In our day and age, the death of western civilization can be pinned upon just one detail of faith. This is the story of Adam and Eve. It is from here that we can understand the differences of basic issues of make and female and nature and God. Christian have been at times capable of revival and we have even be able to successful in doubting the myth of Darwinian evolution. Also we have done a great deal in defending the authenticity of Christ and the resurrection. But often we tend to skip over the details of the garden of Eden for the "realm of faith".
I don't doubt the necessity of faith.
Hebrews 11: 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Yet when we have doctrines that are fundamental to our way of life we have to provide answers.
1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
"Paul's presentation of the doctrine of original sin in Romans 5:12-20 depends on a historical Adam and a literal interpretation of the account in genesis about how he fell. Furthermore, everything Paul has to say about the doctrine of Justification by faith depends on that. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ al shall be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22). Clearly Paul regarded both creation and the fall of Adam as history, not allegory. Jesus Himself referred to the creation of Adam and Eve as a historical event (mark 10:6) To Question the historicity of these events is to undermine the very essence of Christian Doctrine." John MacArthur The Battle for the Beginning introduction pg.23
So here is my defense of the garden of Eden account
Genesis 2:8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Scholars are uncertain of where the location of the garden was exactly. Though we have a vague idea.
This however is insignificant.
The garden was abandoned
Genesis 3: 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
The earth was later destroyed in the flood.
Genesis 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
In archaeology there are many cities and civilizations that have vanished. Some we thought existed but have no certainty where they were now(such as Atlantis) Some we were unaware of outside the scripture (as in the Hittite Empire). SO a missing garden is truly insignificant.
A CHALLENGE FROM THE SKEPTICS!
http://www.godofevolution.com/10-theological-questions-no-young-earth-creationist-can-answer/
1. What was the point of the tree of life?
Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
The tree of life representing eternal life is readily available to Adam and Eve the whole time of their temptation. However they upon sin were cursed with Death and so no longer had access tot he tree of life.
The tree is restored in revelation Revelation 22:2
2. If human sin is the reason animals die, why can’t they be saved?
Ecclesiastes 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? "
There is a lot of assumptions here. Man has defiled the beasts of the earth and they are at times quite deadly and often the cause of their own demise.
However, Beasts are not morally responsible and do not suffer in Hell as Hell was creatd for the angels. It is possible since animals will be in the new heavens and earth that they will be resurrected. however, this is a mystery.
3. If physical death is part of the punishment for sin, why do Christians still die?
Because Christians sin.
1 Corinthians 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
4. Why was Eve named “mother of life”?
Because Jesus Christ would be her ancestor. "her seed"
Genesis 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
john 1: 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
john 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Of course Eve would be the mother of humanity but it is in Christ where her title is literally fulfilled.
5. How did Adam and Eve know what death was?
Because they could see rocks!
They could see things that were living vs things that were not living.
6. If the punishment for eating from the tree was that Adam and Eve would physically die … why didn’t they physically die?
Not only did they ultimately physically die but it was inevitable as they instantly spiritually died.
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."
So sin leads to death. As Paul testifies...Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
7. Can you name any other piece of literature in which the existence of a talking snake and trees with magical powers would suggest to you that it was meant to be taken literally?This was a different dispensation. It was no magic at the time. You may not take the siting of a pterodactyl seriously and yet you would admit that it was here once.
8. Why do Genesis 1 and 2 contradict? They don't They are simply covering two different vantage points
9. Why is incest wrong?Guilty conscience? LOL!
In this dispensation Incest was not wrong because mankinds genes were perfect. As time progressed the curse fo sin brought death and disease. People with the same genes are cursed because the same genes are often cursed and thus the next generation's curses multiply. SO, for instance, a brother and sister would have trouble with their eyesight and their children would be blind.
Thus by the time of Moses lines needed to be drawn.
10. And finally, if it is so vitally important that Christians take Genesis literally, why did Jesus never once instruct us to take Genesis literally?A: LOL!!!!
He did!Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
john 5: 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Matthew 5: 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
John 3: 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
By implication of these verses Jesus had faith that the scriptures were literally true.
The entire Western cultural shift is based up Validity of the account of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden!!
Our basic understanding of sexuality and the patriarchal system Hinges On a whether we affirm the factuality of the garden of Eden account. The entire sexual revolution is based upon the rejection of the Bible.
"I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” Sir Julian Huxley—Head of UNESCO—One of the world’s leading evolutions was asked in a televisions interview why did the scientific community jump at Darwin’s ideas?[it should be noted in the context of the interview Jullian was referring to sexual mores in terms of the liberty verses suppression, not as a liberty to exploitation]
Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith Reisman
1. evolutionary base) "The Kinsey team understood and presented human sexual behavior as a closed darwinian system of simple mammalian behavior: a stimulus provides b) a genital response which produces c) an orgasmic 'outlet.' Indeed, Kinsey applied Pavlovian conditioning to sex, saying all sex is conditioned by environment and that love, jealousy, fear, shame and similar emotions have no operational meaning.. This worldview drove Kinsey's work from the start, as the zoologist denied explanations for human behavior contrary to evolutionary assumptions." pg. 51
2. roots with nazism
sexology had it's origins in Nazi Germany. It had already deep roots in homosexuality. Here is a testimony concerning Magnus Hirschfield
"I was led into the study of the 'Wise Man of Berlin' (as he was called)... Sitting on a silk covered fauteuil, legs under him like a Turk, was an individual with bloated lips and cunning, dimly coveting eyes who offered me a fleshly hand and introduced himself as Dr. hirschfield...[Later in a meeting of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, the most influential homosexual organization in the German 'gay rights movement] the first to greet me was a corporal with a deep bass voice; he was however, wearing women's clothes...'A so-called transvestite!' commented Dr. Hirschfield, whose nickname was Aunt magnesia,' and introduced us...Then a most beautifield youth appeared..."A hermaphrodite!' said hirschfield. "why don't you come to me during my office hours tomarrow, you can see him naked then"...An older gentleman in his sixties...recited a poem...to a sixteen year old youth, full of yearning...I [suddenly realized] I was in the middle of a brothel." pg. 24
3. Fudging the numbers
"Kinsey's figure of 10% homosexuality for example, reflects what is often known as a statistical 'fudge factor.' That fudge factor would also be applied, say to the data on adultery, sodomy, and so on. If his subject stubbornly refused t say he committed acts recited by the interviewer, the team would just change the numbers to what they thought 'really' happened. Among scientists, such alterations are called 'massaging the data' Outside the scientific community it is called 'dishonesty.'" pg. 63
4. Experimental child abuse
"The most baleful and least critiqued information of all was contained in chapter 5, which Kinsey titled: 'Early sexual Growth and activity,' This chapter reports on anywhere from 317 boy infants to 1,746 to 2035 total children having been sex experiment subjects for the Kinsey data in chapter 5 of the Male and Female volumes." pg.140 [referring to Kiney's work Sexual behavior and the Human Male]
"I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” Sir Julian Huxley—Head of UNESCO—One of the world’s leading evolutions was asked in a televisions interview why did the scientific community jump at Darwin’s ideas?[it should be noted in the context of the interview Jullian was referring to sexual mores in terms of the liberty verses suppression, not as a liberty to exploitation]
Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith Reisman
1. evolutionary base) "The Kinsey team understood and presented human sexual behavior as a closed darwinian system of simple mammalian behavior: a stimulus provides b) a genital response which produces c) an orgasmic 'outlet.' Indeed, Kinsey applied Pavlovian conditioning to sex, saying all sex is conditioned by environment and that love, jealousy, fear, shame and similar emotions have no operational meaning.. This worldview drove Kinsey's work from the start, as the zoologist denied explanations for human behavior contrary to evolutionary assumptions." pg. 51
2. roots with nazism
sexology had it's origins in Nazi Germany. It had already deep roots in homosexuality. Here is a testimony concerning Magnus Hirschfield
"I was led into the study of the 'Wise Man of Berlin' (as he was called)... Sitting on a silk covered fauteuil, legs under him like a Turk, was an individual with bloated lips and cunning, dimly coveting eyes who offered me a fleshly hand and introduced himself as Dr. hirschfield...[Later in a meeting of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, the most influential homosexual organization in the German 'gay rights movement] the first to greet me was a corporal with a deep bass voice; he was however, wearing women's clothes...'A so-called transvestite!' commented Dr. Hirschfield, whose nickname was Aunt magnesia,' and introduced us...Then a most beautifield youth appeared..."A hermaphrodite!' said hirschfield. "why don't you come to me during my office hours tomarrow, you can see him naked then"...An older gentleman in his sixties...recited a poem...to a sixteen year old youth, full of yearning...I [suddenly realized] I was in the middle of a brothel." pg. 24
3. Fudging the numbers
"Kinsey's figure of 10% homosexuality for example, reflects what is often known as a statistical 'fudge factor.' That fudge factor would also be applied, say to the data on adultery, sodomy, and so on. If his subject stubbornly refused t say he committed acts recited by the interviewer, the team would just change the numbers to what they thought 'really' happened. Among scientists, such alterations are called 'massaging the data' Outside the scientific community it is called 'dishonesty.'" pg. 63
4. Experimental child abuse
"The most baleful and least critiqued information of all was contained in chapter 5, which Kinsey titled: 'Early sexual Growth and activity,' This chapter reports on anywhere from 317 boy infants to 1,746 to 2035 total children having been sex experiment subjects for the Kinsey data in chapter 5 of the Male and Female volumes." pg.140 [referring to Kiney's work Sexual behavior and the Human Male]
Cumulative Case for Eden
A. Ancient archeology testifies to monotheism.Monotheism is historic amongst the most ancient societies
Egypt
"One, the maker of all things, the Spirit, the hidden Spirit, the maker of Spirits. He existed in the beginning, when nothing else was. What is created He made after he came into being. ... No man knows how to find Him; His name is a mystery and is hidden. His names are innumerable. He is truth, He lives on truth, He is the king of truth. He is life, through Him man lives; He gives life to man, He breathed life into his nostrils . . He Himself is existence; He neither increases or diminishes. He made the universe, the world, what was, what is, and what shall be. ... He hears him who calls on Him, He rewardes
his servants, those who acknowledge Him He knows, He protects His followers."
E.A. Wallis Budge, Osiris (New Hyde Park, N.Y: University Books, 1961) p. 357.
china
The Chinese God was known as "Shang di" (note the similarities to "El Shaddai" one of God's names in genesis) meaning "Lord above" or "Supreme Lord"E. Allie and M. Frazer, Chinese and Japanese Religion (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1969) p. 268.
India
" In the beginning, who was born the Lord the sole Lord of all that is who made the earth, and formed the sky, who gives life Who gives strength, whose bidding gods revere the ONLY GOD."
Rig Veda excerpt from Selwyn Gurney Champion & Dorothy Short, Readings from World Religions (Greenwhich, Conn., Fawcett Publ., 1951) pp. 26-27.
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v07n2p18.htm
B. The Big Bang requires infinite power, (lack of antimatter).
)a. ANTIMATTER
A. Ancient archeology testifies to monotheism.Monotheism is historic amongst the most ancient societies
Egypt
"One, the maker of all things, the Spirit, the hidden Spirit, the maker of Spirits. He existed in the beginning, when nothing else was. What is created He made after he came into being. ... No man knows how to find Him; His name is a mystery and is hidden. His names are innumerable. He is truth, He lives on truth, He is the king of truth. He is life, through Him man lives; He gives life to man, He breathed life into his nostrils . . He Himself is existence; He neither increases or diminishes. He made the universe, the world, what was, what is, and what shall be. ... He hears him who calls on Him, He rewardes
his servants, those who acknowledge Him He knows, He protects His followers."E.A. Wallis Budge, Osiris (New Hyde Park, N.Y: University Books, 1961) p. 357.
china
The Chinese God was known as "Shang di" (note the similarities to "El Shaddai" one of God's names in genesis) meaning "Lord above" or "Supreme Lord"E. Allie and M. Frazer, Chinese and Japanese Religion (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1969) p. 268.
India
" In the beginning, who was born the Lord the sole Lord of all that is who made the earth, and formed the sky, who gives life Who gives strength, whose bidding gods revere the ONLY GOD."
Rig Veda excerpt from Selwyn Gurney Champion & Dorothy Short, Readings from World Religions (Greenwhich, Conn., Fawcett Publ., 1951) pp. 26-27.
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v07n2p18.htm
B. The Big Bang requires infinite power, (lack of antimatter).
)a. ANTIMATTER
"Who's hidden all the antimatter?
Why is there a matter universe?
Our best theories for the origin of the Universe estimate it began 13.7 billion years ago as an infinitely hot and infinitely dense ball of energy. In those first instants of time, the universe expanded and cooled. All the particles we observe today, and the interactions between them, condensed into existence in those early seconds and minutes.
A view along a section of the 27km long LHC tunnel and collider If this Big Bang theory is right, antimatter and matter should have been created in equal amounts. Each matter particle should have an antiparticle. This poses an obvious problem, as matter and antimatter annihilate on contact, so you'd expect the universe to just be energy. Or equal parts matter and antimatter, not touching. But it isn't. Somehow, some tiny asymmetry between matter and antimatter allowed matter to get the upper hand, leading to the matter universe we're in.
Getting to the bottom of this mystery is a deep problem in physics. It just doesn't add up, which usually means we've made a wrong turn somewhere - but where?"
Large hadron Collider www.lhc.ac.uk
http://www.lhc.ac.uk/">www.lhc.ac.uk
/> © 2013 Science and Technology Facilities Council - All Rights Reserved
"In the inflationary model, the extremely rapid expansion of the very early universe flattens out any large-scale inhomogeneities in temperature and density, quickly creating a large cosmos out of a much smaller one that was previously causally connected.
Guth’s model also explains the origins of the large-scale structure of the universe – before inflation there are quantum fluctuations in the very early universe, which then get magnified to macroscopic size and become the sites where galaxies, and clusters of galaxies, form.No physical mechanism capable driving inflation is currently known"
http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/cosmic-inflation/index.html
So the most popular model of science/cosmology claims that the universe was 99% complete after about 2 seconds. If we granted this the question must be asked.... "Where did the power come from?"
The current hypothesis of anti-matter fails drastically. So back to square 1.
It seems that the power required for such an undertaking would be infinite, if not infinite by our understanding. Who has infinite power? God does.
C. The anthropic principle"You've just checked into your hotel room for a weekend's getaway. Thrilled by the accoutrements, you immediately walk onto the room's balcony to take in the eighth floor view. Unfortunately, the guardrail gives way the instant you lean on it. You plummet, falling head over heels toward the pavement of the street below. You scream, but for some reason you don't feel the splat and splintering of every bone in your body. No, instead you find yourself immersed in an immense, soft bed. Of all the vehicles to fall into, you managed to hit an open trailer full of defective pillows from the local bedding factory. Why is it that conditions were just right for your survival? Cosmologists often apply this question to life on Earth with the Goldilocks principle, which ponders why Earth is "just right" for life. The anthropic principle tackles an even greater question: Why is the universe itself just right for life? For instance, when you compare the electromagnetic force to gravity, we find that electromagnetism is 39 times stronger, according to physicist and author Victor J. Stenger. And that's handy because if the two powers were more evenly matched, stars wouldn't burn long enough for life to develop on an orbiting planet. Scientists refer to this as an anthropic coincidence, or a coincidence related to mankind's very existence. Here's another example that Stenger reminds us of: A vacuum in the universe is a lot less dense than we previously thought (139 times less dense, in fact). That's significant because if the original higher estimates had been correct, the universe would have blown apart eons ago. So if certain conditions in our universe were just a little off, life would have never evolved. Just how is it that we're so fortunate? Of all possible universes, why did ours turn out like it did? In 1974, astronomer Brandon Carter tackled this quandary by introducing the anthropic principle. Carter hypothesized that anthropic coincidences are part of the universe's very structure and that chance has nothing to do with it. He proposed two variants: Weak anthropic principle: This response to anthropic coincidence may sound like a slice of common sense. Simply put, Carter pointed out that if our universe weren't hospitable to life, then we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. As such, there's no sense in asking why. Strong anthropic principle: In this version, Carter draws on the notion of the Copernican Principle, which states that there's nothing special or privileged about Earth or humanity. He states that since we live in a universe capable of supporting life, then only life-supporting universes are possible. Cosmologists have devised more than 30 additional takes on the anthropic principle [source: Stenger]. They include the quantum physics-flavored participatory anthropic principle, which states that no universe can be real until it is observed, and the final anthropic principle, which holds that intelligence is a necessary property of the universe; once created it can never be destroyed. There but for fortune, this universe might not have permitted the evolution of intelligent life, so the anthropic principle is a scientific attempt to address the question "Why?" http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/anthropic-principle.htm SO if the universe is fine tuned in a way that uniquely allows for life on the earth. Then the earth would be the focal point universe. But if there is a focal point of the universe then there is a pattern or design for that to be the focal point!
D. The intelligent design of the brain
""We won't be able to understand the brain. It is the most complex thing in the universe," says Professor Sir Robin Murray, one of the UK's leading psychiatrists."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-18233409
Of all the complexities in the universe the greatest complexity is in the human brain. If we build on the anthropic principle, The universe is focused upon man. Since the universe requires divine or infinite power, Then the designer by implication is focused upon man!
E. The Design in the ecosystem
The current hypothesis of anti-matter fails drastically. So back to square 1.
It seems that the power required for such an undertaking would be infinite, if not infinite by our understanding. Who has infinite power? God does.
C. The anthropic principle"You've just checked into your hotel room for a weekend's getaway. Thrilled by the accoutrements, you immediately walk onto the room's balcony to take in the eighth floor view. Unfortunately, the guardrail gives way the instant you lean on it. You plummet, falling head over heels toward the pavement of the street below. You scream, but for some reason you don't feel the splat and splintering of every bone in your body. No, instead you find yourself immersed in an immense, soft bed. Of all the vehicles to fall into, you managed to hit an open trailer full of defective pillows from the local bedding factory. Why is it that conditions were just right for your survival? Cosmologists often apply this question to life on Earth with the Goldilocks principle, which ponders why Earth is "just right" for life. The anthropic principle tackles an even greater question: Why is the universe itself just right for life? For instance, when you compare the electromagnetic force to gravity, we find that electromagnetism is 39 times stronger, according to physicist and author Victor J. Stenger. And that's handy because if the two powers were more evenly matched, stars wouldn't burn long enough for life to develop on an orbiting planet. Scientists refer to this as an anthropic coincidence, or a coincidence related to mankind's very existence. Here's another example that Stenger reminds us of: A vacuum in the universe is a lot less dense than we previously thought (139 times less dense, in fact). That's significant because if the original higher estimates had been correct, the universe would have blown apart eons ago. So if certain conditions in our universe were just a little off, life would have never evolved. Just how is it that we're so fortunate? Of all possible universes, why did ours turn out like it did? In 1974, astronomer Brandon Carter tackled this quandary by introducing the anthropic principle. Carter hypothesized that anthropic coincidences are part of the universe's very structure and that chance has nothing to do with it. He proposed two variants: Weak anthropic principle: This response to anthropic coincidence may sound like a slice of common sense. Simply put, Carter pointed out that if our universe weren't hospitable to life, then we wouldn't be here to wonder about it. As such, there's no sense in asking why. Strong anthropic principle: In this version, Carter draws on the notion of the Copernican Principle, which states that there's nothing special or privileged about Earth or humanity. He states that since we live in a universe capable of supporting life, then only life-supporting universes are possible. Cosmologists have devised more than 30 additional takes on the anthropic principle [source: Stenger]. They include the quantum physics-flavored participatory anthropic principle, which states that no universe can be real until it is observed, and the final anthropic principle, which holds that intelligence is a necessary property of the universe; once created it can never be destroyed. There but for fortune, this universe might not have permitted the evolution of intelligent life, so the anthropic principle is a scientific attempt to address the question "Why?" http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/anthropic-principle.htm SO if the universe is fine tuned in a way that uniquely allows for life on the earth. Then the earth would be the focal point universe. But if there is a focal point of the universe then there is a pattern or design for that to be the focal point!
D. The intelligent design of the brain
""We won't be able to understand the brain. It is the most complex thing in the universe," says Professor Sir Robin Murray, one of the UK's leading psychiatrists."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-18233409
Of all the complexities in the universe the greatest complexity is in the human brain. If we build on the anthropic principle, The universe is focused upon man. Since the universe requires divine or infinite power, Then the designer by implication is focused upon man!
E. The Design in the ecosystem
Coevolution is defined as:
‘joint evolution of two or more non-interbreeding species that have a close ecological relationship; through reciprocal selective pressures, the evolution of one species in the relationship is partially dependent on the evolution of the other [emphasis
added].’
3
The problem is, since coevolution requires already
existing ecological relationships, it cannot account for the
origin of ecology.
It is possible for two species in close ecological relationship to refine their relationship through mutual selection, but this does not explain how they came to be ecologically related in the first place. There must be some other explanation.
On the contrary, accumulating evidence from ecology and biodiversity studies suggests something quite different from gradual evolutionary accumulation of species and step by step development of what would eventually become essential ecological relationships. The current indispensable nature of many ‘ecological services’, and the relationships that provide them, suggests that, just as ecological services are necessary now, past ecosystems would also have needed them, but not necessarily in identical ways. Moreover, the essential nature of ecological relationships now does not appear to allow time for evolutionary development of ecology. Ecosystems would have failed many times over without the
full range of ecological services" https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_2/j14_2_82-90.pdf
So if we can currently see design within our ecosystem, would not that imply the greater design of the original ecosystem?
If everything is "just right" for life to exist on planet earth. And God were to create mankind. Why not continue to create a paradise intelligently designed for mankind?
If everything is "just right" for life to exist on planet earth. And God were to create mankind. Why not continue to create a paradise intelligently designed for mankind?
F. legends of the Garden
Read more: http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Dr-Fi/Eden-Garden-of.html#ixzz5wAbp5hAg
G. Adam's rib
"The periosteum (the literal meaning of this word is ‘around the bone’) is a membrane that covers every bone—it’s the reason you can get things stuck between your teeth while gnawing on a leg of lamb, for instance. The periosteum contains cells that can manufacture new bone. Particularly in young people, ‘rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone’.4
Thoracic (chest) surgeons routinely remove ribs, and these often grow back, in whole or in part. A lot depends on the care with which the rib is removed; it needs to be ‘peeled’ out of its periosteum to leave this membrane as intact as possible. A major reason why the rib is the ideal situation for such regeneration is that the attached intercostal muscles provide it with a good blood supply. "
Dr. Carl Weiland4.Plastic surgeon Dr David Pennington, personal communication May 7, 1999."
Dr. Carl Weiland4.Plastic surgeon Dr David Pennington, personal communication May 7, 1999."
Adam and Eve
"Their story takes place in the Middle East, thousands of years ago. There was a tree, known as the Huluppu tree. It stood in a holy garden. Inanna, a god-fearing woman, took care of the Huluppu tree. But then a serpent made its nest in this tree. He was a wicked serpent, who could not be charmed. And then, along came Dumuzi, a shepherd. He and Inanna fell in love, and they became lovers in the garden, by the tree, with the serpent in it. There’s much more to the story of this ancient couple – but we can stop right here and ask ourselves: anything sound familiar?You’ve got a man and a woman, a garden, a tree, a serpent – Genesis, anyone? As any Bible-binger can recognize, the set-up is strikingly similar to the story of Adam and Eve. But guess what, the story of Inanna and Dumuzi was written around 2,000 B.C.E. – while the story of Adam and Eve, found in the Bible, was written approximately 500 years later, in around 1,500 B.C.E. The point? The story of Adam and Eve was not the first story of the first humans, as many Americans falsely think. There were many stories about many people long before Adam and Eve. And furthermore, it is obvious that whoever wrote the story of Adam and Eve was influenced by – or ripped off – some key details from the preexisting Middle Eastern story of Inanna and Dumuzi. That’s how myths work: people invent stories, and in doing so, they often incorporate aspects of preexisting stories. This is clearly evident in the story of Adam and Eve, which is not a literal depiction of historical events, but a myth – and one that was steeped in the soup of mythological traditions of the ancient Levant." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201704/adam-and-eve
It is obviously humorous as a conservative reading this secularist fight for the agreement of ancient peoples with the bible. They are hoping for you the reader, to have an elitist attitude which dismisses every alternative opinion. Because if you have more testimony of the past vs zero from the community of your own views then Occam's razor would give the community the weight of evidence.
It is obviously humorous as a conservative reading this secularist fight for the agreement of ancient peoples with the bible. They are hoping for you the reader, to have an elitist attitude which dismisses every alternative opinion. Because if you have more testimony of the past vs zero from the community of your own views then Occam's razor would give the community the weight of evidence.
Mitochondrial eve "Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) indicates that all women have descended from a single
woman, called mitochondrial Eve.1
This does not prove that she was the only
woman alive at the time, but is consistent with it. High mutation rates
indicate that this ancestor lived at about the time of the biblical Eve as well." http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature
"Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years."https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/billions-of-people-in-thousands-of-years/Dr. Monty White
So if the math is right and we have an original couple, with historical accounts it obvious that the facts of Adam and Eve will lend themselves to the facts of the garden of Eden.
Snakes and speech
Genesis 3:3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
One of the most ridiculed ideas of the account of the garden of Eden is the Idea of a snake talking to Eve. After all snakes do not possess the vocal chords to speak to humans.
However animals have learned to speak without vocal chords.
"INSTEAD OF A LARYNX with vocal chords, birds have a syrinx, a distended portion of the trachea. In the wall of the syrinx are two thin, oval membranes that vibrate and produce the bird’s vocalizations. Syrinxes differ slightly anatomically across bird families, involving the attachment of various muscles. Genetic differences also influence birds’ vocalizations. Sound is accomplished by expelling air across the mouth of the bifurcated trachea. Different sounds are produced by changing the depth and shape of trachea. So, talking parrots are really whistling in different variations. Congo African Grey Parrots (CAG) are well known for their ability to "talk", which may be caused by more control, or stronger trachea. But that does not mean that a Cockatiel (Cockatiels are not well known for their talking ability), could have a greater vocabulary than an African Grey Parrot. Parrots and some members of the crow family are the perfect combination of anatomy and neurology to learn human speech. Their syrinxes are capable of making the sounds and, unlike some birds, they are not hard wired genetically to speak only one "language." Much in the same way English speakers can learn to speak French or Russian and vice versa, parrots and crows can learn to speak human words. However, for success it takes a willing, motivated student and a patient teacher." https://birdyrevolution.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-do-birds-talk.html
Like birds, snakes possess the windpipe.
One of the most ridiculed ideas of the account of the garden of Eden is the Idea of a snake talking to Eve. After all snakes do not possess the vocal chords to speak to humans.
However animals have learned to speak without vocal chords.
"INSTEAD OF A LARYNX with vocal chords, birds have a syrinx, a distended portion of the trachea. In the wall of the syrinx are two thin, oval membranes that vibrate and produce the bird’s vocalizations. Syrinxes differ slightly anatomically across bird families, involving the attachment of various muscles. Genetic differences also influence birds’ vocalizations. Sound is accomplished by expelling air across the mouth of the bifurcated trachea. Different sounds are produced by changing the depth and shape of trachea. So, talking parrots are really whistling in different variations. Congo African Grey Parrots (CAG) are well known for their ability to "talk", which may be caused by more control, or stronger trachea. But that does not mean that a Cockatiel (Cockatiels are not well known for their talking ability), could have a greater vocabulary than an African Grey Parrot. Parrots and some members of the crow family are the perfect combination of anatomy and neurology to learn human speech. Their syrinxes are capable of making the sounds and, unlike some birds, they are not hard wired genetically to speak only one "language." Much in the same way English speakers can learn to speak French or Russian and vice versa, parrots and crows can learn to speak human words. However, for success it takes a willing, motivated student and a patient teacher." https://birdyrevolution.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-do-birds-talk.html
Like birds, snakes possess the windpipe.
"Snakes have a small opening just behind the tongue called the glottis, which opens into the trachea, or windpipe. Unlike what mammals have, the reptile glottis is always closed, forming a vertical slit, unless the snake takes a breath. A small piece of cartilage just inside the glottis vibrates when the snake forcefully expels air from its lungs. This produces a snake’s characteristic hiss. Snakes are able to extend their glottis out the side of their mouth while they eat, which allows for respiration while they consume large prey items."http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Kid-Corner/Beyond-Beginners/Snake-Anatomy-Respiratory/
Here is a link to snakes making noises with it's breath.
https://youtu.be/rw650DxI8eE
Now as far as intelligence we have to remember that the Serpent was not necessarily only a snake.
Revelation 12: 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
So the snake was possessed by Satan. It was not Satan incarnate nor a dragon for the simple fact of the curse it received.
Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
But the main point is that the crafty devil had possessed the snake and in this possession could manipulate the snake to it's bidding which included talking.
The Apple?
Here is a link to snakes making noises with it's breath.
https://youtu.be/rw650DxI8eE
Now as far as intelligence we have to remember that the Serpent was not necessarily only a snake.
Revelation 12: 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
So the snake was possessed by Satan. It was not Satan incarnate nor a dragon for the simple fact of the curse it received.
Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"
But the main point is that the crafty devil had possessed the snake and in this possession could manipulate the snake to it's bidding which included talking.
The Apple?
"Nowhere does the Bible say the fruit was an apple. This tradition could have come from the latin "malam" (apple) which is similar to the latin "malum" (evil)" Spiro Zhodiates Hebrew-Greek Keyword Btudy Bible notes genesis 3:1-7
The eating of fruit did not change Adam and eve physically.
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: "
The eating of fruit did not change Adam and eve physically.
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: "
"The creation of the first man and woman is not a myth. The author of this account intends to portray a historical event. The heading 'these are the records/family records" occurs 11 times in genesis to introduce genealogies and historical naratives (e.g. 5:1,6:9,10:1,11:27). The first man (heb, Adam) is treated in genealogies as a historical individual named "Adam"(5:1, Lk 3:38)."The Apologetics Study Bible Notes Genesis 2:7,21-22 While there is no doubt tons of figurative value in the Adam and Eve account. It is presented as literal truth or historical narrative. The amount of supernatural occurences in the story are relatively low. Certainly, we have satan speaking through a snake and God talking directly.
But when we deal with beginning s we are always going to deal with things that are not ordinary. But at the end of the day it is about people in a garden. Which is fairly believeable!
No comments:
Post a Comment