Not neccesarily. Similar language is used concerning the birth of Leah’s sons, and no one suggests that they were all born together.
Zev Steinhardt
Zev,
Many thanks.
I gotta remember to bring a Tanach to the office.
:furiouslytappingatmypalmpilot:
Has anyone read my post? jmullaney, I think I addressed the issue of a literal interpretation of the Bible. Read it as the context indicates. Most of Genisis, is, I believe, called wisdom literature. It might surprise some here to know that a Jewish Scholar called (I think) Mamonides wrote a book called A Guide to the perplexed in about 1100 A.D. In which he provides an account of creation uncannily similar to that provided by modern quantum mechanics, right down to the existence of 10 forces originally, of which we can only detect 4 at present. His sources? The old testament and prayer. :-} Atheists? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!:-}
Chewie, I’m grinning from ear to ear after reading that last post.
But, before someone else wanders along and asks snidely, allow me to ask politely for more background, a cite, and/or a short excerpted quote (preferably the latter plus a cite) on the ten>four forces in Maimonides. (You could stop me from being perplexed :)) Thanks.
The book I read it in was called “Genisis and the Big Bang”. Sorry I can’t remember the author at the moment, as I borrowed the book and had to return it quite a while ago. The author is a Jewish Nuclear Physicist, who is having the Creationist Vs Big Bang debate with his young (5-7yrs)son while writing the book. Which says all that needs to be said about the Creationist position. :-} LMAO :-} The point of the book, as far as I recall, is show that there is no conflict needed between science and religion. Not that that would stop the nutters on both sides. I think my sig says it all.
Gerald L. Schroeder, who also wrote The Science of God. I read TSoG, but not the one you referred to. I was not impressed. TSoG was thoroughly debunked in an issue of Skeptical Inquirer, though I don’t remember in which issue or who did the debunking. (Maybe David B knows.)
**
Are you saying that Creationism reads like it was created by a 7-year-old? I’d have to agree.
Just for the sake of being polite, it’s Dr. Gerald Schroeder. 
The book is fairly old and reasonably well-respected. Here is some information about it from Amazon.com.
So we’re just supposed to believe you? Come on! At least give us some breadcrumbs to follow - does Skeptical Inquirer have a website?
The review in question appeared in the July/August 1999 issue. Unfortunately, the review is not available online. You’ll have to find a copy at the local library or order one from them.
One year later, there’s not many details I remember, though I certainly recall the reviewer didn’t like the book very much.
Best I can do at the moment.
CKDextHavn:
So, why do you accept the rabbinical explanations for the apparent contradictions within the Old Testament, but not the explanations of Christian theologians for the apparent contradictions between the Old Testament and the New Testament?
Yes I do think Creationism is a childs veiw-point. I really hate it when Christianity is presented as a no-brainer belief-system. It is, I beleive, particularly bad in the U.S. because of the nature of population movement in the first couple of generations. Anybody who started preaching anything that was to complicated for a 7-year old to understand, lost listeners rapidly. Nobody wanted to stick around for the difficult bits, the result is a nation full of people who have a very minimal understanding of the Gospel, which is why Creationism does so well in the U.S. A majority of Christians only want easy answers.
MEB: << So, why do you accept the rabbinical explanations for the apparent contradictions within the Old Testament, but not the explanations of Christian theologians for the apparent contradictions between the Old Testament and the New Testament? >>
Well, I wouldn’t want to belabour the obvious. Mainly, because the rabbis bribed me plenty, while the Christian theologians said they’d pay me someday, I’d have to take it on faith.
CKDextHavn said: *My final rant on this topic is to PROVE conclusively that the authorship/redaction of the Bible is divine. Ready? […] I therefore put it to you that the term “divinely inspired” is appropriate – even if you are an atheist. This is poetry that arises from the deepest creativity of the human spirit, that flows in imagery and imagination that has never been surpassed (and scarcely equalled); and even if there is no God, surely artistry and poetry is the spirit of the divine. QED. *
Ah, I see. If the proposition is false, we just change the meaning of its terms so that it’s true. :rolleyes: I’m just going to assume that this was a little joke…
I was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness, and the explanation I was given actually makes some sense.
You see, Adam and Eve were created “perfect”, and after The Fall, they were still “pretty perfect”. Since they had nearly perfect genes, incest wouldn’t have any more dangerous than producing children with a person taken at random today.
This also explained why people back then lived so long (e.g. Methuselah): people hadn’t mutated enough to have all the problems we have today. (Today’s longer life spans don’t contradict this, either: it’s simply a result of better medicine and nutrition; we aren’t inherently longer-lived.)
I think their explanation is pretty clever.
How could they Fall if they were perfect? I mean, if they were so perfect, why did they disobey God?
Please explain the physical characteristics of perfect genes.
If inbreeding was not the cause of these mutations (as implied above), what was the cause? Also, please explain why, if EVERYone lived longer back then, the historical records of ancient civilizations do not reflect this. The ages given for kings and other notables who lived thousands of years ago are no greater than the ages of people today. In fact, they tend to be shorter.
I don’t.
Genesis 1:26-27
Genesis 2:7-8
Looks like he created humans, male and female, and later created Adam and the Garden of Eden.