Were Adam and Eve the first people?

That doesn't work. It means we - all humans - would all be descended from Adam, which he is specifically denying.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, but most Biblical explanations for the races come from this passage in Genesis:

"And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread."

Ham is usually considered to be the son who populated Egypt (i.e. Africa) - and thus Ham was the origin of all African people, per the Bible. (God cursed Ham's son Caanan when Ham saw his father naked and drunk, and many Christians took that as evidence that Africans are bad/immoral/inferior/cursed. Why God cursed his son and not him is anyone's guess.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where does it say that?

Jan

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where does it say all Adams descendants make up the beginning of humanity?

Where does it say all of mankind is tainted by the original sin, because of Adam?
You need to be more specific.

The original sin is disobedience to God. Not the first sin by one person.

You’re correct in that everything will be inherited by Adam’s descendants. But misinformed as to who his descendants are, according the bible.

Adam was not the first human being, according to the bible. That is a religious claim, based on a misinterpretation.

The bible doesn’t claim that mankind are descendants of Adam, and you have not been able to show that it does.

You just accept it because that is what you have been fed. If you really look into it, you will realise it says no such thing.

Jan.

 

Asked and answered.

Look, your willful ignorance is amusing, but ultimately pointless. If you want to go out and evangelize for your opinion that "Christians don't believe Adam and Eve were the first humans!" you go for it. You could go door to door like the Jehovah's Witnesses!

 

It's not an opinion. It's what the Bible says.

 

Does the bible say “all Adams descendants make up the beginning of humanity?”

Does the bible make the claim that mankind descended from Adam?

Or does it make the claim that God created mankind in one go?

Jan.

 

Yes.

Yes.

 

Where does it say mankind descended from A +E?

Jan.

 

We've been through this. Eve was the mother of all living.

 

But you don’t agree that she gave birth to elephants and saber-toothed tigers.
So what do you think is meant by that sentence?

Jan.

 

James, while this may have seemed to be off-topic, I assure you it wasn’t.
This is observing atheist psychology directly.

We should try our best to understand what is being said.

I responded to a claim, that it was historically inaccurate.
My position was, I see no reason to believe it was “historically inaccurate”.

Do you?

I wasn’t telling y’all anything. I was asking where it states that Adam and Eve were origin of mankind.
Can you show where it says this?

I’m ASKING how it could possibly mean that.
Can you explain?

Not really.
Aside from common sense, the actual Hebrew meaning of the word used in that text, gives a clear understanding of what it is conveying.

I’ve no idea what you are referring to.
Can you show where I have cherrypicked?

Jan.

 

Does it need to? Should we assume that there were humans before A + E?
Why? This story is in Genesis (the beginning) no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis

 

2 reasons.

It does not literally mean that
That’s not what it say.

I don’t see how.

Alternative to what?

Okay.

I just read what it says?
How could it mean anything other than what it says?

Unless you are suggesting she gave birth to foxes and porcupines, I don’t see how you draw that conclusion.

To add to that, the Hebrew word used, does not translate to “biology”.

And finally, did “Mother” Teresa give birth to all those children in Calcutta, or to everyone who referred to her as “ mother”

Why does it?
It says “All living”, why exclude something’s that are part of “All living”?
It seems a bit devicive to me. Doesn’t it you?

I believe I already have.
It means what it says.

Mother; 1)a woman in relation to her child or children.

2)especially as a title or form of address) the head of a female religious community.

3)bring up (a child) with care and affection.

Which of those definitions reasonably fits with that text?

Of course if all humans are her descendants, because she gave birth to one, then by that logic she must have given birth to the first offspring of all plants animals and insects.

Obviously she didn’t. So how you account for that?

You can interpret it how you like (as you are doing).
It is it’s actual meaning that is important.

No I’m not a Hebrew scholar, but I do know how to read a dictionary, and I do know that context is king.

Do you believe that “all living”, are the descendants of Adam and Eve?
Or do you believe it means all human beings?
If the latter. Can you show where it says this?

Oh so you do think those kids in Calcutta are the descendants of Mother Terasa, because she is regarded as mother?

What exactly is the “obvious literal meaning of the word “ Mother?

Jan.

 

Yes.
Otherwise the gave birth to the first of “all living”, which include every species of life.

Jan.

 

What it says.

I think what you suggested, is an alternative.
A poor one at that.

I’m okay with it.
How about you?

Missed what question.

We appear to differ on what it means to answer a question.

I didn’t say you did.

So what?
Does it say they were the ancestors of mankind? Please feel free to point it out.

Well. When “ my fellow theists” bring it up, I will ask them the same questions I ask you, and your fellow atheists.

What do you mean by “Try to make up your mind”? You’re the one who is all over the place.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If she is “mother to all”.
By your logic...yes.

“Mother can often apply to a woman other than the biological parent, especially if she fulfills the main social role in raising the child”.

This quote was taken from Wiki.
Do you agree with it?
If yes, then apply it to Eve.
If not. Why?

If you accept the bible says Eve gave rise to mankind, by giving birth to humans, based on “all living”. Then it stand to reason (via this logic), she gave birth to all the species of life, based on “all living”.
Do you get it now?

By those who choose to see as they would like, yes. But it’s pretty straightforward, and needs no interpretation.

How could “all living” (or all life), mean only “all mankind”? Don’t you regard other life forms as living?

Oh right! So it is documented in the bible that A+E were the first humans, from which came all other humans.
Show me where it says that. Then we can wrap this thing up.

Great. Then you should have no problem in disclosing this information.

But not only does she have “mother” in her name, they referred to her as “mother”. So by your logic, anyone who regarded her as “mother, is also a descendant of hers.

Most people regard the biblical account of A+E as the supposed originator of mankind. I’m not disputing that.
My question is; Why?
It certainly doesn’t say that.
In fact, if you look closely, it becomes quite obvious that they weren’t.

So why do you?
Where do you get this information?

She was a mother to humans. From biblical accounts, she gave birth to about 7 human beings.

Do you think “mother to all” could mean mother to those 7 human beings. I don’t.

Jan