Jan Ardena:
Wow. You're stuck in deeper than i thought. A real-life biblical literalist!
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.
The thing is, of course, religious scholars have already spent centuries doing this work on your behalf. Guess what the consensus is?
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?
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.
Have you had it out on this point with actual biblical scholars? What was their response? How did your argument go down with them?
Me too!What it says.
I think talking snakes and trees of knowledge are a myth.I’m okay with it.
How about you?
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.So what?
Does it say they were the ancestors of mankind? Please feel free to point it out.
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.Well. When “ my fellow theists” bring it up, I will ask them the same questions I ask you, and your fellow atheists.
No. I set out my logic. It's yours that is unclear. Mother to porcupines, or not? You keep flip-flopping.If she is “mother to all”.
By your logic...yes.
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?
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.If yes, then apply it to Eve.
If not. Why?
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.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?
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?By those who choose to see as they would like, yes. But it’s pretty straightforward, and needs no interpretation.
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.How could “all living” (or all life), mean only “all mankind”? Don’t you regard other life forms as living?
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.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.
I believe that William Lane Craig has the information. Look him up! I agree with his interpretation of Genesis 3:20.Great. Then you should have no problem in disclosing this information.
You have some strange notions of "my logic", which contrast sharply with the actual logic I put to you explicitly in my post.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.
Okay. Let's hear your argument, based on that close look of yours.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.
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.So why do you?
Where do you get this information?
I've already said what I think it means. I couldn't be any clearer. Why repeat myself?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.
Last edited: