The Forum > Article Comments > Interpreting Genesis > Comments
Interpreting Genesis : Comments
By David Young, published 16/2/2009An alternative version of Adam and the Woman in the Garden of Eden.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Page 7
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
“I also disagree that the bicameral mind has much to do with how we are present to ourselves. People with a section through the corpus callosum do not lose this ability.” - Sells
Dear Peter,
Genesis and other creation stories have been written and re-written far longer than 2,000 years. Here, we must acknowledge that the Bible’s version Genesis is but one of several drafts the work: e.g., the Qumran community held other drafts.
I see nothing improper in David’s interpretation of the myth. Prior to David’s posit, I regarded the Man and Adam , as two stories of the one myth. David’s posit writers may meant a passage of time the creation of Man and the creation of Adam, whom happens to be a special man, seems well argued. Right or wrong, I find David’s insight refreshing.
Not traditional dogma? Well, as Popper once retorted to Jung’s claim of a “one thousand-fold interpretation of an event”, “with this, you do have one thousand-fold plus one interpretation” (or very similar words)? The point is that the Church’s thousand-fold plus one repetition is just as wrong as the first if the first interpretation is incorrect.
After a recovery period, people with lesions to the corpus callosum do recover . Yet, how well they perform depends on how stimuli are presented the visual fields.
…Cont.