Adam's and Eve's ?

[F1fan]

Actually , God didn't create the Universe ,just life .

Ah, that's a different claim from the usual. Did you see God create life?

 

[Dimamuant]

Ah, that's a different claim from the usual. Did you see God create life?

Did I see a creator , create life ? Of course not I didn't exist .

Do I understand enough about physics , biology and chemistry to make a logical conclusion based on evidence , sure !

 

[F1fan]

Did I see a creator , create life ? Of course not I didn't exist .

So you're not a witness and have no evidence. So we throw out your claim and defer to science with its evidence and methodology.

Do I understand enough about physics , biology and chemistry to make a logical conclusion based on evidence , sure !

Not according to what we observe.

 

[Dimamuant]

So we throw out your claim and defer to science with its evidence and methodology.

Science has no evidence , they just make up **** .

My evidence is the lack of evidence !

Physics or chemistry cannot naturally create biology therefore the answer is an alternative . That is proof !

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are a robot aren't you , I know this because you have zero ability

No, i can easily show you to be wrong if you even make a proper claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually , God didn't create the Universe ,just life .

How would you prove this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really, you are assuming the first humans were created naturally which they weren't .

I have to correct you already. The fact of evolution is not an assumption. But you are almost certainly scientifically illiterate, otherwise you would not have made such a statement. And you have refused to learn the basics of science so there is not way to educate you and show you the error of your ways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science has no evidence , they just make up **** .

My evidence is the lack of evidence !

Physics or chemistry cannot naturally create biology therefore the answer is an alternative . That is proof !

Okay, so you do not understand the basics of evidence or logic for that matter. Once again, are you willing to learn?

 

[F1fan]

Science has no evidence , they just make up **** .

My evidence is the lack of evidence !

Physics or chemistry cannot naturally create biology therefore the answer is an alternative . That is proof !

Three false statements. But it's the best you can do.

 

[blü 2]

Not really, you are assuming the first humans were created naturally which they weren't .

In reality H sapiens was around maybe 200,000 years before the god of the bible was. Only in the folktale were they created by that god.

It's a bit like pointing out we don't encounter magic in reality, then arguing about Harry Potter's wand technique.

 

[Dimamuant]

In reality H sapiens was around maybe 200,000 years before the god of the bible was. Only in the folktale were they created by that god.

It's a bit like pointing out we don't encounter magic in reality, then arguing about Harry Potter's wand technique.

Certain facts, natural physics and chemistry can create ''blobs''

Show me one example where chemistry or physics can create complex biological structures with pre-ordered form design ?

I know you can't therefore a creator is a must because I don't believe in magic either .

 

[Frank Buffalo]

Yeh thats an incorrect reading.

I feel like I will be explaining this until the day I die but here it goes again.

Mankind created on day 6, as explained very clearly in Genesis 1. Adam on day 2, explained somewhat cryptically given it says he was made from earth BEFORE there was any plants or rain. We know this is day 2 from the explanation given in the 7 days of creation. Eve is THE EARLIEST day 8, since "no helper" could be found for Adam on day 6, God removes his rib, puts him in a deep sleep, and then creates Eve. Since God rests on day 7, the earliest day she is created is day 8.




You don't get the same problem if you read it as it is written. There is nothing crude about the single narrative, it is misunderstood by Christian scholars.

You want incestuous beginnings? Sure, go for it. You want to read a story that make more historical sense? Read it as I do. At least that way you have multiple couples (thems) created on day 6, and you don't have incestuous beginnings. It also means humans were on earth for a lot longer and BEFORE Adam and Eve experienced the fall from Eden.

Christians don't like this interpretation for one reason only, and that is because the think their "original sin" philosophy will fall down like a house of cards.

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Genesis stories. I’m looking at the texts in the New Revised Standard Bible.
In Genesis 1: 27 it reads: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

So far I’m just reading a bout a male and a female. It’s not at all clear that there are more than two. And it’s the sixth day.

Then in Genesis 2: 4-8 it reads: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up — for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground — 7 then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”


One big weirdness is that this account has a man created on the same day that god created the earth and the heavens. I thought that was day one! But the earlier account says it was on day six! You can’t have it both ways. These are two different stories, crudely clumped together. And the prose is clumsy, to say the least.

There’s no stated transition to another day when comes Genesis 2:18:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”

And likewise there's no passing of days mentioned moving on to Genesis 2:20-22: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

 

[Dimamuant]

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Genesis stories. I’m looking at the texts in the New Revised Standard Bible.
In Genesis 1: 27 it reads: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

So far I’m just reading a bout a male and a female. It’s not at all clear that there are more than two. And it’s the sixth day.

Then in Genesis 2: 4-8 it reads: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up — for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground — 7 then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”


One big weirdness is that this account has a man created on the same day that god created the earth and the heavens. I thought that was day one! But the earlier account says it was on day six! You can’t have it both ways. These are two different stories, crudely clumped together. And the prose is clumsy, to say the least.

There’s no stated transition to another day when comes Genesis 2:18:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”

And likewise there's no passing of days mentioned moving on to Genesis 2:20-22: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

That took the whole of 0.1s to know you are lying to me .

 

[InChrist]

The mythical story of Adam and Eve puzzles me, because there's just mention of their having sons, and then these sons have wives. Where did the wives come from? Did these sons marry sisters back then? Was such incest allowed? It all just highlights the mythical nature of the Adam and Eve story.

Likely the brothers and sisters initially married. It wasn’t until later the laws were given concerning and forbidding incest.

“It is important to distinguish between incestuous relationships prior to God commanding against them (Leviticus 18:6–18) and incest that occurred after God’s commands had been revealed. Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a close relative. It is undeniable that God allowed “incest” in the early centuries of humanity. Since Adam and Eve were the only two human beings on earth, their sons and daughters had no choice but to marry and reproduce with their siblings and close relatives. The second generation had to marry their cousins, just as after the flood the grandchildren of Noah had to intermarry amongst their cousins. One reason that incest is so strongly discouraged in the world today is the understanding that reproduction between closely related individuals has a much higher risk of causing genetic abnormalities. In the early days of humanity, though, this was not a risk due to the fact that the human genetic code was relatively free of defects.”

Why did God allow incest in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

Why did God allow incest in the Bible? Why are there so many incestuous relationships recorded in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[GoodAttention]

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Genesis stories. I’m looking at the texts in the New Revised Standard Bible.
In Genesis 1: 27 it reads: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

So far I’m just reading a bout a male and a female. It’s not at all clear that there are more than two. And it’s the sixth day.

Sure, but the use of humankind and them implies plural, not singular. Note the repetition of the word “them”, which I interpret to be many.

Then in Genesis 2: 4-8 it reads: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up — for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6 but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground — 7 then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”


One big weirdness is that this account has a man created on the same day that god created the earth and the heavens. I thought that was day one! But the earlier account says it was on day six! You can’t have it both ways. These are two different stories, crudely clumped together. And the prose is clumsy, to say the least.

The main source of confusion as people don’t acknowledge the two meanings in Hebrew for Adam, being mankind and also the name of the first man.

This is Adam. When you say “formed man” it should be read as formed Adam.

It is only clumsy when you look for fault, and the story need not be obvious.

There’s no stated transition to another day when comes Genesis 2:18:

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”

And likewise there's no passing of days mentioned moving on to Genesis 2:20-22: The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Yes, Genesis 2 isn’t divided by days, it is divided as the story of Adam and Eve. We know if the animals are present we must be in day 6.

The taking of the rib and deep sleep it to imply Adam sleeps longer than 1 day. Eve is created on day 8 and brought to him. I believe it is for this reason Jewish boys are circumcised on the 8th day also.

You can say the story is clumsy, but why should it be contradictory?

 

[danieldemol]

a massive demonstration of the DK of your own.

Wow he owns a Donut King?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Evolution theory would rule out Adam and Eve . The fact that new born babies cannot survive in the wild without care rules out evolution.

So where did Adam's and Eve's come from , if not created and formed as fully grown adults by the creator?

Clearly you don't understand the TOE.

The earliest life forms that we actually have fossils of are single cell organisms that go back 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. They do not have separate sexes, nor do they take care of their young. Those kinds of things evolved slowly over the eons.

It wasn't until about 1.2 billion years ago that new species of unicellular life (such as algae) evolved which had two sexes. And these still did not care for their young.

That particular trait appears to have evolved with therapods, a specific group of dinosaurs. They date back around 75 million years, and there significant evidence of nest building and parental care.

It was during the dinosaur era that mammaliaforms evolved (the direct ancestors of mammals), which show some degree of parenting. All their descendents, including humans (who have been around 200,000 to 300,000 years), inherited and amplified those parenting instincts.

 

[Dimamuant]

Clearly you don't understand the TOE.

The earliest life forms that we actually have fossils of are single cell organisms that go back 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. They do not have separate sexes, nor do they take care of their young. Those kinds of things evolved slowly over the eons.

It wasn't until about 1.2 billion years ago that new species of unicellular life (such as algae) evolved which had two sexes. And these still did not care for their young.

That particular trait appears to have evolved with therapods, a specific group of dinosaurs. They date back around 75 million years, and there significant evidence of nest building and parental care.

It was during the dinosaur era that mammaliaforms evolved (the direct ancestors of mammals), which show some degree of parenting. All their descendents, including humans (who have been around 200,000 to 300,000 years), inherited and amplified those parenting instincts.

Your time evaluation is subjective .

The theory of everything doesn't require made up stuff .

Your example is off topic .

Dinosaurs weren't very sentient and kept eating the ''humans'' and the chickens . It wasn't very productive in our research so we had to eliminate the Dinosaurs so your sentience could evolve .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your time evaluation is subjective .

The theory of everything doesn't require made up stuff .

Your example is off topic .

Dinosaurs weren't very sentient and kept eating the ''humans'' and the chickens . It wasn't very productive in our research so we had to eliminate the Dinosaurs so your sentience could evolve .

No, non avian dinosaurs died out long before humans evolved.

 

[Dimamuant]

No, non avian dinosaurs died out long before humans evolved.

Who told you that?