Were Adam and Eve the first people?

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

What it says.

Me too!

I’m okay with it.
How about you?

I think talking snakes and trees of knowledge are a myth.

Wow. You're stuck in deeper than i thought. A real-life biblical literalist!

So what?
Does it say they were the ancestors of mankind? Please feel free to point it out.

Genesis 3:20 says that Eve was the "mother of all living". She was explicitly created to be Adam's wife, it says in the bible. Adam is explicitly the first man, as it says in the bible. Ignoring Lilith (as the bible does), we start off with two people: Adam and Eve. We are told they had more than 3 children. Some of those children had children of their own, we are told.

The scholarly consensus is that the bible says that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all human beings.

Now, you're out on a limb by yourself claiming that at least some human beings did not descend from Adam and Eve after all. That kind of messes with the whole biblical idea of one big human family created in God's image, but never mind. I'm interested to know who you believe the first human beings were, if not Adam and Eve, and what your biblical basis for that belief is. Also, I'd be most interested to learn who the human beings are who were not part of the Adam and Eve lineage.

Well. When “ my fellow theists” bring it up, I will ask them the same questions I ask you, and your fellow atheists.

I'm so glad. That will keep them out of mischief for a while.

If she is “mother to all”.
By your logic...yes.

No. I set out my logic. It's yours that is unclear. Mother to porcupines, or not? You keep flip-flopping.

“Mother can often apply to a woman other than the biological parent, especially if she fulfills the main social role in raising the child”.

This quote was taken from Wiki.
Do you agree with it?

Yes.

If yes, then apply it to Eve.
If not. Why?

Because the verse means what it says, like you said. Any other interpretation, like the idea that Eve was not a biological ancestor but rather a mere metaphorical mother to a religious community, requires supporting evidence, in this case from biblical analysis.

The thing is, of course, religious scholars have already spent centuries doing this work on your behalf. Guess what the consensus is?

If you accept the bible says Eve gave rise to mankind, by giving birth to humans, based on “all living”. Then it stand to reason (via this logic), she gave birth to all the species of life, based on “all living”.
Do you get it now?

No. You'll need to explain further, I'm afraid.

Typically, I find that human women give birth only to human children.

Does your experience differ in this regard? Have you seen women giving birth to porcupines and foxes, not to mention blue whales and Californian redwoods?

By those who choose to see as they would like, yes. But it’s pretty straightforward, and needs no interpretation.

So we toss out the Mother Teresa interpretation and go with the simplest interpretation of the words as written. Yes?

Here's an idea: you could defer to your fellow theists, including all the learned scholars that currently disagree with you on this matter of interpretation. You don't need to take my word for it, nasty atheist person that I am.

How could “all living” (or all life), mean only “all mankind”? Don’t you regard other life forms as living?

Once again, I can only ask whether it has come to your attention that women typically give birth to human children.

Oh right! So it is documented in the bible that A+E were the first humans, from which came all other humans.
Show me where it says that. Then we can wrap this thing up.

You're the scriptural expert, are you not? Why aren't you aware of the consensus on the meaning of this particular aspect of the bible? Not up with the research literature? I mean, I found out with only a few minutes of google searching, and it seems I'm already more of an expert on these couple of chapters than you are.

Great. Then you should have no problem in disclosing this information.

I believe that William Lane Craig has the information. Look him up! I agree with his interpretation of Genesis 3:20.

But not only does she have “mother” in her name, they referred to her as “mother”. So by your logic, anyone who regarded her as “mother, is also a descendant of hers.

You have some strange notions of "my logic", which contrast sharply with the actual logic I put to you explicitly in my post.

Most people regard the biblical account of A+E as the supposed originator of mankind. I’m not disputing that.
My question is; Why?
It certainly doesn’t say that.
In fact, if you look closely, it becomes quite obvious that they weren’t.

Okay. Let's hear your argument, based on that close look of yours.

Have you had it out on this point with actual biblical scholars? What was their response? How did your argument go down with them?

So why do you?
Where do you get this information?

From the consensus of biblical scholars.

She was a mother to humans. From biblical accounts, she gave birth to about 7 human beings.

Do you think “mother to all” could mean mother to those 7 human beings. I don’t.

I've already said what I think it means. I couldn't be any clearer. Why repeat myself?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Genesis 3:20 says that Eve was the "mother of all living".

You’re aware that there animals, and plant life (not to mention mankind), around, at the time of the creation of Adam and Eve. Aren’t you?

She was explicitly created to be Adam's wife, it says in the bible.

Okay.

Adam is explicitly the first man, as it says in the bible.

The first man personally fashioned by God Himself. Okay

we start off with two people: Adam and Eve. We are told they had more than 3 children. Some of those children had children of their own, we are told.

But we’re not told these children produced “mankind” (that God created on the sixth day.)

So how do you arrive at that conclusion?

The scholarly consensus is that the bible says that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all human beings.

They may agree on that, but I’m asking how they, or you, know that, as it is not written in the bible.

Now, you're out on a limb by yourself claiming that at least some human beings did not descend from Adam and Eve after all.

I’m simply asking where it says that.
Just show me and I’ll accept it.

That kind of messes with the whole biblical idea of one big human family created in God's image, but never mind.

No it doesn’t.
God created “mankind, both male and female”, on the sixth day. That’s what it says.
Why should I ignore that for something that is not written in the bible, when reading the bible?

I'm interested to know who you believe the first human beings were, if not Adam and Eve, and what your biblical basis for that belief is.

According to the bible?

It says God created mankind on the sixth day.
I’ll go with that, seeing as that’s what it says.

Also, I'd be most interested to learn who the human beings are who were not part of the Adam and Eve-lineage

The rest of “mankind” that were created on the sixth day.

Because the verse means what it says, like you said. Any other interpretation, like the idea that Eve was not a biological ancestor but rather a mere metaphorical mother to a religious community, requires supporting evidence, in this case from biblical analysis.

It doesn’t say, or even imply that Eve gave rise to mankind. So why do you think it does?

The thing is, of course, religious scholars have already spent centuries doing this work on your behalf. Guess what the consensus is?

What work have they done, that gives them the confidence to say that A+E were the origin of mankind?

No. You'll need to explain further, I'm afraid.

Typically, I find that human women give birth only to human children.

Does your experience differ in this regard? Have you seen women giving birth to porcupines and foxes, not to mention blue whales and Californian redwoods?

So we’re on the same page. Good.

Now why do you think “mother to all” means the origin of “mankind” alone?

So we toss out the Mother Teresa interpretation and go with the simplest interpretation of the words as written. Yes?

No. Mother Teresa was a mother to those children, but she didn’t give both to them, nor are they her descendants. So I think we’ll keep that in.

Once again, I can only ask whether it has come to your attention that women typically give birth to human children.

Okay.
So why do you regard “mother to all” as meaning, the origin of mankind, alone?

Here's an idea: you could defer to your fellow theists, including all the learned scholars that currently disagree with you on this matter of interpretation. You don't need to take my word for it, nasty atheist person that I am.

Are you into self-loathing, James?

You're the scriptural expert, are you not? Why aren't you aware of the consensus on the meaning of this particular aspect of the bible? Not up with the research literature? I mean, I found out with only a few minutes of google searching, and it seems I'm already more of an expert on these couple of chapters than you are.

You don’t have to be a scriptural expert to realise that it doesn’t say A+E were the origin of “mankind”. Apart from that, the origin of mankind is revealed in Genesis 1.
Why would I ignore that for something that it does not say?

Okay. Let's hear your argument, based on that close look of yours.

The creation of mankind in Genesis 1 for starters.

Have you had it out on this point with actual biblical scholars? What was their response? How did your argument go down with them?

I’ll let you know when that happens.

From the consensus of biblical scholars.

Maybe you ought to look at other writings.

I've already said what I think it means. I couldn't be any clearer. Why repeat myself?

Why do you think it means that?

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

But you don’t agree that she gave birth to elephants and saber-toothed tigers.

We already agreed that that's a bonding thing.

If you have some hare-brained idea about Adam and Eve, I wish you'd just spit it out.

 

[Write4U]

Yes.
Otherwise the gave birth to the first of “all living”, which include every species of life.

Jan.

Why? What does genesis say? God created all the animals before or after he created man?

 

[Write4U]

But we’re not told these children produced “mankind” (that God created on the sixth day.)

So how do you arrive at that conclusion?

It is self-evident that if you are the first and only, you must be the progenitor of all that follows.

This is the problem with Genesis, it's chronology of emergence of living things is scientifically incorrect. It did not start with any species. It started as patterns of bio-chemicals.

Your magical creation of "living" is a probabilistic chemical event, a self-duplicating polymer which was able to produce off-spring. It was the progenitor of all living things (on earth)...

The metaphor of A + E is a scientifically incorrect proposition, their existence is irrelevant to reality. .....humbling thought isn't it?
It's a fable where animals can talk and wood sprites abound and they have adventures....

 

[billvon]

She was a mother to humans. From biblical accounts, she gave birth to about 7 human beings.

Do you think “mother to all” could mean mother to those 7 human beings. I don’t.

That's fine. However, per the Bible, it does. She was the mother to those 7. Over the course of a thousand years or so, those 7 became all the people of the Earth.

Then Noah, Adam's direct descendant, got on an ark with his family - and everyone else was killed. Once again, Noah and his family became all the people of the Earth.

Now you can say "I don't think that's realistic" all you like. That's what the Bible says.

 

[Write4U]

That's fine. However, per the Bible, it does. She was the mother to those 7. Over the course of a thousand years or so, those 7 became all the people of the Earth.

It's one of the few possible correct scientific facts in the bible. The "exponential function"....

 

[billvon]

It's one of the few possible correct scientific facts in the bible. The "exponential function"....

Yep - although with an awful lot of incest.

 

[Write4U]

Yep - although with an awful lot of incest.

Maybe that's why it really took some;

No one knows for sure who the first person on earth was, but archaeological finds and studies indicate the earliest known members of our species, Homo sapiens, roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago.

The name Adam, often attributed to the progenitor of the human race, means "man" in Biblical Hebrew and is often used in a generic sense, as in "mankind," in the Book of Genesis.

https://www.innovations-report.com//html/reports/earth-sciences/report-19128.html

Of course, "life" on earth probably originated some 3.5 billion years ago

The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old AustralianApex chert rocks

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

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I have just now found this.

Possibly 200,000 years old...clever apes?
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I do think if one looks at the OT and see it as not entirely factual but as a set of stories it is much better than the NT which is clearly just an attempt to jump on an OT prophesy and using a tried and tested astrology approach associated with many many "Solar Messiahs" and therefore the NT fails for lack of originality.

The NT could come from a revamp of Horace or many other human god types ...if not it could only be called an unbelievable coincidence.

ALEX

 

[billvon]

I do think if one looks at the OT and see it as not entirely factual but as a set of stories . . .

Exactly - and stories from an oral tradition at that. Studying it from that perspective and you can stop fretting over all the inconsistencies, mistakes and contradictions, and instead study what it says about the history of the time and how the Judeo-Christian religions evolved.

 

[TheFrogger]

I doubt whether they were actually named Adam and Eve but I believe there was a couple born from God.

 

[billvon]

I doubt whether they were actually named Adam and Eve but I believe there was a couple born from God.

Well, that's what the Bible says. And he was literally called Adam; Adam is a translation from a word that means "mankind." Later when Eve was created the name used was "Ishsha" because she was formed from man -"ish". So in the original text Eve's name was written as "from man."

Of course, several translations later and we have Adam and Eve.

 

[Write4U]

I doubt whether they were actually named Adam and Eve but I believe there was a couple born from God.

Can you elaborate on that interesting statement?

How did you come to that conclusion for any two people specifically? And when in the history of mankind would you place this extraordinary couple?

If God exists, are we not all individuals born from God? If God does not exist, Adam and Eve obviously could never have been born from God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

We already agreed that that's a bonding thing.

If you have some hare-brained idea about Adam and Eve, I wish you'd just spit it out.

That’s not the point.
What is fascinating is that atheist will stick to the idea of A and E being the first humans, despite their atheist assertions.

It was always about the psychology.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

That’s not the point.
What is fascinating is that atheist will stick to the idea of A and E being the first humans, despite their atheist assertions.

It was always about the psychology.

Jan.

No, stop thinking for atheists. It's the bible which asserts that A + E are the first humans. Adam means "first human". How clear do you want to get?
Any attempt to suggest that it does not mean "first human" just makes the whole thing worse.

What are atheist to do when they read the bible. We repeat what is says, not because we believe in it, but because that's what it says.
Don't hang anything in the bible on atheists, please. It's patently wrong and counter productive.
You're the theist. Own it!

I do agree with your last statement. Psychological control....mostly through fear...

Break any of the ten commandments and God will condemn you to hell to suffer for eternity
...................., but He loves you..............and he needs money......yeah, right....

 

[Acitnoids]

That’s not the point.
What is fascinating is that atheist will stick to the idea of A and E being the first humans, despite their atheist assertions.

It was always about the psychology.

Jan.

Okay, for argument sakes, lets say Adam and Eve were not the only humans created on the Sixth day. Let's say they where the first "spiritual people" created. A chosen people by the creator himself.

Let's fast forward a little bit to Noah and the flood. Are you suggesting that all of mankind does not come from his family? The sole survivors of a global flood that killed all life on earth save what was in the ark?

If Noahs' family could be the source of all mankind, why not Adam and Eve (save "the sons of God" aka "Fallen Angels" breeding with the "daughters of man" to spread some genetic diversity around)?

 

[Write4U]

Okay, for argument sakes, lets say Adam and Eve were not the only humans created on the Sixth day.

There is no mention of that in the bible, so why should you want to embellish what the bible actually says?
It's the revealed word of God, no?

Let's say they where the first "spiritual people" created. A chosen people by the creator himself. Let's fast forward a little bit to Noah and the flood

Let's fast rewind a little bit to where all those other people came from. How were all those other people (spiritual or not) created aside from Adam and Eve which is explained in great detail ?

And after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, what happened to all those other people which also dwelled in the Garden. They remained spiritless (atheist?), whereas the two spiritual people were thrown to the wind. This becomes a rabbit hole very quickly.

 

[Acitnoids]

And after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, what happened to all those other people which also dwelled in the Garden. They remained spiritless (atheist?), whereas the two spiritual people were thrown to the wind. This becomes a rabbit hole very quickly.

That was not my point but, if you want to know what the mythology says .... Adam was created outside the garden and brought there by God as stated in Gen 2:15. No other humans were present in the garden.

My point is that Adam and Eve is a mute point if the flood, which killed all life on earth, actually happened as stated in the bible. This would be the "bottle neck" all of mankind came from. Not Adam and Eve.