The story of Adam and Eve is very much like those instances in the new testament where we see the authors using parables to illustrate a teaching.
Agreed, but there is a clear difference between the two. The parables in the New Testament are clearly marked as parables. The story of Adam and Eve is not. The lack of such designation does not preclude that the author originally intended it to be a parable.
If you read carefully you will see that on the sixth day God created man.... man and woman he created and told them to go forth to subdue and dominate the Earth.
Agreed
On the seventh day we hear about Adam and Eve and the fall.
I have to disagree with you on this.
In an earlier post you already stated that there were two creation stories, so we do not have to argue about that. The problem is that we apparently disagree about where the first story ends and where the second starts. The quote above suggests to me that you believe the second story starts with the first verse of Genesis 2. The second story - the one about Adam and Eve - starts on the seventh day. I believe you are mistaken.
First you have to understand that the original Hebrew text did not have verse markers and chapters. The numbered verses and chapters were added centuries after the stories were initially written. So when we are talking about the chapter break between Genesis 1 and 2 we are talking about an artificial addition. The location of the break does not indicate that the original author or redactor intended a break in that location.
If you look at the second and third verse of Genesis 2 you can clearly read that God was finished with his creation and that God rested. This is in contradiction with the rest of Genesis 2 which clearly indicates that God did not rest. How can he be resting and creating Adam at the same time. This indicates that the chapter break was indeed put at the wrong location.
Many believe that the break between the first and second story is in the fourth verse of the second chapter. The first part of the fourth verse is the end of the first story and the second part is the start of the second story.
The result is that God rests on the seventh day and that is where the story ends. We only hear about Adam and Eve in the second story.
Plainly then the Earth was well populated with humans before Adam and Eve were created. This is how Cain was able to leave his parents and find a wife elsewhere.
I thought you just said that the story about Adam and Eve was a parable. Here you seem to argue that two fictional characters had a real life historical son. Oh well...
Anyway, this is based on the false premise that God created ”man’ twice. First on the sixth and once again on the seventh day. As explained above this premise is based on the false assumption that the current chapter break is where the first story ends and the second begins.
I'll add an interesting note here regarding the origin of the practice of male circumcision. In those years when the old races and the new race of men overlapped women were forbidden to mate with any uncircumcised man. This was a social requirement from Adam's time and was intended to quicken the extinction of the old races. God given? In some way, yes. This story is so old even the Hebrews have forgotten it.
I doubt you can provide a scriptural foundation for this assertion.
Another interesting fact here is that this ancient distinction between old and new was the beginning of the claim by some that are is a "chosen race" of men. Unhappily this is misinterpeted now in such a way that results in divisivness among social and religious groups.
The idea of a “chosen race” of men has nothing to do with any of this. It is based on the idea of a covenant between Abram and God. The offspring of Abram is the “chosen race”.
Consider again the story of A&E and the garden. Some of this is a parable but most reflects reality. It's purpose was to relate the advent of the first true humans, the first in God's image, on Earth. All those other (primative) people that existed at that time were the result of the long (hundreds of millions of) years of (preparatory) evolution.
[... snipped long and difficult explaination ...]
I've learned over the years that we humans have a talent for making easy things complicated.
After reading your explanation I agree wholeheartedly: humans have a talent for making easy things complicated. Your explanation is a perfect example of this.
Again, I doubt you can provide a scriptural foundation. Until you do and prove me wrong, please do not hold it against me that I consider your explanation the result of an overly active imagination.
There are many who know more than they say. If a preacher was to depart too far from the expected scriptual parameters he or she might suffer as a result. It is also true, very true, that most people do not need to be concerned with all this as it's really not necessary for a successful and meaningful life.
Am I interpreting this correctly? It sounds like you are trying to use the argument that you are right because “there are lots of people that agree with me, they just don’t tell anyone because they are afraid somebody will use it against them”.
PS... I'm writing a book which will offer a new perspective of Genesis. What I do here will be part of it. and... Thanks to the reader for being patient enough to consider what I have to say.
I’m sure a lot of people are willing to buy your book. History has proven over and over again that people are willing to believe in anything - and even more so if it is written in a book. Personally I would put this book in the same category as all those “holy blood, holy grail” and “ufo’s in the bible” nonsense.
This message has been edited by rakaz, 06-Apr-2006 03:50 PM
This message has been edited by rakaz, 06-Apr-2006 03:57 PM
™ Version 4.2
