Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Feb 25, 2019.

  1. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Of course it is. And it's a bad one, with insertions to fix the parts you don't like.
    They don't seem to comprehend that "him" in Genesis 1 is singular.
    But I'm not a Christian, and neither are most of the posters in this thread. We have no vested interest in agreeing with the Christians. We just happen to agree on what Genesis plainly says.
    Of course it does, in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

    And also:
    1 Corinthians 15:45 - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.​
    And also:
    Isaiah 43:27 - Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me.​
    (relating the "first father" - i.e. the original human - with the sin of Adam in Genesis 3.
    Indeed, the Bible is wrong about the biology and the history. But that doesn't change what the story actually says. You can't change the story to shoehorn it into biology and history.
    For the same reason that I'm convinced that Goldilocks and the Three Bears has talking bears in it - because that's what the story says. And that's how we know the story is fiction.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    Or an alternate truth........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Don’t attack me.
    I’m just telling you what it says, and showing you what it could possibly mean.
    The religious belief way, renders the bible nonsensical, it ignores what the writings literally say, it renders all other scriptures false and insignificant, etc.

    Mankind consists of male and female. ‘Him’ is male, and the woman is female.

    I think you have a vested interest in maintain the belief that Adam and Eve were the first ever humans.

    This is talking about how man is transformed, in this case from higher to lower.
    The first man Adam was formed by God and became a living soul.

    In other words Adam was at that time, a pure soul. After his spiritual downfall, he became he began to die.


    Isaiah 43:27
    - Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me.(relating the "first father" - i.e. the original human - with the sin of Adam in Genesis 3.

    (relating the "first father" - i.e. the original human - with the sin of Adam in Genesis 3.[/QUOTE]

    It says nothing about “the original human”.
    Why do you have to lie?
    It supports the new race/type of human scenario. As in Adam and Eve were the progenitors of a new and distinct race, through the lineage of Seth.

    Do you not see that the belief that A+E were the first ever humans, is never iterated in the bible?
    Have you noticed that none of your objections to that, are based on misunderstanding, and generations of conditioning?

    I think you want the bible to be fictional, so you easily accept that belief as coming rom the bible.

    Jan
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    They are stories.
    Translated stories. Secondhand stories. Stories from many different peoples and tribes.
    That is the basis of their significance and truth. Trying to re-interpret them as some kind of factual history or biology renders them simply false - as well as incoherent, self-contradictory, etc.
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    No you're not. You're contradicting what it says.
    "Him" is male SINGULAR - i.e. ONE male, the same ONE male as in Genesis 2, not a different type of human, not an excuse for Cain's wife not being his sister.
    The point is that 1 Corinthians 15:45 says explicitly that Adam was "the first man" - the very point that you deny.
    How could "the first father" be anything but the original human?
    I quoted where it says they were, both in Isaiah and in 1 Corinthians.
     
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    No. The belief contradicts what it says.
    It say Adam is the first man ever, and the bible tells us so. That is not true.
    God created mankind in one go, just like it said.

    “Him” describes the male gender.
    “Them” means both male and female.
    Cain did not marry his sister. That is not in the bible. The woman he married was a part of mankind.

    By that token it also explicitly states that Adam was the last man. I noticed along with the context, and meaning, you omitted that.

    This is just a case of desperation. Why are you so desperate to discredit the bible? That is the real question here.

    You’re really asking that question?

    No you didn’t.

    So where else do you think it states that Adam was the first human being ever?

    Jan.
     
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    It doesn’t mean we should just accept some belief as a part of what the text says.

    Without those false notions of Adam and Eve, it changes the whole landscape.
    So you do not know the value of those scriptures, if you are not aware of what they say and mean.

    Jan
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It does mean that trying to adjust and interpret the vagaries of translation so that visibly contradictory stories somehow end up agreeing in their nonexistent facts and fictional, conflicting chronologies is a goofy waste of time.
    And a bad misreading of the stories, of course.
    Not on a science forum.
     
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I’m not adjusting anything.
    I’m simply stating what is written, and showing how the belief that A+E were the first ever human beings, is not supported in the bible.

    I don’t believe you think it is a waste of time, otherwise you would not be fixed in this idea, even though it has been shown that the belief is not biblically supported.

    In a “Religion” sub-forum?
    Don’t be daft.

    Jan.
     
  13. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,325
    It's like sitting in a classroom. Did Jesus actually know the age of the earth?
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Exactly. Even though the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first people, it doesn't mean you have to accept that. Indeed, it is wise not to.
    Also a good point. You would get a lot more value out of them if you understood what they said.
     
  15. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Why?

    Jan.
     
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    It doesn’t say that.
    It says mankind was created on the sixth day.
    But more importantly why do you deny it?
    Does it help wi

    Obviously.
    But why are you in denial?

    Jan
     
  17. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    Didn't Saint John Paul 2nd call Adam and Eve a creation myth?
     
  18. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Which would make his religion pure bull.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Of course you are.
    You're dealing with translations, for starters - and we have a pretty clear record of what the translators meant.
    My fixation is on the odd fact that overt Abrahamic theists, such as yourself, are such fundamentally dishonest posters on science forums. I find that interesting.
    Yep. No landscape change there, either.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    Was it ever not?
    Does a black cat crossing your path portent disaster?
    Religions are no different than any other "ghoulies, ghosties, and things that go bump in the night" stories.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-wizard/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.670ea5bf4953
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

    OK, so God is not a magician but everything in the bible is founded on God being a magician.
    Where does that leave scripture as a reliable source for spiritual healing?.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2019
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,073
    Could be the neighbor?......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ......... "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife"
     
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Of course I’m not.
    It says mankind was created in day six, both male and female, with the direct instruction to be fruitful, to go forth, multiply, and the REplenish the earth.

    Adam was personally fashioned by God, and later on, because he got lonely, and need help, Eve was created from his own flesh. Upon beholding Eve, Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’

    Notice Adam called her “woman”, for which he had his reasons. God did not create Eve for the purpose of multiplying, or REplenishing the earth. She was a “suitable helper”.
    Mankind, who task it was to be fruitful, multiply, and REplenish the earth, were not tillers of the ground, so there was no one to help Adam do what he was created to do.

    You’re making stuff up because you are incapable of defending a position that 1) you don’t accept, and 2) that is clearly not written in the bible. So far you are wrong, and I am right.

    Rubbish!
    You’re in denial.
    Just like you know you are incorrect regarding A+E, but foolishly try to uphold it, you deny God, and try to uphold that denial and rejection, with the same type of foolishness.
    You’re easy to read.

    This sub forum is there for those wish to talk about religion, or things religious. Like the religious belief that A+E were the first ever human beings, even though it goes against every single ancient scripture, philosophical reasoning, science, and common sense.

    So if you don’t like it, you are free to bounce.

    Jan.
     
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    But it is true, as anybody who reads Genesis 1 and 2 can see.
    Is English not your first language? "Him" is very specifically masculine singular .
    It isn't explicit but it's a mathematical necessity, given what the text actually says.
    That's a separate issue. You're already confused enough about the original issue without bringing other issues into it. Or are you deliberately avoiding the fact that 1 Corinthians says Adam was "the first man"?
    I don't need to discredit the Bible. It does that on its own.
    Yes I did, as anybody reading this thread can see.
     

Share This Page