David,

Thank you for one of the most fascinating pieces I've read on biblical scholarship. The history of belief it outlines rings far more true in its simplicity than most of what people say and write about the Bible. There are many valuable things we could learn from your story.

To think that it all started with a bit of harmless literary fun, and that the lack of humour of later authority-figures ossified the notion into sterile stupidity!

Power hates play. It's a fundamental conflict that forms the human condition and is central in the current furore about science, religion, God and atheism.

Thanks again.

what is more amazing than people taking the Scriptures literally is the total inability of anyone to come up with anything more plausible for our origins. While pseudo scientist preach their dogmas there are many scientist who admit to the myth of the big bang and evolution stories. The blind faith of those denying the biblical account is certainly less intelligent than the faith of those who can see the obvious (we have been created thus requiring a Creator. Thousands of years after the Scriptures were written we see millions still with a reasoned faith in their Creator. Many honest scientist can come to no other conclusion. On the other hand we have reprint 5000 from the evolutionist who have to ignore the fact that they have to and will have to continue to change their story. Be sure the next 'scientific breakthrough' in this area will produce no more true scientific evidence as has the last 50000.

Runner:

What's it like in that evidence-free zone you live in? How many of the 5000 -- or is it 50000? -- papers on evolution have you actually read and understood? Would you like to explain what is wrong with the theory of evolution? You could start by explaining the theory so we can check whether you have got it right. Here's a clue: it doesn't say that fish give birth to baby monkeys. Let's get that sorted out and we can go on from there.

Thank you for an interesting insight into the possible background of the Genesis story. It is fascinating how these ideas were developed, borrowed and blended in ancient cultures. I was not aware of these possible origins of Eve’s name, though the Hebrew Scriptures themselves are also full of puns and name plays – Adam, whose creation described in Genesis 2 is basically an animated mud pie, has a name derived from the Hebrew “adama” meaning mud or dust. Adam can also be used as a generic term for mankind as well as the proper name of an individual – emphasising that Adam stands as a representative human.

I agree with the author, knowing a little of the context and origins of these texts add to our understanding and appreciation

He is exactly write on his insistence that we can only even begin to understand the Bible when we fully consider the then existing cultural matrix or vast cultural reservoir of ancient beliefs and mythologies, in which it appeared.

Every last bit of it was an extension of and a reworking of what came before.

How could it be otherwise?

All religions, without exception, are always only a partial description of man, both male and female.

If you believe the Bible as either History,or anything factual,you may as well believe that Hans Christian Anderson wrote the definitive history of Scandinavia.
Apart from Fundys and Runner of course