We are talking about the reality of what the book says. Until we accept what is written, and more importantly, what it means. We cannot know whether or not the bible is the truth, or not.
Do you think the human race is comprised of two people?
Jan
Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
We are talking about the reality of what the book says. Until we accept what is written, and more importantly, what it means. We cannot know whether or not the bible is the truth, or not.
Do you think the human race is comprised of two people?
Jan
Nope. According to Genesis 2 it was exactly two people.
That's another thing you're adding that the Bible doesn't say.
Why wouldn't you? Just because you don't like the idea of Cain marrying his sister?
And the reality of that is that the book doesn't mention anybody but Adam and Eve. You're adding to what it says.
. . . you will never understand the Bible.
Because you cannot accept the reality of what is written. You feel the need to change it to suit your own agenda.
We both agree that mankind is another term for the human race.
We both agree that the human race is more than two people.
We both agree that the sixth day creation, stated in the bible, is the human race.
We both agree that Adams creation, stated in the bible, is told in a completely different chapter than the creation and f the whole human race in the sixth day.
We both agree that Eve was created sometime after the creation of Adam.
We both agree that there is no instruction given to both Adam and Eve to repopulate the Earth.
We both agree that Eve was created.
We both agree that Eve was created purely as a help for Adam.
We both agree the females Created on the sixth day, were instructed along with the menfolk to get it on, big time.
I feel it is you that denies, and rejects the reality of what is being said. And you do that because you an atheist.
Jan.
Right now, yes. Back then, per the Bible, no.
Right. Different author. Different order of creation. Different word for God. In fact, two different stories.
Nope. In Genesis 3, Eve is told "you shall bring forth children." This makes sense - she was called Eve "because she was the mother of all living." Again, Genesis 3.
Nope. She was also instructed to bring forth children. Because, according to the Bible, she was the mother of all living.
Nope. You made that up. The only female that the Bible describes as being created during Genesis 1, 2 and 3 (i.e. when the Earth was created) was Eve.
Wrong in both respects.
You made 11 claims. You got 5 wrong. That's score of 63. You fail. A big fat F.
Why not just read the Bible instead of making shit up?
Where does it say, in the bible, that the human race was comprised of two people?
Why would anyone assume that the human race was, even for a moment, two people.
Where does it say in the bible, that the book of Genesis was written by more than one author?
Why assume they are different accounts of the same thing, when there is absolutely no reason to?
Wrong again...
Gen 2:20 - And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:18 - And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Sorry mate, it says nothing about having babies. Eve was there to help Adam till the ground.
[QUOTE="billvon, post: 3568061, member: 130235"]Nope. In Genesis 3, Eve is told "you shall bring forth children." This makes sense - she was called Eve "because she was the mother of all living." Again, Genesis 3.[/QUOTE]
She wasn’t told to bring forth children. She was told that her sorrow and her conception/ pregnancy, will be greatly multiplied, because of her disobedience. Prior to that it seems, she would not have need to become pregnant, because that was never the intention of her being.
She certainly wasn’t the biological mother of all the animals brought to Adam to name, before she was created, and she certainly wasn’t the mother of the serpent that deceived and seduced her. So obviously “mother of all living” must have meant something different.
No it’s not.
And you know it’s not, based on the narrative.
Stop being dishonest
You’re just kidding yourself bilvon.
You know I’m right, because everything I have stated pans out in the bible. Everything you have stated is not in the bible, but wishful thinking, because for some reason you don’t want it to make sense.
Jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I take issue with the suggestion that my atheism is religious zealotry.
You know better than to cite that tired religious argument.
Thank you for that gratuitous ad hominem. It doesn't suit you. On second thought.....religion confounds the language....regularly....
Last edited:
I take issue with the suggestion that my atheism is a religion.
You know better than to cite that tired religious argument.
Thank you for that gratuitous ad hominem. It doesn't suit you. On second thought........
I know right?
Fancy ignoring me!
How rude is that?
Jan.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Was God more upset that they weren't married or was it really about Eve eating the fruit?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
God wasn't really upset at all. The natural result of evolving a bigger brain and ability to acquire "knowledge" allowed humans to exploit the environment. The curse of tasting the fruit from the tree of knowledge is the acquired ability to fashion ways to kill each other and everything else we wish to kill.
Knowledge brings the curse of "accountability" for our actions. GW may well kill us all.
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
It mentions mankind/ human race, in the first Genesis Chapter 1.
Plus it doesn’t mention Adam and Eve.
Do you really think “mankind” or “human race”, means two people?
Jan.
Genesis 3;20 says what it says. You could interpret it that way. Most people don't.