italo: Mazaje, stop trying too hard. The Genesis account is a mythological account. It happened and is true...The Cardinal stated it...Why are you fighting yourself...

...instead of looking up the meaning of "myth"

Myth means

1.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
2.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
3.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

How does the genesis account resemble reality?. . .Myths are fictitious. . .genesis account is a myth. .Stop fighting yourself. . .

@ turnstoner,

What am I deluded about? Lmao.

You just go around saying what you know nothing about. You dont know the meaning of "myth," "dichotomy," "delusional."

You dont know that Galileo failed to prove his theory conclusively and that part of it has been proved to be false. You dont even know what parts are those.

You dont know that it was Fr Georges Lemaitre that first proposed the major theory behind the big bang.

You know nothing but to throw around big words that mean nothing in the context of the argument.

I will advice you again: READ MORE; TYPE LESS.

From which dictionary...the mazaje dictionary?

mazaje:

Myth means

1.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
2.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
3.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

How does the genesis account resemble reality?. . .Myths are fictitious. . .genesis account is a myth. .Stop fighting yourself. . .

italo: @ turnstoner,

What am I deluded about? Lmao.

You just go around saying what you know nothing about. You dont know the meaning of "myth," "dichotomy," "delusional."

You dont know that Galileo failed to prove his theory conclusively and that part of it has been proved to be false. You dont even know what parts are those.

You dont know that it was Fr Georges Lemaitre that first proposed the major theory behind the big bang.

You know nothing but to throw around big words that mean nothing in the context of the argument.

I will advice you again: READ MORE; TYPE LESS.

Oh! there are more:

Because of your delusion, you have become bemused and confused.

Your long-winded posts above are after thoughts that clarify nothing.
Your beloved catholic church is dying.
Don't let the couple of likes you get from your companions in delusion deceive you!

turnstoner:

Your beloved catholic church is dying.

Aww! Poor you...so that is your dream. Well if your dream is about to come true, you wouldnt be so bitter, scatter-brained and agitated, would you?

Could it be that you are so sad because it is YOU who will be dead and gone in a very short time?

turnstoner:
Don't let the couple of likes you get from your companions in delusion deceive you!

I have 'likes?' I didnt notice. You did?

italo: From which dictionary...the mazaje dictionary?

Dictionary.com. . .

italo:

So the entirety of the Genesis story was literally true?

Adam and Eve truly died when they ate the fruit?

i never said ALL are literally true. but not just a story told for relogious reasons. it is really what happened some thousand years ago. the cardinal that wants to link it with evolutionary discovery is trying to agree to the theory that life started billion years ago as against the genesis account. this is my point.

both physically ad spirutually, they died that day. 2peter 3:8

2 Peter 3:8
8 However, let this one fact not be
escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that
one day is with Jehovah * as a thousand
years and a thousand years as one day. +

mazaje:

Dictionary.com. . .

From www.dictionary.com

myth

- noun 1. legendary story, person, etc. 2. false popular belief

leg·end

- noun 1. story handed down by tradition 2. person

Going by dictionary.com a myth is not necessarily false.

Do you have another dictionary?

Or do you want to force dictionary.com to say what you want it to say?

JMAN05:

i never said ALL are literally true. but not just a story told for relogious reasons.

So tell me which part is literally true and which is not.

quote author=JMAN05]
it is really what happened some thousand years ago. the cardinal that wants to link it with evolutionary discovery is trying to agree to the theory that life started billion years ago as against the genesis account. this is my point.[/quote]

2 Peter 3:8
8 However, let this one fact not be
escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that
one day is with Jehovah * as a thousand
years and a thousand years as one day. +

Since you know the bold that St Peter said, isnt that proo4f that the thousands of years might be billions of years?

quote author=JMAN05]
both physically ad spirutually, they died that day. 2peter 3:8
[/quote]

Hahaha...you're joking right?

Adam and Eve physically died that day.

Then the serpent gave birth to Cain and Abel?

lol @ italo

Changing the meaning of well know words to win an argument is a time honoured tactic of religious apologetics.

1+1=2? But what is the real meaning of the word 2?

italo:


From www.dictionary.com

myth

- noun 1. legendary story, person, etc. 2. false popular belief

leg·end

- noun 1. story handed down by tradition 2. person

Going by dictionary.com a myth is not necessarily false.

Do you have another dictionary?

Or do you want to force dictionary.com to say what you want it to say?

Didn't you see the other definitions there?. . .

1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth?s=t


Besides the one you quoted clearly says false popular belief. . .Myth is never true, if you have any definition of a myth that says it is true pls bring it. . .

My name is not www.dictionary.com

Evil Brain: lol @ italo

Changing the meaning of well know words to win an argument is a time honoured tactic of religious apologetics.

1+1=2? But what is the real meaning of the word 2?

My friend, even this link you posted is clearly corroborating my position that a myth is not necessarily false yet you are bent on forcing it to agree with you.

Re-read the five definitions and see that the one that clearly relates to the creation story is number 1.

Tell me how that means myths are always false.

Instead it clearly provides that it may be true or false.

Do you agree with this dictionary or do you have another one that can prove me wrong?

mazaje:

Didn't you see the other definitions there?. . .

1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth?s=t


Besides the one you quoted clearly says false popular belief. . .Myth is never true, if you have any definition of a myth that says it is true pls bring it. . .

italo: My friend, even this link you posted is clearly corroborating my position that a myth is not necessarily false yet you are bent on forcing it to agree with you.

Re-read the five definitions and see that the one that clearly relates to the creation story is number 1.

Tell me how that means myths are always false.

Instead it clearly provides that it may be true or false.

Do you agree with this dictionary or do you have another one that can prove me wrong?

Myth means something is true, eh?. . .I hear you. . .

[quote author=italo]


From www.dictionary.com

myth

- noun 1. legendary story, person, etc. 2. false popular belief

leg·end

- noun 1. story handed down by tradition 2. person

Going by dictionary.com a myth is not necessarily false.

Do you have another dictionary?

Or do you want to force dic

tionary.com to say what you want it to say?[/quote
Story headed down by tradition is not necessarily true. It is most likely to be false or greatly exaggerated. Myths and superstitions are usually handed d own from tradition.
So myth still means the same: imaginary tales.

The term mythology can refer either to a
collection of myths (a mythos , e.g., Inca
mythology) or to the study of myths (e.g.,
comparative mythology).

[1] According to Alan Dundes , a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind assumed their present form,

[2] although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story .

[3] Bruce Lincoln defines myth as "ideology in narrative form".

[4] Myths may arise as either truthful
depictions or overelaborated accounts of
historical events, as allegory for or
personification of natural phenomena, or as
an explanation of ritual . They are
transmitted to convey religious or idealized
experience, to establish behavioral models,
and to teach .

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology


Whoever can prove the story of Adam and eve with historic or archeological evidence should do so, Stories that are selective, ie depend on faith or gullibility of the individual for its veracity cannot escape being called a myth. Note that a myth may later be verified as truth, it didn't mean it was not true all along, it is however truthfulness to call a spade its right name at the point of questioning.

Believe the dictionary you quoted, not me.

mazaje:

Myth means something is true, eh?. . .I hear you. . .

@plaetton,
Why do you insist on rewriting the English dictionary?

italo:

So tell me which part is literally true and which is not.

quote author=JMAN05]
it is really what happened some thousand years ago. the cardinal that wants to link it with evolutionary discovery is trying to agree to the theory that life started billion years ago as against the genesis account. this is my point.

2 Peter 3:8
8 However, let this one fact not be
escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that
one day is with Jehovah * as a thousand
years and a thousand years as one day. +

Since you know the bold that St Peter said, isnt that proo4f that the thousands of years might be billions of years?

quote author=JMAN05]
both physically ad spirutually, they died that day. 2peter 3:8


Hahaha...you're joking right?

Adam and Eve physically died that day.

Then the serpent gave birth to Cain and Abel?

what did that verse of the bible i quoted say? did adam and eve live up to 1000years? so they died that day in God's sight.

when i say day, i mean day as God sees it, not from human stand point. of course they physically died within that thousand years. what is itching ur tongue?

omobarBlog: (Yahoo News) In comments that may shock some staunch Catholics, Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a myth.
He appeared alongside renowned evolutionary biologist and atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, on the ABC’s Q&A program last night.
Cardinal Pell said the existence of Adam and Eve was not a matter of science but rather a mythological account.
“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said.
“It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”
[size=18pt]According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them[/size].
Cardinal Pell’s explosive comments came after he was questioned about evolution.
[size=18pt]He said it was impossible to say when there was a first human.[/size]
It is widely accepted in the scientific community that life on Earth has evolved over about four billion years
source:http://omobar..com/2013/08/catholic-cardinal-says-adam-and-eve.html

(bolded above)if a cardinal who people look up to as a devoted man of God with faith in God's word the bible does not even believe or doubt what was written in his own bible, it potrays the cardinal as MISLEADING and incapable of representing Christ people!

cardinal pell's problem was that he did not agree that all humans came from the first couple adam and eve, hence relying on his opinion;


"He said it was impossible to say when there was a first human".


[size=14pt]im·pos·si·ble[/size] (m-ps-bl)
adj. impossible meaning:

[size=14pt]1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.

2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.[/size]

im waiting for another translation of impossible, where it willbe translated to be 'posible'!

the cardinal lost it! and its a shame for him to even come out in that shameful way

JMAN05:

what did that verse of the bible i quoted say? did adam and eve live up to 1000years? so they died that day in God's sight.

when i say day, i mean day as God sees it, not from human stand point. of course they physically died within that thousand years. what is itching ur tongue?

You're very funny. If you believe Adam could have died 1000years later when God said he died "that day," what is the difference between your thinking on this matter and that of the Cardinal who believes that the earth could be billions of years old.

It seems like you are one of those "christians" who just like to condemn anything 'catholic.'

You havent still told me which parts are literally true and which arent, papa wey sabi everything.

BERNIMOORE:

(bolded above)if a cardinal who people look up to as a devoted man of God with faith in God's word the bible does not even believe or doubt what was written in his own bible, it potrays the cardinal as MISLEADING and incapable of representing Christ people!

cardinal pell's problem was that he did not agree that all humans came from the first couple adam and eve, hence relying on his opinion;


"He said it was impossible to say when there was a first human".


[size=14pt]im·pos·si·ble[/size] (m-ps-bl)
adj. impossible meaning:

[size=14pt]1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.

2. Not capable of being accomplished: an impossible goal.[/size]

im waiting for another translation of impossible, where it willbe translated to be 'posible'!

the cardinal lost it! and its a shame for him to even come out in that shameful way

You tell us when there was a first human then...

italo:

You tell us when there was a first human then...

the problem here is not about the timing, as you want to change the topic, but rather

cardinal pell could not imagine that 'all people could decend from a single pair of parent(adam and eve) as a source

this can be seen from the way he stated that "According to Genesis"

"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them"

omobarBlog: (Yahoo News) In comments that may shock some staunch Catholics, Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a myth.
He appeared alongside renowned evolutionary biologist and atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, on the ABC’s Q&A program last night.
Cardinal Pell said the existence of Adam and Eve was not a matter of science but rather a mythological account.
“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said.
“It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”
[size=18pt]According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them[/size].
Cardinal Pell’s explosive comments came after he was questioned about evolution.
[size=18pt]He said it was impossible to say when there was a first human.[/size]
It is widely accepted in the scientific community that life on Earth has evolved over about four billion years
source:http://omobar..com/2013/08/catholic-cardinal-says-adam-and-eve.html

rather than forcing timing on this issue, the cardinal was only expressing that he does not see where adam and eve 'fits in' in the human's existence. He is not sure that adam/eve can be responsible for the source of our existence!

[size=14pt]simply put; he cast doubt on our source of existence, by fighting the holy scripture![/size]

BERNIMOORE:

the problem here is not about the timing, as you want to change the topic, but rather

cardinal pell could not imagine that 'all people could decend from a single pair of parent(adam and eve) as a source

this can be seen from the way he stated that "According to Genesis"

"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them"



rather than forcing timing on this issue, the cardinal was only expressing that he does not see where adam and eve 'fits in' in the human's existence. He is not sure that adam/eve can be responsible for the source of our existence!

[size=14pt]simply put; he cast doubt on our source of existence, by fighting the holy scripture![/size]

I think you are allowing sentiments to lead what you infer, I see nothing wrong in the bolded, where else was the account taken from, exodus? You accuse him of what I cannot see in his speech, if you can say when the first human lived, please let's know.

BERNIMOORE:

the problem here is not about the timing, as you want to change the topic, but rather

cardinal pell could not imagine that 'all people could decend from a single pair of parent(adam and eve) as a source

this can be seen from the way he stated that "According to Genesis"

"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them"



rather than forcing timing on this issue, the cardinal was only expressing that he does not see where adam and eve 'fits in' in the human's existence. He is not sure that adam/eve can be responsible for the source of our existence!

[size=14pt]simply put; he cast doubt on our source of existence, by fighting the holy scripture![/size]

You anti-Catholics dont even bother to read thoroughly and confirm what you read before you start your criticism.

It wasnt Cardinal Pell that said
"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them,"

It was the writer of the article.

Secondly, it was you who first criticized the Cardinal for saying it was impossible to know when there was a first human...

...then when I told you to tell us when there was a first man, you started accusing me of making it about timing.

Why cant you people be honest for once?

Isn't Christianity being interpreted and governed by Science and its materialist dogma?

iamswizz: The cardinal needs help..

The Bible is one great book, that explains everything happening today.

You are one hell of an opinionated cyclop.

maxwello.yg:
Some people are not meant to be priests, let alone bishop then cardinal.

Why? Because they use their BRAINS unlike a TOAD like you?

Even today, the oyibos that introduced you to the bible are still using their brains to decipher what is what in it. What is plausible and what isn't. What is true and what isn't.

But our CLUELESS, STUPI.D DUMMIES in Nigeria screaming ''Jesus'' still regard the book as if God himself directly came down to earth and penned it. No questions asked. Stup.id, brainwashed moro.ns.

italo:

You anti-Catholics dont even bother to read thoroughly and confirm what you read before you start your criticism.

It wasnt Cardinal Pell that said
"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them,"

It was the writer of the article.

Secondly, it was you who first criticized the Cardinal for saying it was impossible to know when there was a first human...

...then when I told you to tell us when there was a first man, you started accusing me of making it about timing.

Why cant you people be honest for once?

honest?

anti catholic? stop fanning sentiments and face the issue!

is cardinal pell honest with posing as a christ representative but denied the holy scripture he once relied on that made him cardinal

i have come accross this controversial comments before, and to prove that 'his comment is not about timming' go to his WIKI link below to get the full story;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell

on

[size=18pt]Adam and Eve[/size]

"Asked by an Australian journalist in 2012 whether there had ever been a Garden of Eden scenario with an "actual" Adam and Eve,

[size=14pt]Pell said in quote:[/size]

[size=14pt]"Adam and Eve are terms[/size] – what do they mean: [size=14pt]life and earth. It’s like every man. That’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account.[/size] It’s not science but[size=14pt] it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and the universe. Secondly, that the key to the whole of universe, the really significant thing, are humans and, thirdly, it is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world".[/size]


since the question from the journalist is not about timing as you want to force us to believe, but "whether there had ever been a Garden of Eden scenario with an "actual" Adam and Eve"

cardinal pell: answered that adam and eve were not real! but qualifying terms;

"Adam and Eve are terms"

terms 3rd person singular present, plural of term

Noun
A word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept, esp. in a particular kind of language or branch of study.

now do you consider all these before inputing the timing on the story?

@ bernimore,

Can you please be open and honest?

Did Cardinal Pell say
"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them,"?

Yes or No?

You criticize the Cardinal for saying it was impossible to know when there was a first human...

Yes or No?

Where I read that someone said it is impossible to know WHEN something happened, for me it is a matter of timing. He didn't say that there wasn't a first human being. He said we can't tell WHEN he appear, in other words what time in history he appeared. Abi, is there another interpretation of that sentence that I have missed.

I think that all the cardinal has denied is some people's literal interpretation of the scripture.

Another issue in dispute is his use of the word Myth. Was he talking in the vulgar colloquial sense of a utterly fictitious story or was he using it in a more academic sense.

Myth Summary
Interpretation and Definition
of Classical Mythology
THE PROBLEM OF DEFINING MYTH

The establishment of a single, comprehensive definition of myth has proved impossible to attain. No one definition can satisfactorily embrace all the various kinds of stories that can legitimately be classed as myths on the basis of one criterion or another. The attempt to define myth in itself, however intractable a proposition, serves to highlight the very qualities of the stories that make them so different from one another.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD MYTH

"Myth" is derived from the Greek word mythos, which can mean tale, or story, and that is essentially what a myth is: a story. For many, such a general definition proves to be of no real service, and some would add the qualification that a myth must be a "traditional" tale or story, one that has proved of so lasting a value that it is continually retold, through whatever medium the artist/storyteller chooses to employ. For further clarification, distinctions are often made between "myth," i.e., "true myth" or "myth proper," and "saga" or "legend," and "folktale."

MYTH, SAGA OR LEGEND, AND FOLKTALE

Myth: not a comprehensive term for all stories but only for those primarily concerned with the gods and their relations with mortals.
Saga or legend: a story containing a kernel of historical truth, despite later fictional accretions.
Folktale: a story, usually of oral origin, that contains elements of the fantastic, often in the pattern of the adventure of a hero or a heroine. Its main function is entertainment, but it can also educate with all sorts of insights. Under this rubric may be classed fairytales, which are full of supernatural beings and magic and provide a more pointed moral content.
Rarely, if ever, do we find in Greek and Roman mythology, a pristine, uncontaminated example of any one of these types of story.

MYTH AND TRUTH

The most common association of the words "myth" and "mythical" is with what is incredible and fantastic. How often do we hear the expression, "It's a myth," uttered in derogatory contrast with such laudable concepts as reality and the facts? As opposed to the discoveries of science, whose truths continually change, myth, like art is eternal. Myth in a sense is the highest reality, and the thoughtless dismissal of myth as fiction or a lie is the most barren and misleading definition of all. Myth serves to interpret the whole of human experience and that interpretation can be true or fictitious, valuable or insubstantial, quite apart from its historical veracity.

MYTH AND RELIGION

The study of myth must not and cannot be separated from the study of religion, religious beliefs, or religious rituals. No mythologist has been more eloquent than Mircea Eliade in his appreciation of the sacredness of myth and the holy and timeless world that it embodies.

http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195308044/studentresources/chapters/ch01/myth_summary/

italo: @ bernimore,

Can you please be open and honest?

Did Cardinal Pell say
"According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman and all people are descended from them,"?

Yes or No?

You criticize the Cardinal for saying it was impossible to know when there was a first human...

Yes or No?

#as for the first point you raised;
i just saw it from your response, that you said it was nt cardinal pell that said "according to genesis"......it seems a bit difficult to separate the punctuations of the quotes as in a very tight clumsy and brief report, there are ways a reporter can insert his own statement in a report, but the issue remains, it seems that you have seen the point im making about you defending pell, and pell unworthy to represent christ people

if you feel unconfortable with that which im yet to verify,so your request of yes or no is of no significant and on hold as overwhelming proofs were supplied to butress my point

remove that from his statement ,and it makes the case even worst,

#As for the second point,that i criticised "the Cardinal for saying it was impossible to know when there was a first human".

yes, im maintaining my grounds one of which is that 'im NOT alluding my point to WHEN(as in timing) but that pell cast doubt about adam and eve ever existed!

#i maintain from my first post that the issue here is not about timing[b] as you are forcing the argument [/b]towards the timing

see my earlier post;

bernimoore: rather than forcing timing on this issue, the cardinal was only expressing that he does not see where adam and eve 'fits in' in the human's existence. He is not sure that adam/eve can be responsible for the source of our existence!

[size=14pt]simply put; he cast doubt on our source of existence, by fighting the holy scripture![/size]

and to further prove my point, that when you are calculating a thousand year for a day, it can only be applied only the cardinal believed in the literal adam and eve which the cardinal says that they were not literal but terms


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell

on

Adam and Eve

"Asked by an Australian journalist in 2012 whether there had ever been a Garden of Eden scenario with an "actual" Adam and Eve,

Pell said in quote:

[size=14pt]"Adam and Eve are terms – what do they mean: life and earth. It’s like every man. That’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science but it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and the universe. Secondly, that the key to the whole of universe, the really significant thing, are humans and, thirdly, it is a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and suffering in the world".[/size]


the bible saying one thing, an unworthy priest was saying another as you can see above, stop forcing timing on the issue, cardinal pell is not a good leader in the christian faith, he is disgusting, and should have resigned!