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?