The Bible merely states that they were the FIRST people.
Where does it state that?
Jan.
The Bible merely states that they were the FIRST people.
As promised .....In any event the question remains ... who was the witness to creation such that they could describe the various steps that God took in creation.
.....
Did God create a human to witness creation?
The Spirit of God is known by two other names in the Christian lexicon. One is Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost. The other is Logos (Word).Gen 1:1-2 said:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Here the English word "Word" is actually Logos in the original Greek. I bring that up just to show how important these ideas to the early Christian theology.John 1:1-2 said:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Who is "us"/"our"? Could it be Angels, Jesus, Sophia, the "Sons of God" from Gen 6:1-4 or maybe it's just a Royal "we"?Gen 1:26 said:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
I don't know why but that verse always cracks me up heh....Gen 1:27 said:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Not only did he not die because God "took him". He also wrote a book we call 1st Enoch.Gen 5:21-24 said:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
You have terrible reading skills. From Genesis 2:Where does it state that?
Thank you.THE END
You have terrible reading skills. From Genesis 2:
"The Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
No men yet.
"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
The first man, Adam. The first woman soon followed. And as we already established, this occurred BEFORE the creation of Man listed in Genesis 1.
The first man, Adam. The first woman soon followed. And as we already established, this occurred BEFORE the creation of Man listed in Genesis 1.
Heaven has dirt - or more likely clay, as in pottery. Apparently.Yes God fashioned a man, not a bunch of men and women, as in Genesis 1, where He created man and woman simultaneously.
God created this man specifically. To start a specific linage.
- - -
The Quran gives a little more detail. Adam wasn’t fashioned on the earth. He was fashioned in heaven, or paradise.
What he is doing is creating pretexts for things like this:You have terrible reading skills. From Genesis 2:
which is his agenda. Notice that discussing the theist's psychology behind any of this scriptural exegesis is not on the table. God is not up for discussion as a protagonist in a story, a creation of a storyteller, here.You like the idea of there being two contradictory accounts, because it helps to maintain your delusion
The very first line of genesis states: ''In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth''
Right. That's not the point. The point is that that passage says there was "no man" yet. Which agrees with the previous line that states Genesis 2 occurred "before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown."“Earth” as in land”, not in planet earth (based on genesis 1.10).
It absolutely does. In order, there is "no man" (i.e. this is the story of creation before the creation of Man) and in the very next line "the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." Which, by the way, is where the phrase "for dust you are and to dust you will return" comes from - thus confirming that Genesis 2 describes the creation of both the first human and, through him, all of Mankind.Yes God fashioned a man, not a bunch of men and women, as in Genesis 1, where He created man and woman simultaneously.
God created this man specifically. To start a specific linage. It says nothing about them being the FIRST human beings.
I like that idea because it gives you insight into the history of the Bible, which is a fascinating subject. It is unfortunate that your beliefs blind you to such a study of the origins of the Bible.You like the idea of there being two contradictory accounts
If you are trying to use the Quran to alter what the Bible says, you have already lost the argument.The Quran gives a little more detail. Adam wasn’t fashioned on the earth. He was fashioned in heaven, or paradise.
Exactly. She was the mother of all humanity (with the exception of herself and Adam of course.) Which, again, proves that the Bible states that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and all humanity descended from them.In genesis 3.20, it says that Adam named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living. But unless you think Adam and Eve gave birth elephants and scorpions, it should be obvious what that refers to.
Right. That's not the point. The point is that that passage says there was "no man" yet. Which agrees with the previous line that states Genesis 2 occurred "before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown."
It absolutely does. In order, there is "no man" (i.e. this is the story of creation before the creation of Man) and in the very next line "the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground
It is unfortunate that your beliefs blind you to such a study of the origins of the Bible.
If you are trying to use the Quran to alter what the Bible says, you have already lost the argument.
Exactly. She was the mother of all humanity
Which, again, proves that the Bible states that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and all humanity descended from them.
Thank you for proving that Beer with Straw's point was quite valid, and that "the Adam and Eve thing" is a strong argument that the Bible is fiction.
The earth was without form and void "in the beginning". The land masses were formed on day three and plants began to grow the same day. It is not "obvious" that there was no rain; in fact, it's impossible.It says the earth was formless, and void. Obviously there was no rains, or men to till the land.
No. That’s not what it says.She was the mother of all humanity
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
You denied the statement that, "She was the mother of all humanity." It clearly does say that.Yet she didn’t give rise to elephants and scorpions. She is as much mother to them as she is to mankind, according to that text.
How so? Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve weren't human?What it doesn’t say is that Adam and Eve are the first human beings. They are the first of their linage. A different thing altogether.
You denied the statement that, "She was the mother of all humanity." It clearly does say that.
I quoted where it says Eve was the mother of all living. Humanity are living.Where does it say “Eve is the mother of all humanity”?
I quoted where it says Eve was the mother of all living. Humanity are living.
I ask again, Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve weren't human?
The question is not whether Eve was the mother of elephants and scorpions. It is possible to conclude that from the text, though it doesn't seem very sensible to do so.So are elephants and scorpions.
I have asked myself that question and I have answered it: Yes, Adam and Eve were human. There is nothing controversial about that view. It's what genesis clearly says.I think you need to ask yourself that question, given what you and bilvon are proposing.
The question is not whether Eve was the mother of elephants and scorpions.
is possible to conclude that from the text, though it doesn't seem very sensible to do so.
There is nothing controversial about that view. It's what genesis clearly says.
I QUOTED where it says that Eve was the mother of all living. Humans are living. Therefore Eve was the mother of all humans, including the first humans. There is no escaping that.It doesn’t allude to the idea that Adam and Eve were the first ever human beings.
I did not say that Adam and Eve were the first humans.Unless you can show where it says these are the first ever humans...
I QUOTED where it says that Eve was the mother of all living. Humans are living. Therefore Eve was the mother of all humans, including the first humans. There is no escaping that.
I did not say that Adam and Eve were the first humans.