Genesis creation in bible doesn't make sense

Factual Questions
1

I have always been puzzled by the story of creation in the bible. I believe in evolution, but it seems like there is a flaw in the creation story that is so glaring I don’t know how the believers could have believed it for 2,000 years, and how they can defend it now.

According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve who were the first humans. Then Adam & Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Unfortunately, Cain killed Abel, so God gave them another son to replace Abel. From this, how did the human race continue? The sons of Adam and Eve never had a woman to breed with, right?

Answer #1 from a liberal priest at my University:
The story should be taken figuratively, not literally.

Answer #2 from a religious grad student:
I’ve always assumed that Adam and Eve had many children, both girls and boys, and that Cain and Abel are given special mention because of the spiritual lessons they provide us. So, Cain probably married one of his sisters. If so, that probably would not have the harmful genetic consequences that inbreeding does today, because human biology and genetics were fresh from the hand of the Creator, with no “bad” genetic material to pass on. And, for all we know, Cain may not have even grownup with this sister.

However, it seems like creation is a foundation for the entire bible and the Judeo-Christian faith. It seems too important for believers to brush off as just a story not to be taken literally. Also, the answer about breeding with un-mentioned sisters because inbreeding was not a genetic problem then seems like stretching it a lot. If that was the case, the bible should have mentioned it.

Does anyone else have any other answers/explanations to contribute?

2

2000 years? No,no, sorry but you are off by quite a few thousand years…The bible, 2000 years perhaps… Eve, much much longer back.

'Stand back, I don’t know how big it’ll get"

3

Ok, plain and simple, Adam had a lot of children, we don’t know how many, but he did have quite a few. Look at Genesis 5:4-5

4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Adam had sons and DAUGHTERS, you may notice a trend throughout the whole Bible that it never mentions the names of the daughters of a man, it might mention that he had a daughter, but usually not their names.

~Trig~

4

I’ll try to keep this short (for a longer explanation of my beliefs, see my recent posts in “non-Christian Creationists?”).
Adam and Eve proably existed between 6 and 7 thousand years ago. Jesus Christ existed close to two thousand years ago. At least in theory a lot of people who don’t accept Jesus as the Son of God might accept Adam and Eve.
I interpret the Bible literally, because I have a hard time understanding how you can interpret one portion literally and dismiss another portion as figurative.
I agree that Cain and Abel (or at least Cain, and Adam and Eve’s other sons) married sisters and Adam and Eve and many other people mentioned early on in the Bible may have had many more children than are specifically mentioned. People in biblical times did not have our understanding of genetics. AS the number of people on the earth increased, it became more important that you marry someone who is not a close relative. The people who first heard the stories of Genesis may have been more willing to accept that what they were being told might not be the whole story, but was the most important part.

5

Or, you know, maybe the story is an attempt by relatively primitive people to explain their own origin and existence, and is best viewed in the context of the unifying value of shared myth and culture, and its place among the creation myths of other cultures. But I guess it would take a truly stupid person to believe something like that.

** Phil D. **
“Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine.”
–J.B.S. Haldane

6

So you think that mustard seed story was really just about mustard seeds?

“For what a man had rather were true, he more readily believes” - Francis Bacon

7

So you think that mustard seed story was really just about mustard seeds?}}}

The Bible must be taken how it is written,

Historical text must be taken as written,
Prophecy as prophecy,
Proverb as Proverb,
Parable as Parable.

~Trig~

8

Mythology as mythology.

9

Fairy Tale as Fairy Tale

10

Jesus and His disciples didn’t take the Creation story as mythology, in fact they seemed to believe it. (obviously this means nothing to a non-Christian, but to a Christian it should mean something). The first 9 books of Genesis (from creation to the flood) is referenced 71 times in the NT, 10 references are made by Jesus Himself.

~Trig~

11

For the sake of the new people, I should point out that Ian Rey and Phil D are atheists, and probably do not believe that any portions of the bible should be taken seriously.
(If either of you two wish to dispute this, then you’d better have one heck of a good explanation for your posts in previous threads.)

I myself believe that most of the bible should be taken as written, but some portions of it were not intended to be historical texts. Revalations is obviously written in a highly symbolic style. On the other hand, many other books clearly describe actual people and events. As Trigger said: you interpret history as history, proverb as proverb, prophesy as prophesy, and parable as parable.
However, Archimedes made an important point in the “Non-Christian Creationists” thread. It was that most people claim that something is figurative because they don’t WANT to believe that it could be literally true. It’s easier to live a promiscuous, irresponsable lifestyle if you believe that Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t REALLY destroyed.

“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island

12

[[[For the sake of the new people, I should point out that Ian Rey and Phil D are atheists, and probably do not believe that any portions of the bible should be taken seriously.]]]

Taken seriously or taken literally?

In either case, whether I am an atheist has absolutely no bearing on my ability to speak on matters of evidence concerning events described in the Bible or any other text.

[[[Revalations]]]

Revelation. Singular.

[[[is obviously written in a highly symbolic style.]]]

Really? So why is Genesis not symbolic?

[[[On the otherhand, many other books clearly describe actual people and events.]]]

Clearly? Come on. If it were that clear, everyone would believe it.

[[[As Trigger said: you interpret history
as history,]]]

Except where it clearly conflicts with the written histories of extraBiblical cultures. Say, for example, most of the first few chapters of Genesis.

[[[However, Archimedes made an important point in the “Non-Christian Creationists” thread. It was that most people claim that something is figurative because they don’t WANT to believe that it could be literally true.]]]

Or because it’s, you know, mythoogical.

[[[It’s easier to live a promiscuous, irresponsable lifestyle if you believe that Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t REALLY destroyed.]]]

I don’t believe Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and I’m neither promiscuous nor irresponsible. Remarks like the above are clear evidence of people who believe others should be bullied into behaving the way they would prefer by boogeymen and shaggy dog stories.

** Phil D. **
“Not only is the world queerer than we imagine,
it is queerer than we can imagine.”
–J.B.S. Haldane

13

Archimedes said:

Have you considered taking the opposite side? In other words: Interpret the Bible figuratively because it is hard to understand how you can interpret one portion literally and one portion figuratively?

Trigger33 added:

Why? It is a work that has been passed down, among men, written and rewritten in a number of different languages. How do you know that it should be taken the way it is written?

“It’s a very dangerous thing to believe in nonsense.” – James Randi

14

Are you kidding? :slight_smile:

I usually shy away from “God threads”, but I’d just like to point out that The Bible isn’t a science text. Some folks seem to read it as such and get very confused.

I suppose you could say The Bible is a book of moral teachings but, in places, even this gets confusing. Even the “experts” disagree on some important points. You knew that, though.

Wanna read a good book? Try The Prophet by Gibran. It’s well written and a heck of a lot shorter than The Bible.

One good thing about being an agnostic is you don’t have to drive all over the county on Sunday afternoon telling everyone about it. :slight_smile: Good luck.

Ron
“After two six packs, all these things will become clear.”…Ron

15

Perhaps you should. Their ruins have been rather convincingly identified. I think they are beneath the Dead Sea, but it could be the Sea of Galilee or another nearby body of water. In any event, the ruins lie on an underwater shelf that used to be above the sea’s surface.
{quote]Clearly? Come on. If it were that clear, everyone would believe it.
[/quote]

We still have people who don’t believe the Holocaust happened! Nothing’s good enough for some people. Also, as Archimedes stated, most people call things symbolic not because of any logical reason to doubt it, but because it cramps their style to believe it. It’s only illogical because they want it to be illogical. Aside from Genesis, there really is very little that can’t be tied to extra-Biblical sources. I’m not saying I have all the answers here, but it’s painfully obvious that you don’t either.

“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island

16

[[I interpret the Bible literally, because I have a hard time understanding how you can interpret one portion literally and dismiss another portion as figurative.]] Arch
It’s really easy if you have the ability to make rational distinction.

17

[[For the sake of the new people, I should point out that Ian Rey and Phil D are atheists, and probably do not believe that any portions of the bible should be taken seriously.
(If either of you two wish to dispute this, then you’d better have one heck of a good explanation for your posts in previous threads.) ]]Diceman
Can you comprehend the possibility of seeing meaning in a story (and thus taking it seriously) and not believing that the story actually happened?

18

It was that most people claim that something is figurative because they don’t WANT to believe that it could be literally true. ]] Diceman
In fact, the exact opposite is true.
[[It’s easier to live a promiscuous, irresponsable lifestyle if you believe that Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t REALLY destroyed.]]
That approach will surely gain you a lot of respect among intelligent and educated people. <g>

19

{{[[I don’t believe Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed]] PLD
Perhaps you should. Their ruins have been rather convincingly identified.}}Diceman
Source? This is completely implausible Hal Lindsay type nonsense, right?

{{ I think they are beneath the Dead Sea, but it could be the Sea of Galilee or another nearby body of water.}}
Very convincing.
{{In any event, the ruins lie on an underwater shelf that used to be above the sea’s surface.}}
Yeah, right – again, source?

{{We still have people who don’t believe the Holocaust happened! Nothing’s good enough for some people.}}
True, but this isn’t one of those caases. Rather, you nuts display the “anything’s good enpough for some people” attitude toward evidence of Biblical inerrancy.
{{ Also, as Archimedes stated, most people call things symbolic not because of any logical reason to doubt it, but because it cramps their style to believe it. It’s only illogical because they want it to be illogical. }}
Not just a lie, a damned lie. I thought lies made the baby Jesus cry?

20

Big Iron: Go watch a “scientific” debate on the effects of global warming. You’ll be amazed at how flexible the rules of logic will become. This should convince you that what people consider reasonable evidence is often worlds apart, and is almost always a direct function of what they WANT to be proven at the end of the day.

Re: Sodom and Gomorrah. I’ve seen maps before. They showed exact locations where ruins have been found. I’ll try to find the source again.

Aww, come on. Don’t give up without at least an argument. What would Phil D think? :slight_smile:

“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island