The Fall

Is there any evidence or faults in science regarding human history and world history for the story of Adam and Eve? Or is it just pure myth?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is obviously pure myth duh
    Even most theists admit it

    Evolution is gradual, there were no "first man and woman" but a continuous transformation into what we would consider human-like.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how do you know they didnt hatch from an ancient reptile egg

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Our ancestors weren't reptiles! Only saurospids are reptiles, our amniotes ancestors were reptilomorphes! Totally different.
        And they did lay eggs, in fact some mammals still lay eggs; Echidnas and platypuses. They have more than 2 sexual chromosomes like 5 of each and milk is secreted from the skin milk ducts instead of proper nipples.
        Human still have eggs we just don't lay them, we are placentals so they fuse with the uterus roof to make the placenta. Human eggs and embryos still use a yolk sac even tho it loses its function as a energy source the moment the embryo forms its placenta.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Or is it just pure myth?
    Just one look at the state of the world, and especially at the state of the man, would confirm with complete validity the truth of the Fall.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Radiochan

      it's pretty obviously pure myth

      people have been saying this literally for 6000 years if not longer before

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >look at the state of the world
        I wonder how many times this has been said throughout all of human history

        If each man of a thousand men that has ever bitten into a particular variety of apple has bled out of hemorrhage only to die, what are the odds that the next man in line will enjoy instead delicious fruit? Your point only proves my own.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Radiochan

          frick are you talking about

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >look at the state of the world
      I wonder how many times this has been said throughout all of human history

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The utopia promised in Christianity feels like cope. I can't help but agree with Nietzsche that it's just escapism rather than people overcoming the struggle found in life. Even the promise of Heaven doesn't really sound like life at all i.e. only having a will that can do good and evil simply doesn't exist, nor struggle of any kind. It just sounds meaningless and illogical. Lucifer in the story definitely has ulterior motives but you also can't help the fact that he still has a point.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is cope.
        The apostles thought that utopia was going to happen in their lifetimes, at most two generations away.
        It still hasn't happened.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          TWO MORE TEMPLES!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The apostles thought that utopia was going to happen in their lifetimes, at most two generations away. It still hasn't happened.
          Jesus told them that it would BEGIN in the current generation’s lifetimes. It doesn’t mean it had to end in their generation. The events of revelation take an unknown amount of time, the only amount of time that is really given if I remember correctly is 3 and a half years for one thing and 1000 years for another, but isn’t known how long it’ll take for the majority of the events to all unfold.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus told them that it would BEGIN in the current generation’s lifetimes. It doesn’t mean it had to end in their generation. The events of revelation take an unknown amount of time, the only amount of time that is really given if I remember correctly is 3 and a half years for one thing and 1000 years for another, but isn’t known how long it’ll take for the majority of the events to all unfold.
            He literally said that some of those who were standing there listening to him would see his kingdom come in with glory and power, which is a direct reference to Daniel. It didn't happen, he made a false prophecy. The excuse is always "he was referring to the Transfiguration." No the frick he wasn't, he was making it clear that after ascending to heaven and receiving authority he would descend and judge the Earth. It takes a disingenuous mind insistent on being correct to warp and twist his words. He deserves more respect than that. He fricked up, he got his ass killed and his members had to cope by saying that their cult leader would return any day now.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >He literally said that some of those who were standing there listening to him would see his kingdom come in with glory and power, which is a direct reference to Daniel. It didn't happen
            Not yet. Would they not bear witness to it not from earth but from heaven? Don’t forget that there’s more than this world.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not yet. Would they not bear witness to it not from earth but from heaven? Don’t forget that there’s more than this world.
            >It takes a disingenuous mind insistent on being correct to warp and twist his words.
            This is exactly my point. You're making shit up to prove yourself right, since you cannot allow for Jesus to simply be the false prophet that he was.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The prophecy also predicts the destruction of the 2nd Temple, which did happen. Daniel also accurately predicts the same event and Jesus' arrival. These prove that the difficultly in these passages are due to their vagueness, not accuracy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Daniel does not predict Jesus' coming, since the 49 weeks does not perfectly get to 33 AD and the cutting off of the "anointed." Anyway, Daniel is a forgery and you can tell by the fact that it was written during the Maccabean Revolt and thus certain details about the future were just straight up wrong.

            homie how is it disingenuous or word-twisting to point out stuff that’s literally in the Bible, it says in revelation that for revelation to be complete it would to take at least a thousand years, it doesn’t say in the Bible that the generation of the apostles would se those events end, it says in the Bible that there’s a heaven, and if they aren’t there in heaven now those who were told that they would see the second-coming would see it happen because the Bible says the grave would give up their dead to be judged in those times.

            Is cross-referencing from the Bible to support other parts of the Bible “disingenuous” or whatever, even when Jesus the apostles and even the prophets referenced parts of the Bible themselves to support what they were saying?

            It does not say that it would take at least a thousand years, this is cope. What it says is that when Jesus comes back he will rule for a thousand years until Satan is released and gathers the armies of Gog and Magog, which are subsequently destroyed, at which point a new heaven and new earth come into being. Univocality is wrong and disingenuous, you say that they are in heaven, but I am curious as to how you understand the term "taste death." Did the apostles not all die? So they did taste death. Saying that it refers to the second death implies that even the apostles will go to hell, since you cannot say "some of those here standing will not taste death UNTIL x." Your theology has to get more and more convoluted to prove the words of a false prophet true.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Daniel 2 predicts Jesus's coming during the Roman Empire. And the dating of Daniel 9 depends on the starting point, which can be shown to work. Daniel 9 also shows that the Messiah must arrive before Jerusalem's destruction. If it wasn't Jesus, then it was no one.
            >Anyway, Daniel is a forgery and you can tell by the fact that it was written during the Maccabean Revolt and thus certain details about the future were just straight up wrong.
            Absurd, since Daniel was found in Qumran, considered by that group already to be canon. There's no way that would occur in that short amount of time. Though, even if we were to grant that, Daniel *still* accurately predicts the future, so you're still not out of the hole of explanation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Daniel 2 predicts Jesus's coming during the Roman Empire
            what specifically in Daniel 2 predicts Jesus' coming during the Roman Empire?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The King's dream of a statue that gets smashed to pieces by a little rock. Daniel explains the dream to the King.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I can't stand these fricking prophecies. They are so vague and abstract you can literally write anybody so that they fulfill them... Which is probably what the NT writers did with Jesus.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's clear enough: a kingdom from God will be established during the time of the 4th kingdom, that will start at first small, then eventually cover the entire earth. That Kingdom is obviously the Christian Church.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Again, self fulfilling prophecy. The writers of the NT knew about this prophecy and just played madlibs with it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Its cute that you believe that but for 2000 years the major religion of the west has held the prophecy fulfilled by the Christ. You of course are free to reject salvation, and be damned.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >for 2000 years the major religion of the west has held the prophecy fulfilled by the Christ

            Yeah, just never mind the hundreds of years of butchering "incorrect" Christian sects by the hands of state power and then enforcing said religion through the threat of heresy and execution for another millennium and a half. When you ignore that, Christianity seems pretty streamlined and makes sense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you watch porn? Don't lie, lying is a sin for which you will be eternally damned.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Written at the time of the Maccabean Revolt. They were 'predicting the future' by writing history.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It does not say that it would take at least a thousand years, this is cope. What it says is that when Jesus comes back he will rule for a thousand years until Satan is released and gathers the armies of Gog and Magog, which are subsequently destroyed, at which point a new heaven and new earth come into being.
            Did I not say that the events described in revelation would not FINISH for at the very least a thousand years?
            >you say that they are in heaven, but I am curious as to how you understand the term "taste death." Did the apostles not all die?
            I’m not sure about this, it’s unknown for sure whether or not people go straight to heaven or stay dead or something for a while. I touched on this uncertainty here

            homie how is it disingenuous or word-twisting to point out stuff that’s literally in the Bible, it says in revelation that for revelation to be complete it would to take at least a thousand years, it doesn’t say in the Bible that the generation of the apostles would se those events end, it says in the Bible that there’s a heaven, and if they aren’t there in heaven now those who were told that they would see the second-coming would see it happen because the Bible says the grave would give up their dead to be judged in those times.

            Is cross-referencing from the Bible to support other parts of the Bible “disingenuous” or whatever, even when Jesus the apostles and even the prophets referenced parts of the Bible themselves to support what they were saying?

            >it says in the Bible that there’s a heaven, and if they aren’t there in heaven now those who were told that they would see the second-coming would see it happen because the Bible says the grave would give up their dead to be judged in those times.
            >Your theology has to get more and more convoluted to prove the words of a false prophet true.
            Just because something is complex, it doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong. Not everything can be simple baby steps.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            homie how is it disingenuous or word-twisting to point out stuff that’s literally in the Bible, it says in revelation that for revelation to be complete it would to take at least a thousand years, it doesn’t say in the Bible that the generation of the apostles would se those events end, it says in the Bible that there’s a heaven, and if they aren’t there in heaven now those who were told that they would see the second-coming would see it happen because the Bible says the grave would give up their dead to be judged in those times.

            Is cross-referencing from the Bible to support other parts of the Bible “disingenuous” or whatever, even when Jesus the apostles and even the prophets referenced parts of the Bible themselves to support what they were saying?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's absurd. The whole point of the Messiah was to bless the entire world, in this case, the Apostles were to bring the Good News to as many as possible. That that would be complete in 80 years is ridiculous.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The whole point of the Messiah was to bless the entire world, in this case, the Apostles were to bring the Good News to as many as possible. That that would be complete in 80 years is ridiculous.
            This all correct. I don’t see what you think is absurd though.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Even the promise of Heaven doesn't really sound like life at all
        Life isn’t about a vague “struggle” or choosing between good and evil, at least not the life that the soul would live if it wasn’t trapped sharing a life with the mind and body that are both evil at a default but can be less evil through the soul - the soul is the closest thing to pure goodness besides God.

        The soul will be the only thing to experience the next life, with the anchor that is the mind and body with its “struggles” left behind. That is if the soul wins over the mind and body in this life.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That just sounds like abstract garbage.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah when you look at things through a worldly view. And if this just abstractness how is stuff like “life struggle” not as equally abstract and garbage?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How would the "soul" have any knowledge of anything without living? What would be the point of the soul experiencing pure "goodness" and nothing else? You might as well hook yourself up into a pleasure pod.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How would the "soul" have any knowledge of anything without living?
            The soul lives when we live
            >What would be the point of the soul experiencing pure "goodness" and nothing else? You might as well hook yourself up into a pleasure pod.
            It’s hard to see how, even I don’t totally see how. It’s only hard to see for us though because we aren’t just soul but currently are also mind and body that can’t see past the experiences of this world and obscures our vision.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't see how because it is not true.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t see TOTALLY how, it’s not impossible to get a general idea of how. Humans would be able to see totally how if it wasn’t for the corruption that the world provides.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The problem I have with Christianity is that you are forced to essentially deny all of reality and reject any intuition since that is from the body and mind and therefore evil. That just doesn't make sense at all.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The problem I have with Christianity is that you are forced to essentially deny all of reality and reject any intuition since that is from the body and mind and therefore evil.
            It is pretty much the general point. It can be hard and no one can be perfect at it but it’s important to at least actively try and to minimize messing up as much as possible and to be disciplined enough to limit sin as well.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why should I deny life and reality?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >things are bad now
      >this is proof they used to be perfect earlier
      moron israelite worshiper

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm pretty sure even the catholic and orthodox church don't even take it literal. It's just a story probably meant to explain why you shouldn't let you're pride get the best of you.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If there is no Adam and Eve nor Fall then the concept of man being alienated from God or baptism being necessary collapses in on itself. It is the ur myth that underpins all of their doctrine, if you understood it you would see why it is a problem, even to the extent that Pope Pius XII had to say that belief in Adam and Eve was necessary for salvation.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Which Sumer/Mesopotamian myth does the story draw from? I see Gilgamesh and Noah are a match, but which one covers the fruit and fall?
        Honestly asking

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Neato!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/mpxwB9u.png

          Neato!

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis
          Jews really do be stealing everything

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            and this is the kind of thing that shatters my Catholic beliefs (severely challenges them, anyway) If the Old Testament is founding on stolen lies, then what foundation can the New Testament have?
            Verification not required.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Believing in a literal Adam and Eve is required. Picrel.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I wonder what will happen with Christianity if quantum physics ever develops a more definitive answer as to what consciousness is, especially since it seems to point to it being more of a Upanishad "one consciousness divided by individual egos" type of thing.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I deciphered the meaning.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Care to share?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you'll get it eventually if you don't reject the light

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s not even a myth that makes sense. How was Eve supposed to know what she was about to do was wrong if she had no knowledge of Good and Evil?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    basic knowledge that is a historical event, even admitted by seculargays
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Mitochondrial Eve is simply the most recent mitochondrial common ancestor of all human mitonchondrias before they started to split off into isolated populations. It is not "the first female human" dingus.
      All the other female mitochondrial line candidates died off eventually living hers the only one left. She was living among them. We have inherited DNA from those human females as well, not Mitonchondrial DNA that is. Because it is only herited from your mother and shared identically by all siblings.

      Reminder that mitochondrias are degenerared bacterium absorbed by our early Eukaruote ancestors and intrumentalized into an organelle, that's why they have their own DNA different from the one of our nucleus. Like domestication on the cellular scale.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's secular source so they have to downplay it, but fact remains that gensis is historical to the bone

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Of course it's a myth, it doesn't fit with anything we know about life on earth

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *