Where do the dinosaurs fit into the Bible?

Satan was given "certain control"? Not that I believe the Bible is the literal truth, but where does it say that?

This doesn't answer my question. It does not say that Jesus has to be the ruler of a person's life in order for that person to go to heaven. And the things in brackets are just confusing. Considering that New Testament Greek didn't have brackets, who put those in and are they part of the original text or some one trying to clarify things?



Still doesn't say Jesus has to be the ruler of your life. And it seems to say that the Father and Jesus are separate persons. Which wouldn't conflict with John 10:30 quoted above if you read it to mean I and the Father are together, or of the same mind in this matter. And it confirms what Isaiah says below, "For I am God and there IS NO OTHER."




Isaiah is talking about God, not Jesus. This could be used to show that Jesus is not God, for it clearly states "there is no other."




These are quotes from Paul, not Jesus. Where did Jesus say that he has to be the Ruler of your Life?



This shows that you have to follow the will of God to get into heaven, not, as you claim, just believe in Jesus. And, again, Jesus clearly separates himself from God.




See, "you who act wickedly" are excluded from heaven. The editor who put the stuff in brackets believes that means disregarding Jesus' commands, but Jesus very clearly says it's God's commands, not his that have to be followed.



That is a false analogy. When American leaders commit atrocities no one says, "Yeah, but they weren't really Americans." When Christians commit atrocities other Christians routinely say "Yeah, but they weren't really Christian."



Another false analogy. My argument is simply that when a religion declares that only it's adherents will go to heaven and that all others will go to hell it creates the social and psychological atmosphere that allows such atrocities to be committed. It becomes acceptable to do harm to those that God is going to send to hell anyway. It doesn't matter if it's Muslims or Christians, the same religious xenophobia leads to the same atrocities.



The Crusades were a series of religious wars. The same Bible that encouraged the Hebrews to conquer the "Holy Land" was used, by Christians, to encourage other Christians to go to war to free the "Holy Land" from the infidels. To say that the crusades were no about religion shows a stunning lack of understanding of history.

And still, where is the Garden of Eden, why hasn't anyone in 3000 years seen the angel with the big burning sword. Shouldn't it be a tourist attraction by now? And, the question of questions, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is literally true?

Oh, wait, while we're on silly questions, how is it possible that we send spacecraft through the firmament of heaven? After all a firmament is a solid structure, how can the shuttle get through? And why isn't there water on the other side of the sky like Genesis says there is? And how could there have been day and night before God created the sun? If Adam and Eve were the first people where did their sons- and daughters-in-law come from? Did God secretly create other people outside the Garden of Eden just after he created Adam and Eve? And how did all those marsupials end up in Australia after the flood? Since the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat, who transported all those marsupials to Australia?

Whoah, which "intellectuals" think the New Testament was written in Aramaic? And what does it mean when you say "when the KJV was translated, Aramaic was used in both the New and Old Testaments"? Used how? The New Testament was translated into English from Greek. Not Aramaic. Not the language Jesus spoke. And to clarify things a little, Chaldean is another word for Aramaic.

I love the raft of assumptions here. God lets people die in agony because it alleviates his boredom? Or does God let people die in agony because it gives other people the chance to earn brownie points? In my morality if you can stop some one from suffering and you choose not to, that's evil. If God is Good as so many people say he wouldn't let evil happen. If he isn't good then he isn't worth worshipping. Or, maybe there is no god at all and that solves the conundrum nicely.

Blasphemer!

Well, everybody knows that The Bird is The Word!
Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow

Sorry Hiro, I got side tracked last night and ran out of time before I could respond to you, and have a limited amount of time at the moment...

That is a hard one for me. The Bible clearly teaches that incest is wrong, but I do not see any other choice.

Some Christians will say there were others already here, but that would falsify the first part of the Genesis account (and most of those Christians will conveniently forget about that).

The only consolation that I can come up with is that our blood lines to that point were so pure that incest would not have been a problem physically. You know, I'm sure, that brother and sister dogs may breed without any physical deformities, but the more this is done over time, the higher the risk for such.

As a side note, I have an observation / question:
All things deteriorate over time, including our DNA pool. Do you think maybe God set it up that way knowing that we humans would stick to what was familiar and comfortable. By doing this, He forced us to reach out and depend upon those that we are not intimately close to from birth?

Well, that is one of those points that I will have to agree to disagree on. Not that I claim your belief is wrong, but I have not been convinced of such through science. I do believe that the basic life structures (man, dogs, cats, birds, fish, horses, etc) where created by God, and evolved to what we see today.

We know he has the power to deceive man (that would be the control he has over man I'm talking about 'certain" control, or limited), and being cast down to Earth, with all his minions, he knows he has limited time. Then we see the warning to all who inhabite the Earth.

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

I think we can stop this nonsense. Ulrika, Kendra, Kevn, I may need some help here. Lets get the flames a blazin'!

No, wait guys (and Jeska), I am just kidding.
I agree. Jesus said that we (gentiles or non-Jews) would be grafted into the vine through Him. There are references in the Old Testament about the Jewish nation being the light of the world that would call gentiles to God as well.

I agree as well, but I am not sure God does. I do not claim to fully understand it, but the Bible says that God is fair and just. I believe that. I think He will make the right call. If that means Buddhist monk's will make it to Heaven, so be it. It is not my job as a Christian to make the judgement of eternal destiny, but rather to spread the Word of God to the ends of the Earth.

The Bible seems to be pretty clear that without Jesus as a mediator between us and God that we will go to hell. But I always go back to God being fair and just. I have a hard time in my mind condemning those who seem to be so good, but again, it is not my call to make.

Well, as a Christian, I am lead not to agree with you here. I do not think any human will have ultimate truth until we are in Heaven with God. To me, ultimate truth is much like a rainbow end. We see it so close, but the closer we get the further it appears to be.

As far as trying to get to Heaven by any other means than Jesus, well, refer to the previous paragraph.

Two things,

First the Hebrew word used in Genesis that means day has also been interpreted by scholars to mean year, and in hebrew it IS the same word used for day and year. I personally take the bible literally except when you read the context and there is reason to take it any other way. Thats why we had to learn context understanding in Elementary school so that we could understand a paragraph based on the words and sentences around it.

Taken from direct translation from the hebrew here is Genesis Chapter 1: Creation. My source is The Interlinear Bible in Hebrew, Greek, and English published by Sovereign Grace Publishers:

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; 2 and the earth being without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters, 3 then God said, Let light be-and there was light, 4 And God saw the light, that it was good, and God seperated between the light and the darkness, 5 And God called the light Day, And he called the darkeness Night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day/year. (added year as its in the footnote at the bottom saying word for day is also word for year.)

6 And God said, Let and expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it divide between the waters and the waters. 7 And Godmade the expanse, and He separated between the waters which were under the expanse and the waters which were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse, Heavens, And there was evending, and there was morning the second day/year.

Etc etc etc

I wrote that so that yall could see the difference between a direct translation of the original words written and the words you have in your KJV NIV ASVB.

We must remember when reading from our bibles that the KJV was commision to be written by King James the I and IV of England Scotland and Ireland, hence it is named King James Version Bible. That translation was taken from Latin text of the bible, and at this very tumultious time, if the priests translateing the bible translated something that went agaisnt the doctrine of the Church of England, as King James was the head of the church, it would have been very bad for those priests, cause it was likely the King would have had them beheaded. The final print of the KJV was in 1611. Now as we all now when you go from one language to another to another, many things can be lost in translation. I mean just take an English text translate it to Spanish, then French, then Russian, then Japanese, then back to English and it will show a great bit of change, not to mention that "Hey if you translate something I dont like im going to Chop of your head."

So many things in our current bibles may be misinterrpreted, does that make them wrong no, but that just means to truely study the bible doesnt just mean read your bible it means to converse with God himself, commune with Him, find others interrpretations of what is written there, then develop your own based on your commitment to God and Jesus.

As for dinosaurs in the bible, they are there IMO. In the bible, The behemouth and the Leviathian based on the visual descriptions given of them are dinosaurs.
Taken from same as before

Job 40:15-23

15 Now behold Behemoth, which I made along with you; he eawts grass like an ox; 16 see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force in the muscles of his belly; 17 he hangs his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together; 18 his bones are like tubes of bronze; his bones like bars of iron 19 he is the first inthe ways of God; his Maker brings near his sword, 20 For the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there, 21 He lies under the lotus, in the hiding-place of the reed and the marsh; 22 the lotus trees cover him in its shadow; the willows in the brook circle him. 23 Behold the flood presses, but he does not run away; he is confident, even if Jordan burst forth against his mouth.

Job 41 1-10

1 Can you draw out the leviathan with a hook, or hold down his tongue with a cord? 2 Can you put a reed rope into his nose, or pierce his jaw with a thorn? 3 Will he multiply pleas for help to you; or will he speak soft words to you? 4 Will he cut a covenant with you; will you take him for a slave forever? 5 Will you play with him as a bird; or will you tie him up for your maidens? 6 Shall your partners bargain over him; shall the ydivide him among the merchants? 7 Can you fill his skin with barbed irons or his head with fishing spears? 8 Put your hand on him; remember the battle; you will not do it again! 9 Behold his hope has been made false; will he not be cast down at the sight of him? 10 None is so fierce as to dare to stir him up; who then is able to stand before me?

Those verses are God talking to Job, if you know the book of Job you know that Job is going through a bit of a tough time and at this point is very close to turning his back on God, and in one of Jobs pleas to God for help this was part of Gods answer to him. Much must be taken into context if you want the full meaning of these verses. But going by descriptions alone that God gives for these animals, and knowing that Job is human. Says to me that there are dinsaurs and they did walk the earth with man.

If you want more info on Creation and Dinosaurs in the bible check out this web site,

http://www.creationevidence.org/

That museum is in my home town where i grew up in Texas and is run by a man named Dr. Carl Baugh. The man uses science and actual real world evidence to dispute evolution and credit Creation.

I have no problem with people believeing anything however they want, I just want people to be able to interpret things for themselves and not just take what people tell them and say "OK"

hope this helps.

Wow! Actual real-world evidence.

Cognitive dissonance drives people to create pseudoscience in an attempt to reconcile the incongruity of religious mythology and science.

Your god does not exist.

~Ulrika~

Excellent question

At the risk of spawning a backlash of comments from non-believers, as a believer I will give you a scriptural explaination, rather than a "what the church teaches" one.

Well Scripture says that "One day is as a Thousand Years, and a Thousand Years is as a day". While some will debate as to when to take literal or relative, the real point is that a chronological time line is irrelevent in God's eyes, and we shouldn't question as to when or how God moves but that we need to just believe he does.

As to dinosaurs; Jesus can be quoted (Isaiah 14:12-14) as witnessing Satan's fall from heaven before man came onto the scene. It could be safe to consider that this event occured about the time dinosaurs existed. You might be able to say it was this event that caused their extinction, but all of this is not given much reference because as Deteronomy 29:29 says "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things reveled belong to us and our children forever..." meaning that only God knows.

I would immagine (note that I use the word "immagine" that a massive influx of evil spirit beings being cast down to earth could cause a tangable effect to this planet. The Bible doesn't really say, but it doesnt refute it either.

I wouldn't doubt that Demons moving through the earth with no one to answer to, would totally destroy a planet... ie the Ice Age...

It was when God created Adam and Eve in his image (please note that this doen't mean that we physically look like God, but that we are also Spiritual beings), and Man was given charge or rule over the planet, that Satan's destructive force was stopped.

I find it interesting that Satan tempted as a serpant, and God cursed him to crawl on his belly... was that when the last dinosaur existed? Was He a possesed lizard? Deuteronomy 29:29 again...

It was when Adam and Eve sinned that Satan basically took from them charge of the planet, and thus the necessity for Jesus to come and restore the authority back to Man through salvation, as well as restore the chance for Man to "hang" with the Father again.
This action rendered Satan powerless again to destroy.

I could go into much more detail, but will spare you the indepth Bible Study. I hope this answers your question...

You are right Michael, it does not say those words, but it does in fact say that in meaning. If I say I am held to the earth by natural forces, does that mean that gravity does not exist because I did not use that word? No.

...I and the Father are One...
...For I am God, and there is no other...
...yet you do not believe Me [you do not trust Me and rely on Me]...
...and I know them, and they follow Me...
...no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me...
...unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear [allegiance]...

Take it as you will, but to me (and many people, both Christian and non), it is quite clear.

Isaiah is a quote from Paul? Are you serious? I bet the Jewish followers of God would have some words for you on this one...

What do you think the will of the Father is? The Bible says that it is to call Jesus your Lord. To accept Him as your personal Savior. The triune God is a hard concept, no doubt, but it is there. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Three separate entities and at the same time one.

If you are truly concerned with this Michael, I would strongly suggest you sit down with a Bible translation of your choice and read it. While the 'trinity' is never spoken in the Bible, the concept is well established both in the Old and New Testaments.

Firstly, the "Yeah, but they weren't really Americans" is absolutely false. Just take a look in these forums, and I bet you will find well over 100 such instances.

Did I say anything about them not being Christians? Christians are just as fallible as any one. But, being a Christian, the world looks much more critically at them (as they should), because we claim that we are going to try to follow the edicts that Jesus laid before us.

Further, just because someone has accepted Jesus as their Savior and now lays claim to the name Christian, does not mean that they will be sinless or use the Bible correctly. When I commit a sin (which I do regularly), that does preclude me from calling myself a Christian. I am to ask for forgiveness, make things right with those offended, and go on. This has been a flogging point of non-Christians since the inception of The Way (again, rightly so in many cases).

I will certainly admit that some who claim to be Christian I have my doubts about, but I am not to judge them. However, I certainly am to judge their actions. When someone uses the Bible to espouse hatred of someone else, I, as a Christian, have every right to tell them they are wrong. I have every right to show the world the Bible and say that they are NOT following the Book they claim to be following. And, I have every right to disassociate myself and Christianity from them.

So, you are saying that because Saddam Hussein was not religious that he did not commit atrocities? I think you analysis is completely wrong. Humans, as a whole, do a lot of bad things a lot of the time (Christians certainly included here). To try to blame it on a religion is wrong. If religion was not there, the offender would find another means to offend. Humans are pigs in a world designed for doves (you can quote me on that one )

Put two two year olds in a room with one toy. I guarantee you there will be a fight in short order. Was there a religion involved there?

As far as "acceptable to do harm to those that God is going to send to hell", nothing could be farther from the truth (at least Biblically). Jesus said we are to love not only our friends, but our enemies. How does that coincide with doing harm to them?

I will give you the first crusade (maybe, but that is a long discussion in and of itself), but the rest of them were not about religion. Do you honestly think that Jesus would have cared where His followers lived? It was more about taking land back that the leaders wanted and felt was rightfully theirs. It was about power. It was about hatred. It was about revenge. It was about propaganda. It was not about Jesus.

Do you think that possibly the flood destroyed this garden? And since the garden was no longer there, that the cherubim were no longer needed there? I have not really studied about this in depth, but both seem quite plausible to me.

I don't believe it states this, but as a history text, it is certainly implied. It clearly states that it is the Word of God though. Why would I take His Word any way but literally? Would it make any difference to you if it did say such? If not, why are you arguing this point?

Maybe that firmament is no longer there, after all, it was opened, right?

Genesis 1:6-8 (AMP)
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament [the expanse of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below] from the waters [above].
7 And God made the firmament [the expanse] and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. And it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heavens. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Genesis 7:11-12 (AMP)
11 In the year 600 of Noah's life, in the seventeenth day of the second month, that same day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up and burst forth, and the windows and floodgates of the heavens were opened.
12 And it rained upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Sorry, I am being lazy here...
Genesis 7:11 (Adam Clarke's Commentary)
...By the opening of the windows of heaven is probably meant the precipitating all the aqueous vapours which were suspended in the whole atmosphere, so that, as Moses expresses it, Genesis 1:7, the waters that were above the firmament were again united to the waters which were below the firmarment, from which on the second day of creation they had been separated. A multitude of facts have proved that water itself is composed of two airs, oxygen and hydrogen and that 85 parts of the first and 15 of the last making 100 in the whole, will produce exactly 100 parts of water. And thus it is found that these two airs form the constituent parts of water in the above proportions. The electric spark, which is the same as lightning, passing through these airs, decomposes them and converts them to water. And to this cause we may probably attribute the rain which immediately follows the flash of lightning and peal of thunder...

Genesis 7:11-12 (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible)
...The windows of heaven were opened, and the waters which were above the firmament were poured out upon the world; those treasures which God has reserved against the time of trouble, the day of battle and war, Job 38:22,33. The rain, which ordinarily descends in drops, then came down in streams, or spouts, as they call them in the Indies, where clouds have been often known to burst, as they express it there, when the rain descends in a much more violent torrent than we have ever seen in the greatest shower. We read (Job 26: that God binds up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them; but now the bond was loosed, the cloud was rent, and such rains descended as were never known before nor since, in such abundance and of such continuance: the thick cloud was not, as ordinarily it is, wearied with waterings (Job 37:11), that is, soon spent and exhausted; but still the clouds returned after the rain, and the divine power brought in fresh recruits. It rained, without intermission or abatement, forty days and forty nights (v. 12), and that upon the whole earth at once, not, as sometimes, upon one city and not upon another. God made the world in six days, but he was forty days in destroying it; for he is slow to anger: but, though the destruction came slowly and gradually, yet it came effectually...


Because He said so... I do not have a more definitive answer than that.

Genesis 1:2-5 (Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament)
...Speaking is the revelation of thought; the creation, the realization of the thoughts of God, a freely accomplished act of the absolute Spirit, and not an emanation of creatures from the divine essence. The first thing created by the divine Word was "light," the elementary light, or light-material, in distinction from the "lights," or light-bearers, bodies of light, as the sun, moon, and stars, created on the fourth day, are called. It is now a generally accepted truth of natural science, that the light does not spring from the sun and stars, but that the sun itself is a dark body, and the light proceeds from an atmosphere which surrounds it. Light was the first thing called forth, and separated from the dark chaos by the creative mandate, "Let there be," - the first radiation of the life breathed into it by the Spirit of God, inasmuch as it is the fundamental condition of all organic life in the world, and without light and the warmth which flows from it no plant or animal could thrive...

Incest and no (not in my opinion anyway). See my reply to Hiro in post 279.

There are many possibilities for this. Take a look at this page, as it explains it much more elegantly than I could. But why do you bring up marsupials? Why not ask how man got to the Americas?

Sorry if I come off that way sometimes Zuzu. I really do not feel that anyone must listen to me (heck, seems that I don't listen to myself sometimes according to my cherished wife )

And, I am pretty sure I do not worship the Bible, although I do worship the Word of God. Just thought I would throw that in there to confuse things... (See John 1:1-5,14-18 for clarification)

I agree with Desmond.

There are plenty of quotes from the Gospels where Jesus encourages spreading his teachings and "The Word". I think that is one of the big revolutionary thoughts from Jesus' teachings - that religion is something that should be accessable to everyone, and not just "the chosen people" or "the clean" - that everyone can become in touch with god / the spirit.

Amen to that.

Imagine there's a ruler of a country somewhere on the Earth. He raised it up from nothing into a thriving metropolis. He gave his people a set of values that were seen as good and compassionate. Everyone agreed he was a great king. But... he has decreed that at some point in the future he will give his most faithful followers fourty acres and a mule, and horribly torture the rest of them.

As a citizen of that land, are you okay with that? Do you shrug and say "that's just the way it is" and be happy believing that you'll be one of the ones to to receive the free land? Are the lives of all your fellow citizens less important than a free mule? A moral person wouldn't accept that arrangement, no matter how valuable the prize.

- The Eastern Orthodox Church
- the Syrian Orthodox Church
- Josephus

There are other interesting facts about Aramaic (from here):


Here is a page on it.

It was translated into many, many languages. The authors of the KJV felt it vital to access as many opinions on the Scriptures as possible. Their making of the KJV NT was not solely based on the Greek by any stretch. See page above.

Well, I guess you could say that in a very liberal way. But the Chaldeans had there own form of Aramaic, as did the Jewish nation. Here is a page with more information on it.

One of the most difficult things to grasp is why bad things happen to good people - or more simply - why there is injustice in the world.

The Adam & Eve story is allegory - mankind has the opportunity to live in ignorance and be happy, but because man has exerted free will, we as a race have chosen to know, and to be aware - sentient. It is through this choice that we experience suffering. It is also through this choice that we experience joy and accomplishment and meaning.

If everything in life were easy, there would be no meaning. But more importantly - we choose this meaning. It's sort of the resolution of the Matrix movies - people can choose to be blind, enjoy life in The Matrix, and live life essentially without meaning, or people can choose to live in the real world, where things are difficult, and life is a challenge.

It says in Genesis that humankind is given free will, and the option to choose paradise over knowledge. We chose knowledge. Wouldn't it be worse if God removed that choice, and we had no free will at all? And so our suffering is a consequence of our free will - which is the greatest gift any god / parent can give to children - freedom.

Just a quick personal observation:

When I was not yet a believer, my mother and father in-law took my wife and I to a Bible book store. I was looking around and picked up a Bible. It had 3 columns (2 with text and 1 with a bunch of numbers and letters) and then a bunch of writing at the bottom of each page. I honestly could not read it. I stood there for 15 minutes or so trying to.

3 years later, I picked up a similar Bible and understood it completely. I had since been saved.

I am not claiming as fact that my salvation status changed my reading abilities, but that is my best guess.

If this is the case, why would God have made it indecipherable to me? I don't have an answer except that all things work for the glory of God.

While I can't say that I agree with it all, that was an excellent post Hiro. Can I hire you to be my post editor from now on? Just read my ramblings, clean them up, repackage them, and send them out!

DNA strengthens as it diversifies. There is no "purity" in DNA - as we see in a variety of examples, one strength could be a weakness to another.

- Carriers of sickle cell anemia are resistant to malaria.
- Nappy hair is more ideal for hot climates, but is less protective in cold climates.
- Tall lean bodies are ideal for running, hunting food, etc, but squatter, fatter bodies are better in cold climates to preserve heat.
- The appendix is an organ that has de-evolved over time due to lack of use. Formerly it was used to help process rougher foods, but ever since cooking developed, it is largely unneeded.

These are all examples of how DNA coding can be useful in one circumstance, and not useful in another.

Having disproven the idea of a "perfect" DNA - you say "but that would falsify the first part of the Genesis account" but what I originally stated was that it would not! There is nothing in the Bible that says the wives of Adam & Eve's children came from the same family. Going by a unified Bible/evolution perspective, it would make perfect sense that these other people were simply part of the evolutionary process.

But personally, as I stated in the post just above this, I believe Adam & Eve is just another allegory for the human condition. Adam & Eve represent an evolutionary step where the man-ape becomes sentient of right and wrong, and leaves its animal qualities behind. It is truly an unexplained, revolutionary step in evolution - how an animal can go from being for self-interest and survival, to having a sense of empathy that goes beyond a simple pity.

Modern chimps show many signs of this empathy - not only in captivity, but in the wild. It's hard to deny - these are our close cousins.

I find it very strange that you would go to such great length to justify incest, which is explicitly stated as wrong in The Bible, rather than to integrate an idea of evolution - which is never stated by God to be false

Great quote - references to "the vine" are especially fascinating to me, because of their double entendre of communion and bloodline. Without going too far into "Da Vinci Code" ruminations of a holy bloodline, winemaking is very similar to natural selection. Winemaking is an ancient art, and the DNA of the modern grape families is extremely diverse and evolved due to literally thousands of years of selections by winemakers. So when Jesus speaks at the supper before his crucifixtion about giving his blood, symbolized by the wine. Not only is the image of red wine look appropriate, but the tradition of winemaking makes it very appropriate.


I think that's a decent attitude.


In perception, perhaps, yet we also realize that the rainbow really has no end - it's a circle.

Haw! Thanks.

We seek Truth, and we arrive at different understandings using different processes. These understandings are not Truth in itself, merely a reflection, an approximation, a waypoint en route to the answers. The main thing that anyone - whether scientist or theologin - should understand is to never presume that they know Truth absolutely.

So, you are surmising that Adam & Eve were 'planted' in the garden at the proper time (in relation to evolution)? So, when they got kicked out, there would be others for their children to copulate with?

I am not particularly familiar with the 'signs of empathy'. Do you by chance have any links off hand?

I did a quick google on it and came up with this as the first hit: Uncaring Chimps May Shed Light on Humans, Study Says

To be fair, I also found this in the list: EMPATHY MAKES APES' YAWNING CONTAGIOUS

And if you can't sleep or just love sciencese (but there is a lot of good information here if you can weed your way through it, at least to me): INTENTIONAL RELATIONS AND SOCIAL UNDERSTANDING
Well, I was not really justifying it, per se, just making a guess at why it was allowed. Please don't take that as a real reason for it, as I have seen no authoritative documentation on it, nor did God tell me who the 'others' were.

While compiling my response, something just came to mind. If we are all descendants of Adam, then we all must have come from his seed. Not an outside source...

-----------------------------

I have yet another question (for anyone). Did you notice that while still in the garden, when God condemned Eve for her actions, He made reference to child birth. Yet, no children had been talked about before. Would there not have been children if no sin had taken place, or were the previous children just not mentioned?

Yeah, that's about it - again - that's assuming Adam and Eve were specific people, and not an allegory for humankind in general. I think both interpretations can work.


Links? No. I've heard / read about stories of chimps rescuing people (Dolphins do this, too), and chimp "family" behaviors are pretty shockingly humanlike.


One word: Ew.

It seems to me that religion arose in society primarily to close the gap between two facts of life.

#1, we are (to varying degrees) self-aware. We have pretty good semantic capabilities, and these give rise to a socially-defined self, and high-order consciousness. The vast majority of conscious animals are only aware of the present, but we have direct recall of the past and we are aware of the idea of a future that exists more than a few minutes from now. Because of this, we know many things that other animals cannot, including the fact that we WILL die.

#2, we don't want to die. We want to continue living forever, with the exception of relatively few people who would like to do themselves in.

Human consciousness abhors loose ends like this - it tries to resolve everything into a stable configuration. Hence, cognitive dissonance. Hence, believing things because it is easier to do that than face the alternative.

I used to be religious, but these days it is difficult for me to believe any of it.