Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Feb 25, 2019.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
How dare that nasty old man disrespect the word of God.
I just wanted the population # after 6,000 years if we started with only two people. I'm shit at math but suspect it would be lower than the current 7.7 billion.
True enough, though this calculation is often misunderstood to mean this person was some sort of original homo sapiens, whereas, as you say, she just happens to be the one from which an unbroken purely female line of descent can be traced. There were thousands of other ancestors too but not traceable through an unbroken female line of descent. And this person is not always the same in time. As one branch line dies out, the earliest common maternal line ancestor moves forward in time. So far as I understand it, it's really it's just a fun calculation rather than something fundamental.
Ever heard the rice and chessboard story? http://www.dr-mikes-math-games-for-kids.com/rice-and-chessboard.html
That's as close to true as it gets. In any literal sense, the stories are nonsense.
Turning what into science?
Not really. The teachings of Paul rest heavily on a literal Adam.
The teachings of Paul rest heavily on Paul BELIEVING there was a literal Adam. Not on whether Adam actually existed.
OK - so Paul based his conclusions on faulty premises. Therefore the majority of the New testament is based on BS.
I have no problems with that. Then again, I am an atheist and don't believe any of it.
Well, if you are an atheist, you have always believed that the entire bible is based on BS, right? I mean, this shouldn't change anything.
No. Not specifically one man and one woman.
Specifically men and women.
Why do you feel the need to change it?
God created the men and Women, it is clearly stated. God also created A+E, and then the bible focuses on their particular linage.
That’s what’s portrayed in the bible.
Why don’t you want to admit it?
Regardless, we are discussing what the bible actually states. We can go into whether or not it is true, in a different thread.
As it stands it is believed that the bible states that A+E were the first ever human beings. But it gives no indication that this is the case. It gives more indication that the human race was started on the sixth day.
That explains how Cain got his wife, and Cains concern that he would get unwanted attention upon being banished from the garden.
What do you think?
Is this aimed at me Dave?
Adam was necessary for Jesus to be born.
Again, this is going by what the bible says.
Here's the text:
NKJV: "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
KJV: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
NASB: "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (NASB is generally held to be the most literal of all the Biblical translations.)
He created HIM. Not THEM. Then he created a woman. Then it becomes THEM because there are two of them.
Why did you change the text? Why do you feel you have to change it to prove your point?
"So God created MAN." Not men. MAN.
Again, why do you feel the need to change the words in that passage to try to prove your point?
Yes, we are. But since what the Bible actually states proves you wrong, you feel the need to change it. Why is that? Why did you use your own words (men, women) rather than the words the Bible uses?
I think the words are quite clear. Adam was the first man. God created HIM - not THEM. Then he created a woman, as described in Genesis 2. That's why the pronoun used becomes THEM.
Again, you may believe something different. You may feel the authors of the Bible meant to say "them" or you may wish that they said "them." But if we go by what the Bible actually says, Adam was the first human, and Eve was second.
I like the way you conveniently left out the previous verse which states...
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, ...
“Man” in this context, come from the word ‘adam’ Which translates as ‘man’ as in ‘mankind’. You can look it up.
Also it says “let them have dominion over the sea” (in case you insist it means one man).
Apart from that, it makes sense as to how Cain got his wife. Why would you accept the idea of incest? As that would be the only other option.
Yes. Adam and Eve, who will become all of mankind (per the Bible.)
?? Of course; incest was common in the Bible early on due to the lack of other options. Also from Genesis:
"And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father [Noah] drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father . . . . And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day."
needs not the apostrophe
Separate names with a comma.