Reply Tue 25 Jul, 2006 07:33 pm
I attend a life group on Tuesday, just got back from it actually and the discussion was on women in leadership roles and spirutal leadership. The basis for this discussion was on a sermon in the Church on Sunday and on:

1st Timothy 2:9-13 (NIV)

9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

1 Timothy 2:9-13 (King James Version)
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Now, in order to believe this it's important to believe the story of Adam and Eve. That's where it gets fuzzy in my opinion.

Who believes the Adam and Eve story and why. I'm truly interested in this and it's also an important thing to understand.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,322 • Replies: 80
No top replies

 
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jul, 2006 07:52 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
I have thought that the Adam and Eve story is less historical fact and more of an allegory of what occured in the creation of man. I mentioned this in another post. It is mostly derived from C.S. Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain". I maintain that God created man through the process of evolution, then at a certain point gave him the abilitiy to reason. This is where "Adam and Eve" come from.

Sometime after being given the ability to reason, man (women included)made a choice that was against the wishes of God. This is the fall. When the fall occured God gave man the ability to have a privation from him. (Aquinas rightfully argues that sin is a privation from God) Before the fall man was with God at all times, and therefore immortal. When man fell, they were no longer with God at all times, since they decided to have a privation from him, this is when God gave his rational man mortality. If this is the case, the original sin that we inherited was the ability to die.
PhilosophyForum
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jul, 2006 08:52 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
Back in those days, at one time, women were looked at as property by men. Women were supressed and it still happens today. As the years have passed and we as humans evolved over time, women have come closer and closer to that of being equal to man.

Just 50 years ago, it's was a man's duty and social law of acceptence to be the leader of the family and the bread winner. Today there have been more and more switching of these roles. So far to the point were we may be close to having a woman as the President of our Country.

Back in the Bible it says:

Genesis 1:26-28 (New International Version)
26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."


What was then as compared to what is now are thousands of years, and we've yet to ever really agree on how many. Now, mankind has evolved both physically, mentally, spiritually, intellectually, emotionally, and in every other aspect of life and living. Both man and women have grown over the years and continue to grow. We're sending people to the moon and communicating with people all over the world via the internet. A lot has happened since Timothy wrote those words... and didn't Jesus play a big role freeing women?... Then it was the slaves... and now, closer and closer to balanced equals.

Based on what's happened in the last 20 years with humanity and technology, where we going to be 20 years from now? Maybe we'll be able to teleport rather than take plane?

So back to the subject, the question is wether or not the Adam and Eve story is true. I feel this has to be a foundation for many of those who rely solely on the Bible.

Looking forward to your responses on both the Adam and Eve story and the 1 Timothy Bible context.
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 07:48 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
The Adam and Eve story is interesting as a begining point for Humans. The old question is what was ment then when God said ''go and replenish the earth''? Was it alredy once occupied? Then theres the matter of 'evidence' for man to have lived around the world for something like 100,000 years or so, when the bible puts its origins in around 4500 years ago. I tend to look at 'finds' to establish the origins of man compared to Adam and Eve, but maybe (just maybe) it is true to the exstent the scientific account could be wrong or Adam and Eve were in fact a special 'founding' of Gods creation more advanced than the other speices of human types. This may explain the 'missing link' situation and the so called co-existance of two types of 'humans' of which Neanderthal man died out. Interestingly there are three further points to this; Ancient discs have been found (routhly the size of a plate) in southern Russia and Tibet and China I think which have a writen account of a local tribe called 'Ham' (information on these can be found on the internet). 'Ham' being one of the children of Noah. Secondly, the garden of Eden is supposed to be located in the middle of a mountain region in Kurdishstan I believe, this is by using all the available scriptual (Hebrew original words) descriptions of the place. Lastly (until I remember any other pieces of information) 'the seven day' thing is miss translated or understood, like so many of our common myths today, the Hebrew word used for 'day' in this context actually means period of time! I bet you didnt know that.Also strangly enough for a people who had no proper knowledge of the scientific aspects of their world, the account depiction of the stages that took place are agreed on by scientist as acreate even today, simple as it is.
0 Replies
 
Ragnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 07:56 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
Pilgrimshost wrote:

The old question is what was ment then when God said ''go and replenish the earth''? Was it alredy once occupied? Then theres the matter of 'evidence' for man to have lived around the world for something like 100,000 years or so, when the bible puts its origins in around 4500 years ago.


Actually, God said to Noah and his wife, their sons and their wives to go and replenish the earth, not to Adam and Eve.
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 07:56 pm
@Ragnell,
Same thing.
0 Replies
 
Ragnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 07:58 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
No it's not. Its a difference of like 1,000-1500 years or so.
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 08:03 pm
@Ragnell,
What do you mean exactly, yes Adam was before Noah by, for argument sake 1500 years,but it still refers to the same thing. Are we arguing the same point. At each other?
Ragnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 08:06 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
You said God told Adam and Eve to 'replenish the earth'. I say He did not. He told them to populate the earth, not repopulate, which nulifies your argument of 'was the earth already populated before Adam and Eve because God told them to "replenish" the earth. '"
pilgrimshost
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 08:08 pm
@Ragnell,
Actually nothing has been 'nullified'! You Sir are wrong. If you will refer to an alternative translation, maybe a King James Version.
Baloo72
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 09:48 pm
@pilgrimshost,
I would like to jump in on this. God told both Adam and Eve(Gen. 1:28) and Noah and his sons(Gen. 9:1). If you go to the Hebrew, the word used both times is male'. This is a word that means to fill.
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/replenish.asp
0 Replies
 
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jun, 2007 11:57 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
I have thought that the Adam and Eve story is less historical fact and more of an allegory of what occured in the creation of man. I mentioned this in another post. It is mostly derived from C.S. Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain". I maintain that God created man through the process of evolution, then at a certain point gave him the abilitiy to reason. This is where "Adam and Eve" come from.

Sometime after being given the ability to reason, man (women included)made a choice that was against the wishes of God. This is the fall. When the fall occured God gave man the ability to have a privation from him. (Aquinas rightfully argues that sin is a privation from God) Before the fall man was with God at all times, and therefore immortal. When man fell, they were no longer with God at all times, since they decided to have a privation from him, this is when God gave his rational man mortality. If this is the case, the original sin that we inherited was the ability to die.


I could not agree with you more on this.
I think the Bible infers human evolution by use of the term, "...God formed man...". The use of the word "formed" would imply forethought and a process, and by any other name, that process is evolution. It goes on to say that man was formed from the clay of the earth, which seems to mesh well with the primordial soup model, and also metaphorically from lesser beings.
Then, God breathed the breath of life into man, which I believe was the immortal soul. This, would have set "Adam" apart from the rest of the humans inhabiting earth, making him the first true human. Even the staunchest atheist has to agree humans have a cognitive understanding and creativity, which sets us apart from any other species, including that of our ancient cousin Lucy.
It would also answer some questions, like why does the Bible mention other "men" when there Should only have been Adam and Eve, and who was Cain so afraid of that God put a mark on his head for protection.
0 Replies
 
Baloo72
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 01:50 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
I just decided to look this up, and I found that pilgrimshost is right to a degree in post #4. The Hebrew word is actually yowm. This has many different definitions, and one of them is a period of time. Another is a literal day. The most common usage in the Bible means day as opposed to night. The second most common is a 24 hour period. Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Anyway, on to more recent posts . . .

I don't know why the evolution argument crept into this, but I find it very illogical. Please give me a logical argument for macro evolution (idea that humans came from the primordial soup). Also, I would like to know where it mentions other men when it should only have been Adam and Eve. Cain was afraid of anyone and everyone. "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me." Gen. 4:14 Cain was probably a man when this happened, because after he left and went to Nod, he knew his wife, and she had a son named Enoch. If Cain was a man, there were probably other sons of Adam and Eve. Remember, they weren't just sitting happily in the garden of Eden anymore. They were kicked out to the rest of the world.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 Sorry its been so long since I posted, and please take no offense from anything I say. Smile
Aristoddler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 04:49 pm
@PhilosophyForum,
They had many sons and daughters.
According to scripture, they lived over 400 years after leaving the Garden. That gives room for plenty of babies.

They could have had 16 generations below them, theoretically...before they died.
Even using a simple pyramid method, that would give the population of Earth as they knew it, a whopping 131074 people, at minimum, including Adam and Eve...if they only had started with a boy and a girl, and their offspring doubled each generation.

So yes, he would have plenty of people to hide from, since he was the only murderer in a population of innocents.

That's just my response to the above post...the rest of the thread is interesting, just not something I have time to delve into today. Smile
0 Replies
 
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 10:03 pm
@Baloo72,
Baloo72 wrote:
I just decided to look this up, and I found that pilgrimshost is right to a degree in post #4. The Hebrew word is actually yowm. This has many different definitions, and one of them is a period of time. Another is a literal day. The most common usage in the Bible means day as opposed to night. The second most common is a 24 hour period. Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Anyway, on to more recent posts . . .

I don't know why the evolution argument crept into this, but I find it very illogical. Please give me a logical argument for macro evolution (idea that humans came from the primordial soup). Also, I would like to know where it mentions other men when it should only have been Adam and Eve. Cain was afraid of anyone and everyone. "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me." Gen. 4:14 Cain was probably a man when this happened, because after he left and went to Nod, he knew his wife, and she had a son named Enoch. If Cain was a man, there were probably other sons of Adam and Eve. Remember, they weren't just sitting happily in the garden of Eden anymore. They were kicked out to the rest of the world.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 Sorry its been so long since I posted, and please take no offense from anything I say. Smile


In my opinion, logic dictates that Man came from a lesser material. Science and the Bible agree on this, as the Bible says that God formed man from the clay of the Earth. Scientific theory suggests that is a literal truth in the form of the primordial soup. The problem the two disciplines have is the time-line between the first spark of life in that clay, and the definitive human being.
I simply believe the time-line difference between the two accounts is irrelevant to God. The Bible says to God a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day.

Cain was driven to The Land of Nod, away from Adam and Eve, and took a wife. Abel was replaced by the birth of Seth after his murder.
So who was he afraid of, and who were his in-laws? There had to be other homo-sapiens.
0 Replies
 
Baloo72
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 11:14 am
@PhilosophyForum,
I do agree that man came from "a lesser material" i.e. the clay that God formed us from. I still do not see any logical argument for macro evolution. Almost all proof for macro evolution comes from micro evolution. Micro evolution is simply the minor changes within a species, otherwise known as adaptation. People use this to say that if this happened over billions of years a single cell that was formed in the primordial soup, could become the humans that we are today. I don't see how a cell can form from chance. I know that within an infinite time, anything is possible. There is an example of this that if there was a monkey that lived for an infinite amount of time, and typed randomly on a typewriter forever, he would eventually reproduce Hamlet. Obviously this could happen, but that does not mean that it is going to happen. The cell appears from chance, then that single celled organism reproduces asexually, producing another cell exactly like itself. It does this, and every so often one of them is mutated (it is much more common for sexually reproducing organisms to be mutated than for asexually reproducing organisms). If the mutation makes the cell better, it survives. If it doesn't it dies out. These mutations continue until the cell has become a multicellular organism (please correct me if I am wrong on this part or any part after this, I have never actually heard anyone say how the single cell became multicellular, or what happened just after that). Then this multicellular organism reproduces with another multicellular organism that is like itself (still not really sure about any of this part). This causes more mutations and eventually these mutated multicellular organisms are able to go onto the land. This organism is the ancestor for all modern life today. It mutated and adapted, and through natural selection, became human.

If this really is how the theory goes (I'm not completely sure, please correct me if I am wrong) then the chances of that happening are very very very close to zero.

Also, in context 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." is speaking of Gods promises. This has nothing to do with creation, it is simply saying that God will do what he said that he will do, even after long periods of time.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

And there were other homo sapiens that were walking the earth. They were his brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews. Read Aristoddlers last post.

If I got the theory of evolution wrong (i'm guessing I did) please do not be offended, simply post what the theory says.
Katherine phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 07:29 am
@Baloo72,
There is no evidence for macroevolution. Just a bunch of 'logical' leaps of faith based on microevolution.

But just for thought, who is to say 'our' creation was the first? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. But now, the earth was formless & void & darkness was over the face of the deep.

Would God create the world already formless & void? Does that make sense? Or did something amazing and terrible happen sometime between the beginning and at the time of the 'forming and filling' of the earth in Genesis to make it so?

Just a thought . . .
0 Replies
 
Baloo72
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 09:14 am
@PhilosophyForum,
Well, that is an idea called the gap theory. I personally disagree with it because it shows sin, death, etc before Adam's. Also, the "but now" is not in the King James version, or the original hebrew texts.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The overall picture I get with this (the earth before it is filled) is a giant sphere of water. It is "formless" as in no solid land. It is "void" because it has not been filled with anything yet. The second part of the verse says that the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters.

Just another thought . . .
pokemasterat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 12:54 pm
@Baloo72,
Do you all understand how huge the universe is? Let's say that the chance of a complex chemical reaction (life) happening to occur is 1 out of 1,000,000,000,000,000. That's 0.0000000000000001. Does that seem reasonable?
Quote:

What is the total number of galaxies in the universe? Sagan assumed 100 billion. Is that still valid? Recently the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) surveyed, to the faintest levels yet detected, a small area of sky. Extrapolating from the number of galaxies detected by HST to that expected over the whole sky, I calculate 130 billion galaxies, slightly larger than Sagans estimate. Then the number of stars in the universe is 400 billion x 130 billion, or about 50,000 billion billion. A billion billion. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. So, grasp the concept of a billion billion, then think of 50 thousand of those. Easy!
That's according to this website.
Let's say there are 5 planets on average to a star. Now, let's see how slim these chances are for life to occur. 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 250,000 planets that can possibly sustain life. And that's with a 1 out of a quintillion chance of a planet being inhabitable, which could be deemed way too generous for reality. It's probably a larger chance, but I'll settle with 250,000 planets that can harbor life.
0 Replies
 
Katherine phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 01:34 pm
@Baloo72,
Baloo72 wrote:
Well, that is an idea called the gap theory. I personally disagree with it because it shows sin, death, etc before Adam's.


That's an interesting problem! Good response.

Quote:
Also, the "but now" is not in the King James version, or the original hebrew texts.


You are correct. I assumed the NIV got that from the tense of the following verb 'was'. It's interesting none the less.

Quote:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


This is actually where my thought process started. The word translated into 'formless & void' is thought to be one of the most negative words known to man. It is also translated as 'utter desolation'. Why would God attribute such a terrible description to a world that is simply incomplete? Of course we don't know. But it is fun to think about. Thank you for your comments!

Actually, the Bible holds so much more truth than in the realm of the logical & literal. The great truth of Creation is this:

Quote:

Then God said, "Let us create Katherine in our image, in our likeness, and let her rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air . . . So God created Katherine in His own image, in the image of God, He created her.

Then God blessed Katherine and said to her, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. And rule over it."


Put your name in there . . . that is the truth of creation!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Adam and Eve
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 06:11:44