Were Adam and Eve the first people?

None of this says the rest of the earth was barren. All it says is that before man was created there was no man to till the gound, then god made man and planted him in the garden ...... where does it say that the rest of the earth was barren? This Translation holds Jans' point of veiw more than yours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And why would you deliberately exclude this verse?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It said there was no rain, no water to make plants grow. That was for The Garden.

If the soil was so fertile, why not God made Adam from the clay of the ground.
No, it was the dust. Where did that dust come from? Desert maybe? And the Garden an Oasis?
None of this is placed in the real area of origins which was much further south on the African continent.
Just trying to keep it as real as possible for people to write what they wrote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden

https://www.theguardian.com/science...an-fossil-outside-africa-discovered-in-israel

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/world-s-oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils-found-morocco

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Point

Remember, "for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground"

Can anyone point me to the Garden of Eden? North, South, East, West?

And we know all these details about the Garden of Eden, but we can't point to where it was?

For an instruction manual the bible sounds more like a Sherlock Holmes Mystery.

Because it was superceded by the above statement that God had not caused it to rain on earth.

Now we need to consult a gardner to check if a mist can magically turn an arid desert region into a lush fertile area.
Did we have global weather reports of a mist covering the earth? Spooky language.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right. Which is another demonstration that Adam and Eve were the first people.

 

I actually agree with that interpretation of the text. That the first rains did not fall on the Earth until the days of Noah and the flood. But hay, there is enough internal inconsistencies within the text itself to show that these stories are nothing more than mythology. There is no need to add extra external details to prove a myth is a myth. Then go on to doctor the text and exclude the parts that disprove your externally added elements.

This is mythology. There is no reason to be dishonest and try to prove a point that does not exist within the myth itself just to make yourself feel vindicated.

The text speaks for itself. There is no reason to add elements to what is already a self contained myth.

You know all the other verses you omitted and Gen 2:6 was not the only one.

 

I was merely demonstrating that you can basically raise any argument for or against the historical accuracy of the OT Scripture.
But then it isn't a historical document. It is a psycholgical document, devised by very smart people who spent lifetimes in delving into the human psyche, in order to control it.

 

You’re a conspiracy theorist?
That’s interesting.

Jan.

 

How could they have been the first people, when the bible informs that Hod created mankind in the same day Adam was created?

How could Cain have met his wife?
Who was Cain afraid of?

Do you believe that Cain married his sister?

Jan.

 

No, just a realist.

 

All living people, yes.
That would be any literate person's reading of the translation involved, yes.
That's what someone writing English would mean. A human "Mother of All" would not refer to rocks, fish, and so forth, that do not have human mothers, but to all that do have human mothers.

Same as "Savior of All" refers to human beings, that can be saved and are in need of saving;

It's a normal, conventional construction in English - the reference of the word "all" is from context, always. Human mothers are assumed to have human offspring, unless otherwise specified. The bizarre notion that some translator meant to suggest that Eve was the mother of oak trees and mushrooms is without support - the first translators of the Bible into English were carefully literate men.

That's implied by some parts of the Bible, and in conflict with others, as noted above. Sensible people expect such things in compilations of myths and legends.

Regardless, the claim that Eve was the mother of all living (all the humans alive now), is explicit and unarguable. Any suggestion that there are living humans who are not descendants of Eve is in direct conflict with that verse of Scripture.

And all of this is irrelevant, of course, given the agenda here.

 

Nevertheless, it doesn’t say that.
It say “Mother to all LIVING”. There is no need of interpretation.

But let’s interpret, because you are a tad misinformed.

The hebrew meaning of the term “...all living”, according to Strongs, is “chay”

chay, khah'-ee; from H2421; alive; hence, raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively:— age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life(-time), live(-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, merry, multitude, (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

If you put “chay” into google you are met with...

In Hebrew, the related word chaya means "living thing" or "animal", and is derived from the Hebrew word chai (חי), meaning "life".

Sorry mate, but you can’t just manufacture explanations just so it fits with your delusion.
Either you accept that “Mother to all living”, means what it says, or you admit to being delusional. Which brings your whole thinking process into question.

I’m glad you brought that up.
There is one “saviour to all” in the bible, and that goes through the painstaking trouble of adding “men”.

Just in case there are desperados who would use this verse to cry mysogenism. The Greek word used for “men” is “anthropos”.
Here is the definition;

generally, of "a human being, male or female," without reference to sex or nationality,

Here is the verse in question...

10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.


Jan.

 

That is what you and your fellow delusional are saying. Knowing that it is foolishness to consider Eve gave birth to the first of everything that lives. You try to interpret it to mean only humans. Pathetic!

Only to specific religions, and all who follow them, whether directly, or indirectly.
But you cannot show, via any scripture that Eve was the origin of all humans.

On the contrary. It reveals a hell of a lot.
Especially regarding atheists.
It is a psychological goldmine.
You only have to respond, and more is revealed.

Jan.

 

You are delusional.
You’ve proved that in this thread.

Jan.

 

God only created satan, and now he waits until he is no more... everyone else had existed forever before.

 

No, my friend, I do not believe in mythical creatures. You do....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gen 7:21-24
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

....

It looks to me that she IS the origin of all humans alive today according to the scriptures. Unless Noah was not her direct descendant ... you're not saying that are you?

 

Let's get this straight.
Scripture does not meet any scientific standard because it is not a scientific or historical book.
It is a psychological book devised to exercise control over human behavior. Nothing wrong with that noble intention. Problem is that the message has become hopelessly corrupted, but that is not the fault of the atheists. The authors and adherents to scripture are responsible. Own it.

 

Right. Just read it. Mother to all living. All with human mothers, alive at this moment.

Or desperados who would try to claim it meant rocks and trees as well. People like you were better known by New Testament times - city folk, with clever agendas.

There is no "Hebrew meaning" of the English term "all living". We have an English term, in an English paragraph, and it means what the literate English writer intended it to mean. And if you really think that writer meant to state that Eve was the mother of all aardvarks, you're an idiot as well as a functional illiterate.

That's what it says. I can read English.

That's not what it says. You are misquoting. Even the translation you prefer, because you can pretend to misread it, you refuse to quote accurately.

Nobody could show anything like that by Scripture - Scripture is not research and reason.
But one can show - by quoting, as people have - that the Bible contains multiple claims of all living people having descended from Adam and Eve.

Nothing we don't already know for years now. You guys are fundamentally dishonest - agents of your own Devil.

The question is, as always, why.

 

And what does it say?

 

Yes. All that is alive.
It cannot, and does not mean all humans are descendants of Eve. Neither does it say Sdam is the father of all, or mankind is descended from him, or them.
In fact it tells us who is the origin of mankind.

I don’t have to claim anything. It is clear in what it says.

Nope. That’s what you’re doing, to maintain your delusion.

It means Eve is the Mother to all living, but not in the biological sense. So yes she is mother to aardvarks, but they, like mankind (also living), do not descend from her.

Sure. But by your logic it would have to mean that (Mother to ALL living). So you add in Mother to all humans, even though it clearly does not say that, and more importantly tells us the origin of humans. You are in denial. You choose to pretend that the origin of mankind has not been accounted for, from the previous chapter.

Yet you pretend to accept that the scriptures show that “Mother of all living” doesn’t mean what it says. It mean “mother of all humans”.

Nope. One cannot.
It is purely a religious claim, that cannot be corroborated by any scripture, let alone the bible.

But if you can show where this the case, in the bible, be my guest. But I know you’re not even going to attempt to, because you know it doesn’t.

The fool doth say in his heart, there is no God.

Jan.