Adam and Eve

[DDGresham1]

I posted on here once that I take a view of creation that God created many people outside of Adam and Eve because of one of their sons leaving to meet his wife and because the Bible never says that God created only Adam and Eve. Another poster mentioned that it was possible for brother and sister to mate, or even parents to offspring, if they had perfect genetics with no abnormalities and that I "didn't understand how it works." I never got back to address the point, so I will now; The reason there would be abnormalities in such matings of humans is because there would be too many base pairs in the genetics sequence that didn't match up with their analogous base pairs. For example you would have too many cases of where cytosine would match up with another cytosine because the mating pair would have too much genetics in common, not because they had abnormalities. Don't get me wrong, I believe in God and Christ etc, but this would not work. Most likely the bible mentions Adam and Eve as either a parable or it leaves out the other people that God created around that time.

[quiet dove]

But if God created other men and women besides Adam, they would have then been created like Adam with out sin, and there is your conflict. What happen to those people, did they all disobey God then because Adams sin would not have effected the others that you believe God created. Or were these who had not sinned just mixed in with the fallen then-which would not work either.

Adam had to reproduce after himself, like kind, thus fallen mankind. Adam's fallen mankind son could not have found an un-fallen mankind women and it been ok to marry and reproduce children, nor would an un-fallen one have even considered such. That would be a major unequally yoked situation.

If you are going to make Adam and Eve a parable, is then the tree of knowledge also a parable? Is the creation of the animals, is the promise regarding the woman's seed? Where do you stop and how do you decide. I mean, Noah and the flood, the tower of Babel. When does it stop and where is the dividing line?

Regardless of genetics, or any of that, it will not work if God created more than just Adam and Eve because we know that all man kind are in a fallen state, reproduced in like kind from Adam and Eve. If others were created they would have been unaffected by Adams fall and thus a mixture of sinful and sinless.

[VerticalReality]

But if God created other men and women besides Adam, they would have then been created like Adam with out sin, and there is your conflict. What happen to those people, did they all disobey God then because Adams sin would not have effected the others that you believe God created. Or were these who had not sinned just mixed in with the fallen then-which would not work either.

Adam had to reproduce after himself, like kind, thus fallen mankind. Adam's fallen mankind son could not have found an un-fallen mankind women and it been ok to marry and reproduce children, nor would an un-fallen one have even considered such. That would be a major unequally yoked situation.

If you are going to make Adam and Eve a parable, is then the tree of knowledge also a parable? Is the creation of the animals, is the promise regarding the woman's seed? Where do you stop and how do you decide. I mean, Noah and the flood, the tower of Babel. When does it stop and where is the dividing line?

Regardless of genetics, or any of that, it will not work if God created more than just Adam and Eve because we know that all man kind are in a fallen state, reproduced in like kind from Adam and Eve. If others were created they would have been unaffected by Adams fall and thus a mixture of sinful and sinless.

I was thinking the very same thing. If there are more than Adam and Even then sin would not have passed on to everyone. Additionally, if not all sinned then when they procreated it wouldn't have been a corrupted seed brought forth. No, logically speaking the only accurate deduction is that all have descended from Adam.

[DDGresham1]

I was thinking the very same thing. If there are more than Adam and Even then sin would not have passed on to everyone. Additionally, if not all sinned then when they procreated it wouldn't have been a corrupted seed brought forth. No, logically speaking the only accurate deduction is that all have descended from Adam.

If Adams children procreated with others outside of their family, his seed would have gone forth via his offspring.

[VerticalReality]

If Adams children procreated with others outside of their family, his seed would have gone forth via his offspring.

But why would pure and holy people be intermingling and procreating with the fallen seed of Adam? Wouldn't those who are pure and holy know to stay true to God and His seed? Furthermore, how long would it have taken for all of humanity to become fallen through Adam's seed by procreation?

[DDGresham1]

But why would pure and holy people be intermingling and procreating with the fallen seed of Adam? Wouldn't those who are pure and holy know to stay true to God and His seed? Furthermore, how long would it have taken for all of humanity to become fallen through Adam's seed by procreation?

How would they know who was fallen? Maybe they were fallen as well? All I know is that the bible says Adams sons left to find wives.

[GitRDunn]

If you are going to make Adam and Eve a parable, is then the tree of knowledge also a parable? Is the creation of the animals, is the promise regarding the woman's seed? Where do you stop and how do you decide. I mean, Noah and the flood, the tower of Babel. When does it stop and where is the dividing line?

I generally see the dividing line at approximately the end of Genesis 11. The focus of Genesis and the style of writing noticeably shifts here as we go from a big picture world view to a very narrow focus on an individual person. Personally, I see most of the first 11 chapters of Genesis as allegorical, figurative, whatever term you want to use here. I have yet to determine whether I think there were a literal Adam and Eve. I think the creation of the animals happened, only over many, many years through the process of evolution (at least currently). I don't see evolution as being crucial; if the science were to eventually support a theory for the development of life other than the theory of evolution, then I would say the creation occurred via that method. If the science were to show that animals popped out of the ground fully formed, I would believe that, only it doesn't. I think there is no doubt the Earth is older than 6000 (or whatever number close to that you want to use) years. As for Noah and the flood, I lean toward there being an actual flood, only it was regional. As for the Tower of Babel, I tend to lean towards it not actually being the source of all the different languages, even if it actually happened.

I agree. IMHO, when we start with trying to decide what is history verses what is myth, we are heading in the wrong direction. For me, my lack of being able to understand, grasp, or explain, is not reason to disbelieve. There are plenty of other things that we can see, understand, grasp and explain.

The Bible is the most attacked and ripped apart writing that there has ever been and it has not nor will not fail to stand....thats how I feel about it anyway. I am sure you do also...

Just because I can't figure it out, does not mean it is not fact.

It is important to point out that not literal does not mean not true.

That's a myth. Are there decendents of inbreeding couples in Appalachia that have issues because of it? Yes, but there is no more inbreeding going on in that area in this day that any other area of the country.

That is not entirely true. I have a close friend who's father is from West Virginia and she has talked about the inbreeding in her father's side of the family. It may have decreased in rate, but it still happens more often than in other areas (where it essentially doesn't happen at all).

If one comes to believe that even one account such as this is myth, then what authority has any of the scriptures? If one is faulty, you must conclude that nothing is trustworthy. Or maybe it is as one Methodist minister in the local church I grew up in stated...

I think you are misunderstanding the position. You are assuming that if the text isn't taken literally, then it is faulty, but that is not the case. There are many places that even you do not take the text of the Bible literally, but it still holds truth for you. Take Jesus' parables as one example. You do not believe they are all literal events that happened, but that does not change the truth which they are conveying. The beginning chapters of Genesis are no different. Whether the Earth was created 6000 or 5 billion years ago, the important part is that God created it. He is responsible for everything in existence and it is because of Him that we are here discussing this. This is the truth that matters, not when and how the creation occurred.

[BrianW]

But if God created other men and women besides Adam, they would have then been created like Adam with out sin, and there is your conflict. What happen to those people, did they all disobey God then because Adams sin would not have effected the others that you believe God created. Or were these who had not sinned just mixed in with the fallen then-which would not work either.

Adam had to reproduce after himself, like kind, thus fallen mankind. Adam's fallen mankind son could not have found an un-fallen mankind women and it been ok to marry and reproduce children, nor would an un-fallen one have even considered such. That would be a major unequally yoked situation.

If you are going to make Adam and Eve a parable, is then the tree of knowledge also a parable? Is the creation of the animals, is the promise regarding the woman's seed? Where do you stop and how do you decide. I mean, Noah and the flood, the tower of Babel. When does it stop and where is the dividing line?

Regardless of genetics, or any of that, it will not work if God created more than just Adam and Eve because we know that all man kind are in a fallen state, reproduced in like kind from Adam and Eve. If others were created they would have been unaffected by Adams fall and thus a mixture of sinful and sinless.

Bumping this post because it was so well written and pretty much sums the whole thing up.

All races are descendents of Adam.

[BrianW]

I did read your post. I then quoted the post quite dove wrote. Did you read her post? Here it is again:

Originally Posted by quiet dove
But if God created other men and women besides Adam, they would have then been created like Adam with out sin, and there is your conflict. What happen to those people, did they all disobey God then because Adams sin would not have effected the others that you believe God created. Or were these who had not sinned just mixed in with the fallen then-which would not work either.

Adam had to reproduce after himself, like kind, thus fallen mankind. Adam's fallen mankind son could not have found an un-fallen mankind women and it been ok to marry and reproduce children, nor would an un-fallen one have even considered such. That would be a major unequally yoked situation.

If you are going to make Adam and Eve a parable, is then the tree of knowledge also a parable? Is the creation of the animals, is the promise regarding the woman's seed? Where do you stop and how do you decide. I mean, Noah and the flood, the tower of Babel. When does it stop and where is the dividing line?

Regardless of genetics, or any of that, it will not work if God created more than just Adam and Eve because we know that all man kind are in a fallen state, reproduced in like kind from Adam and Eve. If others were created they would have been unaffected by Adams fall and thus a mixture of sinful and sinless.

[JJsaint]

I did read your post. I then quoted the post quite dove wrote. Did you read her post? Here it is again:

Originally Posted by quiet dove
But if God created other men and women besides Adam, they would have then been created like Adam with out sin, and there is your conflict. What happen to those people, did they all disobey God then because Adams sin would not have effected the others that you believe God created. Or were these who had not sinned just mixed in with the fallen then-which would not work either.

Adam had to reproduce after himself, like kind, thus fallen mankind. Adam's fallen mankind son could not have found an un-fallen mankind women and it been ok to marry and reproduce children, nor would an un-fallen one have even considered such. That would be a major unequally yoked situation.

If you are going to make Adam and Eve a parable, is then the tree of knowledge also a parable? Is the creation of the animals, is the promise regarding the woman's seed? Where do you stop and how do you decide. I mean, Noah and the flood, the tower of Babel. When does it stop and where is the dividing line?

Regardless of genetics, or any of that, it will not work if God created more than just Adam and Eve because we know that all man kind are in a fallen state, reproduced in like kind from Adam and Eve. If others were created they would have been unaffected by Adams fall and thus a mixture of sinful and sinless.

Adam was the formation,the Bible is the book of Adam

Genesis 5:1:This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Other races are not of Adam.
Ezekiel 31 is symbolic of that,families and nations in the garden of Eden who admired the early Assyrian empire.
These were people who were not of Adam... ''so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.''

The other races were already here.
Where do you think Cain found his wife?(Genesis 4:17)





You also have this problem...

Genesis 1:26-27:²⁶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. ²⁷So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Man in that verse in the Hebrew is translated...

119 'adam aw-dam' to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

Genesis 5:3:And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

Seth was in the likeness of Adam and Adam in the Hebrew means...

119 'adam aw-dam' to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

Are we to say other races were not in the likeness and image of Adam?

''to show blood'' or ''turn rosy''

They are only characteristics of someone who is white as only a white man can show blood in the face or turn rosy.

Adam was given a law,Just one.

Genesis 2:16-17:¹⁶And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

¹⁷But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

As for the people who were already here...

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

[BrianW]

So then you are saying that only the decedents of Adam can saved? That only one certain race can be Christians?

[JJsaint]

So then you are saying that only the decedents of Adam can saved? That only one certain race can be Christians?

Other races were already here on the earth.
God deals with Adam's descendents throughout the Bible and if not everyone is from Adam...

Amos 3:2:You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

God deals with Israel who is from Adam.
The other races are NOT Israel,Israel was chosen above all people(Deuteronomy 7:6)
Jesus came for Israel(Matthew 15:24)
The Apostles were to go to Israel(Matthew 10:6)

Everyone can be Christians,but only one people is Israel.

[markedward]

But if God created other men and women besides Adam, they would have then been created like Adam with out sin, and there is your conflict. What happen to those people, did they all disobey God then because Adams sin would not have effected the others that you believe God created. Or were these who had not sinned just mixed in with the fallen then-which would not work either.

This is a lot of unnecessary, speculative dichotomizing.

Paul says that when Adam disobeyed God, sin came into the world, so that the very world itself was 'groaning' from the effects of sin, waiting to be redeemed. All men being sinful has nothing to do with all men being descended from Adam... otherwise the people who claim that sin is a blood-born disease, passed on from one generation to the next, are entirely justified in the nonsensical logic they're using.

Sin is a spiritual condition that humanity came into bondage, through the disobedience of Adam. Whether Adam was the father of all humans, or the federal head of many contemporaneous humans, or a metaphoric representation of 'humanity' as a whole, it was his disobedience that causes sin to come upon all of humanity... not that he disobeyed, contracted a 'sin' disease, and then passed it on through begetting children.

If you are going to make Adam and Eve a parable, is then the tree of knowledge also a parable? Is the creation of the animals, is the promise regarding the woman's seed? Where do you stop and how do you decide. I mean, Noah and the flood, the tower of Babel. When does it stop and where is the dividing line?

The dividing line is 'genre'.

When we read something like Psalm 18, it very clearly is a different genre from, say, 2 Kings 14 or Matthew 5. We do not interpret Psalm 18 the same way we interpret Matthew 5, because the very text itself - the style, the mannerisms, the figures of speech - indicates to us what genre of literature it falls under. Psalm 18 is highly poetic, hyperbolic, metaphoric: it is a song of praise that uses an extensive figure of speech (God riding on clouds, shooting lightning, breathing fire and smoke) to describe the historical events it corresponds to (the defeat of David's enemies, including Saul's self-impalement on his sword). When we turn to Matthew 5, it would be foolish to interpret it in the same way as Psalm 18. It simply is not the same genre.

Genesis 1-11 are very different in style, mannerisms, and figures of speech in comparison to Genesis 12-50. There is, in one way or another, a marked difference of genre between those two sections of Genesis.

Most Christians refuse to accept it, but the Bible is not a science book. It is a theological book that tells a story: the story of Israel and its God. The story, as God inspired men to write it, did not set out to correct the mistaken perceptions of the world. Joshua thought the sun passed over the earth and could be held still, but the reality is that the sun is stationary while it is the spherical earth that orbits the sun. Christians refused to accept that fact until it was painfully undeniable. (And even now there are a remote few who still deny it.)

God is a wonderful God who condescends to speak to his people on their own level. The Psalms were not dictated by God, as if he was so selfish that he commanded various men 'Write praises for me!' Rather, those men were so inspired by God and his spirit that they wrote those praises of their own will, in their own language, with the style and mannerisms and figures of speech that were common to their time and culture.

Same thing goes for something like the gospel of Luke. The author (Luke, or whoever) was so touched and moved by the life and teachings and sacrifice of Jesus, he was so inspired by God, that he set out to write a testimony about Jesus' life and teachings and sacrifice, and what God did through Jesus and through Jesus' followers. But this did not consist of God dictating to Luke what to write. He allowed Luke to write it in his own style and mannerisms and figures of speech, as were common to Luke's time and culture: Luke's gospel follows the genre of a 1st-century Greek biography (vastly different from the genre of a 21st-century American biography).

In the same way...

Genesis 1-11 fall under an ancient genre we call 'creation myth'. Christians get tripped up over the word 'myth', and assume it means 'lie' or 'fake'. That's not what it means (let alone in the context of genre). In the context of genre, 'myth' simply describes the style, mannerisms, and figures of speech found in the text: highly fantastical, highly theological, and in some cases, highly compressed. We have found dozens of 'myths' from the ancient world, and some of them are 'creation myths' (i.e. 'myths' that focus on the creation of the world and its earliest histories).

By 'fantastical' I'm referring to the type of language and imagery. By 'theological' I'm referring to the purpose and direction. By 'compressed' I'm referring to the brevity of the stories.

This genre can (and does) contain 'history', but conveying literal, absolute 'history' is not its focus or goal, and the extent of 'history' that is depicted through other methods (such as metaphor, poetry, or symbolism) varies from story to story. And, in something that I find completely ludicrous, most Christians refuse to accept that ancient Israelites would have accepted this genre as a legitimate genre for God to communicate through.

God is a wonderful God who condescends to speak to his people on their own level. Genesis 1-11 were not dictated by God, as if he was so concerned with giving a history lesson to the Israelites as they left Egypt. 'Memorize this history!' Rather, the author (Moses, or whoever) was so inspired by God and his spirit that he wrote Israel's origins, in his own language, with the style and mannerisms and figures of speech that were common to his time and culture.

A powerful story in which the one true God, Yahweh, created the world with order and purpose (set in a repetitive prose, framed through the days of the week, making it easy to remember). How Yahweh stooped down to create humanity with love and care. How Yahweh determined that humanity was to serve as his kingdom of priests on the earth, to serve God and each other. How humanity disobeyed Yahweh because of selfishness and deception. How sin brings death to humanity. And how Yahweh promised to conquer sin for humanity to live.

[Lone Arranger]

edited by admin

[markedward]

As far as brothers and sisters reproducing, the prohibition against incest did not come until much later.

Let's say, after having Cain and Abel, that Adam died before he could have any daughters. In this hypothetical situation... would it have been entirely okay for Cain to marry his mother, Eve, and have children with her? Incest wasn't forbidden, after all. In fact, polygamy wasn't forbidden either. So if Adam had died, Eve could have married both Cain and Abel and had children with each of them. Heck, Cain and Abel could have married each other, since homosexuality was not yet forbidden.

Either incest, polygamy and homosexuality were sinful from the very beginning (and hence, either Cain married his sister and sinned, or Cain didn't marry his sister), or else what is 'sinful' is contingent upon what God happens to decree at a certain time (and hence, God could reverse his prohibition on incest, polygamy and homosexuality).