Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

[Jan Ardena]

Your "Adam and Eve weren't the first people" thing.

Above is a snippet of a conversation that bilvon and I are engaged in. I thought I’d start a separate thread, as I presume it could well be an interesting topic of its own.

Bilvon’s is pertaining to something I questioned in another thread.

It is well understood and accepted that A+E were original humans that became origin of the human race.
But the bible, at best, is not entirely clear on this issue.

In Genesis 1, we find that on the sixth day of creation, God created the human race, male and female alike, and instructed them to go forth and multiply. Believe it or not, the statement is pretty clear.

In Genesis 2, we given an account of , what seems like a special creation of a human being, and later on, the creation of another human being, from the body of the first. Of course I’m talking about Adam, and then Eve. At no point were these instructed to go forth and multiply. The female was, it seems, created to be a companion, for what could be described as a lonely, and exceedingly depressed male.

So straight off the bat, we have what is commonly known as two creation accounts. The second one being accepted as an official account.

So my question is; Why is that the accepted account, when it contradicts the first account?

It seems to me, that if we take both accounts, and merge them into just one account, it makes sense. As it stands, the separate accounts make no sense. For example...

Where did Cain get his wife?

We are led to believe that Cain married his sister. The problem with this explanation is that it goes against a tenet prohibiting such relations. It’s not just a passing prohibition, it is of spiritual impediment.

However, if we unite “the accounts”, and accept that the human race were created on the sixth day, and the Adam and Eve account were an account of a new race of people, we have no such problem with explaining where Cain got his wife.

This not “my thing”.
It is simply reading something, and drawing a conclusion based on what is written.

Jan.

 

[exchemist]

This is over-interpretation of allegorical stories of creation derived from ancient people.

Even by 200AD, Origen and those like him who were familiar with their Greek myths, realised the early books of the bible should be taken as allegories and not literally. Trying to take them literally, in the 21st century, is a perverse regression to the way people thought over 2000 years ago.

The Adam and Eve story is important to Christianity as explaining the origin of Man's moral awareness and hence sinfulness. Palaeontology indicates it is very unlikely that homo sapiens is descended from two specific individuals.

 

[Jan Ardena]

exchemist

Let’s put aside whether or not, the biblical accounts are true, and let’s just get a picture of what the written words are actually portraying. Because to get bogged down in that, may cause us to lose sight of what is being said as opposed to what we would like it to say, how it relates to the world, and the human race.
It explains the diversity we observe and experience, in culture, art, science, philosophy, religion, society, etc... These are the foundations of our intellectual approach to life.
If it is simply a case of you are right, and I am wrong, the struggle becomes preserving that what we think is right, and we run the risk of losing focus.


Jan.

 

[exchemist]

exchemist

Let’s put aside whether or not, the biblical accounts are true, and let’s just get a picture of what the written words are actually portraying. Because to get bogged down in that, may cause us to lose sight of what is being said as opposed to what we would like it to say, how it relates to the world, and the human race.
It explains the diversity we observe and experience, in culture, art, science, philosophy, religion, society, etc... These are the foundations of our intellectual approach to life.
If it is simply a case of you are right, and I am wrong, the struggle becomes preserving that what we think is right, and we run the risk of losing focus.


Jan.

It provides no explanation of diversity of the experienced world, so far as I can see.

The message of the allegory is not an explanation of diversity. They key messages are (i) the creation of the world by God, (ii) Man's place in it and, (iii) most importantly of all, Man's relationship with God. It thus sets the scene for the rest of the bible.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It provides no explanation of diversity of the experienced world, so far as I can see.

The message of the allegory is not an explanation of diversity. They key messages are (i) the creation of the world by God, (ii) Man's place in it and, (iii) most importantly of all, Man's relationship with God. It thus sets the scene for the rest of the bible.

It also gives an idea of who and what God is.
This is imperative to understanding the events.
I think it perfectly describes the diversity we observe and experience today. Not to draw the attention away from the topic, it describes better than the evolutionary account of diversity, IMHO. It adds characteristics like science, religion , art etc. I don’t mean that to be it is right, and the evolutionary account is wrong. Just that it explains it as a whole, not as a fraction.

For the purpose of this discussion, I am going to assume that what the bible says, is what it means. Not that it is necessarily correct.
Simply to gain a better understand of the content.

Jan.

 

[exchemist]

It also gives an idea of who and what God is.
This is imperative to understanding the events.
I think it perfectly describes the diversity we observe and experience today. Not to draw the attention away from the topic, it describes better than the evolutionary account of diversity, IMHO. It adds characteristics like science, religion , art etc. I don’t mean that to be it is right, and the evolutionary account is wrong. Just that it explains it as a whole, not as a fraction.

For the purpose of this discussion, I am going to assume that what the bible says, is what it means. Not that it is necessarily correct.
Simply to gain a better understand of the content.

Jan.

Jolly good.

I've made my point on this subject. You can go back on Ignore now.

[click]

 

[Jan Ardena]

Even by 200AD, Origen and those like him who were familiar with their Greek myths, realised the early books of the bible should be taken as allegories and not literally. Trying to take them literally, in the 21st century, is a perverse regression to the way people thought over 2000 years ago.

What is the point of accepting them as allegories? It’s kind of straightforward. God created human beings. Some may not accept that as a raw statement of truth, but why try to change it so that it becomes more acceptable?
If we don’t accept it , we don’t accept it, period.
But it’s good that we can talk about it.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

What is the point of accepting them as allegories? It’s kind of straightforward.

If you want to know what they say, you have to read them as what they are.
They are stories. Human beings tell stories - that's how we learn right from wrong, how to be an adult, how to behave, how to understand the world.

God created human beings. Some may not accept that as a raw statement of truth, but why try to change it so that it becomes more acceptable?

If you mistake that for a raw statement of biological fact, you have mistaken what it says; you have misread it. The Bible is not a textbook of biological science.

 

[sideshowbob]

We’re Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

I'm guessing that that's a typo in the topic title and you meant "were" instead of "we're".

But it's closer to the truth than whatever point you're trying to make. We are Adam and Eve. The stories are about us.

We were created male and female. We were created (supposedly) in God's image. We do acquire the knowledge of good and evil and we do subsequently grow up and take responsibility for our own actions. We do face consequences both good and bad when we grow up.

We are Cain and Abel. Cain's wife was one of us.

 

[billvon]

Let’s put aside whether or not, the biblical accounts are true, and let’s just get a picture of what the written words are actually portraying.

OK. Then it's simple. Man (specifically a man and a woman) was created on the sixth day, and told them to go forth and multiply. (Genesis 1) That man and woman were Adam and Eve. Adam was created first and then Eve (Genesis 2.) They did some bad stuff and were cast out of the garden (Genesis 2 again.) They then went on to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 3.) That's what is portrayed in the Bible.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm guessing that that's a typo in the topic title and you meant "were" instead of "we're".

Embarrassing!!!

Thanks for pointing that out.

James R, if you come around here, could you please correct that error?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

Palaeontology indicates it is very unlikely that homo sapiens is descended from two specific individuals.

And measurement of genetic clocks, and genetic similarities between races etc etc.

Interestingly, science has been able to narrow down the matrilineal most recent common female ancestor of all women (MRCA), sort of an "eve" if you will (although she was, of course, nothing special - just one of many women living at the time.) This is doable because women pass on their mitochondrial DNA directly; it is not shared with male DNA. She lived between 100,000 and 230,000 years ago, likely in East Africa.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you mistake that for a raw statement of biological fact, you have mistaken what it says; you have misread it. The Bible is not a textbook of biological science.

Quite right?

But in saying that, biological science focuses on details, not origins.
The bible focuses on the whole person, body and mind, and the ultimate origin.

When lay people buy a car, they don’t need to know minute details to be able to perfectly control it.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But it's closer to the truth than whatever point you're trying to make. We are Adam and Eve. The stories are about us.

The point I’m making is contained within the writings. In that context, what you said above doesn’t really make sense.

We were created male and female. We were created (supposedly) in God's image. We do acquire the knowledge of good and evil and we do subsequently grow up and take responsibility for our own actions. We do face consequences both good and bad when we grow up.

So do you think the bible is true, in that allegorical interpretation?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

When lay people buy a car, they don’t need to know minute details to be able to perfectly control it.

Right. But if the designers of that car got lots of things wrong, it won't work and you won't be able to control it. If the authors of the Bible got lots of things wrong, the errors can be explained away a thousand ways. Cars must work in the real world; the Bible has no such requirement.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"The current world population is 7.7 billion as of February 2019 according to the most recent United Nations estimates elaborated by Worldometers."

6,000 years ago it was TWO. Anybody do the math for me?

 

[iceaura]

But in saying that, biological science focuses on details, not origins.

?
The first significant theoretical breakthrough in biological science was titled "On The Origin Of Species", hundreds of pages of analysis focused on topic of origins. The topic has been the focus of a great deal of biological science ever since.

The bible focuses on the whole person, body and mind, and the ultimate origin.

The Bible is a collection of stories. It is not a biological textbook. It contains almost no accurate biological information, on origins or anything else.

One of its most famous passages consists of a lecture by God (one of the main protagonists, frequently recurrent) to Job (a protagonist in one of the "Books") in which the biological ignorance and incapability of Job - and by inference any man of his time - is a dominant theme, used to illustrate Job's frail and temporary and very limited existence in the world. Job was a believer, devout - well acquainted with the stories of the Bible of his time. That did not provide him with biological knowledge, and this ignorance was significant - according to God, anyway.

 

[davewhite04]

?
The first significant theoretical breakthrough in biological science was titled "On The Origin Of Species", hundreds of pages of analysis focused on topic of origins. The topic has been the focus of a great deal of biological science ever since.

The Bible is a collection of stories. It is not a biological textbook. It contains almost no accurate biological information, on origins or anything else.

One of its most famous passages consists of a lecture by God (one of the main protagonists, frequently recurrent) to Job (a protagonist in one of the "Books") in which the biological ignorance and incapability of Job - and by inference any man of his time - is a dominant theme, used to illustrate Job's frail and temporary and very limited existence in the world. Job was a believer, devout - well acquainted with the stories of the Bible of his time. That did not provide him with biological knowledge, and this ignorance was significant - according to God, anyway.

Why are you turning this into science?

 

[davewhite04]

If Adam and Eve didn't exist around 6 thousand years ago, according to your book, than Jesus didn't exist.

 

[davewhite04]

"The current world population is 7.7 billion as of February 2019 according to the most recent United Nations estimates elaborated by Worldometers."

6,000 years ago it was TWO. Anybody do the math for me?

Not possible with all the races.