www.theglobeandmail.com
If God made Adam in his Likeness with a dick and had not yet made Eve or considered the need for human procreation, God and Adam must have both liked to jerk off. Or bugger lions, tigers, bears and monkeys.You are making a case that your progenitors may not have in fact, partaken of the tree of knowledge.
Obviously, the story of Adam and Eve requires some interpretation on the part of the reader. If Adam existed in the world before Eve, Adam would have had no need of any sexuality. It is more reasonable to interpret that in creating Eve, God created male and female sexuality in humans at the same time, from the same materials. In that light, the creation of Eve is not derivative of Adam, but rather is a redesign of the human species for sexual reproduction. The rib is only symbolic of the materials used to create humankind. (Of course, men and women, biologically, have the same number of ribs.)
As to the generations that followed, Eve had 3 sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. While Cain fathered Enoch, that line perished. Seth is said to have fathered many surviving offspring. Seth is said to have married his sister, Of course, human genetics have changed greatly over the centuries. Perhaps birth defects were not so prevelant among children born of closely related parents at that time. Not to mention the whole "God overseeing the whole operation" aspect! In any event, if you can believe in a creator, surely it is not much more to believe that the original genetics designed by the creator could allow for successful procreation among the closely related. Noah and his family are said to be descendants of Seth, and thus Seth is the progenitor of all mankind which survived the flood.
I don't believe the Bible is a text book, but it might have more information in it that you give it credit for. Atheists can say they believe in evolution, but does anyone claim to know what caused the creation of even the first single celled organisms at the beginning of evolution's chain? I don't think so.
According to the Bible, God made MAN (whatever the original scripture meant by whatever word it actually used) in his likeness. Perhaps Adam and Eve are Rev 1, not MAN. Perhaps MAN had no sexual organs before the creation of Eve? God/Nature did create some species that reproduce asexually (despite your preference to bifurcate sexuality between heterosexual and homosexual sex acts, the latter having nothing to do with reproduction).
You are making a case that your progenitors may not have in fact, partaken of the tree of knowledge.
Obviously, the story of Adam and Eve requires some interpretation on the part of the reader. If Adam existed in the world before Eve, Adam would have had no need of any sexuality. It is more reasonable to interpret that in creating Eve, God created male and female sexuality in humans at the same time, from the same materials. In that light, the creation of Eve is not derivative of Adam, but rather is a redesign of the human species for sexual reproduction. The rib is only symbolic of the materials used to create humankind. (Of course, men and women, biologically, have the same number of ribs.)
As to the generations that followed, Eve had 3 sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. While Cain fathered Enoch, that line perished. Seth is said to have fathered many surviving offspring. Seth is said to have married his sister, Of course, human genetics have changed greatly over the centuries. Perhaps birth defects were not so prevelant among children born of closely related parents at that time. Not to mention the whole "God overseeing the whole operation" aspect! In any event, if you can believe in a creator, surely it is not much more to believe that the original genetics designed by the creator could allow for successful procreation among the closely related. Noah and his family are said to be descendants of Seth, and thus Seth is the progenitor of all mankind which survived the flood.
I don't believe the Bible is a text book, but it might have more information in it that you give it credit for. Atheists can say they believe in evolution, but does anyone claim to know what caused the creation of even the first single celled organisms at the beginning of evolution's chain? I don't think so.
The biblical narrative also says that they lived a thousand years. You can have a LOT of children in a thousand years.You are making a case that your progenitors may not have in fact, partaken of the tree of knowledge.
Obviously, the story of Adam and Eve requires some interpretation on the part of the reader. If Adam existed in the world before Eve, Adam would have had no need of any sexuality. It is more reasonable to interpret that in creating Eve, God created male and female sexuality in humans at the same time, from the same materials. In that light, the creation of Eve is not derivative of Adam, but rather is a redesign of the human species for sexual reproduction. The rib is only symbolic of the materials used to create humankind. (Of course, men and women, biologically, have the same number of ribs.)
As to the generations that followed, Eve had 3 sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. While Cain fathered Enoch, that line perished. Seth is said to have fathered many surviving offspring. Seth is said to have married his sister, Of course, human genetics have changed greatly over the centuries. Perhaps birth defects were not so prevelant among children born of closely related parents at that time. Not to mention the whole "God overseeing the whole operation" aspect! In any event, if you can believe in a creator, surely it is not much more to believe that the original genetics designed by the creator could allow for successful procreation among the closely related. Noah and his family are said to be descendants of Seth, and thus Seth is the progenitor of all mankind which survived the flood.
I don't believe the Bible is a text book, but it might have more information in it that you give it credit for. Atheists can say they believe in evolution, but does anyone claim to know what caused the creation of even the first single celled organisms at the beginning of evolution's chain? I don't think so.
Are you suggesting that the writers of the Bible didn't intend for it to be taken literally?
The author(s)/editors/translators of Genesis were not eyewitnesses to creation. There is a lot of room for symbolism/imagery/allegory in their account of the revelation they purport to record. Imagine a child trying to describe a PhD thesis in their own words.
The idea the bible is the literal truth has only been the view of some sects at some times.
Didn't say anything about priests and alter boys however so are we to assume that is OK?
