When Adam met Eve

Exactly. That was the point. Life isn't all wonderful, now is it? Lets see...hold on....ah YES it does!They had no danger from the other animals, even if they where in close proximity (Gen 2:19)They had no shame (Gen 2:25)Eve was originally intended to experience lesser pain in childbirth than women do today (Gen 3:16)Adam didn't have to work so friggin hard as his did after the fall (Gen 2:15, compare with 3:17-19)and they had the chance to become immortal, thus escaping death (Tree of life)I think most people reading this would conclude that they had it "made in the shade", unless they have an agenda to promote. Otherwise, without sin, Evil, severe birth pains, harsh working conditions, threat from animal attack, and feeling of shame, a life like that does seem to be perfect. Plus unlike before the Fall, God was pretty much ticked off at them. God being angry with them is a positive thing? Angels in the Bible are said to be unable to die (Luke 20:34-36)yet they a living being in the Biblical record. From a Biblical standpoint, it was hinted to that physical death was still possible in the Garden of Eden (tree of life episode), though it was very serene based on the text. And it seems that in a new Creation (last few chapters of Revelation)there will be no more death (Rev 21:4)So life CAN exist without death, based on Biblical teaching. IN a world without death, probably plants, veggies and Mushrooms. With God all things are possible. And since this world we are discussing involves the supernatural (ie out of the realms of modern science)you scientific counters will be pointless. Maybe you should stick to areas that are capable of being looked at "sceintifically"? You can always ask God in that kind of world. Since he is omnipotent, he can make you understand how good it is without letting you know what bad is. Maybe i'm trying to show you how dumb it is to argue about a religious supernatural story with science, as well as with logic, when it involves beings and a God who defy earthly logic? So everytime a Predator makes a successful kill, it is not wounded (Honey Badgers get bitten by snakes at times when they are hunting them, and live to tell the tale)This message has been edited by LudoRephaim, 05-02-2006 01:06 PM

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

There's a difference between "perfect" and "wonderful". "Wonderful" means "full of wonders", and life certainly is that. And overall, the good outweighs the bad. Strictly speaking, that was before Eve was created. This thread is about "When Adam met Eve", so I'm calling loophole. By the way, Adam and Eve didn't have any particular problems with dangerous animals after the Great Fruit-Eating either. Did they? That is, they didn't have a brain in their heads. No, it doesn't say that. It is ridiculous to suggest that God "designed" the perfect woman for painless childbearing and then deliberately screwed up the design because she ate some fruit. Again, it doesn't say that. You're seeing changes where there are only explanations of why things are the way they are. I think most people reading this would conclude that the Adam and Eve story is an unrealistic fantasy - which is why most people read it as an explanation, not history. Why focus on God's anger instead of His love? He gave us a wonderful world to live in - not a fantasy world. He expects us to make the most of it, not blame poor Adam and Eve for a fictitious "fallen" state. God isn't angry at us. This is the way He created us. We're not talking about angels. Well, of course it was. Physical death has always been inevitable, never mind possible. Probably not talking about physical death. Yeah, lions love mushrooms. Do you have any idea how many mushrooms a lion would have to eat to survive? And what about the poor mushrooms? They'd still have to die. I don't think God wants us to answer everything with "God did it". He gave us a brain, as depicted in Genesis, and He expects us to use it. Saying "with God, all things are possible" is the worst possible cop-out. Maybe I'm trying to show you how dumb it is to argue about a story with supernatural mumbo-jumbo when we have science and logic.God does not "defy" earthly logic. He created it and He expects us to use it.Edit: fixed Spell-Chek malfunction(s).This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-05-02 11:49 AMThis message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-05-02 11:51 AM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Okay, Im glad we cleared that up. You admit this world is not perfect. Um, I hate to burst your bubble, but you need a brain to speak (Gen 2:23, 3:2-3) HAHAHAHAHA (Gen 3:16) ROFLMAO!!!!! (Gen 2:15 compare to 3:17-19. Notice that "painful toil" and "sweat of your brow" is in the context of divine Judgement?) Good way of avoiding the question. You did say that Life cannot be possible without death. I was showing from a Biblical perspective that it is. You have not countered with Biblical evidence. And lets not come up wikth a scientific counter to a theological teaching (sigh..) Your interpretation is not the only one. God cannot make it to where they do? "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" Gen 18:14. Once again your trying to counter the supernatural with science. You get those more confused than Ken Ham LOL. Who said that animals and human death is the same as planet death? Who said God cant regenerate eaten Mushrooms? There's that "think" word again, eh? That's a unbrakeable response. Of course God didn't make it to where we have to say everything "godditit" but then again how are you going to study sciencitifally things that go beyond the laws of physics and science (water into wine, living creatures made from the Earth, Donkeys suddenly being able to talk, etc?) Man made science and logic as the arbiter of all truth. How interesting. Even more interesting is to argue about a story sceintifically when it is meant to be taken as a SUPERNATURAL account They did write those in the ancient world, you know? He did make a donkey talk. Not a lot of people see that as logical. Probably because they dont have enough "faith" to believe in stories they cant pry apart with sceintific literature or the logic of the enlightenment.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

I'm not sure why you're so confused about that. I've been saying all along that we need the bad in order to appreciate the good. What part of that did you think implied perfection? Not at all. It's an explanation for an existing state. Why not? We're looking for answers, not just theological answers. If (your) theology produces nonsensical answers, what's wrong with turning to reality? Cop-out. Everybody knows that plants and humans and other animals are all made of the same stuff. Everybody knows that death is death - there is no distinctive "plant death". Life is not possible without death. "Regeneration" does not negate death. How are we supposed to know what goes "beyond" the laws of physics and science if we don't study them? Parlour trick. Abiogenesis research. Fable. Man made science as the best method we have for figuring things out without just saying "God did it". There are lots of supernatural accounts that you don't accept - e.g. all the other creation myths. Science is a way of filtering out what we know is not literally true in the "supernatural" accounts - e.g. the Flood.It is ridiculous to swallow one set of "supernatural" accounts hook-line-and-sinker without examining them critically - while at the same time, arbitrarily rejecting all other "supernatural" accounts. Not a lot of people take it literally either.

quote:

---

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

---

Faith is for what is not seen. It is not an excuse for turning a blind eye to what is seen.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Probably because you kept on about how the "good" and the "Bad" was so WONDERFUL. I think Richard pryor said something similar to what you said. He said how if a girlfreind or wife of his found him in bed with a woman he would still deny it, saying "who are you gonna believe, Me or youre lying eyes?" In other words, he was denying the literal truth. God is judging Adam in the context because he ate the forbidden fruit. It states:"To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you 'you must not eat of it,' Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sewat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since you where taken; for dust you are, and to dust you will return." Genesis 3:17-19. That's not a happy statement. That is a Judgment. It is also an explanation for why we have to work so hard in our lives, but it cant explain why if it never occured. And the context does indeed have a literal meaning: Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God, they suffered God's wrath, and it is the reason why we suffer in a similar manner today. To say God is not judging Adam and Eve in this chapter is to ignore the evidence (or they just have an agenda...) Apples and Oranges. No, it's a cop-out to ignore the evidence, and in this case Biblical Evidence . You knew you couldn't argue with God's omnipotence when relating to what he could make animals eat (in the theological area of this discussion), so you went "cop-out". If that is all you've got when concerning this, dont bother. Waste of my time. Do plants as well as animals have "The Breath of Life" which is believed by some to mean the soul (Gen 1:29-30)Once again, using science in a theological part of the discussion. In the world we live in. Maybe not in the world here after. When you build a time machine and go back about 30 AD to study the miraculous change of water to wine that Jesus did, or maybe somwhere in the neighborhood of 1400-1300 BC to witness and study the talking Donkey of Balaam, or if you can go even further back in time (possibly 3.7 million years ago, maybe 200,000 years ago) and run tests when Adam is formed from the earth, and maybe take chemical samples of the dirt he came out of, then by all means go for it! Or a divine miracle, which the Bible says was what occured (John 2:1-11) and by the way....Your interpretation is not the only one Last time I checked, ambiogenesis had to do with micro organisms coming out of (in laments terms) proto-life soup, not a fully formed human being being formed out of raw dirt (Genesis 2:7).)[qs/Ringo]Fable[/qs]Once again....Your interpretation is not the only one Do you accept them all? Any of them? It seems even more rediculous to reject all supernatural accounts period. And yet a lot of people do. Have you seen Adam and Eve lately? Have you seen their fossils dug up as of late? I haven't personally seen Jesus in human form. I've never seen donkeys talk (except in Shrek). I have a bible that mentions them, but I've never Seen Adam and Eve, Moses parting the red sea, Jesus turning water into wine, or the Biblical talking Donkey. Never seen a ONE Yet I BELIEVE They exist.oh, and again....your interpretation is not the only one This message has been edited by LudoRephaim, 05-02-2006 05:43 PM

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

I'll say it one more time: without the bad things in life, we would have no reference frame to appreciate the good things. That's the way the world is. I don't know how you could get "perfection" from that. We know that it never did occur. There was never a time when there were only two homo sapiens on earth. Biology just doesn't work that way.Since the story never happened literally, there can be no "judgement" (of somebody who never existed). What we have left is the explanation for why we have to work for a living. The "literal meaning" is irrelevant if the literal event never happened. So what if the author of the story thought it was true? Yes. Plants and animals are made of the same stuff. Once again, it is impossible to separate the two. It is our responsibility to figure out for ourselves what we can, not use the "God is omnipotent" cop-out to "explain" everything. And of course we know that no fully-formed human ever came from raw dirt. We evolved from that "proto-life soup". No. The reasonable approach is to look at everything skeptically. If there is evidence that something happened, then we can conclude that it probably happened. If somebody claimed that something "supernatural" happened, that is not evidence that it did happen. You take things too literally.We can see that biological systems require a population, not just one breeding pair. We can see other, non-miraculous ways of crossing the Reed (not "Red") Sea - and if there was any evidence that it happened, we could see that too. We can see simple garden-variety magicians' tricks that turn water into wine. We can tell a fictional story - whether Balaam or Shrek -when we see it.There is no need to go looking for supernatural explanations when we have natural explanations.Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It is not desperately trying to believe something when all the evidence is against it.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Wasn't always that way, according to the word. Might as well try to tell a modern believer in the ancient norse religion that Ymir was never slain by Odin and his family, or Muslims that Muhammad didn't ascend into heaven. You cant argue with faith. Why do you continue to believe that the Bible is a Biology book? mention in Genesis one. Once again, a sceintific response to a theological question. There's a place for science here, but not on the "breath of life" issue. Spoken like Ken Ham. You related to him or something? Now who is telling supernatural stories? Autistic people like myself do. Though many who are NOT also see Genesis 3 as literal.This message has been edited by LudoRephaim, 05-02-2006 08:32 PM

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Yours isn't the only interpretation. What kind of incompetent creator would allow his creation to "fall"? Exactly right. And exactly equivalent. Those beliefs are no less valid than yours. I think you'll find I can. I don't. I'm saying that the Bible can't contradict what's in the biology books. Plants and animals are made of the same stuff. If the bible said otherwise, it would be wrong. Certainly not me. All natural, all the time. You seem to be handling that challenge pretty well. There's still no excuse for over-literalizing the Bible. We have a responsibility to look for natural answers before we resort to the "supernatural" cop-out.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Presumably, any kind.On the other hand a creator who gave free will and let the free-willed beings decide for themselves (whilst all the while achieving a greater plan) might be actually very smart.Smarter than you or me even. Perish at the thought?

I have no problem with God letting us decide for ourselves. I have a problem with the idea that the whole creation "fell" because of something that Adam and Eve did - and that "fall" effected all of the animals, etc.Our "fall from grace" is an individual fall, like the prodigal son leaving home. But the home is what it always was and the Father is always waiting there for us.As for Adam and Eve....

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Have you a problem with hitlers (I know I know..but it is such a... good analogy) dominion having repercussions for those under his dominion. That those under his dominion suffered more than he did?Do you have a problem with an innocent foetus having a disease transmitted to it. A disease it had nothing to do with catching? Mixing your methaphores helps not a jotThis message has been edited by iano, 03-May-2006 02:54 AM

Those things would have happened anyway. That's the way the world is. That's the way it was created. To suggest that man somehow "corrupted" the creation is to suggest that we are greater than the Creator. It's not a mixed metaphor at all. The world is our home - it was built for us by our Father. By turning our backs on our Father, we go out into a "world" of our own making, a personal "fallen" world, as it were. But that doesn't mean that the real world isn't still there, that our real home isn't still there.To suggest that we can destroy our home by turning our backs on it (temporarily) is to suggest that we are greater than the Father who built it.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That would imply that the creator couldn't give dominion of a perfect earth to man (he patently could) and that man couldn't bugger it up for all (free will dictates the possibility - if dominion means dominion as exampled)Your putting the creator in a box of your own fabrication here Ringo So the Father created earthquakes and tornados. Natural disasters of variety beyond compare. Not to mention disease, excruciating pain (a little would be enough for us to get the message- you've got a cavity "I repent of my sweet tooth!!").Home sweet home....As usual: vacuous statements on a par with my well-excavated left molar

I didn't say He couldn't. I said He didn't. The creation was described as "very good", not perfect. Of course he couldn't. What God has brought together, no man can put asunder. Obviously. Nothing that exists was made except by Him. Don't be so hard on yourself. Just try to do better. This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-05-02 08:31 PM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sin exists. This was made by God. That is why God paid the price for sin. He paid the price for his own sin.IT FITS!!