Were Adam and Eve the first people?

[Seattle]

Without being a biblical scholar, how could one read the bible and be certain as to what it means? It's been translated many times. Nothing about it that is read in English could be taken literally.

If it says that Eve was the mother "of living things" how could one possibly be quite confident that it didn't mean mother of all living humans? Can you be certain that "things" wasn't mistranslated?

If it is to be taken literally then I guess she is the mother of all birds/plants as well. As I recall "light" came before all the stars and planets. Is that to be taken literally as well? If so, then any crazy concept should be taken literally.

 

[Write4U]

I'd like to know how God introduced all the animals to Adam so he could name them.
What about all the different fishes and ocean mammals. Was Adam tasked with naming them also? And what happened to the dinosaurs? Did Adam name them also? They did live side by side according to the creationist museums of natural history, no?

Or were their fossils believed to be the "giants of old", which came into the daughters of men?

 

[Write4U]

No other humans were present in the garden.

Where did those other humans live, when the earth was still dry and barren ? That was the reason why God made and placed Adam in the Garden, no? "Screw all those other humans which I created in my image". Was God not satisfied with the image of the "others" ?

God can't have every which way. Helter skelter would not speak well of God's motives and artistic abilities. Massmurder being among those traits.

OTOH, Gaia, the goddess of the planet we call Earth, is a very competent and creative God;
She gave birth to all life on earth and allowed an evolutionary process to self-organize into the elemental chemical patterns which led to the emergence of biochemicals and self-replicating polymers, leading to cell formation and ever greater complexity, from which "Life" arose.
Gaia literally "gave birth" to Life (Nature) on Earth.

This is self-evident and has been studied at length and in many cases artificially copied by humans living on earth.

"Natura Artis Magistra" (Nature is the Teacher of Art). Gaia, the Mother of Life on Earth.

As Carlin observed that the biblical God reminded him of an "incompetent office temp with a bad attitude"...

 

[Michael 345]

Did I miss the part where Eve gave birth to the apple tree?

The one she ate the apple from

 

[sideshowbob]

What is fascinating is that atheist will stick to the idea of A and E being the first humans, despite their atheist assertions.

It has nothing to do with atheism. It's about what the Bible says. It says that Eve was the mother od all living and that includes humans.

Of course atheists don't believe that Adam and Eve ever existed. We know that there was never a time when there was one man and one woman.

We're talking about a story here, like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. We know that Goldilocks never existed. We're just pointing out that she was clearly described as a blonde in the story. You keep asking if the story says she was a blonde and we keep telling you, "Yes, it does."

 

[sculptor]

Lilith?

...................
or
Stheno, Euryale, and Medusa?

 

[Write4U]

Lilith?

...................
or
Stheno, Euryale, and Medusa?

Give me that good Old Time porno story. Love the sex in religions.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It has nothing to do with atheism.

It does if we're discussing atheist psychology, with regard to the story of Adam and Eve.
Atheists are no different to Christians, in their defence of what the account means.

It's about what the Bible says. It says that Eve was the mother od all living and that includes humans.

It's fascinating how you cannot ascribe any other context to ''mother'', than giving birth, and, descendants.
Eve is regarded as ''mother to all living'', and instantly that means she's the origin of mankind?

Of course atheists don't believe that Adam and Eve ever existed. We know that there was never a time when there was one man and one woman.

Why do you instantly assume that A+E were the only humans?
Doesn’t the simultaneous creation of mankind, both male and female, in Genesis 1, count as anything?

We're talking about a story here, like Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Even so, we can still take an objective look at it, without the need to invoke current religious notions.

 

[sideshowbob]

Eve is regarded as ''mother to all living'', and instantly that means she's the origin of mankind?

Yes. Mankind are living.

Why do you instantly assume that A+E were the only humans?

Because that's what the story says. I know it isn't true but that doesn't give you leave to make up your own story.

Doesn’t the simultaneous creation of mankind, both male and female, in Genesis 1, count as anything?

No. Nothing at all. Attempting to reconcile the two creation accounts is an exercise in foolishness. They're both wrong, so it doesn't much matter whether they agree or not.

 

[Seattle]

One can interpret the Bible any way that one likes. It's hard to do that and then insist that the Bible should be taken literally however.

If you want to get meaning out of the Bible then you have to interpret it so that it does make sense by our present day standards. Literally interpreting the Bible will get you nowhere.

 

[Dinosaur]

From Jan Ardena post 8

I have no reason to think it is a work of fiction.

What reason do you have?

The above refers to the Biblical story of Adam & Eve as the origin of modern Homo Sapiens.

My reasons for considering it (Adam & Eve story) a work of fiction are as follows.

Contrary to the Biblical story, there is a long set of related fossils starting with early primates & ending with Homo Sapiens.​

Those fossils provide an excellent explanation for the origin & existence of modern Homo Sapiens.​

That explanation better fits the fossil record than the Adam & Eve account from the Bible.

That explanation is contrary to the notion that Homo Sapiens all descended from two individuals with all (or most) of the characteristics of Modern Homo Sapiens.
​

To accept the Biblical story of Adam & Eve, it is necessary to show that it is a better explanation for the facts indicated by the fossil record.

 

[river]

No , Adam and Eve were not the first Humans . It depends on how you define , the " First Humans " .

If Genetic manipulation by the Annunaki is true , towards us , then our Human form was already present .

Humanity wasn't created from scracth , Humanities genetics has been changed

 

[Jan Ardena]

The above refers to the Biblical story of Adam & Eve as the origin of modern Homo Sapiens.

Where does it refer to that?

SB thinks that, Adam naming his wife “Eve” ,because she was the mother of all living (which includes Satan, and the serpent, all the animals God made and was named by Adam), it means she was the the origin of mankind, which apparently was created the same day Adam was. Both male and female, simultaneously.

I’m not bothered whether or not you believe it, only in the narrative. So what say you

That explanation better fits the fossil record than the Adam & Eve account from the Bible.

I think you view the account from a Christian perspective, if you accept that A and E gave rise to mankind. As far as I can tell, that is not a biblical account. If you show me where it is said that they are the origin of mankind, and show that the sixth day creation means something other than what it says, I will change my mind.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

One can interpret the Bible any way that one likes. It's hard to do that and then insist that the Bible should be taken literally however.

If you want to get meaning out of the Bible then you have to interpret it so that it does make sense by our present day standards. Literally interpreting the Bible will get you nowhere.

You only need to interpret what is not clear.
A and E being the origin of mankind , is at best, extremely unclear. Especially when you compare to the sixth day creation account.

What is clear, is that they weren’t the only humans on the planet.
All that stuff about incest, is just a poor place-mat.
The pair had 7 children.
Cain was worried about being targeted by others, if expelled from region.
Cain went to another land, and got himself a wife.
Cain built a city.
When God created mankind, he instructed them to go forth, multiply, and replenish the earth.

Whether or not you believe it is true, is not the issue here.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

One can interpret the Bible any way that one likes. It's hard to do that and then insist that the Bible should be taken literally however.

If you want to get meaning out of the Bible then you have to interpret it so that it does make sense by our present day standards. Literally interpreting the Bible will get you nowhere.

I would suggest that on close scrutiny, Darwin's account is the only fossil supported realistic approximation of the emergence of homo sapiens.

This does not mean that Darwin's account has not been further refined, to our current thorough understanding of Origins of (living) Species, down to their DNA.

There is clear DNA evidence of the exact point where homo sapiens appeared in the hominid families and genetically split from the other great apes. All Apes have 48 chromosomes, all Humans have 46. This was caused by the mutative fusion of two hominid chromosomes resulting in a single larger human chromosome. The rest of the DNA is almost identical, confirming the historic genetic connection between Apes and Humans (smart Apes).

Regardless if Darwin was perfectly correct or not, the Biblical account is demonstrably incorrect regardless of interpretation. The premise on which the biblical story of Genesis is founded is fundamentally flawed and cannot be rescued by contorting the possible perspectives.

 

[Michael 345]

contorting

Love the use of this word

Fits Jan to a T

 

[Jan Ardena]

Regardless if Darwin was perfectly correct or not, the Biblical account is demonstrably incorrect regardless of interpretation. The premise on which the biblical story of Genesis is founded is fundamentally flawed and cannot be rescued by contorting the possible perspectives.

Eh!
I don't care if you think it is flawed.

I'm not the one doing the interpreting.
l'm simply asking how you come to the reasonable conclusion that Adam and Eve are declared the origin of mankind, from what is written in the bible.

Atheists are always harping on about how they have a better understanding of the bible than Christians. So let's see it.

jan.

 

[Seattle]

I would suggest that on close scrutiny, Darwin's account is the only fossil supported realistic approximation of the emergence of homo sapiens.

This does not mean that Darwin's account has not been further refined, to our current thorough understanding of Origins of (living) Species, down to their DNA.

There is clear DNA evidence of the exact point where homo sapiens appeared in the hominid families and genetically split from the other great apes. All Apes have 48 chromosomes, all Humans have 46. This was caused by the mutative fusion of two hominid chromosomes resulting in a single larger human chromosome. The rest of the DNA is almost identical, confirming the historic genetic connection between Apes and Humans (smart Apes).

Regardless if Darwin was perfectly correct or not, the Biblical account is demonstrably incorrect regardless of interpretation. The premise on which the biblical story of Genesis is founded is fundamentally flawed and cannot be rescued by contorting the possible perspectives.

Of course. I'm just addressing Jan's logic.

 

[Seattle]

You only need to interpret what is not clear.
A and E being the origin of mankind , is at best, extremely unclear. Especially when you compare to the sixth day creation account.

What is clear, is that they weren’t the only humans on the planet.
All that stuff about incest, is just a poor place-mat.
The pair had 7 children.
Cain was worried about being targeted by others, if expelled from region.
Cain went to another land, and got himself a wife.
Cain built a city.
When God created mankind, he instructed them to go forth, multiply, and replenish the earth.

Whether or not you believe it is true, is not the issue here.

Jan.

What is your interpretation of "light" comes before the sun and stars?

 

[billvon]

l'm simply asking how you come to the reasonable conclusion that Adam and Eve are declared the origin of mankind, from what is written in the bible.

Asked and answered.

Atheists are always harping on about how they have a better understanding of the bible than Christians.

Not at all. Most atheists just have a better understanding of the Bible than YOU. And that's a pretty low bar.