Do you think that the biblical meaning of “earth” applies to the planet earth?
Do you know the difference between “earth” and “ world”, as portrayed in the bible?
Jan.
Were Adam and Eve the first people?
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
Do you think that the biblical meaning of “earth” applies to the planet earth?
Do you know the difference between “earth” and “ world”, as portrayed in the bible?
Jan.
I do know the difference. This does not take away from the text I provided and the question I asked. A question you seemed to have dodged.
In my experience conversations do not work this way. Are you saying that the scriptures lie when it says all living things on the surface of the ground, other than Noah and those on the ark, died?
Hod? Is that God's dumber brother who no one ever talked about?
?? By meeting her. Maybe they met in one of those really nice orchards.
God. Because he cursed him. Read Genesis for more information.
Sure. Quite common in the Bible. Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. Amram, father of Moses, married his aunt Jochebed. David’s son Amnon had sex with his half-sister Tamar. When humanity starts from two people you don't really have much choice.
I posted remarks similar to the following to this or some other Thread.
The Biblical Adam & Eve story is a myth & is not close to being an actual account of the origin of Homo Sapiens.
The fossil record shows the following facts of evolution (not the only examples)
Darwin & perhaps others explained the above by the mainstream description of evolution.
To refute the notions of Darwinian evolution, one must provide a better explanation for the above facts of evolution.
The Biblical Adam & Eve story is a myth & is not close to being an actual account of the origin of Homo Sapiens.
The fossil record shows the following facts of evolution (not the only examples)
A set of related fossils starting with Eohippus & ending with the modern horse.
A set of related fossils starting with early primates & ending with modern Homo Sapiens.
A set of related fossils starting with early primates & ending with modern Homo Sapiens.
To refute the notions of Darwinian evolution, one must provide a better explanation for the above facts of evolution.
No. But it begs the question, which ground?
But, conversations can work this way, especially if you’re trying to really understand something.
Does the bible state that mankind descended from Noah? As far as I can tell, it doesn’t. But if it does , then obviously I have to accept that it does.
So. Does it?
If not, then why make the assumption that it does?
Jan.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
That’s why we have dictionaries and lexicons.
Jan.
Has JOB been fully translated?
That was a typo mate. But you knew that.
It offered up the opportunity to dodge the question. Didn’t it?
But just in case I’m mistaken, here’s the question again.
How could they have been the first people, when the bible informs that God created mankind in the same day Adam was created?
Jan.
Corroboration of religious claims is irrelevant - the claim is written down in the English language Bible in English. You can read it for yourself.
In context: the aardvarks came first, then Eve, then from Eve the rest of humanity (at least, the Flood survivors). The translator knew that. The man who wrote the sentence believed that all human beings living today descended from Eve. Had he believed anything else, or expressed any other belief in his writings, he would have been murdered by theistic authorities.
Scriptures don't show what their English translations mean. It's the other way around. One assumes literacy - unless dealing with an overt Abrahamic theist, in which case one assumes deception instead.
It can, and does.
(Which is where the poetical or metaphorical sense of Eve as the mother of the living world, an idiomatic English usage, comes from, for example - the humans named the beings of the world, were given dominion over them, in this story. Their original mother is - in that sense - the mother of all they did and all they do, including that).
And Biblical (Classic) Greek, of course.
Why not? Pick your translation, go for it. It's not like there's an original to compare with.
That's the most common kind - review Jan's posts, for example.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Ok so basically we rely on translations of translations(...?)
so a "translation literalist"?
Pick one you like and pretend that it is accurate?
To the best of my knowledge, Job is the oldest book of the bible and has never been fully translated into any modern nor ancient language.
And, there is a recent claim that the first "bible" may have been written 12,000 years ago(during the time of gobekli tepe?)
Which could place translating the original, whose meaning and the meaning of the words used, lost in the mists of time?
Last edited:
All we have to go on is the text. You have not given any textual backing to your position.
Gen 5
Adam begat Seth
Seth begat Enos
Enos begat Cainan
Cainan begat Mahalaleel
Mahalaleel begat Jared
Jared begat Enoch
Enoch begat Methuselah
Methuselah begat Lamech
Lamech begat Noah
Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japheth
Then everyone except Noah, his sons and their wives dies. (EDIT: Enoch too was spared because God "took him")
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
What part of the text supports your point of view?
Last edited: