Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Feb 25, 2019.

  1. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    It doesn’t say that bilvon.
    It say let us make man (mankind) in our own image...
    Why don’t you think it meant that?

    Incest is common now, it still doesn’t make it right.
    Some people think it is only detrimental from a genetic POV. But it’s more than that.

    Why would you jump to the idea of incest, regarding Cain and his wife? The only reason I can think of is because you accept that the bible states A+E were the very first humans, even though you know the bible, according to what is written, doesn’t say, or even imply that, after reading genesis chapter 1.26-28, and learning that Cain got a wife.

    Where did you get this from?

    Jan
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    12,112
    I know.

    Jan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    12,112
    sculptor,

    What are you views regarding the subject matter?

    Jan.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,416
    It's complicated.
    When still a child, I developed a love of anthropology. My habit (when not in school) was to walk or bicycle the ten miles into town to spend time at the library reading all they had on anthropology and archaeology. (after securing my books, I would go and sit on the steps of the "old folks" home ---which was in the middle of the town where it belonged--and listen to their stories of the town and area before automobiles.
    I was also raised Lutheran and was fortunate to fall under the tutelage of the reverend Zinn, who will have my lifelong respect and admiration.

    Ok
    so
    the book(bible) under my left arm
    and
    anthropology/archaeology books under my right arm
    and both in my brain

    Then comes the synthesis
    I see the book as a collection of tales of the almost forgotten past and the books as a delineation of the science of our evolution---complete with the foibles of misguided paradigms.
    I do not see one as excluding the other.

    What then?

    I do not even know what, or when the first of our sub-species{homo sapiens sapiens) can be spoken of as the first man and woman, nor even if the delineation should be limited to sub species.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,587
    Yes, it does.

    I am sorry you are rejecting what the Bible said on this topic. I guess you have your reasons. But since you seem to no longer "believe" in what words mean, there's not much to be gained by continuing this.
    I agree. Clearly, though, it was not uncommon in Genesis, due to the lack of people.
    See above.
    See above.
    The Bible. Specifically, Genesis.
     
  9. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    sculptor,

    So regarding the subject matter, as it is written, and irrespective of whether believe, or think it true, or not true.

    What do you think the bible says, regarding the idea that A+E were the first ever humans?

    Jan.
     
  10. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    Genesis 1.26 shows that God made ‘mankind’ on day six. Not one man, and later on a woman, and from there the birth of the entire human race.

    In what way am I rejecting what the bible says, especially as I use the bible to show that the idea of A+E is never, ever, identified as the first ever humans, the origin of the entire human race.

    Why do you think that makes a difference?
    There are people who are knowingly incestuous today. And there are people who aren’t.
    Would you agree that most of the people who aren’t, think this action to be morally repugnant? Especially with close family members such as fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and even first cousins. Also people who may not hold that opinion, or any opinion on the matter, still find incest to be a wrong action.

    The idea that due to the lack of people at the time of Cain, it was justified out of necessity.to have incestuous relationships, is due to the idea that A+E were the first ever people. But nowhere in the bible is it mentioned that they were the first ever people. Everything leads to the idea that there was, already existing, the human race, at the time of Adam.

    Clearly it had become rampant in Israelite society, which is why God had to remind them it spiritually unbecoming of a people who once a holy people.
    Don’t you think that makes more sense.

    I assume you wouldn’t have sexual relations with your mother, or daughter. But is there a point where you would feel that it would be justified enough to make you do it, because it is the right thing to do?

    There’s nothing to see, regarding the question.
    Why are you dodging the question?
    What reasons do have to believe that the bible states that A+E were the first ever humans, when it says nothing of that sort, and gives every reason to suppose that God created mankind on the sixth day of creation. It literally says that.

    Genesis 9.21-24

    21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

    22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

    23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

    24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him...

    Is this what you are referring to, when you say you got it from the bible?

    Jan.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,416
    OK (a small dip into the biblical literalism realm)
    on to EDEN
    If 4 rivers flowed out of EDEN, then most folks have been looking for EDEN in the wrong damned place.

    It seems most likely that EDEN should be found in the Armenian highlands.
     
  12. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,147
    Always? No.

    I was raised in a Christian home. I generally believed, the way kids do. But I always had questions. Later, in my mid 20s, I started to seriously study the bible. It was through actually reading and studying the bible that I came to the conclusion that it doesn't hold up as literal "truth".

    Anyway, I was just commenting on Sideshow Bob's comment that Davewhite's comment was a non-sequitur. No, if you read Paul (the main author in the New testament), he literally tied Jesus's mission to the Garden of Eden. That's the entire basis to the need for "reconciliation".
     
  13. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    I thinks it’s fascinating the way you avoid the question. I get the same response from Christians.

    Jan.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,587
    I had a similar revelation.
    Right. But again, it was because Paul BELIEVED that Adam existed that he wrote that. So it is his belief that supported his words, not the actual existence of Adam (or anyone else.)
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,587
    One man, and later one woman. That was Man - mankind - to begin with, like it says in the Bible.
    On day six God creates one man, as described in Genesis 2. At that point Man is referred to as "him" - not "them" - because there is only one human.
    Later on day six God creates one woman, as described in Genesis 2. At that point Man is referred to as "them" - not "him" any more - because there are now two humans.

    Right there, in black and white.
    You asked if it was credible, from the perspective of the Bible, if incest resulted in the whole human race. Since the Bible - in fact the very book in question - calls out incest as a way to get babies when there are very few men around, then yes, it is credible. In fact is is described in Genesis.
    Again, we are not talking reality. We are talking the Bible. Your position all along has been that THE BIBLE, not reality, claims that lots of people - not just Adam and Eve - were created on that sixth day. I have shown you are wrong.

    It would be like arguing that the Bible is OK with homosexuality. It's not. It calls for the death penalty. You could say "but that's barbaric! It's not right to kill gays." Great. But that's not what the Bible says.

    If you want to have a discussion on whether you think incest is OK in reality - start another thread.
    "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
    I have not. I said see above for the answer.
    "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
    Exactly. He created the first two people. At that point they were mankind.
    No, I got it from Genesis 19. (And the man was Lot, not Noah; my bad.)
     
  16. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,917
    The reality is that 'mankind' was never two individuals, whether they were created by God or not. But that isn't what the Bible says. You can't reconcile the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 by having God create more than one man and one woman.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,587
    Exactly. Jan is trying to prop up the Bible by saying "well, maybe the Bible says God created lots and lots of people at the same time! That would make the genetic evidence less impossible." Unfortunately:

    1) the Bible doesn't say that
    2) it's a mistake anyway to try to shoehorn science into the Bible in any case.

    It's like saying "Darth Vader wasn't really Luke's father; the movie never claimed that" to make Star Wars more believable. Not only is it wrong, it's pointless to try to make Star Wars more credible. It's a movie.
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,416
    Lilith?
    A sumerian demon?
    Or
    Adam's 1st wife?(who was created at the same time and from the same clay as Adam)
     
  19. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    It doesn’t say that in the bible, which is my point.

    It says that God created mankind in His image.”Let us make mankind in our image”.
    There is no reason to conclude that A+E were the first ever humans.

    What I find interesting is you know it doesn’t state they were the first ever humans, but you are prepared to go along with it.

    Where does the bible state that it’s okay to to get babies by marrying your sister, due to the idea that there were very few men, in those days?

    If the bible states that God created mankinkind, snd instructed them to go forth and multiply, which it does exactly that. Then that explains all the genetic variation we see today. It explains who Cain was referring to when he said others will kill him, because of his mark, where he got his wife, and why he would build a city, as opposed to small neighbourhood comprising initially of him and his sister.
    Why would you insist on something that is not a part of the bible, and makes no sense, whatsoever, on the basis of religious belief?

    But you know “man” is interpreted to mean “mankind”. That is what it says, and there is no dispute about this.

    Why would you want to accept as meaning something it sctually means, or make any sense?

    Jan.
     
  20. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    It needn’t be two creation accounts. Nothing in the bible gives reason to think there were two separate creation accounts. That is something that has been concluded by religionists because of the religious belief that A+E were the first ever humans. But we know the bible does not endorse that.

    Why do you believe it said that?
    Why aren’t you prepared to look at it from the perspective that God created mankind on the sixth day, just like it says?

    Jan.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,587
    "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
    "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
    "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
    ?? It doesn't. It simply states that it was done.

    You asked if it could be done. The Bible says it WAS done.
    "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
    "Him" means a man. "Them" means a man and a woman; at that point, the entirety of Mankind.
    "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
     
  22. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    @ bilvon...

    Really???

    Jan.
     
  23. mmatt9876 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773
    I am not well versed in the Bible, though I was raised Roman Catholic, but I would imagine that if there are two accounts of something in the same book, and only one of them can be right, and the other wrong, then does that not bring into question the whole book, because one of the stories contradicts the other, when the whole book and all of its stories are meant to be the complete and infallible truth? I love and believe in Christianity and the Bible but I thought I should ask this question to both theists and atheists.
     

Share This Page