Are you OK?
Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
No. You don’t create mankind, by creating one solitary man, and then give him a companion made out of his body.
You create mankind by creating mankind.
That is what it says.
Wrong.
“Adam”means ‘man’ as in ‘mankind’.
It also means ‘to show blood in the face ‘
“Adam” means to show blood in the face.
Literally!
What say you about that?
Jan.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Good to hear, but one detail which many people do not appreciate; there is no overall negative population growth on earth. The growth rates are coming down, but any growth rate above zero percent (0%) still has an associated exponential function.
Doubling time just takes a little longer the lower the number is.
i.e. 1 % growth = doubling time 70 years
.5 % growth = doubling time 140 years.
This is similar to GW, where the overal global temperature keeps rising but some places have 6 ' snow in their backyard and some places experience extended cold spells. We often hear people say; "what global warming? Today we have 10 below zero." Key phrase,"today we have........"
Thus:
The current world population growth is at;
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Which means that at this rate the world population will double every 70/1.07 = 65 years..!!!
Last edited:
Of course that's not how mankind was created. But it is what the Bible says happened.
Correct. And at first "mankind" was Adam and Eve.
Let's say every human died of a plague except two people. Then THEY would be mankind.
1) That's like saying someone named Violet is purple - because "violet" means purple - literally! That would be a stupid argument too.
2) "To show blood in the face" is one potential meaning of the word. Another possibility is the word for "make" - which makes more sense since Adam was made. But the real reason the authors chose the word Adam was because it was a play on the word Earth, which Adam was made from.
3)From BehindTheName:
=============
Meaning & History
This is the Hebrew word for "man". It could be ultimately derived from Hebrew אדם ('adam) meaning "to be red", referring to the ruddy colour of human skin, or from Akkadian adamu meaning "to make".
According to Genesis in the Old Testament Adam was created from the earth by God (there is a word play on Hebrew אֲדָמָה ('adamah) "earth"). He and Eve were supposedly the first humans, living happily in the Garden of Eden until they ate the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As a result they were expelled from Eden to the lands to the east, where they gave birth the second generation, including Cain, Abel and Seth.
==============
https://www.behindthename.com/name/adam
You are losing the argument pretty badly here.
It doesn’t say that.
It says God created mankind, period.
They would not be the first ever human beings. But they could, in effect, REplenish.
Thanks for pointing that out. I hope it helps you.
No. It’s like called my someone Violette because they are Violette. Or doing so because you like me the name for whatever reason.
“Adam” means ‘to show blood in the face’.
Because Adam, the man, was most probably distinct because of this unique feature.
It is the meaning of the word, which interchanges with ‘man
How do you know this?
There is no argument here.
I’m right and you’re wrong.
All I have to do is quote what it says in the bible to prove that.
You are, just like the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, and anyone who has been indoctrinated with this falsehood, programmed to accept that the bible says A+E were the first ever humans, even though it says nothing of the sort. It doesn’t even give the impression.
Jan.
The people who believe it base their belief on a story they got from the Bible (or related book - Koran, etc).
That's how the Bible said it was done. One of the stories, anyway.
Call bullshit.
Somebody's trying to present Adam as a white man. Any idea why?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
agree
however
You are still preaching to the wrong people
The ones you need to convince ain't in here, nor in this country nor in this culture
It seems most likely that their birth rate is a result of (creating a balance with) their previous death rate
We have changed that death rate by sending them food and medicine and doctors(the road to hell is paved with good intentions)
sooner or later, their birth rate should most likely slow to balance with the new death rate
In the meantime:
You got any good(reasonably humane) solutions?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That is the great dilemma, there are no humane solutions. Controlling population growth has two options, less births or more deaths. Neither is a desirable outcome from a family point of view.
The best solution I can think of is voluntary (temporary) sterilization. This would prevent accidental pregnancies, removing the moral problem of abortion. Yet, if the sterilization is reversable, a couple can decide at some time if they can afford to have a baby and if it is allowed by the state. We love our individuality, but we live in a hive society which limits personal freedoms.
Every other possible solution is less humane. Al Bartlett shows us the list of options in his lecture on the exponential function. Everything we consider as good makes the population problem worse, everything we consider bad relieves the situation. A dilemma indeed.
My hope is that the casual reader may find the subject interesting and do some further research themselves.
This is one of the reasons I tend to repeat some of my favorite links on occasion. This is designed for the new reader.
p.s. I know most readers (the choir) are familiar with the problem and have given it thought.
The choir has sung the song many times and know the lyrics inside out....
Last edited:
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
Sure they could. But the word the original Bible used was "fill" - and many translations use that more literal translation. Sorry.
"It's like called my someone?"
My point stands.
Or "make."
"Probably?" Hardly a basis to substantiate a claim for a new misinterpretation of the Bible.
Four years of Bible study.
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." HIM when Adam existed. THEM when Eve was created as well.
I will keep quoting that; you're not going to be able to claim that line doesn't exist. (Well, perhaps you will try; it will make as much sense as anything else you've posted.)
At this point it's pretty clear your ego will not allow you to admit that you are wrong. But just so you know, you are making a fool of yourself.
Ah! Now you are cornered and starting to lash out. I predict this will just get worse.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Thus God is both male and female (them) in both physical pattern and in metaphysical potential ?
That is the description of his name.
‘To show blood in the face”.
To present him as anything else, would be to change the meaning.
Why would you call it bullshit, or why would you accuse somebody of presenting Adam as a white man, when his name has that description. It’s not uncommon for people to adopt the names that describe characteristics of their tribe. Is it?
Jan
No need to apologise. I accept, that you accept, what you think it says. Because you believe that the bible states A+E were the first ever humans.
I’m more interested in why you stick to that.
I would have thought you would be more interested in stepping outside of the dogma, look a little deeper into what is being said, without the dictate of modern institutionalised religions.
Jan.
My apologies.
Makes no sense.
It means “to show blood in the face”. Le
It’s not a misinterpretation.
That is what “Adam” means (as well as mankind). So on that basis we have to assume his face was such that we could see the blood in his face, and as such would have been distinct from other faces.
As a Christian?
“Adam” in this context refers to mankind.
Mankind consists of male and female.
Mankind does not mean one white man, who has a physical counterpart made up of himself.
Obviously the line exists. But the question is; why are you doggedly sticking to a false understanding of it.
You know it means mankind in the plural, but you blatantly deny it. I find that quite amazing.
I have the correct understanding on my side.
You have modern religious doctrine, and bias, on yours.
You are obviously wrong, but you deny it.
Jan.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
So God made people before Adam & Eve, fact. Why?
After researching the Bible it does seem Adam was created during or after the seventh day of Gods creation of the universe, a holy day to Christians, and he had created other people on the sixth day of creation. Confusing.
It's not a belief. It's what the Bible states, as has been confirmed by pretty much every Biblical scholar, ever. Only you (and a very few others) are intentionally misinterpreting it to provide the spin you need to make your worldview make sense.
Why not just admit that the Bible really doesn't make sense, and is best read as the oral history of a people, rather than fact? What compels you to intentionally misinterpret it?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Humans were not made, they evolved from a long line of precursors. Why? Because all hominids (our ancestors) were/are intelligent and humans are the most intelligent of all the hominids. Its not our physical prowess but our brains that have given us an evolutionary survival advantage. No one can deny we are a successful species.
We are also the most destructive of all species and if that is an image of god it ain't pretty.
God the creator or God the destructor?
Nature is both.....for some things to live some things have to die.........
That's a new one.
The lengths people will go to convert the Bible into a repository of historical fact are remarkable.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
If you replace the phrase "day of creation with "billions of years of evolution" then this interpretation does indeed make sense as a comprehensive case in favor of evolution.
Of course you don't need a god for evolution. It's a self-organizing natural function.
Theist always speak of the incredible odds against a Universe without a creator intelligence.
I submit the odds against a sentient and motivated Creator Intelligence are greater by many factors.
Especially if the premise of a divine creation of all the universe was based on the assumption of 6 human days, an unknown timeframe at that time, and a day of rest. What does that even mean?
The creative process has not stopped since the BB and continues rolling along. I don't see god doing the pushing.