Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

[Jan Ardena]

Yes. Adam and Eve, who will become all of mankind (per the Bible.)

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?

?? Of course; incest was common in the Bible early on due to the lack of other options. Also from Genesis:

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.

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."

Where did you get this from?

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hi Jan
"were"
needs not the apostrophe

I know.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

sculptor,

What are you views regarding the subject matter?

Jan.

 

[sculptor]

sculptor,

What are you views regarding the subject matter?

Jan.

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.

 

[billvon]

It doesn’t say that bilvon.

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.

Incest is common now, it still doesn’t make it right.

I agree. Clearly, though, it was not uncommon in Genesis, due to the lack of people.

Why would you jump to the idea of incest, regarding Cain and his wife?

See above.

The only reason I can think of is because you accept that the bible states A+E were the very first humans

See above.

Where did you get this from?

The Bible. Specifically, Genesis.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

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.

I agree. Clearly, though, it was not uncommon in Genesis, due to the lack of people.

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.

I agree. Clearly, though, it was not uncommon in Genesis, due to the lack of people.

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?

See above

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.

 

[sculptor]

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.

 

[gmilam]

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.

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".

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

I thinks it’s fascinating the way you avoid the question. I get the same response from Christians.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

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".

I had a similar revelation.

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".

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.)

 

[billvon]

Genesis 1.26 shows that God made ‘mankind’ on day six. Not one man, and later on a woman

One man, and later one woman. That was Man - mankind - to begin with, like it says in the Bible.

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.

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.

Why do you think that makes a difference?

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.

There are people who are knowingly incestuous today. And there are people who aren’t.

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.

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.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Why are you dodging the question?

I have not. I said see above for the answer.

What reasons do have to believe that the bible states that A+E were the first ever humans

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

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.

Exactly. He created the first two people. At that point they were mankind.

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...

No, I got it from Genesis 19. (And the man was Lot, not Noah; my bad.)

 

[sideshowbob]

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.

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.

 

[billvon]

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.

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.

 

[sculptor]

Lilith?
A sumerian demon?
Or
Adam's 1st wife?(who was created at the same time and from the same clay as Adam)

 

[Jan Ardena]

One man, and later one woman. That was Man - mankind - to begin with, like it says in the Bible.

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.

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.

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?

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

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.

 

[billvon]

It doesn’t say that in the bible, which is my point.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

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.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

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.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

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?

?? It doesn't. It simply states that it was done.

You asked if it could be done. The Bible says it WAS done.

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?

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

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

"Him" means a man. "Them" means a man and a woman; at that point, the entirety of Mankind.

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

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

 

[Jan Ardena]

@ bilvon...

Really???

Jan.

 

[mmatt9876]

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.