Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Think of it this way, it is quite possible (and that is only speculation on my part mind you) that the chosen Eve may very well have formerly been a physical blood relative, most likely an offspring of the former being that is now Adam. So here is this first human, Adam, suddenly awake and distinctly aware of his surroundings, can process information, reason, communicate, and so on, and yet utterly raw so-to-speak and totally dependent on God. So God makes it known to him (in his sleep) that Eve is not just special because she was chosen as his wife and companion, no she is much more than that, she is flesh from his flesh and bone from his bone (literally physically).

Byblos, if Eve is an off spring of Adam, then how do you explain Genesis 2:18:

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [o]suitable for him.”

How could Adam be alone if he had children from which Eve came?

Adam was the first to receive a rational soul. When he became self-aware he would not have identified with Eve because her soul wasn't formed yet. Only after he was put to sleep, Eve was made self-aware, he was given knowledge of that and of the fact that she is no stranger, a blood relative, that he awoken and knew her.

RickD wrote:And, Genesis 2:19-22:

19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [p]sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the [q]sky, and to every beast of the field, but for [r]Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

There was not a helper suitable for him before Eve was created. That doesn't really make any sense if Adam already had children.

Of course it does, having received a rational soul, Adam is a new creature unlike any other, including himself. That's why he had to be made aware that Eve is a blood relative; he would not have had any knowledge or memory of that prior to receiving a rational soul.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
As you know I'm not entirely sold on TE

I can see why, after that explanation.

It's an interpretation like myriad others. And it perfectly aligns with scripture.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Why would God need to do that Rick?
I mean, why not create Eve just as Adam?

I'm not sure what you're asking Paul. I didn't say God needed to do it that way. I'm just trying to see how Byblos understands the text here as an allegory.

When God created all other mammals, he created them male and female so they can procreate, he created them at the same time we assume.
Why the difference with Adam?
Why not create eve like Adam, why use a part of Adam?
That it was written that way makes me think that there is a message here and it isn't about creation but about how man and woman are One.
Written to show that woman is from Man and Man gives of himself for woman.

Ok. So God created Eve from Adam's rib, and this shows us that woman comes from man. How are you arguing against an non-allegorical interpretation here? It sounds like you're arguing for an interpretation of Eve being literally formed from a part of Adam.

It was allegory because, obviously God didn't have to create Eve that way, the story is used to instill the ONENESS that must exist between man and woman.
Why a rib? Because the ribs job is to protect the heart ( and lungs of course) and the woman would "protect" his heart from loneliness.
God could have chosen ANY part, agreed? there must have been some significance for choosing the rib.
The whole tale seems to be about man and woman, made for each other, to complement each other, to be ONE when together, to be OF each other and FOR each other.

Byblos wrote:
According to Catholic belief (many of whom are theistic evolutionists), there are 3 types of souls: 1) a non-sentient soul such as that of plants, bacteria, etc. 2) a sentient non-rational soul such as that of animals, and 3) a sentient rational soul such as that of humans and which is said to be in the image of God.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
According to Catholic belief (many of whom are theistic evolutionists), there are 3 types of souls: 1) a non-sentient soul such as that of plants, bacteria, etc. 2) a sentient non-rational soul such as that of animals, and 3) a sentient rational soul such as that of humans and which is said to be in the image of God.

Byblos, are you sure about that? I just saw something that may say otherwise. Have a look:http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/07/living/ga ... ?hpt=hp_c3
What is this world coming to?

Byblos wrote:
I know you found it somehow humorous but in what way does that contradict what I stated?

RickD wrote: I see what you're saying as well, Paul. While I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, in and of itself, this interpretation really isn't "unscriptural". I don't think TE is the best interpretation, but I can understand a little better, how you and Byblos see this now.