present in Einsteins time, theories may be revised, enhanced or discarded if the evidence does not permit the first two options. If you had taken the time to actually look up this information on how science works and done your own reseearch, you'd have know that.
MadDogKeithMcFrenzy 5 months ago
@MadDogKeithMcFrenzy That is the point. People laugh at Christians and yet the bible remains the same. Science on the other hand is only a tool. Though helpful, people treat it like a god. I now will coin a new phrase. I will call it the science delusion. If science says it one is stupid to believe something then it must be right. I think it is based on the fallacy that it is right until proven wrong. One should not mock unless their track record is accurate.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@RepresentingTruth Their track record is accurate, you sad deluded person. Religions track record is abysmal compared to it, whats even worse is even though it has been proven time and time again that the bible is inaccurate on almost everything that's in it, not strange considering that it was never meant to be a science book, it does not change. And you think that's a good thing? Not recognising ones mistakes leads to continually repeating it.
MadDogKeithMcFrenzy 5 months ago
@MadDogKeithMcFrenzy I am tired of people being wrong and mocking a book that spoke of things that only until recently we know. However you are free to have your opinion as I am free to mine.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@RepresentingTruth "I am tired of people being wrong and mocking a book that spoke of things that only until recently we know."
This is damning news for science. OK! What I'm hearing here is that there is a disagreement in the scientific community on this issue. On one side you have the full weight of the scientific establishment and on the other side you have RepresentingTruth citing the New England Journal of Some Old Book I Believe in. I say teach the controversy.
Source: Steven Colbert
dekreek78 5 months ago
@dekreek78 It does not matter if it is me or someone else. If they are wrong then "that's the way the cookie crumbles"
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@RepresentingTruth " If science says it one is stupid to believe something then it must be right. I think it is based on the fallacy that it is right until proven wrong." Not to be a grammar Nazi, but I truly can't decipher what you are argueing here, sorry. People do not laugh at Christians, there are plenty of Christians who accept science and are willing to do the work required to learn and understand how science works. And that's about the amount of time I am willing to give you.
MadDogKeithMcFrenzy 5 months ago
@RepresentingTruth Lastly, being in love has physiological effects when one is near or thinking about their object of affection. "Like eating large quantities of chocolate." Can't remember who said that. But it releases chemicals which gives us that feeling so it could be put in a putri dish.
MadDogKeithMcFrenzy 5 months ago
@MadDogKeithMcFrenzy " But it releases chemicals which gives us that feeling so it could be put in a putri dish." Still no proof. I can continue to nail you on this.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@RepresentingTruth "being in love has physiological effects when one is near or thinking about their object of affection." This IS studied and published, just because I refuse to show you the data in bite sized chunks does not mean it's not proof, it just means you are to lazy to look this up yourself and expect those that actually do read more then one book to just hand it to you on a silver platter, again do your own homework!
MadDogKeithMcFrenzy 5 months ago
@MadDogKeithMcFrenzy Lazy no way. Anyone and Google this or that and believe whatever they want. What ever happen to logic?
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
Evolution and creation are not able to co exist. Question at what point would the soul come into play? At what point would one be accountable for heaven and hell?
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@RepresentingTruth "Question at what point would the soul come into play? At what point would one be accountable for heaven and hell?"
Take a bit of time to read the articles from evolutionary theologians (several linked in the description box).
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH You are joking right? Do you agree with them? I know better. If one believes in evolution then there is no place for an immortal soul. Am I wrong yes or no?
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
I wrote: "Take a bit of time to read the articles from evolutionary theologians (several linked in the description box)."
RepresentingTruth responded: "You are joking right?"
No.
"Do you agree with them?"
I'm not a religionist. So, no. I don't agree with you either.
"If one believes in evolution then there is no place for an immortal soul. Am I wrong yes or no?"
Your co-religionists who are adherents of evolutionary theology say you're wrong. You should read their arguments.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
In Gen 3:15 it clearly speaks of a messiah. We don't have to wait until the NT to find that out. My video on the virgin birth explains that. So Genesis does speak concerning sin.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
I have a number of comments.
One Jesus clearly believed in a first family. Either it is true or he lied.
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias," Matt. 23:35
Why do people overlook this? Like it has been said. Jesus is either lunatic, liar or Lord.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
@lordcheetah You're welcome?
menderfire9 5 months ago
Simpler way to put it:
A-There were many couples and races from whom we descend.
B- We all descend from “Anjuma.”
Which means:
A- Anjuma’s progeny mated with other humans from different tribes and regions and races.
B- For whatever reason “Anjuma’s” descendants replaced all who lacked “Anjuma’s “ genes.
Therefore;
A and B are both true.
Hope that makes it clearer.
WilliamofWare 5 months ago
Current genetics is consistent with us descending from a specific man.
If a man appeared long ago (let's call him "Adam") that far surpassed others in his tribe, say, in that he could reason or had some other talent then his children would mate with others in the tribe passing his ability to his offspring.
They would slowly supplant their slower, more brute neighbors and a hundred thousand years later the statement, "we all descend from that Adam," would be true.
WilliamofWare 5 months ago
@WilliamofWare "Current genetics is consistent with us descending from a specific man."
Not according to the experts.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH Please, do read the post. if something is unclear, let me know.
WilliamofWare 5 months ago
@WilliamofWare "Please, do read the post."
I did.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
@ProfMTH "I did (read It)."
1-If all humans descend from "Anjuma"
2-The population never went lower than 10,000.
3-Then it is possibly true that the children and granchildren of "Anjuma", mated with others in the tribe and slowly replaced all that lacked anjuma's genes.
The statement "we all descend or share a common ancestor with Anjuma," and "the population never went lower than 10,000" would both be and can be true.
WilliamofWare 5 months ago
@WilliamofWare Pure BS. Being Stupid is that logic.
RepresentingTruth 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RepresentingTruth
"Pure BS. Being Stupid is that logic."
Careful, don't let all that foam dripping from your mouth ruin your monitor.
WilliamofWare 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RepresentingTruth
"Pure BS. Being Stupid is that logic."
Careful, don't let all that foam dripping from your mouth ruin your monitor.
WilliamofWare 5 months ago
Fascinating video Profmth. Just a comment: I'm not sure that a world in which selfishness is an inborn trait, necessary for the survival of the species is the only possible world. If God exists then it seems He could have created a species that was inherently altruistic. I would think that would be more effective at promoting the survival of the species.
wlemusic 5 months ago
@wlemusic "Just a comment: I'm not sure that a world in which selfishness is an inborn trait, necessary for the survival of the species is the only possible world."
Just to be clear, that's not my claim, but rather the evolutionary theologians' claim (at least some of them).
Thanks for the comment.
ProfMTH 5 months ago
If the Bible as a literal entity is a Jenga tower, Adam & Eve are the two pieces at the very base of the tower. Remove either, and the whole thing collapses as a coherent entity. That won't stop people cherrypicking a 'working' religion out of the pieces... but they'd do that anyways. I'd even say that the tower collapsed ages ago, and all flavours of Christianity are merely people cobbling together their own towers from the pieces willy nilly.
Tigranis 5 months ago
god USED to come down and hang out ,eat some lunch ,do some wrestling even ..he used to speak in a booming voice ,drop chinese take out and mcnuggets from the sky..make chunnells in the sea so folks could dodge hamas ,hezbolla ,the IRS and the einsatzgruppen ...now he cant be bothered with answering his email ..or even burning a talking bush or two ..
christians ,if there really was a powerful , all knowing god that truely loved mankind ,pls explain the existance of benny hinn .hmm, no ?
woodenmajor 5 months ago
Prof, so sorry man, but I can't get to this (vid form).
However, I think you've nailed it with what makes or breaks Christianity.
All I can tell you now is that it's imperative that Adam & Eve be thought of as completely, historically necessary.
Naturally, I'd guess questions about what Venema said come to mind...
So if you're interested, I'll do my best to answer as best I can.
Ask away ;-)
Lovin' you,
K
justchemicali 6 months ago
*applauds*
I would like to hear your opinion of the common allegorical interpretation of the Genesis story--to wit:
- Evolution created reason (symbolized as the tree of knowledge)
- Humans developed a sense of right and wrong, and were thus able to do things that they knew were wrong (original sin?)
- Because doing the wrong thing is often easier than doing the right thing, Jesus's redemption is in the form of freeing us from that destructive tendency and strengthening our will to do good.
Ongarukat 6 months ago
@Ongarukat Thanks. I gave my opinion about that sort of recasting of Genesis vis-a-vis Jesus in the video: it's a fascinating idea, a move away from some of the mythology that underpins Christianity, and probably doesn't solve the problem created by the absence of a historical Adam and Eve.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Evolutionary theology may contain the seeds of Christianity's destruction, but it might also contain the seeds of an entirely new religion. Either way, I think that traditional Christianity's days are numbered. Modern science and the free sharing of ideas may prove too much for the aging religion.
burchdc 6 months ago
astero..if the penalty for doubting the veracity of this contradictory and poorly writen book is everlasting pain ,severe burns and horror on the rack ,i would think that he could do a better job of getting it written in a somewhat sensible manner.
actually,since he is allpowerful ,he could easily alter it right now and fix it so that nobody ever knows any better ..right ?
woodenmajor 6 months ago
@woodenmajor "actually,since he is allpowerful ,he could easily alter it right now and fix it so that nobody ever knows any better ..right ?"
Unfortunately it seems that God stopped interacting with reality about 2000 years ago, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
hawklord2001 5 months ago
one would think that the creator of the universe could have written a text that was clear,concise,,unambiguous and easily understood by ordinary people .instead we have a mashup of rambling,incoherant ,inconsistant ,self refuting and terribly BORING text which is widely open to variouis ,conflicting interpretations as can be clearly seen even here in YT comments .
why write such a massivly crappy ,obtuse and unreadable book ? is god a practical joker ,lazy ,evil or merely inept .?
woodenmajor 6 months ago
@woodenmajor Would it be too much to ask a god that could create a universe to write a concise book, and sign it?.
gjsterp 6 months ago
I think there are 2 traditions for Adam. Paul hinges on one because it supports his doctrine. What ever happened to the Adam (dual people - male and female) of Gen 1:27 and 5:2? Did they sin too? Christiandom is so latched on trying to dodge reality that we still subscribe to myths we can't PROVE (but have 'faith' in). Adam was not made immortal (as confirmed by the Garden story) and if the snake was in the garden, God put it there. God allowed (and thus made) Adam to sin. Paul should have known
obviouslyso 6 months ago
Liked this video Prof, if I remember it right, Adam needed to sin or else we would not be like G-d. If we are to be created in G-d's image not physically but in our thoughts we must know good and evil. Hence, Adam must sin. I can't remember where in Genesis but G-d did say, man has become like us (G-d talking to his angels or messengers) he knows evil... not sure if these are the exact words though. But these r not what Christians would view, this is what I remember in Judaism.
junjimalaza 6 months ago
The Age Of The Earth: /watch?v=bFxGFEhK-5s
The Garden: /watch?v=Z04J9tm3cLw
Dragons(or ‘’dinosaurs’’) in History: /watch?v=sj99O-NS_oc
Lies In The Textbooks: /watch?v=cv__yQhtAb0
The Dangers Of Evolution: /watch?v=xhTsMLRRlVI
The Hovind ’’Theory’’: /watch?v=678tes82T88
Questions & Answers:
Part 1: /watch?v=PBkTnzbzGu8
Part 2: /watch?v=XwU2_TMwMbs
007thinkagain 6 months ago
It really makes no sense without the original sin of Adam. Without original sin there is no need for a savior. I don't think it would destroy the religion though. Christians believe all sorts of things for no good reason and in the face of evidence to the contrary. What is amusing to me, is how when the bible and a science book are put next to each other, its always the infallible word of god that changes to conform to science.
bryan23271 6 months ago
Adam & Eve as historical figures are a necessity to maintain the fiction of original sin. The evolutionary sin track will eventually derail the entire theology, as it is an extremely weak foundation. This comment is from a former ultraconservative christian who is now an atheist with regard to any gods identified in "holy" books
sevenahm 6 months ago
If god were a parent, by today's standards he'd have his kids taken away by Child Services for their own protection.
Owahtagusiam 6 months ago
lov the vids! thanks 4 the bloopers @ the end, fascinating info followed by a bit of humor :)
cruelbusiness1984 6 months ago
@cruelbusiness1984 Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Well.....we don't take this little part literally.....its a symbol....but this part, where zombie jesus busted through a rock after he was nailed to a cross and died....we believe that part....it defiantly happened
soccerwizard975 6 months ago
I also noticed in Genesis 3:22 that god once again refers to himself as "us" before Jesus was introduced into the story.
ManicRaider 6 months ago
@ManicRaider Yes, the vestiges of Israelite religion's polytheism can still be seen.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH Well, I suppose, if the Spirit is considered God. However, perhaps a better argument for the plural is the royal plural. If there is actually a vestige of polytheism here, there should be more evidence in the text. Context counts, you know. But I can see no indication that any other God is involved in the narrative.
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon "perhaps a better argument for the plural is the royal plural"
Why?
"Context counts"
Indeed it does.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH So without evidence within the narrative for more than one God, polytheism would not be the first conclusion one would come to. Better would be the royal "we". That fits the context, which is God speaking.
There is, of course, the larger context of the history and culture at the time of writing. But that doesn't seem support a remnant of polytheism either. If Moses is the author who put this story together, Moses is preeminently monotheistic.
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon (1) - From, what I've read from a few sources that I've looked at the royal "we" isn't likely to apply. For one there is only one other potential example of a royal "we" in the Old Testament and that is in Ezra 4:18. And, considering the surrounding text it isn't exactly clear if the plural is referring to King Artaxerxes and the state or to the King Artaxerxes and his other members of court that were present to translate the letter for him.
lobothesacred3 6 months ago
@lobothesacred3 What about Gen. 11:7? So I wonder what is the similarity between the verses in Genesis. One is that in both cases God is consulting himself rather than speaking to a man. Another is that they are both prior to the flood and the new post-flood world. A third might be that these stories are very old, perhaps retaining a manner of speaking that became less common later. (I am allowing that the author collected the stories rather than wrote them by revelation. )
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon (1) - The source I looked at never brought up Gen. 11:7. Though, I imagine it was bypassed over the fact that it was referring back to "God" in the plural. Since, the concept of the royal "we" would seem to apply to earthly kings as well.
Though, one could argue you that only "God" in the eyes of the Jews was truly considered a king and thus the only person a royal "we" could apply to. I think, much of the problem with the Bible is that it is a collection of ancient texts that
lobothesacred3 6 months ago
@campdon (2) - sometimes contradict one another. It also isn't clear what the original intent or meaning was due to the changing nature of theology in various religions.
Many Christians today reject the concept of a literal six day creation. But, the story in genesis seems to fit better with a literal interpretation rather than a metaphorical or symbolic one. Looking at the Bible through the eyes of being literature is limited in how helpful it is, due to the ability of people to attribute
lobothesacred3 6 months ago
@campdon (3) - different meanings to symbols and interpretations to literature overtime due to changes in the construction of poetry and narratives.
This problem is probably the main reason why there are so many different interpretations of the various texts in the Bible and why Christians and Jews are so divided on what their various religious books say and mean.
Another issue might be in translation since it is possible that the word "Elohim" used in Gensis can be translated as "Gods".
lobothesacred3 6 months ago
@campdon (4) - And, another website I recently came across makes another argument on why in Gensis 1:26 the word "us" is used.
Link: israelofgod . org / genesis1 . htm
lobothesacred3 6 months ago
@campdon (2) - "If Moses is the author . . ."
The "if" in your statement is the main problem. Were not sure if Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament or not. Some believe that he wrote most or all of The Pentateuch, while others believe that he potentially didn't write any of it. This seems to be largely based on the fact that doublets or sometimes triplets of the same stories appear and all of them with minor changes that in some cases can't be reconciled.
lobothesacred3 6 months ago
@lobothesacred3 My own somewhat educated guess is that the pericopes were written or collected by Moses, but the final form of the Pentateuch came later. I'm a literature teacher and belief that looking at the Bible through the lens of literature is helpful. If we do that with Genesis, it seems the stories meet the need of a dislocated people needing to know their roots. That fits the exodus better than any other period of Israel's history.
campdon 6 months ago
I did a video some time ago that argued that the story of The Fall made a lot more sense if taken metaphorically. As a metaphor it works pretty well, especially as Dr Niemann points out that painful childbirth is the result of our increased mental ability.
conradleviston 6 months ago
I am in the camp where you have to believe in a literal Adam/Eve or else the doctrine of original sin and redemption from it makes no sense. Most of my Christian friends do as well, but they are Southern Baptist. When I pose this question to them, they basically believe that science is an ever-changing field that will eventually be proven wrong. They think that perservering in the midst of doubt is a feather in their cap, because otherwise "who would need faith".
kdavis99 6 months ago
How important are Adam and Eve to christianity? Answer: very important. How important are Adam and Eve for the survival of christianity? Answer: not important whatsoever. Christians will continue to be deluded into thinking this fairy tale was real, No matter how vast is the amount of evidence that is found that depicts the contents of the bible for what they really are. Pastors and religious leaders all over the world can always work through these mis-happenings
JoseWanKenobi 6 months ago
This is really interesting.
LJonYT 6 months ago
@LJonYT "This is really interesting."
Yeah, it's a great topic. And it's been fascinating to see how our Christian friends have been dealing with it.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
So Adam and Eve were likely actual human beings. But the story of Genesis 2 -4, while based in actual history, is told as theology not history. And as theology, as you note, Prof, it is woven inextricably into the theology of the rest of the Bible.
So was there an original sin? Yes. Was that sin passed on to the rest of mankind? How can that be denied? Look around. Was it necessary for Jesus, also a real person, to die for sin? Yes. If sin is actual in time and space, so must the remedy be.
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon "Was the first man immortal? The Bible itself says otherwise."
To be precise, Genesis says otherwise. According to Paul, there was no death prior to Adam's transgression. Death came into the world only after & as a consequence of it.
"And as theology, as you note, Prof, it is woven inextricably into the theology of the rest of the Bible."
I don't think I ever said that. But OK.
Bottom line, you agree with Paul: sin and death entered the world via Adam, yes?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH The Bible implies that his immortality was dependent upon continuing to eat from the tree of life. Gen. 3:22 Death entered the world of men with the sin of Adam (Not the world of all living things. Romans 5 is about human beings.) That is self-evident. Adam and Eve were at the time the only human beings. There was no death among humans before that time.
Yes. No man died until Adam sinned. BTW death (Gen. 2:17) refers first to spiritual death, secondarily to physical death.
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon "The Bible implies that his immortality was dependent upon continuing to eat from the tree of life. Gen. 3:22"
It does? That passage seems to say quite the opposite: eat from the Tree of Life once, live forever--hence Yahweh Elohim's panic.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH The infinitive absolute in biblical Hebrew, which "to eat" is, does not limit the idea of the act to either a single act or a continued act. So grammatically it could be either. Usually the infinitive follows the idea of the verb in the clause. The verb is "stretch." is in the Qal tense/aspect. That tense expresses simply the action without reference to time or whether it is a point action or continuing. English must express that so the translation confuses us.
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon The Septuagint, which is an early Greek translation of the Old Testament doesn't help with the verb. "Stretch forth" is in the aorist, as is "eat." The aorist considers the action as simply occurring - much like the Qal. The syntax of Rev. 2:7 also is indefinite. But Rev. 22:2 ,which refers to the tree of life, is pretty clear that the tree produces multiple crops through the seasons. The expectation is that people will be regularly eating of the tree.
campdon 6 months ago
Was the first man immortal? The Bible itself says otherwise. His immortality depended upon his eating of the tree of life, which whether a literal tree or a metaphor, was the source of life. The tree of life shows up in Revelation as a metaphor of Christ, where it is implied that eating of the fruit of the tree of life is the continued reliance upon God for life. Even in Revelation people do not independently have eternal life.
campdon 6 months ago
With the creation of the first man, there was also a imparting of a moral conscience, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Animals lack this. So animals do not sin even if their behaviors are selfish, destructive, and condemned in humans. So in fact, there could have been and undoubtedly was a moment when knowing something was wrong, a human being violated that moral principle.
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon
"With the creation of the first man, there was also a imparting of a moral conscience, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong."
actually. this WAS NOT PART OF CREATION
do you know what the tree that got them kicked out of the garden was called???
"Animals lack this." ASSERTION, unproven and untrue.
" So animals do not sin even if their behaviors are selfish,"
so sin is in the understanding? so say, making sure they aren't going to get caught? fear from understanding err.
Arteanor 6 months ago
@Arteanor Our moral nature is part of the image of God (Gen. 1:26). I know of no animal that distinguishes by nature between right and wrong. They can learn what is approved or not by a human master, but that is learned behavior not a moral conscience.
In the Bible sin is 1) the violation of a known moral principle either a command given by God (which you learn) or conscience, 2) the inborn rebellion toward God we all have.
Animals can't sin. They have no knowledge of any divine command.
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon
"Our moral nature is part of the image of God '
so you didnt answer my question...
what is the name of the tree? that's right, its the "Tree of Knowledge of Good AND Evil"
looks like i know your bible better than you.
they LEARNED from this tree, LEARNING was the SIN, don't you see? the moral of this SICK story is to not ask, and only take what is offered.
Arteanor 6 months ago
@Arteanor Read the entire pericope. It is not that Adam and Eve did not know what was right and wrong. They had God's command. But there knowledge of good and evil was in the abstract. After their disobedience they knew the difference between good and evil in the concrete of experience.
Learning was not the sin. Disobedience and the failure to trust what God said was the sin.
Your comment reflects the rebellion that is the product of that original sin.
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon
"It is not that Adam and Eve did not know what was right and wrong. They had God's command. But there knowledge of good and evil was in the abstract."
you may want to rethink this, Eve was still in adam's chest. and he hadn't named the animals yet.
HE had god's command.
i think YOU ought to go and read genesis 2 again....
your still LYING about what it says..... and isn't that one of the worst sins?????
sin is imaginary, a tool of oppression, and you sir, are a fool.
Arteanor 6 months ago
@campdon
"I know of no animal that distinguishes by nature between right and wrong. They can learn what is approved or not by a human master, but that is learned behavior not a moral conscience."
don't you understand that the 2 are the exact same thing???
WE EVOLVED MORALITY! its part of our behavioral development, and it is flexible. morals are NOT universal, because development isn't.
"Animals can't sin. They have no knowledge of any divine command. "
cute strawman.
Arteanor 6 months ago
@Arteanor "don't you understand that the 2 are the exact same thing???" No. And I don't agree that we evolved morality.
That is an assumption based on evolution, and while I don't deny evolution in a broad sense, I don't believe evolution has any part in the spiritual nature of man.
campdon 6 months ago
@campdon
"No. And I don't agree that we evolved morality."
then your intentionally ignorant. our development 0-6 is ALL programming, and can imprint whichever moral set is provided.
"That is an assumption based on evolution,"
not so. you sir are out and out LYING.
"and while I don't deny evolution in a broad sense, I don't believe evolution has any part in the spiritual nature of man"
so you deny scientific evidence? what evidence is there for a 'spiritual nature'?? how can we measure it?
Arteanor 6 months ago
@Arteanor If we can not engage in civil conversation I don't believe there is any possibility of achieve any level of understanding.
campdon 6 months ago
Interesting puzzle. Here's my take. The creation of Adam and Eve refers to the point at which a pre-human became human by the imparting to him the breath of life, which results not in physical animation but the spiritual animation. It is the spiritual that makes man man, not the physical. So, if fact, there could have been a first man. The appearance in history of the first man is seen archaeologically in the appearance of religious artifacts.
campdon 6 months ago
Proof that the story of Adam & Eve (and Cain & Abel) were fabricated can actually be found within the Bible itself. If one starts reading Genesis from Chapter 1:1 through to Chapter 5, you'll find all the proof you need. Gen 2:3 is the end of the ORIGINAL creation story, with no mention of Adam, Eve, or Eden. Gen 2:4 - 4:26 is exclusively the story of Adam & Eve in Eden and Cain & Abel (2nd Creation story) which was written at a much later date by a 2nd author and ADDED to the book of Genesis
LethalFinch 6 months ago 2
ok i just realized how bad my last post sounded towards mormons. I only added them because egwpisteuw said they weren't christians. Those are one of the few christian sects who i actually respect and they are really good people.
recyard12x 6 months ago
I don’t understand theologian reasoning. There is no problem with a guy that can walk on water, create food from nothing, and come back to life after dying. Faced with the genetic problems of a single couple creating all humanity, however, they begin to get nervous and reformulate things.
Very, very bizarre.
jkruger316 6 months ago
Sadly most "christians" will not only never see this but even if given the information would dismiss it.
sheri226 6 months ago
this is so fucking thorough. and readily true. well done.
yogurtking 6 months ago
@yogurtking "this is so fucking thorough and readily true. well done."
Thanks.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
ProfMTH,
For many individuals, and therefore churches, theological "problems" like this are not problems at all. We all know those who say that nothing will ever change their religious beliefs. For them information means almost nothing, and most churches just encourage this mentality by belittling information from wherever it originates. So, I think answers to questions like yours boil down to why the brain so strongly defends its beliefs despite evidence and more plausible alternatives.
jbass02 6 months ago
@Prplfox Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
its not like science and evidence has ever put a damper on the christian faith, so i would have a hard time believing proving adam and eve were not real would make a difference.
kiddhitta 6 months ago
@kiddhitta You don't think science has forced religion generally and Christianity in particular to back up and even revise themselves at times?
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH well maybe a little bit. but i mean, really. the earth isnt 6000 years old, its not flat, man wasnt created by god but by evolution. the evidence to disprove god has grown soooo much over the years but people just dont seem to care. they're beliefs aren't based on evidence, so no evidence will prove their god wrong. but we have to keep fighting the good fight i guess, so whatever helps.
kiddhitta 6 months ago
@BeholderGuard How about "No"? I'm not walking into your safezone, for your benefit.
xxhellspawnedxx 6 months ago
@xxhellspawnedxx
CCC
BeholderGuard 6 months ago
Christian fundamentalists do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe that every word is "god breathed" per II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:20,21. Obviously, the psalms, etc. are poetic. If the plain text meaning is ambiguous, it is you - mortal man - who are in error. You must approach the text with the right spirit - with the Holy Ghost Inside(TM), and all will be revealed. This is their big Get out of Jail Free Card.
pirbird14 6 months ago
@egwpisteuw
"I watched your 17 minute video and the underlying assumption is that Evolution is proven science---an incorrect assumption.... "
the only requirement for it being science is a working model that is testable, which does not contradict any evidence.
this means you can disprove evolution quite easily... all you have to do is provide ANY EVIDENCE that it can't account for....
since no such evidence has EVER been presented, evolutions still the best guess (aka SCIENCE,)
Arteanor 6 months ago
@Arteanor --->...evolutions still the best guess (aka SCIENCE,)
Science is a guess? "If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific."
You cannot evolve a man from goo via an experiment that fits the above criteria and I cannot create a man from dust via an experiment that fits the above criteria so neither Evolution nor Biblical Creationism is Science.
Both are belief systems based on faith as a system of perception (aka RELIGION).
egwpisteuw 6 months ago