The Myth of Adam and Eve

[Thermos aquaticus]

Why should I believe that?

Dennis Venema does a great job of going over the genetic evidence which strongly points to a large and continuous human population over at least the last 200,000 years. Here is a link to one of his articles over at BioLogos (which is a Christian site, by the way):

Adam, Eve and Population Genetics: A Reply to Dr. Richard Buggs (Part 1)

 

[1213]

Dennis Venema does a great job of going over the genetic evidence which strongly points to a large and continuous human population over at least the last 200,000 years. Here is a link to one of his articles over at BioLogos (which is a Christian site, by the way):

And where exactly did the more than 2 humans came to exist at the same time?

If human evolved from other species, it would be miraculous, if that same could happen multiple times at the same time, it would be beyond miraculous. And one just has to wonder, why don’t that same miracle happen in our time.

I think the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve proves Bible correct. Another proof is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck, in my opinion. But obviously, you are free to believe what ever you want.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And where exactly did the more than 2 humans came to exist at the same time?

The same way billions of people exist now.

If human evolved from other species, it would be miraculous, if that same could happen multiple times at the same time, it would be beyond miraculous. And one just has to wonder, why don’t that same miracle happen in our time.

You need evidence for those claims. Bare assertions aren't that convincing.

I think the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve proves Bible correct. Another proof is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck, in my opinion. But obviously, you are free to believe what ever you want.

First, mitochondrial Eve would exist even in a continuous population of 100,000 humans, and this can be illustrated just by looking at your recent ancestors.

You have 4 great grandmothers. You more or less inherited the same number of genes from all of those great grandmothers. All of those great grandmothers were alive at more or less the same time. However, you only inherited your mitochondrial DNA from one of those great grandmothers. Does that mean you only had one great grandmother? Obviously not. People make the same mistake when they when they claim that mitochondrial Eve or Y-chromosome Adam point to the human population being founded by just two people.

 

[Estro Felino]

If human evolved from other species, it would be miraculous, if that same could happen multiple times at the same time, it would be beyond miraculous. And one just has to wonder, why don’t that same miracle happen in our time.

Humans are still evolving...and they will be very different in 700 thousand years...

 

[Subduction Zone]

And where exactly did the more than 2 humans came to exist at the same time?

If human evolved from other species, it would be miraculous, if that same could happen multiple times at the same time, it would be beyond miraculous. And one just has to wonder, why don’t that same miracle happen in our time.

I think the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve proves Bible correct. Another proof is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck, in my opinion. But obviously, you are free to believe what ever you want.

The Wiki article on population bottleneck refutes a recent Adam and Even and it also refutes a recent flood as well. Please note the example of the cheetah. About ten thousand years ago they went through a bottleneck event that lowered their numbers to almost Noahchian levels. Less than ten breeding cheetahs existed at one point in time and as a result they are extremely inbred. Any two random cheetahs will be more closely related to each other than you are to your brothers and sisters, unless you have an identical twin. Finding a donor for organs would not be a problem if the flood occurred. With cheetahs skin grafts from one to another can be done from one to another without looking for a "donor".

 

[paarsurrey]

The Myth of Adam and Eve

Well, I just wanted to find out if there are Christians who still believe that Adam and Eve really existed.
I clarify that almost all Catholic clergymen explain people that Adam and Eve are just fictional characters invented to explain the origin of mankind.

I think that I understood that Adam and Eve never existed when I was ten years old. I was raised in a very Catholic environment and fortunately I've always had teachers who clarified what was real and what was fictional in the Bible.

Why consider Adam and Eve a myth, please?
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Myth of Adam and Eve

Why consider Adam and Eve a myth, please?
Regards

Because at no time on the Earth have there been only two human beings in the same way that there never has been only two Spanish speakers.

 

[paarsurrey]

Because at no time on the Earth have there been only two human beings in the same way that there never has been only two Spanish speakers.

Adam and Eve were not the first two human individuals created. Human beings were evolved in millions of years. Adam was the first human being who got Converse from G-d , directly. Please
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Adam and Eve were not the first two human individuals created. Human beings were evolved in millions of years. Adam was the first human being who got Converse from G-d , directly. Please
Regards

There are so many different ways that Christians reinterpret the Bible to match reality that it makes one's head spin.

How about the Noah's Ark myth?

 

[paarsurrey]

There are so many different ways that Christians reinterpret the Bible to match reality that it makes one's head spin.

How about the Noah's Ark myth?

The essence of Noah's Ark is that when G-d sends a prophet/messenger with a teachings for the reformation of a people, they should not harm such prophet/messenger and his good teachings should be accepted by them for their own good.
There is no myth in it.
One may like to read Noah’s Ark, no compulsion however:
Noah's Ark | Islam Ahmadiyya

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

The essence of Noah's Ark is that when G-d sends a prophet/messenger with a teaching for the reformation of a people, they should not harm such prophet/messenger and his good teachings should be accepted by them for their own good.
There is no myth in it.
One may like to read Noah’s Ark, no compulsion however:
Noah's Ark | Islam Ahmadiyya

Regards

So just a morality tale then. Another way to say that it is a myth.

Since there clearly never was a worldwide flood, since there were clearly never eight people left in the world. or even worse two of each species of unclean animals, we know that it never happened. Why not treat the Adam and Eve myth in the same was? As a morality tale,

 

[paarsurrey]

So just a morality tale then. Another way to say that it is a myth.

Since there clearly never was a worldwide flood, since there were clearly never eight people left in the world. or even worse two of each species of unclean animals, we know that it never happened. Why not treat the Adam and Eve myth in the same was? As a morality tale,

There is not harm in treating it a morality narration. The religion is about uplifting humans in ethical, moral and spiritual realms.
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is not harm in treating it a morality narration. The religion is about uplifting humans in ethical, moral and spiritual realms.
Regards

By believing all you degrade all. Of all the religions only one can be right. But they all can be wrong. They may still help some people, but they also harm many. It is hard to find anything that is a net positive about religion.

Here is a parting gift:

I thought that you might like it.

 

[outlawState]

Adam and Eve were the first generation of the priesthood of God. It had to start at some point, so why not with Adam and Eve?

More to the point, can anyone prove that Adam and Eve were not the first to know God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Adam and Eve were the first generation of the priesthood of God. It had to start at some point, so why not with Adam and Eve?

More to the point, can anyone prove that Adam and Eve were not the first to know God?

You have the burden of proof backwards.

 

[outlawState]

You have the burden of proof backwards.

It's for those who claim the bible is fiction to prove it to be so. In any case, it might even be that Adam and Eve are figurative names, so that we don't actually know their real names. They might not have spoken Hebrew. It may be that Adam and Eve merely denote the first priests of God. Since there must have been a first, how then could anyone disprove it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's for those who claim the bible is fiction to prove it to be so. In any case, it might even be that Adam and Eve are figurative names, so that we don't actually know their real names. They might not have spoken Hebrew. It may be that Adam and Eve merely denote the first priests of God. Since there must have been a first, how then could anyone disprove it?

No, when you make a positive claim that automatically puts the burden of proof upon you. People on the science side can and have supported their claims. You do not get to demand that others have to repeatedly refute the Bible.

And your logic is faulty. The priestly order may have arisen slowly and naturally, as so many other features have. Just as there was no first speaker of Spanish, you there may have been no first priest.

 

[outlawState]

No, when you make a positive claim that automatically puts the burden of proof upon you. People on the science side can and have supported their claims. You do not get to demand that others have to repeatedly refute the Bible.

And your logic is faulty. The priestly order may have arisen slowly and naturally, as so many other features have. Just as there was no first speaker of Spanish, you there may have been no first priest.

As Adam and Eve are placed in the early Sumer civilization, the cradle of theistic religion, it is reasonable to afford them validity. If they had been placed elsewhere, e.g. in Africa, we would have had cause to be sceptical. Nothing about the period or the location of the garden of Eden arouses any suspicions.

As for the origination of priests of God, your conjecture is absurd. The whole point about the priesthood of the one living God, is that it is supernatural, not natural in the sense of animistic, or nature worship, as so much very ancient religion was.

 

[JustWondering]

I believe that is not rationality but the result of a confused mind and relying on feelings.

I believe discounting an all powerful God in exchange for believing an unproven theory of men who know very little does not appear rational to me.

Lol, isn't the existence of an all powerful god just another unproven theory of men who know very little? So I guess no one is rational, which adds up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As Adam and Eve are placed in the early Sumer civilization, the cradle of theistic religion, it is reasonable to afford them validity. If they had been placed elsewhere, e.g. in Africa, we would have had cause to be sceptical. Nothing about the period or the location of the garden of Eden arouses any suspicions.

As for the origination of priests of God, your conjecture is absurd. The whole point about the priesthood of the one living God, is that it is supernatural, not natural in the sense of animistic, or nature worship, as so much very ancient religion was.

Don't be silly. My hypothesis of priests was from from absurd. You seem to have forgotten that your beliefs do not appear to have any reliable evidence behind them. There is probably more evidence for my hypothesis than for your beliefs.