Raf

Incorrect. Think of a genre known for long openings where nothing happens ... NOT EVEN SCENERY. To be clear: No scenery, no dialogue, no credits... NO Characters Introduced. NOTHING!!! (Wait, one thing: The one thing missing from this list, which, once figured out, qualifies as a hint). Four years after he made this movie, one of the directors made another movie... a musical in which the lead female character was named Maria.

If you are suggesting the possibility that Adam and Eve actually existed in history because of quantum physics, I can't even finish that sentence. Come on. Quantum physics does not challenge what we know about history. That's not how it works. I suspect there was an element of comedy in your post, but considering the stupidity that some folks are actually trying to sell, it's hard to let a comment like that go.

TV broadcasts of this movie usually skip the first few minutes, which, to be honest, is no loss. The first few minutes feature no scenery, no dialogue, no credits... the movie's title doesn't even show up until several minutes in. That is where broadcasts typically start. The movie won for Best Direction at the Oscars. Two men shared the award. One never directed a movie before or since.

you can try to turn your ignorant position to make it look like my character flaw all you want. The truth is you're upset because I'm not falling for your tactic of derailing the conversation with flawed arguments that hinge on equivocation, historical ignorance and outright stupidity. Your position is an insult to the intelligence of our readers. Just because YOU think they're stupid enough to fall for the bullcrap you're peddling doesn't mean they are. That doesn't make me smug, and it only makes me smarter than you if you actually believe the stupidity you're peddling.

Patton

To be clear: It is not arrogant to say Adam and Eve never existed. That is in keeping with mountains of scholarship, including religious scholarship, including the bulk of those cited in Mark S's article. Even in that article (which is FAR from unbiased), those who say Adam and Eve actually existed in history concede that you have to ignore a lot of what the Bible says to reach that conclusion. "They existed until you can prove they didn't" is actually the position of arrogance. When you make an affirmative assertion, it is your burden to prove that assertion. No one is obliged to disprove it. Yet in the case of Adam and Eve, because the assertions are so specific, they can actually be disproven unless the goalposts are moved. Mankind did not have a single common ancestral couple 5,000 years ago, which would coincide with Noah and his oddly nameless wife. Mankind did not have a single common ancestral couple 6,000-8,000 years ago, which would coincide with Adam and Eve. "I know better than genetics" is arrogance. BS. You're not even bluffing. You're just full of crap. Change your diaper.

Arrogance is when you look at science which has been verified independently by repeated experiments across disciplines by people who have no vested interest in agreeing with each other and declare it "arrogant" because it disagrees with something you not only are incapable of proving, but which is disproved by the evidence. You are not engaging in this topic with sincerity and I call on you to stop wasting my time. Lying for Jesus is merely lying, and it does not serve Jesus. You're embarrassing yourself and proving atheists right with your flagrant dishonesty.

"History" doesn't mean history and "happened" doesn't mean happened is precisely what you HAVE been arguing, and you insult my intelligence and the intelligence of all who have been reading along when you pretend otherwise.

Mm Hmm Actually, I can quite easily establish that they are fictitious, but I don't have to, nor should I. See, the way reason works is, those who make an affirmative claim (so-and-so EXISTED) had the burden of proving the claim. The Bible makes the claim. Based on the Bible, we should be able to establish that the human race can be traced genetically to two individuals who actually existed in history 6-10,000 years ago. Science and genetics shows this is not the case. therefore, it is proved that Adam and Eve as portrayed in the Bible did not exist. Now, you may argue that they DID exist based on some bullshit definitions of history, happened and existed, but in order to do so you need to change what the Bible actually says, WHICH MAKES MY POINT. So, umm, I call your bluff. See, we know that folks like George Washington actually exist because there were histories written at the time establishing the reality of his existence. We know the he was the first president under the US Constitution. We know that he was the general of the revolutionary forces. We even know what his job was BEFORE all that happened. The cherry three incident? We know that never really happened. Because we are not stupid. Adam and Eve are fictional characters. Were they fictional characters with a narrative purpose? Sure. So is Spider-Man. But that doesn't mean they existed. And it is STUPID to conclude otherwise given the evidence. That's why the story is an actual error.

If I were arguing that history doesn't mean history and happened doesn't mean happened, I would deeply appreciate it if somebody would point out the stupidity of that position.

Again, for those who want to treat the Bible as literature and artistic expression: this thread does not address your views. This thread addresses those who think it is history, as in, "it happened." And if you want to change the meanings of "history" and "happened," I WILL mock you. Everyone knows what those words mean. If you want to act as though they are ambiguous, please don't run crying to the GSC rules when it's pointed out that the position you're taking is one of ignorance and stupidity. I am not saying you're ignorant. I am not saying you're stupid. You are. I am merely observing it.

No, it's not. What's absurd is that question. Someone built the pyramids. That really happened. It was aliens. That did not really happen. It was Hebrews. That did not really happen. "This didn't really happen" is in keeping with the evidence. "This really happened," when it comes to the question of whether the builders were Hebrews or aliens (by which I mean space aliens) is absurd. And to suggest an equivalency is moronic.

Not entirely surprised. Finnegan gave up on "Once saved, always saved" abooooooout 17-18 years ago. Not sure when, but it roughly coincided with my leaving NY, which was 1999. So if Gallagher gave up on it, not surprised at all that they would find common ground.

They're really comes a point when people need to recognize that you are not engaging in this conversation for the sake of having a rational discussion. You are trolling this conversation for the sake of throwing it off course. I believe what you are doing here is dishonest. It is not engaging the actual topic of this thread. It is a tactic that has been repeatedly used in various threads that I have started. The goal appears to be to exhaust me rather than to engage me. I have other things to say, but they would violate this website's rules.

Impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you because you don't agree to the meaning of normally used terms. If i say "up" and you say "up," but when you say it, you mean up, down, sideways, or static, then we are not agreeing to the meaning of basic terms. When i say "history" and "happened," and you use the same terms to signify things that never happened in history, it's not a matter of disagreeing with your position. It's a matter of your position being meanongless and therefore impossible to discuss. I know it entertains you to make it appear that i am being closed minded. It is a lot better, from your perspective, than admitting that your position is nonsensical. Adam and Eve are fictional characters. Perhaps they are archetypes of a lesson the Hebrews wanted to teach. That is, however, another way of saying they are fictional characters. Pandora is an archetype of a lesson the Greeks wanted to teach. That doesn't mean she existed in history, unless you want to change the meanings of the words exist and history, which clearly you have no problem doing. However, doing so makes a rational conversation about what happened in history utterly meaningless, because you do not mean the same things that normal people mean when they use those words.

Interesting article. Thank you for sharing.

when you say "happened," you do not mean happened the way normal people mean it. That makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you about this.

CES (Schoenheit Lynn and Graeser) articulated the same argument in their book "Don't Blame God," which basically used "He's not omniscient" to blunt the problem of evil. The argument had more merit than i gave it at the time. i've come to the conclusion that the chatacter of Yahweh evolved over time. He goes from mighty to omnipotent, from wise to omniscient, from merciful to "light and in him is no darkness at all." Moses wouldn't recognize the God of Paul. Marcion was convinced they were different gods entirely. It's not at all difficult to see why. Omniscience is both scripturel, in my opinion, and untenable. But i don't think the Bible has a single answer to the question of What Did God Know and When Did She Know It? Yahweh in Genesis is not all knowing. That's my opinion of what scripture says, offered here as an explanation that i can see where Geer and CES were coming from now that I no longer need to reconcile contradictory scriptures and claim One Consistent Message (tm).

Bible: This happened. Raf: This didn't happen. You guys: define "happened." Just because the event never took 0lace doesn't mean it didn't happen. Raf: oh ffs

To think that the existence of Adam and Eve as historical figures is more certain than the existence of George Washington takes a level of denial of reality, history and scholarship that I am not prepared to contend with. Adam and Eve are fictional characters. George Washington is attested to by multiple independent sources. You are not worthy to participate in this conversation if you don't see the difference.

I think I would concede Paul. It's not reflected in his writings, but it can reasonably be deduced by his education.

Oh for Pete's sake. Like I said, you can't reason with some people.

The writers of the Bible knew the Earth was round. There is little to no evidence that they knew it was spherical.

TLC, "It's spiritual history" WTF does that mean? Did it actually happen or not? This weaseling of words is what makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some people. It "spiriitually" happened. Wha? "History presented from a spiritual perspective." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN REAL LIFE? "Evidence of an otherwise invisible spiritual reality." Do you realize that NOTHING is untrue if you look at it this way? Nothing! Yertle the Turtle is now a true story. Green Eggs and Ham is a true story. Because you're erased the meaning of "true" by adding so many qualifiers as to render the original word meaningless. There's a word for that: Obfuscation. For some reason, you find the prospect that Adam and Eve never existed and Genesis 1-3 is a work of total fiction SO THREATENING that the only way you can address it is by hiding the word fiction behind a meaningless "spiritual history." You're free to do that all you'd like, but it does not address the topic of this thread, which addresses a literal interpretation of Genesis, as you well know by now.

Luke traced it back to Adam. I have no idea what "data" he used, except that some of it can be deduced from Kings and Chronicles. Whether those are reliable is a matter for another time/thread. I don't recall Jesus speaking of his genealogy.