Adam and Eve

[Eleventh Doctor]

I thought you were referring to anecdotal evidence, which would mean just you. And I was saying just the information you can gather would not prove a point, unless you could view most of the world.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

My main point this entire time has been this; I don't think physical looks and sin are linked on the genetic level. I admit that there are sins, such as drugs, you can commit that will hurt your physical looks and well being but I don't think people who do that will look any worse than those in the past that lived without medical care or a good diet. So no to quote you earlier, I don't think people are becoming less and less attractive.

[NateVONgreat]

I partially agree, I don't think that our looks have changed because of a direct effect of our sin. Some people today are very beautiful and attractive (all a matter of opinion of course),and I am sure back then there were uglier/less attractive people. But God created Adam and Eve as the FIRST two humans on earth, and he said it was very good. I believe they were quite beautiful (wouldn't you want to make your first two people as nice as you could?).
The earth before the flood was a lot different then how it is now, there were amazing natural conditions that enabled humans to live up to 900 years (yes I believe that is 100% true), like it says in genesis, most the earth was covered in trees and plants, compared to today 70% is water, and lots of snow or desert.
There was no genetic mutation in the early stages of earth, the Ozone layer was stronger, and probably there was another layer of something (most likely water or ice) above the earth to stop radiation or UV light, so their skin was better taken care of. because of that layer of water / ice and the plants the had very oxygen rich air in higher pressures helping the 900+ years, and helping heal any wounds (like living in a medical hyperbaric oxygen chamber). They ate real healthy food (only fruit, vegetables and seeds) that are rich with oils and vitamins, that helped a lot! we eat coke french fries and hamburgers, that don't really help us with our looks, and really not with our minds.
When we sinned, we gave rule over to satan, I think he messed a lot of things up.
I do think looks have changed a lot, but not that they were more beautiful by a lot more that how we are now, just changes.
People back then didn't need medical care, and they had (at least before the flood) a VERY good diet.
After the flood, they probably had a good diet, but harder to come by, and for example the isrealites in egypt probably didn't have a good diet.
About Adam and Eve being the first 2 humans and the importance of it being true, it matters very much, if Genesis isn't true, what is? why believe that God created other people, but not by the names of Adam and Eve? like mentioned before, if the fall hadn't happened how is there pain and suffering in the world, or why did Jesus come to die?
O_O so much text! I amaze myself sometimes.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Those are all really good points.

I guess I don't see Genesis lying if Adam and Eve were not historical figures, just like I don't believe it to be lying if it wasn't literally six days. To me Genesis is not a historical or scientific text. There are many different ways to interpret it, I think the one dogmatic truth we must take away from Genesis is that God created everything out of nothing. Beyond that I think its open. I can see your point of view though.

[Stella C.]

I would have to agree with you, Eleventh Doctor. Creation, and Genesis as a whole, should NOT be used at a scientific text. Science is the systematic study of nature through observations. We could not observe Creation, or Genesis as a whole so therefore, it is not science. This would also apply to evolution as well. Genesis, and the rest of the Bible, should be, however, the base for science. The conclusions we make from science should always match up with Genesis, and the rest of the Bible for that matter.

I do, however, think Genesis should be used as a historical text. I'm sorry I wasn't able to expound on this earlier, as I ran out of time. The definition of history is a chronological record of significant events; events of the past. Why shouldn't we use the rest of Genesis as a historical text? I'm a bit confused on what you mean exactly.

To stay on topic.... I think you explained it very well, Nate, and I agree with you.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I disagree that the conclusions we make should always match up with Genesis. That isn't science if you're working toward a forgone conclusion. We also have to be careful not to be so focused on interpreting scientific fact from the Genesis text if it makes us look like fools to those around us.

I think there are parts of Genesis that can be used as historical text, but at the same time we need to realize how history was recorded back then. It isn't like today and it wasn't always entirely fact based. For comparison look at Herodotus, the first historian, he didn't come about until 5th century BC and even then some of his histories were more narrative than text. The fact remains that at the time of the writing of Genesis the idea of a historical text was still centuries away.