Were Adam and Eve merely fictional persons?

[Butterflies61]

The Genesis account in the Bible tells us Adam was the first human creature and Eve, the first woman was his wife.

[keyplus90]

Had Christians believed that present bible does contain bit of original text but majority of the stuff is thought of the writers, and historians who invaded and infiltrated it, few people would not have a chance to blame that all of the faiths were irrational. After all there are clear contradictions in the Bible and no one has any explanation to those. God does not contradict himself. Especially if there is no explanation either. But that does not mean all of the religions are wrong.

Jesus never claimed divinity, and never claimed to be son of God but few people made it compulsory only for the sake of salvation. That is the reason Bible has been and is being revised again and again and a good number of verses are being thrown out as fabrications. Salvation comes through believing in real God and doing good deeds. Nothing more and nothing less.

[jake-the-peg]

Contradictions in the qur'an

http://wikiislam.net/...tions_in_the_Qur%27an

[RATTER15]

Yes!

[keyplus90]

Jake - Your given list of contradictions in Quran did make me laugh due to the knowledge of Islam it has shown. And that's all I can say.

[beso]

Spreading's suggestion that anyone who does not worship a god must worships themselve can only be described as idiotic. Some people are inclined to worship but to presume that it is like that for everyone shows a very narrow-minded ignorance.

To some people the very practice of worship, no matter what is worshipped is the very anathema to intelligence.

Quoting the Bible as to support the argument is ridiculous circular logic.

[chakka35]

Butterflies, it really is as pointless to challenge evolution as to challenge electricity or Newton's Laws. Evolution is an establshed branch of science, disputed almost exclusively (and with no facts or arguments) by religionists and for no other reason than the fact that it contradicts their creationist superstitions.

It is absurd to call your claim about monkeys and man a 'generalisation'. It was a straight mis-statement of fact.

Why do you rely always on quoting others instead of giving us your own knowledge and arguments? The bible is merely a heterogeneous collection of writings by totally unknown people (with the single exception of Paul). So what makes it such a reliable source of knowledge or opinion?

Again you quote others when claiming that the Jesus story has historical authenticity. Tell us why YOU think it is history and I will tell you why it isn't. Come on, think for yourself.

[jake-the-peg]

I thought it might keyplus.

It probably was about as knowlegeable as the link you suppied about Early man :c)

[keyplus90]

Jake = If you found that link of the internet then you could easily have seen links refuting that too. The only difference is that I have seen and read others as well. So why not do one thing. It will not be wise to spend time on all of those "so called contradictions" so you pick out the ones you believe are the most prominent and I will answer the issue. And remember I still do not grade myself someone with basic knowledge but even I can clarify easily few things they have added into that list. So let’s go give me 5 or say 10 of the contradiction you believe will make Muslims run for their money.

[keyplus90]

Sorry little typing error. It should read,

// And remember I still grade myself as someone with basic knowledge///

[joko]

i think it is astounding (and hilarious) that someone would try to denounce the theory of evolution - with something as simplistic and incredulous sounding along the lines of, - 'but how did a pile of dust and atoms create something as complex as us and other animals?.. thats not very likely is it?' ... in favour of something much more plainly believable and utterly logical ... like a man with a floaty white beard in the sky who knocked up the universe in a few days by magic...and wrote a big book to tell us all about it...

well... i don't know about you lot...but im convinced!

hahaha brilliant...

[Butterflies61]

Chakka35:
What is history but stories of the past based on writings of others. I cannot prove to you why Elizabeth ! existed, any more than I can tell you Jesus Christ walked the earth. They existed. No one met Elizabeth but everyone knows she lived and ruled England. Jesus lived and performed miracles. Christopher Columbus discovered many things – but did he? What proof? All based on ancient writings.
You say “it really is as pointless to challenge evolution as to challenge electricity or Newton's Laws. Evolution is an establshed branch of science, “ Newton believed in the Bible. There is far more evidence, written and archeological about the Bible and creation than evolution. Much so called evidence of evolution has been found to be fake.

Say what you like, nothing and no one will sway me from my total and absolute belief in the Bible. The Creation account has stood firm for thousands of years. The evolution theory only a few decades.

[sandyRoe]

Hear Hear. ^^^

[jackthehat]

There is not a single contemporaneous account of Jesus, despite there existing a wealth of 'other' writings at the time he was supposed to exist.

[notasyoungasiwas]

In my opinion (for what it's worth) Adam and Eve were fictional and we evolved as Darwin said. To me, evolution makes the most sense.

[jake-the-peg]

I think you misunderstand me keyplus.

I'm just pointing out that people publish all sorts of stuff on line and often they are not very well informed about what they write.

But if you're not an expert or even well informed yourseelf you're not in a position to assess the quality of what they write.

I was not in a position to assess that in the contradictions page and I suspect you were not on the early man page.

My point is that it is always wise to be cautious about reading things on line when we are not informed on the subject.

[Zeuhl]

<< No one met Elizabeth but everyone knows she lived and ruled England. Jesus lived and performed miracles.>>

Wrong. Hundreds of people met Elizabeth I and made contemporary notes of those meetings and we have her own writings and pictures made of her from life (all with provenance)

Nothing of this sort exists for your Jesus character and certainly no such reliable evidence for 'miracles' so your comparison of the two is I'm sorry to say, stupid.

<<There is far more evidence, written and archeological about the Bible and creation than evolution>>

No there isn't. We challenge you to provide a link to it.

<<Much so called evidence of evolution has been found to be fake.>>

Which exactly? And by which scientific authorities?

<<Say what you like, nothing and no one will sway me from my total and absolute belief in the Bible>>

That's the problem; absolute belief in something without rational evidence is a sign of mental illness.

<<The Creation account has stood firm for thousands of years>>

Longer than that if you count the older religions it (and the Jesus myth) was borrowed from. That doesn't make it true. The australian aboriginal myths are probably older - does that make them more true than your beliefs?

[beso]

Spreading \\When it comes to theories such as these, we are wise to keep this proverb in mind: “A simple man believes every word he hears; a clever man understands the need for proof.”—Proverbs 14:15, //

Indeed. So unless being just being written down in a book by stoneage goat herders is considered "proof" then the fathful are indeed very simple-minded people.

[beso]

One of the secrets to the success of religious writings was the notion that anyone who spoke in opposition to them should be killed. Little wonder they stood for thousands of years.

The strength is science comes from exactly the opposite attitude. Science invites all criticism in the quest to peice together a coherent picture of what really makes the world tick.