No, it doesn't.
The Bible is not a biology textbook. It is a collection of stories.
Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
The Bible is not a biology textbook. It is a collection of stories.
There aren’t two accounts.
There is one account of the creation of mankind, and another account of an individual human specifically created by God , then later on, a woman is created (from his body), to quell the loneliness of the man. At no point were they instructed to go forth and multiply, like the rest of mankind were.
Also, it explains where Cain got a wife. No longer do we have to use a sinful act to explain that.
Isn’t that good?
Jan.
Last edited:
That's two accounts.
The explanation is still a sinful act - just a different one, as one would expect from different accounts.
Which brings us to the Noachian Flood bottleneck - and more sinning, along with the further elimination of any possibility of accounting for animal or human genetic diversity etc in this bizarre fashion.
The fact there are two separate accounts does.
Or are you suggesting that uppercase-A male Adam was created after all of the lower-case-A male and female adam-kind were already running around? That seems to stretch the text quite a bit.
We know that the Bible doesn't endorse your version.
That's exactly how I look at it. According to the story, "mankind" was Adam and Eve, male and female.
Of course, according to reality, we know that the story is fiction. You seem to be trying to reconcile the obvious fiction with reality. Why? For your next trick, are you going to reconcile Goldilocks and the Three bears with reality?
Yes. That's what the Bible says. I know you believe differently.
That's the central problem that Jan is pondering. And there are far more than that one. Consider, for example, the order of creation in Genesis 1 - water, dry land, plants, animals, then people. In Genesis 2 the order is dry land, water, plants, people, then animals. How can both be correct?
Jan's solution is to change the Bible in his own mind to make it consistent. I find that approach to be facile and self-serving. Much better to study the Bible for what it is - an (originally oral) history of a people, and later Christianity. The two books (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) were written by two different authors at two different times, for example - they use different styles, different tenses and different words for God (Yaweh vs. Elohim.) So from that perspective it makes perfect sense that they don't match each other.
It is as silly to use the Bible as a history or biology textbook as it is to try to find morality in the Principia.
No one is saying it is.
It still capable of explaining the genetic variation we observe today. Whereas the idea that the human race comes from one man and one woman does not.
Jan.
It’s not a belief, bilvon, as you well know.
It is the content of the bible, as you well know (at least in this discussion).
I’m now more interested in why you so much want to maintain the idea, that the bible states something , despite knowing it does not.
Jan.
Not of the same scenario, hence there is no contradiction.
How is Cain acquiring a wife from a different ethnicity,?an explanation of a sinful act?
That is an interesting topic also. Perhaps when we’re done with this one, we could look into it.
Jan.
No. The Bible says that "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." It does not say "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them." Even if you believe it does.
Good! So perhaps you will abandon this facile effort to make it into one.
Of different scenarios, therefore in contradiction.
No, it is not. It conflicts with the observed genetic variation.
All of Cain's behavior - beginning with his existence in the first place - derives from and is explained by the sins committed by himself, Adam, and Eve. According to the Bible.
If the topic is the first humans, the original people from which we are all descended, that is a third account.
We have the two special creations in Genesis, and the third special protection of the Flood.
That’s not a fact, unless your saying they are two separate, unrelated incidents.
The idea is they they are two separate accounts of the creation of mankind, and that idea is a belief. It’s almost as if the purpose is to erase th
I’m saying Adam was not the first ever human, and the bible, not only makes no mention of this idea, but mentions that mankind (upper or lower case, your choice) was created on the sixth day.
Adam was simply a new type of human , from whose existence made it possible for Jesus the Christ.
That’s because I don’t have a version.
But it clearly states that mankind was created on day six of creation.
That is why Cain was able to get a wife.
That is why Cain was afraid of being banished by God. He feared reprisal from others, who would find out what he did.
Don’t you agree
No it’s not.
Mankind is the whole collective of humans, also known as the human race. Why would you think it means one man.
We know nothing of the sort.
I know there are those who need it to be fictional. Hence the denial of what it says regarding the creation of mankind, and the instruction to go forth and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Why is it “obvious fiction”?
Nice try at deflecting. But you should know by now that, I can see right through that.
Why are you only prepared to look at it one way?
I am sure you’re more capable, and intelligent than that.
Jan
How do they contradict?
Based on what is written.
How so?
You’re not answering my question.
How is getting married to a woman who is not a close family member, like a mother, or sister, a sin. You can use any law, rule, or regulation, to answer your question.
But for now I am concerned with the subjected matter, which is the title of the thread.
Jan.
They are two separate accounts of the same incident, which is why it is no surprise that there are discrepancies. There is no reason to think they are not the same incident - i.e. the origin of mankind.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that there has ever been different types of humans.
Cain isn't relevant to the discussion. That's another separate story.
According to the story, he WAS mankind, ALL of mankind until Eve was created. Then the two of them were all of mankind until they had children. Adam was even named "Mankind".
*ahem* Talking snake *ahem*
I have looked at it your way. It clearly is not supported by the text.
Getting married to a "different kind of human" would be as bad, if not worse.
You're the one who said that Adam was a different kind of human from the "mankind" in Genesis1.
I have shown that they are not separate accounts of one incident, by showing that the bible states that God created mankind on the sixth day. Why do you find that difficult to accept? And why do you accept something that the bible does not say, and makes completely no sense.
Wouldn’t you rather it made sense so you understand it correctly?
God creates the human race on the sixth day of creation. Both male and female.
God fashions one man out of dust.
God takes a rib from man and fashions a woman.
Are you kidding me?