Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

[iceaura]

But of course the whole issue only arises among those benighted Christians that take the Genesis story literally. - -

Some parts of the Genesis story, anyway.
A large majority of Christians, that would be. The political and societal weight of Christianity, as a religion, in practice.

Side note: you and James appear to be arguing with Jan's claims as if they were actual arguments in good faith, as if their consistency either internal or with a general view or stance were significant.

 

[davewhite04]

Are you kidding me?

You think daughters ply their fathers with drinks, then rape him so they can become pregnant, “no doubt” happens today?
Why would you agree with that nonsense?

He’s desperately trying to defend a lie. Don’t throw him a line, until he explains why he’s doing that.
Unless of course, you want to perpetuate that lie.

Jan.

What world do you live in?

 

[davewhite04]

But like Santa Claus, God rewards those who have been good, not bad.

Yep, like karma, all the big hitters.

 

[davewhite04]

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Based on what you've posted, the "him" is still ambiguous. From your word "zakar", we only get the ideal of maleness. So, either God created a man in his own image and made him male, or God created more than one man in his own image and made at least one of them male.

In the second half of the verse, is the same word, "Zakar" used for "male"?
And in the first half, what word is translated as "man"? Is it a different word from the one translated as "him", or the same word?

Some people think that Genesis 2 is simply a more detailed creation of man, it's meant that way.

 

[Write4U]

Yep, like karma, all the big hitters.

Of course there is no Santa Claus who rewards anyone for anything.

 

[davewhite04]

Of course there is no Santa Claus who rewards anyone for anything.

Just stick a stocking out this Christmas and leave a sweet mince pie and a drop of whisky. Trust me, you'll get something.

 

[exchemist]

Some parts of the Genesis story, anyway.
A large majority of Christians, that would be. The political and societal weight of Christianity, as a religion, in practice.

Side note: you and James appear to be arguing with Jan's claims as if they were actual arguments in good faith, as if their consistency either internal or with a general view or stance were significant.

On the contrary I've had Jan on Ignore for about 2 years now. I made a brief exception at one point earlier on this thread. (Now that he has been smoked out as to what he believes, something he resisted for many years, it becomes slightly less irritating to try to have a discussion with him.)

My sole point, which I make time and again on such threads, is that the thinking Christian takes these OT stories as allegories, with messages for the faithful, not as literal descriptions of fact. It is simply not the case that mainstream Christian theology takes them literally.

I've argued with you before about the inevitable discrepancy between what the average Christian in the street may or may not understand and what their churches actually teach. We don't judge scientific ideas on what a taxi driver - or even the average lab technician - thinks they are. Nor should we with religious ideas.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The advantage to having a highly superficial faith in one's religion is that "mere details" can be conveniently ignored. This is how most religious people deal with problems in their religions. It's the same thing that allows people to believe professional wrestling is real.

 

[gmilam]

I've argued with you before about the inevitable discrepancy between what the average Christian in the street may or may not understand and what their churches actually teach. We don't judge scientific ideas on what a taxi driver - or even the average lab technician - thinks they are. Nor should we with religious ideas.

Then again, there are many churches that are not "mainstream".
https://www.christianity.com/church...denominational-churches-meaning-examples.html

"Americans classifying their religion as non-denominational increased from fewer than 200,000 in 1990 to greater than 8 million by 2008."

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's the bottom line. It's an argument that has some interest from a Biblical study perspective, but is ultimately pointless - because it's mythological to begin with.

Why are you so sure that is a myth to begin with?

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Why are you so sure that is a myth to begin with?

Jan.

Talking snake.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dave,

Do you think that daughters ply their fathers with drinks, then rape him so they can become pregnant?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Talking snake.

What about it?

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

What about it?

Jan.

When a book mentions an obviously mythological creature on page two that's a hint that there are myths in the book.

 

[billvon]

Why are you so sure that is a myth to begin with?

Talking snake. Magic floating flaming sword. Plate tectonics. Animals didn't come before plants. Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2. Things like that.

Do you think that daughters ply their fathers with drinks, then rape him so they can become pregnant?

It's what the Bible claims happened. Like much of the Bible, it is probably a myth as well.

 

[exchemist]

Then again, there are many churches that are not "mainstream".
https://www.christianity.com/church...denominational-churches-meaning-examples.html

"Americans classifying their religion as non-denominational increased from fewer than 200,000 in 1990 to greater than 8 million by 2008."

True, in the US. But then we in Europe have been dumping our wackiest religious non-conformists in the New World for centuries, so it is not so surprising.

One of the potential pitfalls of extreme protestantism arises from its principle of throwing out all the theological accretions of the church and going back to basics, in scripture. This may be a good idea insofar as getting rid of the dross, but the problem is one deprives oneself of the thought of centuries of scholarship. One risk re-inventing the wheel, badly, especially if one has no hierarchy to keep the body of doctrine consistent. And that's what creationists have done to themselves.

 

[iceaura]

I've argued with you before about the inevitable discrepancy between what the average Christian in the street may or may not understand and what their churches actually teach. We don't judge scientific ideas on what a taxi driver - or even the average lab technician - thinks they are. Nor should we with religious ideas.

A taxi driver or a lab tech is not a scientist. A Christian believer is a Christian.
Why are you attempting to draw an equivalence between scientific ideas and religious beliefs?

We are not "judging" the wide variety of religious "ideas" that populate the esoteric venues of the "thinking" religious.
We are dealing, here, with the actual beliefs held in common by the religious believers in real life, actually existing, religions. Unlike scientific ideas in science (which can be overthrown at any time without the result being a new and different "science"), they are the contents of those religions.

(Meanwhile, we do discuss science on the basis of what the great bulk of normal scientists think and do, the average research project does in real life, the normal implemention of scientific discovery accomplishes. We do not dismiss such discussions on the basis that they fail to address how a minority of different scientists with more sophisticated understandings would have behaved in a better world).

My sole point, which I make time and again on such threads, is that the thinking Christian takes these OT stories as allegories, with messages for the faithful, not as literal descriptions of fact.

That minority of Christians you describe as "thinking" are no doubt worthy contributors to discussions on this and other science forums - but not as, or in the role of , witnessing believers.

I've argued with you before about the inevitable discrepancy between what the average Christian in the street may or may not understand and what their churches actually teach.

And the obvious discrepancy between what you claim their churches "teach" and the espoused beliefs of their clerics, ministers, church officials, spokesmen, public representatives, and vast congregations of worshippers. Yes.

My point is that the specifically Christian beliefs of the bulk of Christian believers and their spiritual leadership are the beliefs of the Christian religions. In fact. By observation.

 

[Jan Ardena]

When a book mentions an obviously mythological creature on page two that's a hint that there are myths in the book.

Why is it obviously mythological?

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Why is it obviously mythological?

Jan.

What could be more obvious?

Snakes don't talk. There's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow ( or do you believe there is?) The moon isn't made of green cheese. The earth doesn't rest on the backs of elephants and turtles.

If those things aren't obvious, where do you draw the line between myth and reality?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Talking snake.

If the serpent was a snake, there would have been no need to be cursed to crawl thy belly.
There have been depictions of reptile humanoids throughout ancient history, who have been depicted as highly intelligent, and knowledgable.
While this has no bearing on the subject matter, I wonder why you have to choose a snake as the seducer of Eve.

It's what the Bible claims happened. Like much of the Bible, it is probably a myth as well.

I’m more interested in why you used it to show that incest was accepted, hence A+E’s offsprings married each other.

It seems your going all out to discredit the bible , by trying to make events sound impossible.

You know that with God, all things are possible, even though you reject and deny Him.
You’re denial shows, by insisting the totality of reality is all that man can perceive via his senses. Of course you already know that is the case, but you are prepared to limit yourself anyway.

Jan