You're the one who said that Adam was a different kind of human from the "mankind" in Genesis1.
They are still human.
Humans can mate with humans.
Jan.
You're the one who said that Adam was a different kind of human from the "mankind" in Genesis1.
That is compatible with both accounts but they have to be separate accounts because the order of creation of animals and humans is different. It has also been pointed out that the writing styles are different.I have shown that they are not separate accounts of one incident, by showing that the bible states that God created mankind on the sixth day.
Are YOU kidding ME? Nothing you have said suggests anything about different kinds of humans.Are you kidding me?
It says nothing of the kind. You're just making that up in an attempt to reconcile the Cain and Abel story with the Adam and Eve story.Cain is very relevant, because it shows that the bible is stating there were existing civilisations at the time God created Adam.
That is huge.
It uses the word "adam" for mankind.Where does it state Adam was mankind?
It's an obviously fuctitious entity.So I think people use the term “talking snake” , to try and show an absurdity, not because they think the beguiled was a talking snake.
Then how are they a "different type of human"? And how does that in any way support your claim that Adam wasn't adam?They are still human.
Humans can mate with humans.
?? Are you claiming that there are dust-type humans, rib-type humans and a third kind of human that is neither? (this should be good)God creates the human race on the sixth day of creation. Both male and female.There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that there has ever been different types of humans.
God fashions one man out of dust.
God takes a rib from man and fashions a woman.
Are you kidding me?
It's hard to judge. Birth rates in early last century(Just after WW2, both my parents had 9 siblings(UK)) was high and life expectancy was too. In the middle ages people lived 40 yrs max? Still time for 10 but dad/mom won't be around long. Just my understanding history, they could all be lying to us.I just wanted the population # after 6,000 years if we started with only two people. I'm shit at math but suspect it would be lower than the current 7.7 billion.
Why?Non sequitur.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.Not really. The teachings of Paul rest heavily on a literal Adam.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Adam
No, don't take the bait, ignore pointlessness and enjoy philosophy is my advice.OK - so Paul based his conclusions on faulty premises. Therefore the majority of the New testament is based on BS.
I have no problems with that. Then again, I am an atheist and don't believe any of it.
Good catch.Is this aimed at me Dave?
Adam was necessary for Jesus to be born.
Again, this is going by what the bible says.
Jan.
If every couple has 3 kids at age 25, and all the kids survive, then in 6000 years we'd have a population of 2,436,917,967,131,160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people. That's - let's see - 2.4 million trillion trillion trillion people. So that's not the problem.I just wanted the population # after 6,000 years if we started with only two people. I'm shit at math but suspect it would be lower than the current 7.7 billion.
Then how are they a "different type of human"? And how does that in any way support your claim that Adam wasn't adam?
If every couple has 3 kids at age 25, and all the kids survive, then in 6000 years we'd have a population of 2,436,917,967,131,160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people. That's - let's see - 2.4 million trillion trillion trillion people. So that's not the problem.
There aren’t two accounts.
There is one account of the creation of mankind, and another account of an individual human specifically created by God , then later on, a woman is created (from his body), to quell the loneliness of the man. At no point were they instructed to go forth and multiply, like the rest of mankind were.
Also, it explains where Cain got a wife. No longer do we have to use a sinful act to explain that.
Isn’t that good?
Jan.
The Adam was fashioned by God, personally.
That makes him a different type of human from the sixth day created mankind.
God felt sorry for Adam, and decided to make a female counterpart to quell the loneliness. God never once instructed them to be fruitful, multiply, and REplenish the earth.
Excel. I assumed:Wow. How did you figure that out? I can't even get past the first few generations.
That's about right. For the first 10 generations (250 years) I got a breeding population of 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 23, 34, 51, 77 etc. For total population you'd get 2,5,10,14,21,32,48,72,108,162.Let's say Adam and Eve had 3 kids at age 25. Now we have to assume one kid is male and two are female, or, two kids are male and one is female, or some other combination. So after another 25 years the approximately 3/2=1.5 female offspring have given birth to 3 more kids each, plus Adam and Eve who are now 50 years old, so there are what, maybe (1.5*3)+2+3=9.5 people on average? Then after another 25 years the approximately (1.5*3)/2=2.25 females have given birth to 3 more kids each, plus Adam and Eve who are now 75 years old, plus their kids who are now 50 years old, so there are what, maybe (2.5*3)+2+3+4.5=17 people on average? Am I doing this right?
Not really; not for purposes of seeing how fast the population grows. To get an accurate count at any specific time you would - but that wouldn't change the growth rate.Then, don't you have to also consider what age the people die?
Excel. I assumed:
240 generations
For every generation, each couple (population / 2) has 3 kids and that's it. So the population of the next generation is (pop/2)*3.
It is, of course, very simplistic, but should be grossly accurate.
For the first 10 generations (250 years) I got a breeding population of 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 23, 34, 51, 77 etc. For total population you'd get 2,5,10,14,21,32,48,72,108,162.
Not really; not for purposes of seeing how fast the population grows. To get an accurate count at any specific time you would - but that wouldn't change the growth rate.
No. They lived 40 years average. The max was about what it is now.In the middle ages people lived 40 yrs max?
Two separate and conflicting accounts - if they are read for biological fact. That would be silly, of course (they are obviously stories).So in the Book of Genesis, if I am correct, mankind was created on the sixth day of the creation of the universe in Gods image. In the story of Adam and Eve, if I am correct, Adam the individual was created and then later Eve from his body.
Makes sense. See how they can twist history?No. They lived 40 years average. The max was about what it is now.
Average human lifespans are greatly distorted by childhood mortality.
Two separate and conflicting accounts - if they are read for biological fact. That would be silly, of course (they are obviously stories).