creationism is the truth

last SG · 2006-09-25T20:40:30+00:00

I didn't know Jehovah witnesses were banned in Singapore. There're plenty serving their NS in the DB...

Icemoon SG

The heart was not taken because God wanted Eve to be independent from Adam. Wink

If you take the heart or brain, symbolically it means Eve is going to think or feel like Adam?

Icemoon SG

Actually when you try to link modern anatomy with Genesis together, alarm bells should have started to ring.

Though 'ribs' is the translation we find in our bible, there could be alternate translations as well (but they don't deviate too much).

For example, the great Jewish commentator Rashi thought it should be translated as 'sides'.

In this, Strong's Hebrew dictionary and concordance is in agreement. There is no contradiction. Look up for Strong's number 6763:

According to the concordance, 6763 was tagged in the following places:

another
Eze 41:6

beams
1 Ki 7:3

boards
1 Ki 6:15, 1 Ki 6:16

chamber
1 Ki 6:8, Eze 41:5, Eze 41:9

chambers
1 Ki 6:5, Eze 41:6, Eze 41:6, Eze 41:7, Eze 41:8, Eze 41:9, Eze 41:11, Eze 41:26

corners
Exo 30:4, Exo 37:27

halting
Jer 20:10

leaves
1 Ki 6:34

planks
1 Ki 6:15

rib
Gen 2:22

ribs
Gen 2:21

side
Exo 25:12, Exo 25:12, Exo 26:20, Exo 26:26, Exo 26:27, Exo 26:27, Exo 26:35, Exo 26:35, Exo 36:25, Exo 36:31, Exo 36:32, Exo 37:3, Exo 37:3, 2 Sam 16:13, Job 18:12

sides
Exo 25:14, Exo 27:7, Exo 37:5, Exo 38:7

The dictionary explains it as:

or (feminine) tsalTah {tsal-aw'}; from 'tsala`' (6760); a rib (as curved), literally (of the body) or figuratively (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, literally (of a person) or figuratively (of an object or the sky, i.e. quarter); architecturally, a (especially floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collective, i.e. a flooring):--beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).

Icemoon SG

So I think it is quite senseless to debate whether Eve came from Adam's ribs or his lats. Genesis is telling us - Eve came from Adam, as opposed to being a new creation.

The Jewish tradition still applies, however, because it is telling us Eve was formed from some anatomy close to Adam's heart and it is not on top or at the bottom of the body.

I don't think there is anything illogical about this, that Eve came from Adam?

kaister SG

You do not take the heart cos' it would mean that Eve will feel/think the same as Adam? Shocked

It seems tough for me to understand that Adam would love a piece of his rib more than a piece of his heart. It's less romantic and has less significance in terms of symbolism.

Also, to infer that if she was created with Adam's heart, Eve would think and feel like Adam is pure speculation. It is like trying to twist the symbolism in the favour of explaining why God took the non-functional, less-symbolic, less-poetic rib from Adam in his sleep.

All that trouble when God could just, in his almighty powers, create Eve from anything he wants.

In the end, God didn't create Eve out of nothing. Cos' he wanted the symbolism of love and equality of status to be represented by a rib. The discussion would never end cos' it will go round in circles in search of obscure symbolism to make up for any lacking in logic.

In the end, I can even see the conclusion of it all - we can't judge God cos' he's perfect and omnipotent. It would not bring us any closer from seeing the truth ourselves and only to force us to accept that as a fact.

Sorry Icemoon, I really can't figure out how different the bible is from your normal weekly horoscope. Perhaps I would need more convincing. Smile

Icemoon SG

Let's see whether any Christian will try to explain the creation order to you .. haha

For me, I wouldn't want to read Genesis 1 literally, especially if I'm trying to understand scientific truths from a book written for the ancient mindset.

Actually Scripture did not say we are the product of incest from offsprings of Adam and Eve.

I give you a simple example. Genesis 4 (NIV):

13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

So the story goes, Cain murdered his brother Abel and was banished.

But note what the text also says - Cain expected people to kill him! Who are these people, we ask?

Furthermore if Cain was in exile, are we saying one of his sisters also went into exile?!

Wink

Icemoon SG

Actually the question you should ask yourself is, if the author of Genesis can write God until He is so powerful (one word from Him and all the animals appeared? lol), why did he resort to creating Eve from the ribs of Adam?

Anyway Scripture did not say, I repeat, did not say that God wanted the symbolism of love and equality of status to be represented by a rib. This comes from Jewish tradition which did not come together with Scripture.

If you want to talk about symbolism, I think the ribs is more appropriate than the heart because if you look at gender relationship today:

1. Woman think differently from Man, this is obvious. Got people even say Woman from Venus Man from Mars?

2. On the other hand, Woman is the closest emotional companion of Man. This is the main reason why we get married - we need a soul mate, someone who will console us when we are down and out.

Has it occured to you why aliens from two different planet can live together and be soul mates?

You are right, this whole argument never ends. I was just pointing out Genesis need not be so illogical as you think. Wink

kaister SG

Yes I've heard about mark of cain and how he was allowed to live for 7 generations.

This is where Genesis goes weird. No mention of where the rest of the people came from. Did they come from Adam and Eve? Did God make them? Where do they come from? I don't think any of that was mentioned and they are, yet again, left for interpretation.

I still maintain the stand that Genesis is too confusing and symbolic to be treated as an historical evidence.

Edit: Added missing word - people

Icemoon SG

Erm .. who is treating Genesis as historical evidence? Rolling Eyes

Using the bible to prove history and science is machiam the exclusive domain of Christians.

For the Jews, if you want to know science, they ask you to read Einstein. If you want to know history, they direct you to some credible historical research. Laughing

Which is probably why you seldom or never find creationists that are Jewish.

kaister SG

Yes, that is the question I wanted to ask. Why take a rib when you can create something out of nothing? Genesis never mentioned anything and all are left for interpretations.

As for your observations, they can all be explained by evolution:
1. Women think differently due to different reproductive strategies. As the womb-holder, women are expected to stay at home and look after the kids. They can't go for a more-is-better strategy because they have limited childbearing years. This focusing of resources allows them to have stronger, better raised children to spread their genes futher. They focus on quality, rather than quantity.

Men, however, can get more of their genes represented in the next generation by sleeping with as many women as they can. Their thinking patterns can be easily explained by how their best reproductive strategy works. Quantity is better than quality. Their work is done when the egg is fertilised.

Similar patterns can be seen in the animal kingdom. Darwinism explains sexual behaviour shaped by generations of evolution perfectly.

2. Is it true that humans really need a soul mate? The divorce rate in US is at 46%, an all time high. Women, as I've mentioned earlier, would benefit from keeping their men next to them, so that food and water will not be a problem when she is raising her children. She perhaps need someone, rather than a soulmate to ensure the reproductive success of her offsprings. In time, that need was reinforced by genes and developed into the emotional needs in women we see today.

Men, however, do not need soulmates. They are perfectly fine with their hunting parties, staring blankly into camp fires. A similar phenomenon can be observed at bars or living room.

Note, these are generalisations. There are always exceptions.

kaister SG

My bad. Laughing

And that's why you never see me arguing with a Jew over this issue.

Icemoon SG

Hmm .. I have a feeling you are saying evolution is mutually exclusive with the Genesis account?

kaister SG

Yes. Very exclusive. Cos' evolution would imply we came from monkey like primates and we share teh same ancesters as bacteria. A view not tolerated by Genesis cos':

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 creepeth upon the earth.

Icemoon SG

One difference between Jewish and Christian interpreting tradition is that the Jews are constantly shaping their metaphors based on the reality around them.

The Christian understanding of God is still stuck, believe it or not, at the pre-medieval age when the Trinity was formulated. Whereas if you look at the Jews, Kabbalah never took shape until the middle age but the Jews still include the eosteric philosophy under their umbrella. So the Jews have many ways to understand God, for them it is a never ending process of learning about God and pondering about His Ways.

The clearest example to illustrate the difference is to look at how the typical Christian understand Judaism today. To the Christian, Judaism is synonymous with the one in the Old Testament - law, law and law.

Too bad for them, Jewish thinking has evolved and the sages has declared some of the commandments to be void because of changing environment - one notable example being the Temple is no more and some of the commandments cannot be performed without the Temple; it is a sin to perform them now.

Icemoon SG

Laughing

How do you think Jewish sages reconcile that?

Yes, amazing as it sounds, the Jewish interpretation was formulated before the advent of modern science but it still fares better than explanation conjured by the so called creation scientists.

kaister SG

I dunno if they will agree.

Btw, are you a Jew or Christian?

Icemoon SG

Well .. at least there is no contradiction as far as I can see. The last 'Jewish' book I read recently is about a Jewish rabbi who is trying to understand God using modern scientific metaphors like strings and Calabi-Yau space .. LOL

To the Christians, the Jews might seem quite liberal in their theology. But to me, underneath this liberty is a sense of unity, an inter-connectiveness that links many branches of human discipline like science and ethics. It is like .. this faith can still be relevant for me as a human living in the 21st century.

When I read a Jewish interpretation of Scripture, the way the Jewish author encourages thinking, the way he challenges you to think and rethink Scripture, the feeling is .. exhilarating. It is like finding wisdom from an ancient text .. and you wonder why the writings of Christian theologians cannot give you the same feeling.

I can't be a Jew or else I will say 'we' when referring to Jews. Mr. Green

I am not even circumcised. Embarassed

davidche SG

LETS GET BACK TO THE TOPIC

kaister SG

Laughing Okie we shall.

Icemoon mentioned that the Jews might have a different view. They think evolution and creationism is not mutually exclusive? How would Jews then try to explain away the staggering viewpoints of both I've mentioned earlier?

Icemoon SG

It will be how Catholics try to explain it.

Catholics like to psycho society to NOT use condom .. but you see them psycho society for creationism? Laughing

kaister SG

Nope. They don't dare to do it openly and publicly.

« Previous Page Next Page »