TT,

Thanks for posting, I found it quite interesting!

Please do not take the following points to be insulting, these are just my opinions.

As a devote atheist, I enjoy evaluating near-east mythology, archeology, and biblical archeology. These were some new interpretations to me as well.

I personally prefer a diffeent explanation for why the bible does not fit the archeological evidence (because the bible is just a collection of myths), but it was nice to learn of yet another way to evaluate the discrepancies. I have always found the conventional explanations for how the archeological evidence was 'faked' or similar 'athesist conspiracies' unsatisfying, and not worthy of argument.

I am afraid that most of the arguments presented in the sites linked, are not associated with evidence that can be tested or confirmed, but they are interesting in the thought processes involved.

Thanks again,

Mark

I am afraid that most of the arguments presented in the sites linked, are not associated with evidence that can be tested or confirmed, but they are interesting in the thought processes involved.

Certainly, when you start with the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve, than testing and confirming is going to be a bit difficult. =)

It has been interesting reading and studying different ideas about how the people of the time would have viewed the scripture, and seeing folks devote a lot of serious study into coming up with their ideas. I certainly appreciate their effort.

In these links, the author, IMO, was basically comparing scripture to scripture and comparing those comparisons with other writings of the times to develop a thought of Adam being a historical person without being the "first human". For Christians, this has some relevance, since Jesus is referred to as the 'last Adam'. The author presents the idea that Adam was created for a special purpose, just as Jesus had a special purpose. Hence, the relevance between the two. I found that interesting.

Regardless of the scenario of [1] Adam being the first human, [2] Adam/Eve being allegory, or [3] Adam being the first human to have a relationship with God, there will always be unresolved (perhaps unresolvable) issues.

I agree w/ you that articles/ideas like these are interesting reads.

I personally prefer a diffeent explanation for why the bible does not fit the archeological evidence (because the bible is just a collection of myths),

I don't agree that the Bible is a collection of myths, but certainly understand why folks could reach that conclusion. IMO, in this author's position, he goes to great lengths to find a place for Adam that fits archaeological evidence, including dates of raw material usage, tools, tenchniques, technology, etc.

IMO, one of the biggest "knocks" that non-believers have against the Bible is the concept of a 'Global' flood. From one Biblical perspective/interpretation, the flood was a judgement on all people, therefore the whole world (that tricky Hebrew word 'eretz') was covered with water. With this authors perspective the Mesopatomian flood was universal for Adam's descendents, in that they were all destroyed (save the Noah 8), but that Adam's non-descendents (the people already inhabiting the Earth) were not detroyed in the flood. Interesting how so much hinges on interpretations of what 'eretz' and 'universal' actually mean or are interpreted.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I think the "knock" you mention actually stems from something larger, which is the authenticity or infallibility of the Bible (read: literal word of God). However, I think this larger issue goes beyond just atheists, to a % of Christians, and those people who believe in God but aren't Christians.

My assessment is that many non-Christians (and some Christians as well) are confused by the inerrancy/infallibility/literalism of the Bible as it is portrayed by many Christians, especially when you delve into interpretations of the Bible, multiple translations, or the various meanings of many words in a document that evolved from a history of oral tradition. And then when you add in the element of the various books that are or are not incorporated into different versions of the Bible (based on version, year, denomination, etc) you get a lot of confused people.

And THEN when 2 people can read the same verse and find numerous different interpretations, you get even more confusion. However, or maybe because of all of the above, there is no agreed upon version or interpretation of the Bible. However, I think this is the beauty of the Bible.

For me, studying the Bible has only lead to a snowball effect. Answers beget questions, but all of them are interesting.

I won't remember this with much clarity, but I had dinner with my Mom tonight (yeah, I'm a dork, you wanna fight about it?) and we ended up talking about your post about Adam and the Mitochondrian Eve (seriously, I'm a dork, just accept it).

She said there was a special on PBS, following a book that was printed, about a scientist who did extensive study/research on human DNA (this is where I'll fudge the details) and was able to determine certain lines of DNA from which major races or ethnic groups originated from. He was then able to find people in the world who most closely matched those "master" DNA sequences. So he was able to go to a tribe of Indians in the SW US and show them a picture of the guy in Mongolia who he says they originated from (based on DNA).

I thought this was fascinating. To me, if you can figure this type of stuff out, and then determine the major DNA "originators" and where they came from you could do all sorts of interesting study of social norms, religious practices etc. This is somehow related to a memory in my brain that I heard there was a scientific theory (or maybe working hypothesis) that all peoples originated from Africa.

Through discussion of this though, I was also lead to the thought that "Adam" (or "Eve" based on the mitochondrial analysis) could have been in "Eden" in the continent of Africa, and was then "kicked out" into the greater Middle East / Mesopotamia area. I'm sure someone has thought of this and explored it before, but it was new to me.

"And THEN when 2 people can read the same verse and find numerous different interpretations"

This has always been one of my sticking points about interpretation of the bible. It doesn't even take 2 people to have multiple intrepretations. One person can change interpretations as they see fit.

~Matt

We have a funny debate unfolding in the Letters to the Editor section of our local paper between death penalty supporters and opponents. They are basing their positions strictly (in this debate anyhow) on biblical scripture. One side hurls a verse supporting, the other presents an equally compelling case against. Both are convinced they are correct and believe it is the will of their god. It's disturbing that personal interperetation of a book of fiction is used to justify killing another human being. Sound familiar to you, Osama?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

My assessment is that many non-Christians (and some Christians as well) are confused by the inerrancy/infallibility/literalism of the Bible as it is portrayed by many Christians

When it comes to Biblical literature, I don't think all Christians have the same definitions of "inerrant", "infallible", "literal", etc. Furthermore, what "God breathed" (i.e., inspired) means to one will mean something to another. It can be confusing.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Although your mom didn't completely remember it correctly, she was right (like most moms are).

I encourage you to read up on this. It is truly fascinating Science and I am a firm believer in this theory. I am sure that we soon will be able to anthropologically pinpoint the original Adam(s) not far from the original Eve(s). I have been fortunate to hve been working closely with the scientists who generated those data about the anthropological eves and have been reviewing some of their results.

The name you might be looking for is Prof. Dr. "Douglas C Wallace" ,"mitochondria" and "DNA".

Recently his group has also developed a solid genetic and physiological theory why African runners might have an advantage in long distance running that is not solely based on sociological factors ("running 10m to school every day"). Pure heresy!

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)