Were Adam and Eve the first people?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Beer w/Straw, Nov 14, 2018.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,110
    That doesn't work. It means we - all humans - would all be descended from Adam, which he is specifically denying.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,899
    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.)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,417
    Where does it say that?

    Jan
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,417
    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.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,899
    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!
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,121
    It's not an opinion. It's what the Bible says.
     
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,417
    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.
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,121
    Yes.
    Yes.
     
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,417
    Where does it say mankind descended from A +E?

    Jan.
     
  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,121
    We've been through this. Eve was the mother of all living.
     
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,417
    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.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,419
    Jan Ardena:

    It is your position that Genesis is not to be read literally. Rather, we must interpret it and discard certain possible meanings, while accepting others.

    Is that correct?

    Your initial claim in this thread was that you do not think that the Adam and Eve story is "a work of fiction". So, the Adam and Eve story is to be taken as true, in some sense.

    Now, Genesis 3:20 says:

    "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

    You tell us that we must be careful not to read this literally, or else we might fall into the trap of believing that Eve was the mother of elephants and tigers. That would be silly, you tell us.

    But then you also tell us that we are not to accept the straightforward reading of the combination of the words "mother" and "all living" as meaning that "all living human beings are descended from Eve", either.

    You have gone to some lengths to attempt to redefine "mother" in this passage to mean something other than its obvious and literal meaning.

    Is this indicative of your general approach to scriptural analysis? Keep the literal meaning of the parts you agree with, try to redefine terms to make the parts you don't agree with agree with you after all, and ignore the remainder?
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,417
    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.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,419
    Jan Ardena:

    So when it says "She was the mother of all living", what's the problem with interpreting that to mean that all living human beings (at the time of writing) are descended from Eve?

    That would seem to me to be a straightforward reading of what is written there.

    What alternative reading of this do you propose, and how do you justify your interpretation?

    Are you asking whether I believe that Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden, and the whole Christian/Jewish creation myth is a historical account of something that actually happened? I do not. I believe it is mythology.

    How about you? How do you go with talking snakes and trees of knowledge and the like?

    A straightforward reading of Genesis 3:20, for example, suggests that Eve was the mother of all living human beings.

    Did you miss that?

    Sure. "All living" could be reasonably taken to mean "All living human beings". In combination with the word "mother", it makes little sense to consider "all living" as encompassing elephants and houseflies and watermelons as well as human beings.

    "Mother" has a straightforward, agreed meaning, of a woman who has given birth to a (human) child. Now, clearly Eve could not personally have given birth to an entire large human population, so we are not free to say that Eve was literally the mother of all living human beings. The next-best option is to assume a line of descent: that Eve was the mother of children, who had children, who had children, etc., making Eve the ultimate ancestor of all living human beings.

    That's how it could possibly mean that.

    Now, how about you explain how it could possibly mean whatever the hell you say it means, instead?

    Are you saying that the Hebrew word in that text cannot be interpreted as "mother" in the straightforward way that I have interpreted it above? Please explain. (Out of interest, are you a Hebrew scholar, or otherwise familiar with the language?)

    You have chosen not to accept the obvious, literal, meaning of the word "mother". You have interpreted "all living" to mean something (what?) other than "all living human beings at the time of writing", apparently. How's that for starters?
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,419
    Also on the subject of cherry picking, I note that different versions of the bible given different translations of Genesis 3:20. Here are a few samples. Note the differences in tense, and variations on the phrase "all living":

    New International Version
    Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

    New Living Translation
    Then the man--Adam--named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live.

    New American Standard Bible
    Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

    Contemporary English Version
    The man Adam named his wife Eve because she would become the mother of all who live.

    Good News Translation
    Adam named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all human beings.

    International Standard Version
    Now Adam had named his wife "Eve," because she was to become the mother of everyone who was living.

    Young's Literal Translation
    And the man calleth his wife's name Eve: for she hath been mother of all living.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,722
    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
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,417
    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.
     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,417
    Yes.
    Otherwise the gave birth to the first of “all living”, which include every species of life.

    Jan.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,419
    Jan Ardena:

    What do you think it literally means?

    You seem confused. You do appreciate that you're interpreting something that is written, do you?

    Alternative to what I just suggested. You know, the part you quoted and gave a series of non-replies to.

    How about you? How do you go with talking snakes and trees of knowledge and the like?

    (Looks like you missed that question. Funny how that keeps happening with you, isn't it?)

    It doesn't mean other than what it says. What are you talking about? Get a grip.

    Recall that it is you who is asserting it means other than what it says. "Mother" as a leader of a religious community and all that jazz. Remember writing that?

    Here's a hint: it's better if you read the entire post before you fall over yourself in your haste to hit the "reply" button.

    That way, you won't have to waste time asking questions that are answered in the very next thing you read while you're constructing your reply. This has the added benefit of also not wasting my time.

    I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't mention "biology". Get a grip.

    Biblical commentators all seem to agree that Genesis 3:20 is saying that Eve was the ancestor of all human beings. If in doubt, you can confirm this yourself with a brief google search.

    As I already pointed out, you are, of course, free to try your own tortured reading of the verse, and to go out on a a limb of your own, in opposition to the majority of your fellow theists.

    Try to make up your mind. Are you now saying you think it means that Eve gave birth to foxes and porcupines, after all? Or perhaps her "religious community" included porcupines and foxes?

    I agree. It means what it says. So, we agree now. Good.

    Point being, of course, that this agreement we have has been reached by interpreting the words.

    Number 1. There is no mention of a religious community in the text, or any hint that the meaning is anything other than the same meaning for where that Hebrew word is used elsewhere in the bible - to mean a woman in relation to her child or children.

    I'm sorry. You'll have to explain this new bout of "logic" you've come up with. It sounds like you've confused yourself again.

    Yes. Now could you answer the question I actually asked you?

    It's "actual meaning" seems to be subject to interpretation. You agree on that, right?

    I believe it means all human beings at the time of writing of Chapter 3 of Genesis. That fits with the narrative of Adam as the first man, and Eve as the first woman, from whom all other human beings are supposedly descended.

    This is not disputed among biblical scholars. It looks like you're out on a limb on your own on this one.

    The scholarly consensus on Mother Teresa is not that she literally was the biological mother or ancestor of "those kids in Calcutta". Scholarly consensus regarding the Eve of the bible, on the other hand...

    mother (n.): a woman who has given birth to a child.
     
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,417
    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
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018

Share This Page