Were Adam and Eve the first people?

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

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

    Messages:
    34,419
    Jan Ardena:

    Me too!

    I think talking snakes and trees of knowledge are a myth.

    Wow. You're stuck in deeper than i thought. A real-life biblical literalist!

    Genesis 3:20 says that Eve was the "mother of all living". She was explicitly created to be Adam's wife, it says in the bible. Adam is explicitly the first man, as it says in the bible. Ignoring Lilith (as the bible does), we start off with two people: Adam and Eve. We are told they had more than 3 children. Some of those children had children of their own, we are told.

    The scholarly consensus is that the bible says that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all human beings.

    Now, you're out on a limb by yourself claiming that at least some human beings did not descend from Adam and Eve after all. That kind of messes with the whole biblical idea of one big human family created in God's image, but never mind. I'm interested to know who you believe the first human beings were, if not Adam and Eve, and what your biblical basis for that belief is. Also, I'd be most interested to learn who the human beings are who were not part of the Adam and Eve lineage.

    I'm so glad. That will keep them out of mischief for a while.

    No. I set out my logic. It's yours that is unclear. Mother to porcupines, or not? You keep flip-flopping.

    Yes.

    Because the verse means what it says, like you said. Any other interpretation, like the idea that Eve was not a biological ancestor but rather a mere metaphorical mother to a religious community, requires supporting evidence, in this case from biblical analysis.

    The thing is, of course, religious scholars have already spent centuries doing this work on your behalf. Guess what the consensus is?

    No. You'll need to explain further, I'm afraid.

    Typically, I find that human women give birth only to human children.

    Does your experience differ in this regard? Have you seen women giving birth to porcupines and foxes, not to mention blue whales and Californian redwoods?

    So we toss out the Mother Teresa interpretation and go with the simplest interpretation of the words as written. Yes?

    Here's an idea: you could defer to your fellow theists, including all the learned scholars that currently disagree with you on this matter of interpretation. You don't need to take my word for it, nasty atheist person that I am.

    Once again, I can only ask whether it has come to your attention that women typically give birth to human children.

    You're the scriptural expert, are you not? Why aren't you aware of the consensus on the meaning of this particular aspect of the bible? Not up with the research literature? I mean, I found out with only a few minutes of google searching, and it seems I'm already more of an expert on these couple of chapters than you are.

    I believe that William Lane Craig has the information. Look him up! I agree with his interpretation of Genesis 3:20.

    You have some strange notions of "my logic", which contrast sharply with the actual logic I put to you explicitly in my post.

    Okay. Let's hear your argument, based on that close look of yours.

    Have you had it out on this point with actual biblical scholars? What was their response? How did your argument go down with them?

    From the consensus of biblical scholars.

    I've already said what I think it means. I couldn't be any clearer. Why repeat myself?
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    13,419
    You’re aware that there animals, and plant life (not to mention mankind), around, at the time of the creation of Adam and Eve. Aren’t you?

    Okay.

    The first man personally fashioned by God Himself. Okay

    But we’re not told these children produced “mankind” (that God created on the sixth day.)

    So how do you arrive at that conclusion?

    They may agree on that, but I’m asking how they, or you, know that, as it is not written in the bible.

    I’m simply asking where it says that.
    Just show me and I’ll accept it.

    No it doesn’t.
    God created “mankind, both male and female”, on the sixth day. That’s what it says.
    Why should I ignore that for something that is not written in the bible, when reading the bible?

    According to the bible?

    It says God created mankind on the sixth day.
    I’ll go with that, seeing as that’s what it says.

    The rest of “mankind” that were created on the sixth day.

    It doesn’t say, or even imply that Eve gave rise to mankind. So why do you think it does?

    What work have they done, that gives them the confidence to say that A+E were the origin of mankind?

    So we’re on the same page. Good.

    Now why do you think “mother to all” means the origin of “mankind” alone?

    No. Mother Teresa was a mother to those children, but she didn’t give both to them, nor are they her descendants. So I think we’ll keep that in.

    Okay.
    So why do you regard “mother to all” as meaning, the origin of mankind, alone?

    Are you into self-loathing, James?

    You don’t have to be a scriptural expert to realise that it doesn’t say A+E were the origin of “mankind”. Apart from that, the origin of mankind is revealed in Genesis 1.
    Why would I ignore that for something that it does not say?
    The creation of mankind in Genesis 1 for starters.

    I’ll let you know when that happens.

    Maybe you ought to look at other writings.

    Why do you think it means that?

    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,124
    We already agreed that that's a bonding thing.

    If you have some hare-brained idea about Adam and Eve, I wish you'd just spit it out.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,791
    Why? What does genesis say? God created all the animals before or after he created man?
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,791
    It is self-evident that if you are the first and only, you must be the progenitor of all that follows.

    This is the problem with Genesis, it's chronology of emergence of living things is scientifically incorrect. It did not start with any species. It started as patterns of bio-chemicals.

    Your magical creation of "living" is a probabilistic chemical event, a self-duplicating polymer which was able to produce off-spring. It was the progenitor of all living things (on earth)...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The metaphor of A + E is a scientifically incorrect proposition, their existence is irrelevant to reality. .....humbling thought isn't it?
    It's a fable where animals can talk and wood sprites abound and they have adventures....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
    sideshowbob likes this.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,933
    That's fine. However, per the Bible, it does. She was the mother to those 7. Over the course of a thousand years or so, those 7 became all the people of the Earth.

    Then Noah, Adam's direct descendant, got on an ark with his family - and everyone else was killed. Once again, Noah and his family became all the people of the Earth.

    Now you can say "I don't think that's realistic" all you like. That's what the Bible says.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,791
    It's one of the few possible correct scientific facts in the bible. The "exponential function"....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,933
    Yep - although with an awful lot of incest.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,791
    Maybe that's why it really took some;
    https://www.innovations-report.com//html/reports/earth-sciences/report-19128.html

    Of course, "life" on earth probably originated some 3.5 billion years ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2018
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,573
    I have just now found this.

    Possibly 200,000 years old...clever apes?
    Alex
     
    Write4U likes this.
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,573
    I do think if one looks at the OT and see it as not entirely factual but as a set of stories it is much better than the NT which is clearly just an attempt to jump on an OT prophesy and using a tried and tested astrology approach associated with many many "Solar Messiahs" and therefore the NT fails for lack of originality.

    The NT could come from a revamp of Horace or many other human god types ...if not it could only be called an unbelievable coincidence.

    ALEX
     
    Write4U likes this.
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,933
    Exactly - and stories from an oral tradition at that. Studying it from that perspective and you can stop fretting over all the inconsistencies, mistakes and contradictions, and instead study what it says about the history of the time and how the Judeo-Christian religions evolved.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  16. TheFrogger Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,169
    I doubt whether they were actually named Adam and Eve but I believe there was a couple born from God.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,933
    Well, that's what the Bible says. And he was literally called Adam; Adam is a translation from a word that means "mankind." Later when Eve was created the name used was "Ishsha" because she was formed from man -"ish". So in the original text Eve's name was written as "from man."

    Of course, several translations later and we have Adam and Eve.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,791
    Can you elaborate on that interesting statement?

    How did you come to that conclusion for any two people specifically? And when in the history of mankind would you place this extraordinary couple?

    If God exists, are we not all individuals born from God? If God does not exist, Adam and Eve obviously could never have been born from God.
     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,419
    That’s not the point.
    What is fascinating is that atheist will stick to the idea of A and E being the first humans, despite their atheist assertions.

    It was always about the psychology.

    Jan.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,791
    No, stop thinking for atheists. It's the bible which asserts that A + E are the first humans. Adam means "first human". How clear do you want to get?
    Any attempt to suggest that it does not mean "first human" just makes the whole thing worse.

    What are atheist to do when they read the bible. We repeat what is says, not because we believe in it, but because that's what it says.
    Don't hang anything in the bible on atheists, please. It's patently wrong and counter productive.
    You're the theist. Own it!

    I do agree with your last statement. Psychological control....mostly through fear..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Break any of the ten commandments and God will condemn you to hell to suffer for eternity
    ...................., but He loves you......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ........and he needs money......yeah, right....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2018
  21. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    679
    Okay, for argument sakes, lets say Adam and Eve were not the only humans created on the Sixth day. Let's say they where the first "spiritual people" created. A chosen people by the creator himself.

    Let's fast forward a little bit to Noah and the flood. Are you suggesting that all of mankind does not come from his family? The sole survivors of a global flood that killed all life on earth save what was in the ark?

    If Noahs' family could be the source of all mankind, why not Adam and Eve (save "the sons of God" aka "Fallen Angels" breeding with the "daughters of man" to spread some genetic diversity around)?
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2018
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,791
    There is no mention of that in the bible, so why should you want to embellish what the bible actually says?
    It's the revealed word of God, no?
    Let's fast rewind a little bit to where all those other people came from. How were all those other people (spiritual or not) created aside from Adam and Eve which is explained in great detail ?

    And after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, what happened to all those other people which also dwelled in the Garden. They remained spiritless (atheist?), whereas the two spiritual people were thrown to the wind. This becomes a rabbit hole very quickly.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2018
  23. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    679
    That was not my point but, if you want to know what the mythology says .... Adam was created outside the garden and brought there by God as stated in Gen 2:15. No other humans were present in the garden.

    My point is that Adam and Eve is a mute point if the flood, which killed all life on earth, actually happened as stated in the bible. This would be the "bottle neck" all of mankind came from. Not Adam and Eve.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2018

Share This Page