jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (152 posts)

do you literally believe in adam/eve story or treat it symbolic?

  1. pisean282311 profile image60
    pisean282311posted 7 years ago

    do you believe in adam/eve story or consider it symbolic?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It's absolutely literal.  Nothing symbolic about the Creation story.  It's a fact that must be believed by Faith, however, since generations now are far removed from that first event.  But it's one reason that I love Genesis 1: 1 so much.  The Bible states it simply as FACT, no question about it.

      1. SpiritMom profile image59
        SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I think a lot christians would say this but then that is flawed because what literal is depends on what original language it was being literal about. Hebrew and Greek are very nuanced language that have different nuances from the english language so you can't claim to know what it literally means, correct?

        1. hanging out profile image59
          hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Its kind of like the flood. God did not need 40 days in which to complete the flood, God could have done that in seconds, minutes, an hour, week or 27 days. He chose to use 40 days.
          In creation, God spoke everything into existence. How long does that take? Jesus spoke to the waves and the wind and they immediately calmed down.

          We limit our God when we say he needs X amount of time to create anything.

          1. SpiritMom profile image59
            SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            If time was created by the Creator, then it is logical to assume he transcends it.

            1. hanging out profile image59
              hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              yep

              when he deals with us, because we live and die and sleep and work etc.. he must work within the framework of time.
              During creation before man, who is even to say God did not just spend a bunch of years playing around making constellations and nebulas for the amusement of the angels.
              'In the beginning', to something eternal, is an amusing statement.

      2. Woman Of Courage profile image61
        Woman Of Courageposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Brenda, You are absolutely correct.

        1. SpiritMom profile image59
          SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          really? Brenda is absolutely correct about something even Jesuits have trouble proving.

          1. Woman Of Courage profile image61
            Woman Of Courageposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            In what ways does Jesus have trouble proving it?

            1. SpiritMom profile image59
              SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              "Nothing symbolic about the Creation story.  It's a fact that must be believed by Faith, however, since generations now are far removed from that first event.  But it's one reason that I love Genesis 1: 1 so much.  The Bible states it simply as FACT, no question about it."

              The Catholic Doctrine will never claim that Genesis was literal fact as a matter of fact it is they who will first tell you that the language of "DAYS" is not literal but representative of aeons.

              The Jews will also tell you that these are not real days because a DAY is a different word in Hebrew.

              The fact is, it follows the same progression as evolution.
              1. desolation and waste - chaos, weak forces and gravity
              2. Light- visible light/stars
              3. waters - elements/chemicals
              4. Sun and moon - planetary spin
              5. birds and crocodiles (dinosaurs) - the first evolution of reptiles to birds
              6. cattle and Man- mammals
              7. rest - ecosystem

              Now if you're going to take it literally like it was created in days, you'd be in sincere denial of facts. But if you observe the facts, they are really symbolically pertaining to evolution of the species from particle stage to the cultural age.

              The Bible is not literal historic truth, but it is truth. It's just not the kind of truth that defies what the eyes can see under a telescope.

              the days of the Creator is just not the same as ours...I think that much should be obvious.

              1. Woman Of Courage profile image61
                Woman Of Courageposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                SpiritMom, I gain truth from the holy bible, not type of catholic doctrine. The bible is to be taken literally. This is how we determine what God is really trying to comminicate to us. The lord Jesus Christ took it literally also. The word of God is filled with historical truths. I can see that you and I are disagreeing, and I will not debate. Thanks for your response.

                1. topgunjager profile image61
                  topgunjagerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Alright, we must now kill everyone who works on a suday, and let's not forget all the sluts that was married not a virgin, they must be killed too.smile

                2. SpiritMom profile image59
                  SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I am not debating, I am sharing what I know. But you don't have to accept. I'm just saying, it is relatively new that the bible should be taken for its literal value. A lot of the things in the bible are based on actual places and people but the stories themselves are not historical. They bear a message for sure. That should be the focus, the message.

                  The important thing is, is it useful to your life? Does it uplift you? By all means believe what you wish, but if you're going to discuss it in a forum, be prepared to share and prove and be prepared to have someone express what they know as well.

                  That it is literal truth falls in the category of mythology. It does have its own power, but it is not conscious power, more like hypnotic power. You are a carrier and someone down the line, will makes sense of what you carry. But it is a choice, do you carry the secret (the darkness) or the light (the enlightenment). Be blind in your faith, that's okay. Others after you will gain sight from it.

                  1. Woman Of Courage profile image61
                    Woman Of Courageposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi SpiritMom, I am always prepared to share and prove. I am also prepared to allow someone to express their beliefs. I will be happy to prove my discussion.

                  2. Beelzedad profile image56
                    Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Even the places mentioned in the bible are based on places that didn't even exist at the time the stories allegedly took place. For example, Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus. smile

      3. topgunjager profile image61
        topgunjagerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        So I guess it's morally ok to have sex with your siblings.

        1. hanging out profile image59
          hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You can guess if you want but that guess might be wrong.
          Google an answer.
          Maybe you learn instead of guessing

          1. topgunjager profile image61
            topgunjagerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            it's nice that your main source of argument is google and not your common sense, i feel so stupid now=)

    2. wilmiers77 profile image61
      wilmiers77posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The Adam/Eve message has tree, snake, and so on as a prop to convey a spiritual message; our first, beginning relationship with God and it's outcome which is our spiritual relationship with our Creator today.

  2. kirstenblog profile image79
    kirstenblogposted 7 years ago

    I do not believe in that particular story and can only consider it in terms of it being symbolic. The story is too full of holes to be credible. For any species to be viable in terms of survival for generations to come there need be something like 15 pairs, male and female otherwise the genetic material of each generation suffers due to lack of variety, any potential weaknesses get amplified with each generation. Adam and Eve would have had to have been one of many (pairs) in the Garden or there were other people not so privileged as to get to  be tested in the Garden, meaning they cannot actually bear the burden of original sin. Either way the story is full of holes.

    1. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      got that...thanks for sharing your view...

      1. kirstenblog profile image79
        kirstenblogposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Cool beans smile
        No one else seems to want to weigh in, I guess they are being productive while I am frittering my time on these forums! lol

        1. pisean282311 profile image60
          pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          i hope you dont mean productive like adam and eve...from 2 to 6.8 billion!!!!!!

    2. trishool profile image76
      trishoolposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      sure sure and of course the incestuous relationships that would have had to occur after the birth of their sons.... sighh. i would love to hear from some of those bible thumpers on this one

      1. hanging out profile image59
        hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        adam was the governor or leader of all the people God in the garden. There was never a command to go forth and multiply in the garden, that came after the fall, outside the garden. So as in Noah and his children, 3 pairs to populate; X amount of people were garden residents. Once sin entered the peoples knowledge, it was time to change the playing field.
        I base this on Cain finding a wife after he kills abel. Where did she come from cuz adam or eve aint letting their daghter go with the worlds first murderer.
        Some say that a&e had perfect dna and that incest did not have the ill effects that it has today with our imperfect gene pools. Incest was not recorded as sin till the book of leviticus.
        There's two answers from a bible LOL thumper - digest your pick.

        1. profile image55
          exorterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          the  Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were the only people God created

          1. hanging out profile image59
            hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            agreed

          2. pisean282311 profile image60
            pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            then what happened to other people?...they remained in garden or they too came to earth?

          3. Beelzedad profile image56
            Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            LOL! The contradictions never stop with believers.

            So, when were these other people created? Before or after Adam and Eve? Why isn't this mentioned in the bible? Does that mean those other people are not under the same "sin" umbrella as Adam and Eve?

            Do believers have any explanation for this contradiction? smile

            1. hanging out profile image59
              hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              What makes you think this is a biblical contradiction?
                                "the Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were
                                                  the only people God created"

                               Do you have any explanation for your demand?

              1. topgunjager profile image61
                topgunjagerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The bible said a lot of things, whatever happened to just using common sense? Plus you know what the difference between atheists and believers is? Atheists look for hard solid facts while believers make up stories to "justify" their beliefs.

                1. profile image55
                  exorterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  and non-believers will try to be-little the Christian,
                  It would be nice if we could open the Bible and start discussing where ever  the non-believer thinks is our foolishness

                  1. topgunjager profile image61
                    topgunjagerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    it will also be nice if you can keep it to yourself because your lies offends us too.smile

              2. profile image0
                AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The bible also does not say that this is the only earth that God made - I bet he made millions of 'em.  And the bible does not say the earth was without just one form or only one type of void so I bet it was also double secret probation form and void.  And the bible doesn't say God only made one light, so I have to conclude that God is responsible for Coors Lite, Bud Lite, and the night life, which ain't no good life, but it's my life.

                Is that your argument?

                1. hanging out profile image59
                  hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  you started off well but that ADD got in your way again. Doesn't matter how many worlds he made, what are we gonna on this one while we are here is the big and only question.

    3. Kimberly Bunch profile image61
      Kimberly Bunchposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree and it is about time someone said so!! Lol.

  3. CMHypno profile image96
    CMHypnoposted 7 years ago

    I do not believe it at all.  It was an ancient peoples way of explaining how they thought the human race came into being.  All ancient cultures had their creation myths, so why should this one be right and all the others wrong?

    And to follow on from kirstenblog, if there really had only been Adam & Eve, their children would have had to have had incestuous relations to carry on the human race and the genetic pool would not have been big enough for the species to survive.

    The Big Bang and evolution is my personal belief, and I cannot see how that is incompatible with believing in some form of higher power, as it is a much more mind blowing propositon than Adam & Eve

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think it was ancient people trying to make sense of their world too

      1. pisean282311 profile image60
        pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        ya it seems to be the case...

        1. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          they didn't do a bad job on some aspects, I suppose

      2. hanging out profile image59
        hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        There was some symbolism used.  Remember that these people were slaves and pyramid builders for well over 400yrs, living in egypt and being exposed to egyptian religion all that time. Moses would have used symbols that were familiar at that time. The serpent was a worshiped entity that pharoah wore on his headress - a regal place to be - so the serpent would have been very well known. Trees i suppose could have been symbolic of holding good or bad fruits.
        These particular people had no self identity. One day GOD told Moses, He was setting them free. From that time onward it was NOT these people making sense of their world, but God told them and instructed them, to no lack of definition, how to handle or be IN their world.
                 Genesis is a book of God creating the world.
                 Exodus is the account of Gods ppl leaving egypt.
                 Leviticus teaches Gods people how to worship God.
        These people that God decided to free and reveal truth too, did NOT engage in the attempt to make sense of their own world. God came to them without their asking.
                 Egypt engaged in making sense of their world and God totally destroyed Egypts made-up Gods and left Egypt without even an army. Which shows what a surprise, people, when the Gods of their imaginations and deniers of God are gonna get. The God of the bible came to the jews the jews did not develop their own religion.

        1. hanging out profile image59
          hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Good answer!


          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4018337.jpg

    2. profile image49
      Kamzezuruposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Of course! You are dead right CMHypno. Those ancient myths preceded the biblical cosmogony by hundreds if not thousand of years. The whole point is that they show a bold step in the evolution of knowledge and spirituality from pantheism to monotheism. Mind blowing as creation is from a big bang, the God-given intelligence humans have evolved to find and communicate with their creator who has no physical attributes, is even more amazing. Without God there would be no morals in the world as there are no morals in the non-human animal kingdom.
      Anyone doubting the influence for good that Christianity has had on the world need look no further than countries practicing paganism, and even some other religions, with their shocking record in human rights.

      1. pisean282311 profile image60
        pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        well humans rights cannot be viewed from domain of religion...because christians have had their share of violation of human rights in form of witch hunting and slavery to name few...slavery was worst form possible and perfect example of what humans should not be...

        human rights must seen on perceptive of post industrialization which made humans more secure and think in direction of democracy and human rights...if we put 10 religious and god fearing person in jungle with lot of insecurities ...chances are that they would be back to age old ways of survival...

        1. profile image49
          Kamzezuruposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Every human being ever born has a natural instinct for the law of survival of the fittest and is therefore capable, with their intelligence, of the most heinous crimes. God has provided Ten spiritual Commandments to overide this cruel nature of ours but without His Spirit impinging upon our consciences, the higher order of living is impossible. The standard is far too high as it takes God to be God. Crimes done in the name of religion are done in total disobedience to His will and are therefore not Christian but entirely human.
          For everyone believing in evolution this must be the case and there is no alternative.
          We might well pat ourselves on the back and say look at our human rights record, but go back to the dark ages and it is more pertinent to ask, what human rights record? It was only through the tireless efforts of Christian reformers that British mining and factory abuses of employees were outlawed following the industrial revolution. It was only through Chritians that slavery was outlawed.
          Democracy was invented by the Greeks but is only thoroughly stable in a Christian environment. Atheists take far too much for granted.

          1. pisean282311 profile image60
            pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            this is tricky...first christians had slavery and then abolished it?...strange isn't it?...i hope we get out of our limited religious domain and see world at large...world is far more than christianity or islam or muslims or any...those are external tags and at core all humans are same...with positive and negatives...it would remain so and religion can serve its purpose only to little extent in it...ideal world would be inducing moral values without getting into religious divisions...

  4. profile image0
    china manposted 7 years ago

    Bit of a problem for them believers I guess, if they admit that A & E is a metaphor then their whole reality dissapears into the metaphysical and they would have to start doing what the myth says, love, peace and goodwill stuff - instead of the war, famine and bigotry stuff that they constantly weave into the words they put in the mouths of their gods.

  5. thirdmillenium profile image61
    thirdmilleniumposted 7 years ago

    It is literal, what interpretation can possibly be applied there?
    God is not man. God is beyond logic

    1. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      god is beyond logic?...then nothing should make sense as far god's creations goes...then how do we claim that god is perfect..because analysis of perfection is based on logic...

    2. CMHypno profile image96
      CMHypnoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If god is beyond logic, then why is the universe based on logic? Surely if there is a god, then god that should be logic personified?

      1. pisean282311 profile image60
        pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        agreed...

    3. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You don't think God is capable of writing metaphors?

      And you don't think He would have good reason to do so, considering His audience was a bunch of mostly pre-literate, Bronze Age sheepherders?

      1. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        seems the sheep metaphors are very appropriate, even today

        1. Rajab Nsubuga profile image61
          Rajab Nsubugaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          It is well meaning than the Darwinism Theory. If we did evolve then why did we stop? If we were sea-beings, reps and then apes why do we still have all those things?

          1. pisean282311 profile image60
            pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            logically adam,eve story has no meaning...genetically our species wont have survived if that is literal story...coming to evolution we still evolve..who said we stopped?...secondly what have our evolution to do with other species?...

          2. profile image0
            Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            evolution is not linear - it is like branches on a tree.  Your question is like asking if american's and australians come from europe, why are there still europeans?

            1. Rajab Nsubuga profile image61
              Rajab Nsubugaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Bailey-'why are there australians and europe.' That is so simplistic, it is not as different as have fish on the one hand and apes or humans on the other hand. evolution talks of a complete bio-rhythmical change.

              1. kerryg profile image89
                kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The last common ancestor apes shared with fishes was somewhere in the vicinity of 500 million years ago. A lot can happen in 500 million years!

                Bear in mind also, that relative minor changes in DNA can make huge differences. Humans are ~96% genetically identical to chimpanzees, and ~99.9% genetically identical to each other.

                Moreover, to claim it is a "complete biorhythmical change" isn't entirely accurate. We're all vertebrates, we all rely on oxygen, we all rely on sexual reproduction and meiosis and follow similar stages of embryonic development. We even look pretty similar in the first few hours and days after fertilization.

          3. melpor profile image93
            melporposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Rajab Nsubuga, you do not understand your science. Evolution is no longer a theory. It has been proven a hundred times over. It is occurring right in front of you every time a birth occurs in this world. We are not the same from generation to generation. The same process is happening in animals as well. Evidence of evolution is practically seen everyday. Apes and other animals are still here because they are on a different branch of the tree of life.

            1. Rajab Nsubuga profile image61
              Rajab Nsubugaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              If I do not understand my science then I am certainly eager to learn. I am trying to follow the evolution. We got up from somewhere and then evolved into apes right? Where or at what point did we break-off to leave the ape- branch and attain this current form? Awaiting your answer.

              1. melpor profile image93
                melporposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Rajab, We diverged from a common ancestor with apes about 5-7 million years ago. We were still ape-like in appearance and gradually through evolution evolved into the appearance of modern man up to about 250,000 years ago and then migrated out of Africa about 60,000 years ago. This is why there is a myth that the world is only 60,000  years old. Keep in mind dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago and were around for 365 millions years.

                1. Rajab Nsubuga profile image61
                  Rajab Nsubugaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I can not deny my lack in the science of evolution. I, however. know that any science worth the name deals with facts and figures. In history we deal with, "once upon a time" issues. To state that we diverged from our ancestral ape 5-7 million years ago is to apply a biological metaphor of "once upon a time." If there was an exodus out of Africa 60,000 years ago, was there another evolution that gave rise to today africans?

                  1. pisean282311 profile image60
                    pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    .what gave rise to today's africa...well not everyone living in africa migrated...most stayed there...few groups did...

                  2. kerryg profile image89
                    kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    "To state that we diverged from our ancestral ape 5-7 million years ago is to apply a biological metaphor of 'once upon a time.'"

                    No, actually that figure is arrived at through a combination of fossil evidence and DNA analysis.

                    Also, pisean282311 is right. Just because many groups left Africa doesn't mean that all did or that Africans underwent "separate evolution." Some groups stayed behind in Africa, just as some Europeans stayed behind in Europe while other went off and colonized Australia, Africa, and the Americas in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries.

              2. profile image0
                AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                If you want to learn, go read some good science books on evolution - there is not enough room here to properly explain it.

          4. kerryg profile image89
            kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Baileybear is right.

            1. We did not stop evolving, we are still evolving. Evolution just happens too slowly to observe in a single lifetime, or even several human lifetimes. It took 6-8 million years to develop the 4% genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. Recorded human history lasts barely 4,000.

            2. We did not evolve from apes, we are apes. Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor about 6-8 million years back, but when we split from each other, both families continued evolving on separate paths. There were no chimpanzees 6-8 million years ago - the Pan family continued evolving to fit its own habitat just as the Hominid family continued to evolve to fit our own. The modern chimpanzee species is believed to be about 1 million years old; humans about 200,000.

            http://i51.tinypic.com/121fvc1.jpg

          5. Pcunix profile image93
            Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You misunderstand evolution.

            We ARE still evolving.   We didn't stop.  Other animals and plants are changing too, though some have found their niche and stick with success.

    4. SpiritMom profile image59
      SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. but within man is the capacity to access that which is beyond logic.

  6. Disappearinghead profile image78
    Disappearingheadposted 7 years ago

    Not sure to be perfectly honest as I can't read Hebrew. However having read the book 'A short history of nearly everything' by Bill Bryson there appears to be little or no evidence of human evolution from some older species. Huge claims are being made from a few scattered bones which when viewed objectively are inconclusive.  Apparently the sum total of all fosilised remains of human ancestors wouldn't fill a dustbin.

    1. CMHypno profile image96
      CMHypnoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It would have to be a very big dustbin, as there are thousands of ancient human fossil remains in museums around the world. And proof of human evolution is not just about fossils these days, as a lot of work has been done on human DNA and scientists can track different types of DNA back thousands of years.

      1. kerryg profile image89
        kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Yes. Additionally, Bill Bryson, though a wonderful writer, is not a scientist and makes no claim to be. I enjoyed the book very much, but it needs to be taken for what it is, which is wading pool science - intended more to spark deeper interest in the topics it covers than to be a comprehensive review of any one. Many different scientists have pointed out inaccuracies, oversimplifications, and misrepresentations scattered throughout the book.

  7. BDazzler profile image81
    BDazzlerposted 7 years ago

    The story is clearly full of symbolism ... I believe it is true, but not necessarily factual in that it was never indented to be a scientific paper.

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'm a bit confused by your statement "true but not necessarily factual"  So some truth and some fiction?

      1. BDazzler profile image81
        BDazzlerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        By that I mean it contains no scientifically objective data. If true, it is anecdotal and should not be used as a scientific measure.

        From a scientific standpoint, initial conditions cannot be confirmed because the only documents we have are poetic, not scientific, so, initial conditions must be assumed.

        There is no way to test that assumption.  Surely, you know people who have fudged data in school and in the work place to get the result they wanted.  Usually it was harmless. And most often it was fudged to what they "knew" it "should be".  But it was not truly scientifically accurate. 

        Change your assumptions on your initial conditions and you can get any result you want, with "scientific certainty."  Not all scientists have your integrity and funding considerations can alter assumptions. There's no way to know.

        Current theory on time, space, energy, mass and gravity make traditional time measurements in and around T=0 pretty much pointless. I believe, then, that the genesis story is a poetic rendition of creation events where time, as we know it, is meaningless.

  8. Lunatik profile image59
    Lunatikposted 7 years ago

    All the biblical stories are designed to be metaphors; a way of teaching through stories that people back then could easily understand. If you look at Gnostic tradition they would educate an idea through metaphorical stories and then ask the students to re-write the idea in their own story to show they fully understood it. People have a tendency to take things too literally these days (mainly because of the way we were educated at school) but back when these stories were told everything had meaning. The art, the stories, religion was all jam-packed with hidden meanings that, because were more accustomed to metaphors, people fully understood.

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      fables are like this - stories that have a moral in them

      1. profile image0
        AKA Winstonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, and fables have talking animals, too!

        1. hanging out profile image59
          hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          the donkey of balaam number 17. the word opened translates 'slackened' as in hung open. This implies that God was doing a ventriloquist act. I consider it an act of Gods sense of humor. A donkey reproving a prophet of God.. lol.. humbling huh.

          Instead of just coming out with ridiculous accusations against the word of God only to be shown plainly the incorrectness of the donkeyumption smile  why not just tip toe and nicely say things. The bull in a china shop approach only cracks the yoke upon ones chiny chin chin.

        2. wilmiers77 profile image61
          wilmiers77posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          AKA, animals can move your thoughts; God made all. Ministering!

  9. A la carte profile image58
    A la carteposted 7 years ago

    Symbolic.

  10. BobbiRant profile image60
    BobbiRantposted 7 years ago

    I believe God's word to be true.  I guess it boils down to do you believe God inspired the Bible writers or are they a bunch of man made stories?  I think, after 6,000 years of man being created, we have gotten dumber and I think the farther we get from creation, the worse civilization is becoming.

    1. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      6000 years?...well oldest temple is 12k years old...who made those then?

      1. BobbiRant profile image60
        BobbiRantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Do I think human scientist's dating is correct?  Nope.  When's the last time YOU saw humans make Anything that is perfect?  Their time data equipment is not infallible.

        1. pisean282311 profile image60
          pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          i can debate on your point but that wont change way you think or way i think...now as i get according to you , humans are mere 6k years old and adam/eve is literal..right?

          1. Rishy Rich profile image74
            Rishy Richposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            6K Years???!!! This is where Faith becomes harmful to mankind!!

            1. hanging out profile image59
              hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              lol

  11. Rajab Nsubuga profile image61
    Rajab Nsubugaposted 7 years ago

    Evolution and Darwin's "natural selection" can not be relied on. Darwin was no authority to arrive at such conclusions. The man had some expertise in geology and beetle collecting!

    2. His publications of "natural selection" were hastened by want. he was faced with a crisis, his people were dying of scarlet fever.
    3. His works though lacking were helped by the racist movements trying to foster the European expansionist policy.

    1. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      but we see natural selection on daily basis..what should one rely on...what he/she sees or what he/she reads?...btw 50% of other species have been wiped out in last 100 years...a harsh fact...natural selection works practically...

    2. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      and look at all the progress since - Darwin didn't have the benefit of what is known about modern genetics etc (resulting in modern medicine, veterinary medicine, microbiology, etc), more fossils since discovered, development of other methods to date rocks, development of taxonomy, refining of taxonomy by molecular methods. artificial breeding, IVF,  etc etc.

      Darwin undertook a dangerous voyage around the world to observe species to formulate his theory - so was more than beetle collecting.

    3. kerryg profile image89
      kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      He didn't publish because his son was dying of scarlet fever, he published because a fellow naturalist had independently come up with a virtually identical theory. If you weren't criticizing Darwin's theory of natural selection, you'd be criticizing Wallace's theory of natural selection.

      Moreover, neither Darwin nor Wallace actually came up with the theory of evolution, they just proposed the mechanism by which it occurred. The theory of evolution had already been around for decades.

      Finally, the fact that Darwin and Wallace's theory of natural selection was used to support racist beliefs has nothing to do with whether the theory itself was accurate. Europeans justified the enslavement and subjugation of black Africans during the colonial period by claiming that they were "saving their souls" for Christ, but you don't seem to hold that against Christianity.

      1. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        how does evolution encourage slavery and racism?  It links former slaves and slave owners by common ancestory.

        1. kerryg profile image89
          kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Evolution doesn't, but people have used it to justify all sorts of horrible stuff (social Darwinism, eugenics, etc.)

          Much like they've used the Bible to justify all sorts of horrible stuff. tongue

  12. waynet profile image78
    waynetposted 7 years ago

    No, I treat it as a pile of dung on a stick with a piece of fried blubber from a beach whale that got sick and died poor thing and then his nappy fell off and little balls of plop caused a small tidal wave and wet my pants!

    big_smile

  13. Jerami profile image72
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    Have you ever ask someone to do something and they ask as to why you wanted that done but if you told them that would defeat the purpose for having them to do it.

       If they knew why ...   then the project would not achieve the desired result.
       For instance...  you want to see what their normal reaction would be under certain circumstances. 
       Not exactly a good comparison but kinda sorta.

       I notice certain similarities between ...  The Angels falling from grace and Adam and Eve disobeying the directions to not eat the forbidden fruit.

       And ...  The angels being cast down from heaven  and  Adam and Eve being cast out of the Garden.

       The sons of God taking all that they wanted of the daughters of mankind.
       And there we may have the missing link in the evolutionary process as science understands it.   
       This too could explain why the descendants of Abraham was given favor and genocide of other forms of humanoids was deemed acceptable practice unto the Lord.

        Thereby establishing the direction in which evolution of mankind is to proceed.
       What if we are the descendants of that mating of the sons of God and the daughters of man?

       I can imagine the very first time that anyone said.. 
       "Our father which art in heaven"  ?????
      And just how true that might have been.  Literally!



        I do not profess this to be THE TRUTH  just one more possible scenario of a symbolic story.
       
      To me; This makes as much sense as any other concept that I have heard.

    1. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      question was do you think adam /eve story is true in literal sense or written as symbolic one?

      1. Jerami profile image72
        Jeramiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Stopped in for lunch and saw your post.
        - - -
           I thought my post should have answered that question.

           But I guess it didn't! 

           God sitting down in the dirt and making a little statue like object calling it man and breathing life into it ???
        I think is symbolic.

           After  the earth was formed/created, it took a really long time before conditions were suitable for MAN. 
           

            I do feel like the "MISSING  LINK" in evolution suggests outside influence of some kind. 
            The evolution of humanoids could have been the necessary indicator for the time having come, for the creation of mankind such as we are today.

            Who knows how that outside influences came about or how it worked?

        1. pisean282311 profile image60
          pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          point taken jermani..i got that..thank you...

  14. Jerami profile image72
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    Genesis does say that God created man from the earth.
    It does not address the process in which this was accomplished.

       God created the universe and all that is in it.
    What ever method of creation that was used was most likely used for all warm blooded animals.

       It make sense to me that after the earth was created, it required quite some time before it became inhabitable for any kind of life.

       As a similar comparison....

       Imagine building a cement container that is intended as a watering's trough for livestock. 
       And you want to have fish living in it which helps to keep the water from becoming stagnant and become polluted.
    If this water is not healthy enough to sustain life in it, it is not suitable for the livestock to drink.   
      You would have to water proof the concrete some way.

       This container is sterile.  The container will have to be biologically cured. To speed this process up a lot, You would have to put a substantial amount of fish in it, though they are going to die.  You would then have to leave their bodies in the water allowing them to complete their decaying process in order to allow the biological process in that environment to overcome the chemical process which free lime in the concrete is emitting.
     
      I am sure the new earth would have to have gone through a process much more complicated than that of a concrete fish bowl. The process would have been basically the same.

       So in my mind the six day theory would not have been literal.
       Indicating that other parts of this story is most likely not  literal either.
       That is the way I see it anyway.
       But , did God do it ??  SURE did.  How ?  I'm not SURE.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I believe God spoke the animals into existence....while He actually used a "hands-on" approach to making Man....
      I'll have to look that up.   Good point, Jerami.

      1. Jerami profile image72
        Jeramiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        My thoughts are that the story of Genesis can be true .. but in this case someones interpretation could have influenced their  translation in such a way that we can not take his words as he translated them to be literal.

      2. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        God used a "hands-on" approach?  Is that the same as when god wrestled with a human and was losing, so injured their hip?  How does an all-powerful invisible being that talked the universe into existence wrestle with a human?

        1. profile image49
          Kamzezuruposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          God did not talk the universe into being. He talked the spiritual domain of heaven with all its angels into being before He began to create the universe. The universe He created using the famous formula E = MC squared.

          To answer the second part of the question, God wrestles with a human in the same way that we wrestle with ideas, or problems, or as in the case of Jacob, spirituality. Jacob struggled to understand God's will and purpose for him. On the night before meeting his estranged brother, he lay awake pleading to God for an answer until his corrupted spirit was miraculously re-newed into the 'likeness and image of God's own Spirit of love'. The same thing can happen to each one of us today.

          The story of wrestling Jacob is a parable for our edification similar to the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, which is also a parable with an inner meaning not intended to be taken literally. To do so turns it into a farce. Same with the days of creation which is not literal but metaphoric. Same with Noah and the flood, and the Tower of Babel.

          You have to get into a similar frame of mind as that necessary to solving cryptic crosswords, then you can solve the depth of meaning in Genesis Chapters 1 to 11. Don't take any notice of what other people say or think, it is between us and God -a private Tete-a-tete.

          1. profile image0
            Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            parable is really a fable?  ie a fictional story with a moral behind it?

            Why do so many "believers" take the bible literally?

            1. profile image61
              paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Jesus talked in parables; so it is wrong to take it literal and think Jesus was god or son of god.

              1. SpiritMom profile image59
                SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I agree. He was speaking directly to the soul. The term "son of god" is actually the son of humanity. it says so in the gospel of thomas. he who was born of man(assuming that he is the divine one born of man). son of god is confused with the jewish term for sorcerer and was confused even more in when it was adapted by the greeks because to the greeks a son of god...a demi god is a hero.

                1. profile image61
                  paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this
                2. hanging out profile image59
                  hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Son of God is mentioned 45 times in the NT and always referring to Jesus Christ. Notice that it is capitalized. This capitalization stresses the importance of the phrase. It points to the deity of Christ. There is actually no son of god in small letters, every instance of the 45 times Son of God is capitalized.
                  There is no confusion about sorcerer at all, whatsoever.
                  When the son of humanity is referred to it is sons of God. Each of the 11 verses of sons of God referres to human beings.
                  The Gospel of Thomas is not a canonized book. I have read it and i support the omittance  of that book from canon.
                  A primary criticism to the Gospel of Thomas is of its Gnostic origin. This is primarily due to the fact most ancient Gnostic writings are in Coptic and that the Gospel of Thomas was found among other Gnostic writings.
                  It also just sucks big time lol

            2. SpiritMom profile image59
              SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Sometimes a mind needs to believe something is literally true in order to access its hypnotic effect, which is not necessarily a bad thing except when it clouds their sense of self.

          2. hanging out profile image59
            hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            God did NOT talk the universe into being.
              Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
              Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
              Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
              Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
              Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
              Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
              Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
              Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
                                         so much for that theory lol

            I am not even going to approach the rest of this work of darkness.

            1. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              "and god said" - how is that not talking?

              1. profile image49
                Kamzezuruposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                You have to realise that this creation story is at least 4,000 years old and comes from several cultures vastly different from our own. No human being was around anywhere near the time that these things took place. Yet some were inspired millions of years later to write an account that would both glorify God and be intelligible to uneducated peasants in the context of their understanding of things. And they do that quite well.

                The amazing thing is that they still hold good for educated Westerners in 2010, but only when we are prepared to do hard biblical homework in the context of our own culture and scientific (not philosophical) knowledge. Then only when we treat the stories as parables,  i.e. earthly stories with a heavenly meaning, and not just fableswhich we know are just made up to get across a point.  Biblical parables are true in their own particular way, which is essentially to teach the character of God, in contrast to our own weakness and limitations.

              2. hanging out profile image59
                hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                bailey...  kamzezuru  said this "God did not talk the universe into being. He talked the spiritual domain of heaven with all its angels into being before He began to create the universe. The universe He created using the famous formula E = MC squared."

                God was around when the creation took place and if memory serves me right.. God talked to moses and told him what to write.

                Millions of years, lol.

        2. BDazzler profile image81
          BDazzlerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          And more importantly, if so, then why?

      3. SpiritMom profile image59
        SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        its funny how we talk about God as though he has actual hands.

  15. profile image61
    paarsurreyposted 7 years ago

    Do you literally believe in adam/eve story or treat it symbolic?


    It is symbolic; man got evolved in millions of years as per the divine design set for him by the Creator-God Allah YHWH. Adam was the first person with whom the Creator-God Allah YHWH coversed with and gave him guidance for his people; in other words Adam was the first Messenger Prophet for his people.

    1. profile image49
      Kamzezuruposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Symbols, allegories, types and metaphors, are figures of speech with subtle differences and the Bible uses them all in different places. I prefer to stick with metaphors and types to avoid unwarranted connotations. Yes Adam and Eve are both types and metaphors which must never be taken as literal or the purpose of their story is destroyed and turned into a farce.

      Adam was not a prophet (teacher) because he knew nothing about God. He was the very first creature on earth to have a spirit which enabled him to communicate with God via his intelligence. His purpose was to bring spirituality into a world utterly devoid of spirituality and therefore, as far as God was concerned, a world of darkness which God called 'night'. This was in cantrast to the spiritual dimension of heaven which God called 'day'. The population of humans on earth were all without spirits.

      This is why God addressed Adam as 'Day Star, 'Son of Dawn' (Is.14:12) As the same text goes on to say, Adam corrupted that spirit by breaking the First Commandment, and so originated Satan -the corrupted spirit.

      Adam fulfilled God's intention by spreading spirituality throughout the entire human population by 'sexual innoculation'  via his descendants by human migration. That is the point of the story of the Tower of Babel. That this spirituality was corrupt was incidental, it was still the raw material for humanity to be restored into the 'likeness and image' of God's perfect morality through the redeeming power of the Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ who was born with a perfect spirit and the benefit of Holy Scripture for His guidance.

      Thus everyone on earth may have their symbolic 'heart of stone' replaced with a 'heart of flesh' in the process of being symbolically 'born again'. It is often an emotional struggle, as Jacob found out when he 'wrestled' with the Stranger in the night, who was GOD!

      1. Druid Dude profile image62
        Druid Dudeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Not real good w/ Adam and Eve. I do have an unconventional take on the trees of life and knowledge.

        1. profile image49
          Kamzezuruposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The tree of life was in the Garden of Eden because God was there and the tree of Knowledge because Adam was there. That garden was not a utopian paradise as most people think. It is here today for everyone who knows God's presence. For us the curses that beset life are lifted, no matter what happens to us. Everyone else has to put up with it, struggling with lif'e's hardships and sorrows with little relief. That is because the world is a harsh environment where the natural law of survival of the fittest prevails. That is the way God designed it.

        2. SpiritMom profile image59
          SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          it's the human brain. a lot of books that say that.

          1. hanging out profile image59
            hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            LOL
              Genesis 3:24   So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. [b] keep = guard. protect, deny access.

            [b]Genesis 1:31   And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

            very good sound like a paradise, especially if God designed it.
            The garden may be here, metaphorically, but not really. Often times when people get into a garden experience they become complacent about God. They have everything, they are in need of nothing and fill up their time with other stuff.
            God designed the garden and separated it from the rest of the planet. The garden did not encompass the whole earth. Outside the garden life would be much different than inside. This is how God designed it.

            The human brain. Not even close.. show me how that gets interpretated please.

            1. SpiritMom profile image59
              SpiritMomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              It really is, it's mentioned in a couple of books. You seem to need a lot of primer on its history... But if you're really interested you can start with THE TREE OF LIFE by Rabbi Shalom DovBer Schneerson of Lubavitch.  It is a translation of Kuntres Etz HaChayim.

              For more secular sources, there is a book a lot of biologists use it's called the Tree of Knowledge by Maturana and Varela.

              Mystical sources will be Anatomy of the Body of God by Achad.

              As a matter of fact it is pretty well known in some circles. But ofcourse the religious types don't bother to get their hands on these books because well...they are afraid to burn in hell.

              But there it is, even the Noah's Ark story represents the formation of the body. But then of course that is esoteric. There is a also a lot of information about this in the Theosophical Society. It is pretty well known among intellectuals. It's not a secret like it used to be...not after the inquisition of course.

            2. profile image49
              Kamzezuruposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Try to think laterally outside the box. Because the spirit world is completely outside the box. God saw that what He had made was very good but not from our perspective, from His. The world is no paradise in the utopian sense. It was designed to function and it does so very very well, volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, twisters, floods, you name it. It is a total system that works. We accept the consequences when we go to places noted for their natural disasters. If you sit under a gum tree to shelter from a storm, watch out for lightning strikes and falling branches. Don't go near lions, don't play with snakes and don't fondle bees.
              The Garden of Eden is not a geographical place, it is anywhere on earth when we know we belong to God. Only his born again belivers have access to it, the rest are kept out by those cherubims you can't see.
              Please think outside the box. Explode your mind like you give your body a workout at the gym. Push it to its limit and beyond.

              1. hanging out profile image59
                hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                If one goes too far outside the box they become wrong. God created the planet yes, but the garden was a physical place, the names of the rivers are mentioned and it was separate from "outside the garden". Outside the garden was very different and yes the planet worked as an ecosystem, why should it not? Man was not meant to live outside the garden but in the garden, that is not metaphorical or a parable, just a linear fact. Inclusively, man, earth, universe was all made good because it was good, god never lies. The bible is not meant to be exploded like a workout in the gym, the spirit of God reveals his word and in Gods good timing. The bible is not hard to understand to someone who is submitted to God, as God wrote the book, he knows all about what it says. Relationship.

          2. profile image49
            Kamzezuruposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            No it's not the human brain, it's the spirituality within humans. The brain is merely the central processing unit.

      2. hanging out profile image59
        hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Adam was not a prophet (teacher) because he knew nothing about God.
        (adam just walked with God in the garden everyday for less than 100yrs)

        He was the very first creature on earth to have a spirit which enabled him to communicate with God via his intelligence.
        (Genesis 2:7   And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. flesh.... no spirit here, spirit does not enter the picture until christ, 4,000 yrs later)[/b]

        His purpose was to bring spirituality into a world utterly devoid of spirituality and therefore, as far as God was concerned, a world of darkness which God called 'night'. This was in contrast to the spiritual dimension of heaven which God called 'day'. The population of humans on earth were all without spirits.
        (You have read too much into it. There was no darkness as in a world, darkness was what one had without light, a physics fact. Later on they became a good metaphor for light, awareness and darkness, blindness. but in genesis they are states of light and no light not anything else. The population of humans were not supposed to have spirits. the first covenant pertained to the flesh.. not the sprit. the 2nd covenenant pertained to the spirit.)

        sorry but hogwash interpretation. A work of darkness lol

        1. profile image49
          Kamzezuruposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          With all respect, Hanging Out, I suggest you prayerfully read John 4:24. Then read 1 Corinthians 13:11. Also look up 1 Thessalonians 5:5, and be very careful what you say about a fellow Christian or you might condemn yourself.

          1. hanging out profile image59
            hanging outposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            john 4:24.. NT dispensation.. you need to prayerfully read the previous verses 23... the time is coming and NOW is. The jews had no concept of a separate spirit just flesh and anima or soul.
            i cor and thess have no relevance here.

            0 hubs
            3 weeks here

            just cruising the forum scene in biblical areas.
            some things you say i do not agree with
            not sure what kind of christian you are yet.

  16. paradigmsearch profile image95
    paradigmsearchposted 7 years ago

    Aren’t all those hubs and forum posts that hawk religion spam?

    Why aren’t they deleted just like all the other spam?

    Just asking. smile Again. smile

    1. Druid Dude profile image62
      Druid Dudeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If that is how you feel, then don't participate

      1. paradigmsearch profile image95
        paradigmsearchposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I like u, let us talk. if u wish.

  17. SpiritMom profile image59
    SpiritMomposted 7 years ago

    Careful though, the Vatican denounced Blavatsky's work (Theosophical Society) as a corrupting influence. LOL... but since you're asking...might as well tell you, there is a whole other world to the Bible that MANY people refuse to know because well...they want to be sheep with a shepherd.

    Let me tell you something...seek and find.

  18. SpiritMom profile image59
    SpiritMomposted 7 years ago

    " Genesis 3:24   So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. [b] keep = guard. protect, deny access."

    I suggest you read this weirdo, she actually wrote about it:

    http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Garden-of-E … iginal-Sin

  19. SpanStar profile image60
    SpanStarposted 7 years ago

    I take the events of Adam & Eve to be true because they came from God and God said "he is not a man" so he would not lie.  The problem we as humans have is that we have limits in this physical world but God says he has No Limits and if he created the universe then that would prove that point because he didn't make one sun, we can't even count how many stars he mad-So Who Can Do This Thing if they weren't All Powerful?

  20. profile image61
    paarsurreyposted 7 years ago

    Man got evolved in millions of years as per the divine design set for him by the Creator-God Allah YHWH. Adam was the first person with whom the Creator-God Allah YHWH coversed with and gave him guidance for his people; in other words Adam was the first Messenger Prophet for his people. Bible just missed it to describe.

    1. Jerami profile image72
      Jeramiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Once in a while you say something that I gotta say is fairly close to the truth.

         This is another.  But who is to say that God didn't make a slight adjustment with Adams DNA .. "WALAH"   missing link exposed.

  21. secularist10 profile image85
    secularist10posted 7 years ago

    Since there is no reason to believe the story of Adam and Eve is true, and every reason to believe it is symbolic, I vote for symbolic.

    It's funny that some have said "It's literally true because God said so." How do they know that God said so? Because it says so in the Bible. And how do they know the Bible is true? Because God said so... right? Makes sense??

    1. profile image61
      paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      They simply misunderstood what the Creator-God Allah YHWH said; but they won't admit it. It is their mistake not of God.

      1. secularist10 profile image85
        secularist10posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        How do you know it is their mistake and not God's?

        1. profile image61
          paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          They don't have the original word of the Creator-God in the origianl language it was revealed; they have a transliteral and hence lost the true meaning; Quran has rectified their misunderstanding.

          1. Paradise7 profile image83
            Paradise7posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Whoa!

          2. secularist10 profile image85
            secularist10posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            So if they used the Bible in its original language, they would have a correct interpretation?

  22. Paradise7 profile image83
    Paradise7posted 7 years ago

    Weirdly enoough, I beleive.  I swallowed the whole line:  hook, line and sinker long ago when I was a little kid, and I find, through all the worldly doubts, that I can't unbelieve, really.


    One gift from the parents, I suppose.

    Besides that, it's such a great story.  Nobody could have made it up!!!  Has all the dramatic elements:  lunacy, hilarity and sorrow.

  23. Denise Handlon profile image91
    Denise Handlonposted 7 years ago

    Symbolic

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      symbolic of what?  God made humans but humans are stuff-ups?

      1. secularist10 profile image85
        secularist10posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Haha. Exactly! And don't forget it's symbolic of the evil effect of women generally, those lusty temptresses.

        Just look at Lindsay Lohan and Courtney Love. If they don't embody evil, I don't know what does.

        1. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          oh, yes...women are the problem in the bible!

 
working