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.
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.
Given that I did not (and am not) in any way or to any degree denying scholarship, nor the history, nor the reality of George Washington's existence, your statement is merely evidence of your own failure to perceive or acknowledge the extreme level of certainty within me as to the historical existence of Adam and Eve.
In other words, as certain as you (very plainly) think and confess to believing in the existence of George Washington, I am saying that I am MORE certain in my thinking and believing in the historical existence of Adam and Eve.
Seems you don't see the difference. But, perhaps you'll put that in your pipe and... ponder it.
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.
3 hours ago, TLC said:
Given that I did not (and am not) in any way or to any degree denying scholarship, nor the history, nor the reality of George Washington's existence, your statement is merely evidence of your own failure to perceive or acknowledge the extreme level of certainty within me as to the historical existence of Adam and Eve.
In other words, as certain as you (very plainly) think and confess to believing in the existence of George Washington, I am saying that I am MORE certain in my thinking and believing in the historical existence of Adam and Eve.
Seems you don't see the difference. But, perhaps you'll put that in your pipe and... ponder it.
With Raf saying “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…” I think he DID acknowledge TLC’s extreme level of certainty.
However, one’s certainty on a matter does not necessarily make it true nor does it mean that one has made diligent inquiries with the highest degree of precision or used any scholarly standards...and I wonder...if one's certainty flies in the face of facts or reality - can it be labeled a delusion? But I'm not qualified to address matters of science and history - or epistemology for that matter - but I tend to think maybe TLC is relating more of an opinion. An opinion does not have to be based on fact or knowledge.
== == == == ==
…Wikipedia says of certainty it “is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur…Physicist Lawrence M. Krauss suggests that the need for identifying degrees of certainty is under-appreciated in various domains, including policy making and the understanding of science. This is because different goals require different degrees of certainty—and politicians are not always aware of (or do not make it clear) how much certainty we are working with.”
It has taken a while for me to come to grips with the tension between faith and reason – not saying I’ve got it mastered – but I do have a better sense of what the issues are when it comes to science and scripture. And in that regard I’m a lot more open-minded than I used to be…matter of fact, about the only non-negotiable belief that I have - that I can think of right now - is that there is a creator. But that is a matter of faith and not reason. I cannot prove a creator exists nor can someone prove to me a creator does not exist.
On page xix Enns says that scripture and science speak two different languages…that alone is a big thing to think about…and as I’ve mulled over some key concepts of the book I find it is necessary for me to rethink a lot of the Bible – and mind you I’ve expressed elsewhere my tendency is to shoot for a synthesis – and in matters of faith and reason it might be more along the lines of deconstruction or something…
I don’t know…but anyway, speaking about the issue I’ve encountered on my own journey…when I got involved in TWI – I found that to fit in and be accepted by the group - it was almost like I was presented a choice…to accept the pseudo-science of PFAL or else reject Christianity…and there’s probably a similar crux for many Christian groups – accept or believe in the inerrancy of the scripture even when it touches on matters of science and history – or else reject Christianity...I'm of the opinion there's more options when it comes to valid interpretations of the Bible.
so I hear Grease Spot will be gone soon…that bums me out...because one of the great things I get out of it (and more so in Doctrinal than in About the Way forum...I post more in About the Way than Doctrinal - probably because I tend to listen or think more about what's said in Doctrinal ...cuz it seems I'm usually exploring new territory ) is a reevaluation – or maybe a recalibration of my own views of the Bible…One last point I wanted to share from Enns’ book on page 144 – “Understanding the nature of the Bible as analogous to the mystery of the incarnation helps us to adjust our expectations of what the Bible is prepared to deliver…There is a reason why Scripture looks the way it does, so human, so much a part of its world: it looks this way to exalt God’s power, not our power…”
Edited by T-Bone you sir, do not know me from Adam
The bible is not a science book. Nor is it always a historical book. The bible is mostly a spiritual book, which teaches and shares the spiritual realm of existence. And regarding spiritual we now see through a glass dimly or sometimes even darkly. We don't always see all the truth of spirituality. Or as 1 Corinthians 13:9-13 points out, we now know only in part.
I think something happened to generate a narrative...granted, the narrative may be derivative, scientifically or historically inaccurate but nonetheless it is a story of what happened as interpreted through a Hebrew viewpoint.
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.
is anyone here near a Time Tunnel facility where someone can go back in time to see if Adam and Eve are actual historical people? Adam and Eve do at least represent mankind and the original sin with the decay and death of mankind. Also showing that mankind needs God and the savior Jesus Christ in order to have life and have life after death. Or at least that is mankind's hope. Below is a link to an article to consider that seems neutral on this subject. Please wag your tails on this subject. My own figurative language. I am sorry, but I am not literally a dog. But I at least can get most of them to wag their tails,, perhaps while I wag my tail.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
LOL. Tell me you really and truly don't see what a crock of BS that "spin" is....
Just imagine if someone else tried using those lines on you, how pi$$ed you'd be at them claiming that they weren't really calling you stupid. They're just observing that you are.
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.
If I were arguing that history doesn't mean history and happened doesn't mean happened,
That's not what some have said here, but it's your spin (evidently) on what everyone says that you either don't care to consider or simply disagree with.
All (meaning, ALL) of what actually happens (or happened, historically speaking) is NOT what the Bible, nor anything else, is capable of recording and communicating.
Hence, anything and EVERYTHING that you or I or anyone "thinks" they have or know about history and/or what happened in the past, at it's very best can only be said to convey all the relevant or pertinent information about what happened. And the relative completeness of what is (or can be) communicated about what happened, is probably always going to retain a certain subjective element reelecting the communicator's perspective on the situation. Which, believe it or not, is going take us right straight to the question of how (or whether) each of us perceive reality in the same way. So, scoff at the idea that two people can perceive "what is happening" differently all you want. In the end, you might be in for a rather startling or rude awakening.
Reality is one thing.
Virtual reality is another.
Augmented reality is another.
are there other unnamed or unknown realities?
how sure are you of what reality is, Raf?
the mind of man is a tricky thing...
You state and claim Adam and Eve are fictitious. I, on the other hand, disagree.
And you can no further prove to me they are fictitious then I can prove to you they are not.
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.
"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.
Science and genetics have and are built upon certain premises, which presume certain constants... which neither you nor any of your other "super smart" friends can absolutely prove.
My previous post and statements are neither BS nor a bluff, and the only thing you really appear to be calling out is your own arrogance.
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.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
137
24
35
25
Popular Days
Aug 2
50
Sep 12
15
Oct 4
13
Jul 30
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 137 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 24 posts
Bolshevik 35 posts
TLC 25 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2014
50 posts
Sep 12 2018
15 posts
Oct 4 2018
13 posts
Jul 30 2017
11 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81: even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books And just to verify I was going provide what you
Raf
Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demo
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, I beg to differ with you; Demons do exist! I know one lives here in DC!!
Bolshevik
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
Hebrew Bible, sure maybe. By the time Paul was around? I don't know what he didn't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think I would concede Paul. It's not reflected in his writings, but it can reasonably be deduced by his education.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Given that I did not (and am not) in any way or to any degree denying scholarship, nor the history, nor the reality of George Washington's existence, your statement is merely evidence of your own failure to perceive or acknowledge the extreme level of certainty within me as to the historical existence of Adam and Eve.
In other words, as certain as you (very plainly) think and confess to believing in the existence of George Washington, I am saying that I am MORE certain in my thinking and believing in the historical existence of Adam and Eve.
Seems you don't see the difference. But, perhaps you'll put that in your pipe and... ponder it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
With Raf saying “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…” I think he DID acknowledge TLC’s extreme level of certainty.
However, one’s certainty on a matter does not necessarily make it true nor does it mean that one has made diligent inquiries with the highest degree of precision or used any scholarly standards...and I wonder...if one's certainty flies in the face of facts or reality - can it be labeled a delusion? But I'm not qualified to address matters of science and history - or epistemology for that matter - but I tend to think maybe TLC is relating more of an opinion. An opinion does not have to be based on fact or knowledge.
== == == == ==
…Wikipedia says of certainty it “is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur…Physicist Lawrence M. Krauss suggests that the need for identifying degrees of certainty is under-appreciated in various domains, including policy making and the understanding of science. This is because different goals require different degrees of certainty—and politicians are not always aware of (or do not make it clear) how much certainty we are working with.”
It has taken a while for me to come to grips with the tension between faith and reason – not saying I’ve got it mastered – but I do have a better sense of what the issues are when it comes to science and scripture. And in that regard I’m a lot more open-minded than I used to be…matter of fact, about the only non-negotiable belief that I have - that I can think of right now - is that there is a creator. But that is a matter of faith and not reason. I cannot prove a creator exists nor can someone prove to me a creator does not exist.
Speaking of Adam and Eve, I read an interesting book – still digesting it and will probably have to review it a few more times to better grasp the concepts - but it has some interesting ideas that I think relate to this portion of the discussion. It’s "The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins" by Peter Enns
On page xix Enns says that scripture and science speak two different languages…that alone is a big thing to think about…and as I’ve mulled over some key concepts of the book I find it is necessary for me to rethink a lot of the Bible – and mind you I’ve expressed elsewhere my tendency is to shoot for a synthesis – and in matters of faith and reason it might be more along the lines of deconstruction or something…
I don’t know…but anyway, speaking about the issue I’ve encountered on my own journey…when I got involved in TWI – I found that to fit in and be accepted by the group - it was almost like I was presented a choice…to accept the pseudo-science of PFAL or else reject Christianity…and there’s probably a similar crux for many Christian groups – accept or believe in the inerrancy of the scripture even when it touches on matters of science and history – or else reject Christianity...I'm of the opinion there's more options when it comes to valid interpretations of the Bible.
so I hear Grease Spot will be gone soon…that bums me out...because one of the great things I get out of it (and more so in Doctrinal than in About the Way forum...I post more in About the Way than Doctrinal - probably because I tend to listen or think more about what's said in Doctrinal ...cuz it seems I'm usually exploring new territory ) is a reevaluation – or maybe a recalibration of my own views of the Bible…One last point I wanted to share from Enns’ book on page 144 – “Understanding the nature of the Bible as analogous to the mystery of the incarnation helps us to adjust our expectations of what the Bible is prepared to deliver…There is a reason why Scripture looks the way it does, so human, so much a part of its world: it looks this way to exalt God’s power, not our power…”
Edited by T-Boneyou sir, do not know me from Adam
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
The bible is not a science book. Nor is it always a historical book. The bible is mostly a spiritual book, which teaches and shares the spiritual realm of existence. And regarding spiritual we now see through a glass dimly or sometimes even darkly. We don't always see all the truth of spirituality. Or as 1 Corinthians 13:9-13 points out, we now know only in part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think something happened to generate a narrative...granted, the narrative may be derivative, scientifically or historically inaccurate but nonetheless it is a story of what happened as interpreted through a Hebrew viewpoint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
is anyone here near a Time Tunnel facility where someone can go back in time to see if Adam and Eve are actual historical people? Adam and Eve do at least represent mankind and the original sin with the decay and death of mankind. Also showing that mankind needs God and the savior Jesus Christ in order to have life and have life after death. Or at least that is mankind's hope. Below is a link to an article to consider that seems neutral on this subject. Please wag your tails on this subject. My own figurative language. I am sorry, but I am not literally a dog. But I at least can get most of them to wag their tails,, perhaps while I wag my tail.
https://biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/were-adam-and-eve-historical-figures
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Interesting article. Thank you for sharing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hmmmm… ...impossible to have a meaningful conversation with me because I do not conform to your idea of what’s normal. Perhaps you’re right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Bible is literature and literature is art and art is human expression.
In that context,
Isn't saying "this didn't really happen" just as much in the realm of absurdity as "this really happened"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
LOL. Tell me you really and truly don't see what a crock of BS that "spin" is....
Just imagine if someone else tried using those lines on you, how pi$$ed you'd be at them claiming that they weren't really calling you stupid. They're just observing that you are.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
That's not what some have said here, but it's your spin (evidently) on what everyone says that you either don't care to consider or simply disagree with.
All (meaning, ALL) of what actually happens (or happened, historically speaking) is NOT what the Bible, nor anything else, is capable of recording and communicating.
Hence, anything and EVERYTHING that you or I or anyone "thinks" they have or know about history and/or what happened in the past, at it's very best can only be said to convey all the relevant or pertinent information about what happened. And the relative completeness of what is (or can be) communicated about what happened, is probably always going to retain a certain subjective element reelecting the communicator's perspective on the situation. Which, believe it or not, is going take us right straight to the question of how (or whether) each of us perceive reality in the same way. So, scoff at the idea that two people can perceive "what is happening" differently all you want. In the end, you might be in for a rather startling or rude awakening.
Reality is one thing.
Virtual reality is another.
Augmented reality is another.
are there other unnamed or unknown realities?
how sure are you of what reality is, Raf?
the mind of man is a tricky thing...
You state and claim Adam and Eve are fictitious. I, on the other hand, disagree.
Edited by TLCAnd you can no further prove to me they are fictitious then I can prove to you they are not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Science and genetics have and are built upon certain premises, which presume certain constants... which neither you nor any of your other "super smart" friends can absolutely prove.
My previous post and statements are neither BS nor a bluff, and the only thing you really appear to be calling out is your own arrogance.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.