Is the Bible acceptable?

Excuse my apparent dimness. But why do you suppose this? We have already established that if there truly was a talking snake then the language would be the same as in the case of an allegorical talking snake. We might well have to give up in that case. There is nothing in what you say above that indicates the talking serpent more allegorical than literal. Perhaps you suppose me reading something into what you write - but I don't. Line by line... with a view to determining allegorical rather that literal talking snake.- the narrator lived (you suggest) in a field with the serpent. Does this render the serpent anymore allegorical? No!- the ancient author knew the bush. Does this render the serpent anymore allegorical? No!- In reality there is no such thing (you assert) as a talking snake. Does this render the serpent any more allegorical? No!You haven't even begun to make it clear to my mind AM. There is no argumentation here - not as far I can tell at least I see nothing fanciful nor absurd in a talking snake- especially when accepting the existance of a creator God who brought about snakes and speech in the first place. The serpent acts only as a delivery device - its not like I even give the actual device a second thought. Its what's delivered by it that interests me more.A talking snake? No offence intended but.. so?? At this time you haven't really said anything of substance to deflect me from a living, slitering talking snake. All I have thus far is that the same Hebrew words would be used to describe a literal and allegorical talking snake.You make a shift now. And from less than solid ground to another notion with which I have trouble. The focus of the Eden narrative is most clearly the temptation of man and disobedience of man and the casting out from the garden of man I suspect not. I would disagree that belief had nothing to do with it. I would say that in order to chose for the serpents option, the 'human archetype' had to disbelieve the consequences the God promised for disobedience.

iano:Let's go to the very beginning of the Eden Narrative. Gen. 2:4 states:
"These are the human generations of the heavens and the earth in the day that the yhwh God made the earth and the heavens."The Heb. feminine plural noun "toledot" is only used to describe "human genealogies" throughout the Heb. Tanakh. It is derived from the masculine noun "yeled=child, son, boy, youth."Heb. ">eretz" is the feminine noun for "planet earth" when used in conjunction with the masculine plural noun "shamiym" meaning "heavens."According to the author the Deity is not creating or making a mythical environment. Since a "talking serpent" does not trigger your disbelief, perhaps the five rivers which designate where the Garden of Eden is located will.The first unnamed river would be "the river of life" which flows from God's lofty abode. This first river is the headwaters of the four rivers that flow beyond the Garden of Eden. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers flow to the Persian Gulf to this day, and they do not now and have never been literally fed by one even mighter river. Furthermore, real and true rivers do not originate in the manner that the author describes. Rivers are fed by tributaries that follow gravity until, as a mighty river, they flow into the sea. That happens to be an emperical fact. Therefore, the four rivers of Eden are being described as flowing contrary to natural rivers. Thus the author again makes it clear that he is writing in allegorical-proverbial form.Talking serpents of the field & rivers that originate and flow contrary to the force of gravity should trigger in your mind that the author is trying to reach your mind through metaphor and riddle.By the way; did you read where I pointed out the contradiction between Gen. 1:28 and the Eden Narrative?Regards;
Ger

I don't believe so, but maybe you could point me at some other threads where there is discussion on that.

I could take or leave the possibility of a talking serpent. What God can do and what he did do are different things, so I believe it is allegorical.I'm interested in this notion that the rivers flowed contrary to gravity. How do you read that into the story? There are many instances where a mighty river can split off and feed tributaries. Take the Nile delta as an example.Edited by graft2vine, : No reason given.

quote:

---

don't believe so, but maybe you could point me at some other threads where there is discussion on that.

---

I can't remember a thread. Probably because it's too well established. But you remember what I said about creationists not bothering to check the facts ? You're a living example.Here are some web pages discussing it. Please check out the references if you still have doubts. Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural selectionAre Mutations HarmfulThis is one example of a peer-reviewed article (chosen because the full text is available on the web. There are many others - check out pubmed - but usually only the abstract can be read without a subscription)
Non-African Origin of a Local Beneficial Mutation in D. melanogasterHere's another paper, describing an experiment
Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations

Hi ramoss, The heavens and the earth shall pass away as they will melt with fervent heat. God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi autumnman, Sure the voice came from an outside source like the devil.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Grape2vine wrote I do not believe you are correct regarding the Nile; what are the names of the rivers that the Nile delta supposedly creates? And if there are "many instances" where a mighty river becomes four slightly less might rivers I am very interested in those locations. I know of none.Furthermore, the author of the Eden Narrative lived at a time when the Tigris and Euphrates rivers existed in much the same manner that they continue to exist today. Neither the Tigris or Euphrates rivers originate from one even mightier river. These two rivers originate from very different locations high in the mountains of the land we now call Turkey.The author of the Eden Narrative appears to be describing "Eden" as The Holy Mountain of God {see Ezekiel 28:13 & 14). It is on this Holy Mountain of God that the "Garden in Eden" was established, and the human archetype was placed (Gen. 2:8). The narrative is clearly proverbial, allegorical, metaphorical, and prophetic.Regards;
Ger

There are splits in the Tigris and Euphrates before they enter the Persian Gulf. The Nile splits off, the Mississippi, etc.Upstream tributaries normally combine to form a mighty river, but as that river reaches flat areas, it is possible for it to split off in different directions. It might combine again further downstream or it might not. I work in water resources and come across this when analyzing basin delineations. I might have to combine flows in some areas and do split flows in others. I'll admit it is mostly two directions. A four way split is extreamly rare but not impossible. Look at the mouth of the Mississippi.So because the river Eden splits in four directions does not mean its flowing uphill. I agree that it is allegorical and does not match the description of any place on earth. Eden is the high ground, the mountain of God (heaven). Water flows out of it (downhill) into the garden, which would be the middle ground (half way between heaven and earth). The garden is fairly flat for irrigation, and from there its possible to split in four directions before heading downstream again (to earth).

grape2vine: Yes. Eden is the high ground, the mountain of God. Yes, it is allegorical. Therefore, is it not quite likely that the entire Eden Narrative (Gen. 2:4--3:24) is also allegorical?Just to clarify; I did not mean to say that the rivers were flowing uphill. I was trying to say that they are originating in reverse of natual river heads. The one unnamed river {the river of life, I suspect} flows from Eden {mt. of God} into the garden and from the garden four rivers (the Tigris & Euphrates being two of them} flow out into the world.We seem to be in agreement. But, please reply to this question: Therefore, is it not quite likely that the entire Eden Narrative (Gen. 2:4--3:24) is also allegorical?Regards;
Ger

Quite possibly true. That would be an alternative to answer why Gen 1 and 2 don't line up. Genesis 1 being a physical account and Gen 2 a spiritual account, possibly conveyed to Adam in the form of a dream. It is the spiritual application that is the important part anyway.

Hi autumnman, So if you know these two rivers could not have come from eden then please tell me where Eden was, I would love to know.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi autumnman, Genesis 2:4 claims to be the history of the heaven and the earth in the day the heaven and earth was created.That history runs through Genesis 4:26.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

graft2vine: It is really good to hear you say regarding the potentially allegorical quality of the Heb. Eden Narrative.It is the "allegorical/spiritual" aspects of the Heb. Eden Narrative that {in my opinion} have not been accurately rendered. It is in the Biblical Translation--Eden thread that I hope to transliterate, translate, examine, and explore the Hebrew Eden Text.I hope to see you there.Regards;
Ger

Autumnman,Just an added thought to this possible allegory: You say it starts in Gen 2:4, but Adam does not enter this spiritual realm of Eden until verse 8. Even in this dream some parts will still resemble Adam's reality. His wife of course is real.