Adam and Eve 'amongst' the first humans?

[GodsGrace]

Edom aka esau.but most jews I know or listen to will not say Adam isn't a person with a name and character .

Hi Jason.
I believe Adam was a real person.

 

[jasonc]

Hi Jason.
I believe Adam was a real person.

Sometimes it's confusing in this discussion

 

[turnorburn]

Adam and Eve were both real people did somebody start another rumor that they weren't?

 

[GodsGrace]

Adam and Eve were both real people did somebody start another rumor that they weren't?

Do you mean Mois?
Adam and Eve were real people.
The first man and the first woman that God created at the beginning of the creation of the earth and everything on it.

I'm just not sure their name was Adam and Eve. The names meant something to the writer of Genesis. It could possibly be that their names were Adam and Eve. I'm just not sure and I don't think it's important.

Wondering

 

[jasonc]

Do you mean Mois?
Adam and Eve were real people.
The first man and the first woman that God created at the beginning of the creation of the earth and everything on it.

I'm just not sure their name was Adam and Eve. The names meant something to the writer of Genesis. It could possibly be that their names were Adam and Eve. I'm just not sure and I don't think it's important.

Wondering

Ish called his help meet hava,the mother of all living . I highly doubt the first woman was not named that.

 

[Jim Parker]

Adam and Eve were both real people did somebody start another rumor that they weren't?

Yes.
Some intelligent people with a valid perspective to offer have put forward the view that we should understand Adam and Eve as myth communicating basic, essential truth. (not to be confused with "fairy tales" or fables which have "morals")
It's OK if you don't accept it.
God won't judge you or them by theology.

Have a nice day.

 

[GodsGrace]

I know its common teachings that Adam and Eve are the very first humans, and that we are all descendants of them, but is this really true? The earliest human found by archaeologists is 2.8 million years old ( http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31718336 ). But Adam is said to only be about 6000 years old (correct me if I'm wrong).

Really nowhere in Genesis does it say Adam was the 'first man.' The story of Adam and Eve came in Genesis 2, but before that in Gensis 1:26, it is said "Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us.' ... So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Continuing in Genesis 1:28, "Then God blessed them (the 'human beings') and said, 'Be fruitful and multiply.'" Be fruitful and multiply; so the first humans could have been reproducing before Adam was ever created. Humans were created on the sixth day of creation, then the seventh day God rested.

Then in Gensis 2:5 " neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth, For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil." I suppose you could say this means that there literally were no people, but I don't believe that to be entirely true. Saying there were no plants, no grains, nothing to farm. The early humans were hunters and gatherers. This is saying that the early hunters and gatherers did not know how to farm.

Continuing in Genesis 2, God creates Adam (Gensis 2:7), before creating Eden (Gensis 2:8). Adam, I'm guessing, was the first farmer (Gensis 2:15). But this is aside the major point. Jumping ahead to Cain and Abel in Gensis 4, when Cain kills his brother Abel, God punishes him. Cain, in Gensis 4:14, is scared for his life, and says " ... Anyone who finds me will kill me!" Who is anyone? God then puts a mark on Cain to warn this 'anyone' who tries to kill him. Then in Gensis 4:17 "Cain had sexual relations with his wife..." Who was his wife? It is only said that Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Some people believe that Adam and Even had many children at the same time of Cain and Abel. They did have 'other sons and daughters' (Gensis 5:4), but this seems to be AFTER Cain and Abel. Even still, if there were other daughters of Adam along with Cain and Abel, to have sexual relations with his own sister was incest, which is sinful to God. You can say that that law was not written yet (incest is talked about in Leviticus 18:6), BUT, the Word has ALWAYS existed (John 1:1). An unaccounted action of incest doesn't seem right in the Bible. The first acknowledgement of incest I know of is after Sodom and Gomorrah (Gensis 19:30 - end of ch. 19)

This could possibly be old news for some of you here, but perhaps not. I am by all means not teaching, I don't want to teach for various reasons, I am just sharing my thoughts and recent discoveries and I greatly accept any criticism or arguments against anything I've said.

Hi Fallen Soldier,
You can believe what you want. Some Christians believe in evolution.
However, the concept you put forward is not biblical. The problem with not accepting Genesis' first chapters as not being probable is that you can then take any part of the bible that you don't understand or do not feel its realistic and just change it to suit your own understanding.

Could you imagine if everyone did this?
The bible is either the word of God or it isn't.

You mention Geneses 1:26 and then state that maybe other humans existed first. If 1:26 says that God made man in His image, it means the FIRST man. If there were other men, it would have said this. It's not possible to understand absolutely everything in the bible - we have to trust it by faith.

Wondering

 

[Roro1972]

a product of theistic evolution;

Does this mean we evolve into being God or a God?

 

[turnorburn]

Yes.
Some intelligent people with a valid perspective to offer have put forward the view that we should understand Adam and Eve as myth communicating basic, essential truth. (not to be confused with "fairy tales" or fables which have "morals")
It's OK if you don't accept it.
God won't judge you or them by theology.

Have a nice day.

And you don't have to believe Gods word as it is written that is your prerogative..

 

[Jim Parker]

However, the concept you put forward is not biblical.

Most people's concept of the creation is not Biblical because people tend to assume the creation story starts at Gen 1:1 and goes through 2:25. But that is not the case.
Ancient middle eastern literature began each story with a genealogy. In this case, the creation story is introduced by the genealogy of the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1 -2:3) It is a formal, perhaps liturgical, presentation following a fixed formula. (Elohiym said; it was; Elohiym saw that it was good, the evening and morning of the nth day) Then the story of mankind begins at Gen 2:4 when the name of God changes from Elohiym to Yahweh Elohiym. Unlike Elohiym, the awesome and unapproachable one who commands and it becomes, Yahweh Elohiym walks and talks with man in the cool of the evening.
So to say someone's concept is not "Biblical" really means that it does not fit one person's idea of what Biblicity is.

The problem with not accepting Genesis' first chapters as not being probable is that you can then take any part of the bible that you don't understand or do not feel its realistic and just change it to suit your own understanding.

There are plenty of groups that do that; Calvinists, Dispensationalists, Prosperity Gospel preachers, Secret Rapture preachers, etc. It is the basis for many divergent understandings of the message of the Bible with all groups asserting that they are right.

The bible is either the word of God or it isn't.

The Bible is the REVELATION of God to man.
If it were the "word" of God (His exact words transcribed into human language) then it would have been lost with the deaths of ancient Hebrew, Chaldean and Koine Greek languages. So it is illogical to ascribe technical accuracy to both the original languages and to translations into the multitude of languages spoken on earth since every translation is a work of compromise stripped of it's cultural and temporal context.

You mention Geneses 1:26 and then state that maybe other humans existed first. If 1:26 says that God made man in His image, it means the FIRST man.

The word "man" is generic and could just as easily mean "all of mankind" as to mean "the first man."

So, if you insist on a literal reading of Genesis (as if it were the transcript of the video tape) then you must ignore all the important allegorical content and the probability that Genesis is the beginning of the Hebrew "Story of Us."

jus' sayin'


iakov the fool


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Hierophant]

i can't call you a papist or it will be deleted is all..

He's no more a Papist than you are; seeing as he's Orthodox...

And Roro1972, neither. In the context in which I used it, it means that God used the evolutionary process as a means to fashion humanity. Intelligent design, more or less.

 

[jasonc]

the name for genesis is bersherith. I take into that nature of where I am from. its literal to my kin. I will post the times of feasts an when it starts. at sunrise? never, sundown. the jews will say the earth is 6000 years young but will say that man is about that young .

 

[reba]

closed for the hatful attitudes

 

[JohnDB]

Re-opened as hate speech has been cleaned up.

Remember to state why you believe what you believe and state reasons why you disagree with the beliefs of others and not your opinion of the person holding a different viewpoint.

 

[Mike]

To some people, Genesis written as an allegory sounds nice, but this line of thinking breaks down with original sin. If the biblical account of Genesis is not literal, what becomes of original sin? If there was no original sin, why does the world need a savior? No need for a savior, no need for His sacrifice. Take away that, and you have something that no longer resembles the Truth.

I believe His story of creation is not something that can be dismissed. To concede this is to play right into the hands of the father of lies.

 

[Jim Parker]

To some people, Genesis written as an allegory sounds nice, but this line of thinking breaks down with original sin. If the biblical account of Genesis is not literal, what becomes of original sin? I

Original sin remains exactly what it is and has always been; man's desire to be his own god rather than to trust in THE God.
That was the temptation of the serpent (devil) in the garden (you shall be like God) and it has never changed.
The central issue of sin is the question, "Who is your god, you or God?"


iakov the fool


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Mike]

sin remains exactly what it is and has always been; man's desire to be his own god rather than to trust in THE God.

Not exactly, and I'm surprised to see you so free with your theology so as to allow for this, an underpinning of the need for a Savior. Where does this desire come from that lies within all men?

Romans 5:12-15
"12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many."

1 Cor 15:20-24
"20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power."

Okay, so there's no need for original sin, and nothing is passed down through the generations. We don't need all that. We have boys behaving poorly, and these boys perform so badly that it requires the perfect Lamb of God to be crucified.

Yessir, that requires a big leap from orthodox Christianity physically and theologically. It is such a watered down, feel good cozy Gospel that I'm unaware of. Ripped all the references to original sin out of scripture, and you have an easy Sunday afternoon breeze.

 

[Jim Parker]

Not exactly, and I'm surprised to see you so free with your theology so as to allow for this, an underpinning of the need for a Savior.

That statement is not clear. Please clarify.
WHat do you mean by "so free with your theology"?

The temptation of Eve was: (Gen 3:4-5 RSV) But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

If I'm wrong, then what do you think is right?

 

[Mike]

That statement is not clear. Please clarify.
WHat do you mean by "so free with your theology"?

I saw you make the comment to Hierophant to the effect of "It's okay if you don't believe that. God will not judge us by our theology.", and it surprised me that you said that. I don't necessarily disagree, but this was inconsistent with the way I've seen you attack theology you disagree with. I've never seen this sentiment expressed by you, so I didn't know what to make of you saying it to him.

If I'm wrong, then what do you think is right?

I have no problem with that at all. Why do you believe it's not important to hold that the events to follow that conversation never actually took place, thereby nullifying Romans 5:12? I find your stated position that original sin stemming from Adam is something of little importance inconsistent with your body of work here on CFnet.

 

[smaller]

To some people, Genesis written as an allegory sounds nice, but this line of thinking breaks down with original sin. If the biblical account of Genesis is not literal, what becomes of original sin? If there was no original sin, why does the world need a savior? No need for a savior, no need for His sacrifice. Take away that, and you have something that no longer resembles the Truth.

I believe His story of creation is not something that can be dismissed. To concede this is to play right into the hands of the father of lies.

There is never a need to look at any scriptural account through literal lense only. The literal lense can not be discarded in any case of sights.

For an easy example we can understand that Jesus was a literal/physical man. But within Him was the Spirit of God without limitation (or measure), John 3:34. That latter fact of the Spirit without measure can not be perceived with a literal only lense and was never meant to be captured in the literal senses of applications. It is the unseen and far more powerful factor. And as such a Priority over the literal applications.

The above basis is how we derive understanding parables/allegories because they "connect" us to the unseen priority factors of the Spirit. The unseen factors are delivered parabolically or allegorically to connect our understandings with unseen matters of the Spiritual nature. Within that Spiritual arena there are also subsets i.e. there is Gods Spirit. And there is an arena of adverse or opposing spirit(s) as two basic divisions. The Holy and the vile/wicked of the Spiritual/spiritual arena.

Jesus defines this matter thusly:

Luke 8:11
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

In the above Jesus connects the seed to the Word. Obviously not a 'literal seed' ONLY. Even though Jesus is isolated as A Seed or The Seed, Gal. 3:16, this does not "limit" the Spirit without measure. We know Him after the flesh no longer, 2 Cor. 5:16. The Seed however REMAINS alive and active. Heb. 4:12.

So, why would the above be important regarding understanding Adam/Eve?

We know Adam as a literal man existed. Adam is listed in the physical genealogy of Jesus, the flesh man, Luke 3:38. And AS SUCH we should also understand then that THE SEED, Jesus as a flesh man was literally IN THE GARDEN, in the 'loins' so to speak of ADAM, similarly to what we are shown in Heb. 7:9 with Levi. We also know that Jesus, THE SEED, is connected to Eve as a literal woman as well, from the Genesis reference Gen. 3:15.

This factor of Jesus' literal flesh lineage is important in the literal sense because it keeps us from the spiritual error of thinking the flesh is evil. A well of error that the gnostics fell into for example. This forces our understanding of the perception of SINS transference from Adam out of the physical and into the spiritual understanding of SIN. Sin is not and can not be understood as a literal/physical matter. Sin is a matter of "spiritual" disobedience. Sin is neither forensic or empirical. We can't cut open the flesh and locate it. We can't put science to work and empirically identify the "basis" of sin to prove it empirically. This transference of sin therefore is in the arena of Spiritual understandings, and as such must be viewed apart from the "literal only" applications. Even though the "results" of sin can be seen and understood LITERALLY, by external actions. Sin/defilement/evil comes from the internal/thought realm, as Jesus clearly teaches in Matt. 15:19-20, Mark 7:21-23 and Matt. 5:28 for examples. This matter, of evil, of defilement originates in THOUGHT. Science has a very hard time with this matter. They'd like to be able to treat 'thoughts' as a science matter but it continues to evade their capture and I expect that will continue.

Paul isolates this matter very succinctly in many N.T. references, noting for example in Romans 11:8 that God put upon the unbelievers of Israel a "spirit" of slumber. Or again in the same chapter in Romans 11:32 stating that everyone who does not believe was bound with disobedience. Paul defines this disobedience again as "spiritual disobedience" in Eph. 2:2 and connects it directly to the prince of the power of the air. If we do our scriptural homework on this matter from Mark 4 we'll find a direct connection to the "fowls of the air" to Satan from Mark 4:4 and Jesus then defining WHO this means, the fowls of the AIR, is Satan, to His disciples in Mark 4:15. Satan is "the prince of the power of the air" that Paul refers to in Eph. 2:2, that spirit of disobedience. Satan who is also referenced in the Garden as the serpent.

It is quite pointless to see only Adam or Eve in matters of sin. We know, spiritually, that sin IS connected to the devil, the serpent, the tempter. Beyond any doubt. 1 John 3:8 makes this connection crystal clear.

These literal facts are important, but they can not be isolated to only that, seeing the implications of the above. Seeing Genesis only literally also has other issues. For example if we see a literal tree that grants eternal life as a stand alone matter, without "allegorically" connecting that tree to God Himself we would fall into poly theism with both God granting eternal life and a tree also granting eternal life. That tree has to be connected, allegorically, to God Himself to avoid polytheistic notions.