Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

[sideshowbob]

It’s not an interpretation.

Of course it is. And it's a bad one, with insertions to fix the parts you don't like.

They simply comprehend what they are reading

They don't seem to comprehend that "him" in Genesis 1 is singular.

Because Christianity is a religious institute, and you have to agree with its doctrine, in order to remainin it.

But I'm not a Christian, and neither are most of the posters in this thread. We have no vested interest in agreeing with the Christians. We just happen to agree on what Genesis plainly says.

In no part of any scripture, does it say that Adam and Eve were the first ever humans, or the origin of the human race.

Of course it does, in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

And also:

1 Corinthians 15:45 - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.​

And also:

Isaiah 43:27 - Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me.​

(relating the "first father" - i.e. the original human - with the sin of Adam in Genesis 3.

Nothing in our current existence, be it religious, science, or philosophy, even remotely validates that belief, other than its belief.

Indeed, the Bible is wrong about the biology and the history. But that doesn't change what the story actually says. You can't change the story to shoehorn it into biology and history.

As an atheist, why are you so convinced that any scripture even remotely gives this idea.

For the same reason that I'm convinced that Goldilocks and the Three Bears has talking bears in it - because that's what the story says. And that's how we know the story is fiction.

 

[Write4U]

For the same reason that I'm convinced that Goldilocks and the Three Bears has talking bears in it - because that's what the story says. And that's how we know the story is fiction.

Or an alternate truth........

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course it is. And it's a bad one, with insertions to fix the parts you don't like.

Don’t attack me.
I’m just telling you what it says, and showing you what it could possibly mean.
The religious belief way, renders the bible nonsensical, it ignores what the writings literally say, it renders all other scriptures false and insignificant, etc.

They don't seem to comprehend that "him" in Genesis 1 is singular.

Mankind consists of male and female. ‘Him’ is male, and the woman is female.

We just happen to agree on what Genesis plainly says.

I think you have a vested interest in maintain the belief that Adam and Eve were the first ever humans.

Of course it does, in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

And also:
1 Corinthians 15:45 - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.And also:

This is talking about how man is transformed, in this case from higher to lower.
The first man Adam was formed by God and became a living soul.

In other words Adam was at that time, a pure soul. After his spiritual downfall, he became he began to die.


Isaiah 43:27 - Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me.(relating the "first father" - i.e. the original human - with the sin of Adam in Genesis 3.

(relating the "first father" - i.e. the original human - with the sin of Adam in Genesis 3.[/QUOTE]

It says nothing about “the original human”.
Why do you have to lie?
It supports the new race/type of human scenario. As in Adam and Eve were the progenitors of a new and distinct race, through the lineage of Seth.

You can't change the story to shoehorn it into biology and history.

Do you not see that the belief that A+E were the first ever humans, is never iterated in the bible?
Have you noticed that none of your objections to that, are based on misunderstanding, and generations of conditioning?

For the same reason that I'm convinced that Goldilocks and the Three Bears has talking bears in it - because that's what the story says. And that's how we know the story is fiction.

I think you want the bible to be fictional, so you easily accept that belief as coming rom the bible.

Jan

 

[iceaura]

The religious belief way, renders the bible nonsensical, it ignores what the writings literally say, it renders all other scriptures false and insignificant, etc.

They are stories.
Translated stories. Secondhand stories. Stories from many different peoples and tribes.
That is the basis of their significance and truth. Trying to re-interpret them as some kind of factual history or biology renders them simply false - as well as incoherent, self-contradictory, etc.

 

[sideshowbob]

I’m just telling you what it says...

No you're not. You're contradicting what it says.

‘Him’ is male...

"Him" is male SINGULAR - i.e. ONE male, the same ONE male as in Genesis 2, not a different type of human, not an excuse for Cain's wife not being his sister.

This is talking about how man is transformed...

The point is that 1 Corinthians 15:45 says explicitly that Adam was "the first man" - the very point that you deny.

It says nothing about “the originalhuman”.

How could "the first father" be anything but the original human?

Do you not see that the belief that A+E were the first ever humans, is never iterated in the bible?

I quoted where it says they were, both in Isaiah and in 1 Corinthians.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No you're not. You're contradicting what it says.

No. The belief contradicts what it says.
It say Adam is the first man ever, and the bible tells us so. That is not true.
God created mankind in one go, just like it said.

"Him" is male SINGULAR - i.e. ONE male, the same ONE male as in Genesis 2, not a different type of human, not an excuse for Cain's wife not being his sister.

“Him” describes the male gender.
“Them” means both male and female.
Cain did not marry his sister. That is not in the bible. The woman he married was a part of mankind.

The point is that 1 Corinthians 15:45 says explicitly that Adam was "the first man" - the very point that you deny.

By that token it also explicitly states that Adam was the last man. I noticed along with the context, and meaning, you omitted that.

This is just a case of desperation. Why are you so desperate to discredit the bible? That is the real question here.

How could "the first father" be anything but the original human?

You’re really asking that question?

I quoted where it says they were, both in Isaiah and in 1 Corinthians.

No you didn’t.

So where else do you think it states that Adam was the first human being ever?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

They are stories.
Translated stories. Secondhand stories. Stories from many different peoples and tribes.
That is the basis of their significance and truth. Trying to re-interpret them as some kind of factual history or biology renders them simply false - as well as incoherent, self-contradictory, etc.

It doesn’t mean we should just accept some belief as a part of what the text says.

Without those false notions of Adam and Eve, it changes the whole landscape.
So you do not know the value of those scriptures, if you are not aware of what they say and mean.

Jan

 

[iceaura]

It doesn’t mean we should just accept some belief as a part of what the text says.

It does mean that trying to adjust and interpret the vagaries of translation so that visibly contradictory stories somehow end up agreeing in their nonexistent facts and fictional, conflicting chronologies is a goofy waste of time.
And a bad misreading of the stories, of course.

Without those false notions of Adam and Eve, it changes the whole landscape.

Not on a science forum.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It does mean that trying to adjust and interpret the vagaries of translation so that visibly contradictory stories somehow end up agreeing in their nonexistent facts and fictional, conflicting chronologies is a goofy waste of time.
And a bad misreading of the stories, of course.

I’m not adjusting anything.
I’m simply stating what is written, and showing how the belief that A+E were the first ever human beings, is not supported in the bible.

I don’t believe you think it is a waste of time, otherwise you would not be fixed in this idea, even though it has been shown that the belief is not biblically supported.

Not on a science forum.

In a “Religion” sub-forum?
Don’t be daft.

Jan.

 

[davewhite04]

It's like sitting in a classroom. Did Jesus actually know the age of the earth?

 

[billvon]

It doesn’t mean we should just accept some belief as a part of what the text says.

Exactly. Even though the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first people, it doesn't mean you have to accept that. Indeed, it is wise not to.

Without those false notions of Adam and Eve, it changes the whole landscape.
So you do not know the value of those scriptures, if you are not aware of what they say and mean.

Also a good point. You would get a lot more value out of them if you understood what they said.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's like sitting in a classroom. Did Jesus actually know the age of the earth?

Why?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Even though the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first people, it doesn't mean you have to accept that.

It doesn’t say that.
It says mankind was created on the sixth day.
But more importantly why do you deny it?
Does it help wi

Also a good point. You would get a lot more value out of them if you understood what they said.

Obviously.
But why are you in denial?

Jan

 

[sweetpea]

Didn't Saint John Paul 2nd call Adam and Eve a creation myth?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Didn't Saint John Paul 2nd call Adam and Eve a creation myth?

Which would make his religion pure bull.

 

[iceaura]

I’m not adjusting anything.

Of course you are.
You're dealing with translations, for starters - and we have a pretty clear record of what the translators meant.

I don’t believe you think it is a waste of time, otherwise you would not be fixed in this idea, even though it has been shown that the belief is not biblically supported.

My fixation is on the odd fact that overt Abrahamic theists, such as yourself, are such fundamentally dishonest posters on science forums. I find that interesting.

In a “Religion” sub-forum?

Yep. No landscape change there, either.

 

[Write4U]

Which would make his religion pure bull.

Was it ever not?
Does a black cat crossing your path portent disaster?
Religions are no different than any other "ghoulies, ghosties, and things that go bump in the night" stories.

Pope Francis says evolution is real and God is no wizard

Delivering an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Francis continued his habit of making provocative, seemingly progressive statements. The pontiff appeared to endorse the theory of the Big Bang and told the gathering at the Vatican that there was no contradiction between believing in God as well as the prevailing scientific theories regarding the expansion of our universe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-wizard/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.670ea5bf4953

When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

OK, so God is not a magician but everything in the bible is founded on God being a magician.
Where does that leave scripture as a reliable source for spiritual healing?.....

 

[Write4U]

How could "the first father" be anything but the original human?

Could be the neighbor?............... "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife"

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course you are.

Of course I’m not.
It says mankind was created in day six, both male and female, with the direct instruction to be fruitful, to go forth, multiply, and the REplenish the earth.

Adam was personally fashioned by God, and later on, because he got lonely, and need help, Eve was created from his own flesh. Upon beholding Eve, Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’

Notice Adam called her “woman”, for which he had his reasons. God did not create Eve for the purpose of multiplying, or REplenishing the earth. She was a “suitable helper”.
Mankind, who task it was to be fruitful, multiply, and REplenish the earth, were not tillers of the ground, so there was no one to help Adam do what he was created to do.

You're dealing with translations, for starters - and we have a pretty clear record of what the translators meant.

You’re making stuff up because you are incapable of defending a position that 1) you don’t accept, and 2) that is clearly not written in the bible. So far you are wrong, and I am right.

My fixation is on the odd fact that overt Abrahamic theists, such as yourself, are such fundamentally dishonest posters on science forums. I find that interesting.

Rubbish!
You’re in denial.
Just like you know you are incorrect regarding A+E, but foolishly try to uphold it, you deny God, and try to uphold that denial and rejection, with the same type of foolishness.
You’re easy to read.

Yep. No landscape change there, either.

This sub forum is there for those wish to talk about religion, or things religious. Like the religious belief that A+E were the first ever human beings, even though it goes against every single ancient scripture, philosophical reasoning, science, and common sense.

So if you don’t like it, you are free to bounce.

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

It say Adam is the first man ever, and the bible tells us so. That is not true.

But it is true, as anybody who reads Genesis 1 and 2 can see.

“Him” describes the male gender.

Is English not your first language? "Him" is very specifically masculine singular .

Cain did not marry his sister. That is not in the bible.

It isn't explicit but it's a mathematical necessity, given what the text actually says.

By that token it also explicitly states that Adam was the last man. I noticed along with the context, and meaning, you omitted that.

That's a separate issue. You're already confused enough about the original issue without bringing other issues into it. Or are you deliberately avoiding the fact that 1 Corinthians says Adam was "the first man"?

Why are you so desperate to discredit the bible?

I don't need to discredit the Bible. It does that on its own.

I quoted where it says they were, both in Isaiah and in 1 Corinthians.

No you didn’t.

Yes I did, as anybody reading this thread can see.