But that doesn't resolve the conflict brought about by the fact that it's recorded there was no food outside the Garden and no man outside the Garden. (Genesis 2:5)
Genesis 1:11-12 clearly shows that the earth, not just Eden, has vegetation, fruit trees, etc. that were edible. That was day 3.
Furthermore, depending on how you interpret it, humans (Adam and Eve or multitudes) were created on day 6, so why would Genesis 2 contradict the previous chapter by stating that nothing had yet grown on the earth (outside of Eden)? Hmmm...
Now we are getting into the scholars' debates on who actually wrote Genesis. Some believe it was Moses (never says it). Others believe it was multiple authors, and they have contradictions.
Sorry guys, it just seems to me that you've taken hold of a pet theory and are sort of ignoring anything that would negate it.
Keep in mind that we are not reading from the ancient Hebrew autographs. We are reading from English translations. I wish I was fluent with Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and German but I am not. The entire idioms, implications, etc. are unknown to us. Thinking outside of the box helps to cover all of the bases, even if it is not a popular theory. I am not saying it has to be accepted, but it is worth considering from a theoretical standpoint.
Since it is relevant, I will say that if you go and talk to an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, they will make your head spin with OT accounts and beliefs. They do not take Genesis or any other book in the OT literally. Their beliefs come from two parts: the Written Torah, and the Oral Torah. The Oral teaches them how to interpret the Written, and how to apply them to the Laws. They will tell you that Christians have the right idea, but our translations are wrong on several accounts in the OT.
Another reason why the OT does not speak of the other people that were created on day 6 (if you believe that theory) is that those people were not part of the Hebrew lineage. The OT is literally the history and genealogy of the Hebrew [Jewish] people, written by Hebrews (an assumption by most). Christianity has its roots in Judaism. We share the "same" OT of the Bible. We certainly can't discount what they say on the subject.
I'm late to the thread... has anyone dealt with Eve's name, that she was called Eve because she was the mother of all the living?
I can go into this if needs be, but it will require separating Judaism from Christianity. Their views will blow your mind. In short, the English translation of the Adam and Eve story supports the idea of original sin.
Obviously her name is not Eve in Hebrew. It was Hawwah, which translates into "the mother of all living." Other cultures also had an "Eve" which was their mother of all living (Tiamat from Babylonian lore for example). In the Latin Vulgate, Eve appears as Hava in the OT, but Eva in the NT. There is a link between "Eve" and the Hurrian goddess "Kheba," who was worshipped in Jerusalem (late bronze age, sourced from the Amarna Letters). But now we are getting into ancient history supported by archaeology. This is outside the realm of Christianity.
Another theory is that she is the "mother of all the living [in the Hebrew genealogy]." Again, the OT is written from a Jewish perspective.
This is made even more clear when we see that the Hebrew word for man is Adam.
You refer to "adamah and adom," which means "from red soil/dirt." Again we would have to go into greater detail of the Jewish version of the OT.
Let's take a step back at this point. We are...well, I am only going into this for a civil/intelligent discussion and learning experience. I am by no means trying to cast doubt or change anyone's views. Your faith should not be centered on how a few verses are interpreted, but rather in the overall message that dominates the Bible. Don't lose sight of that.
totopic
Who did Cain and Seth marry and have children with?
