Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

[billvon]

There have been depictions of reptile humanoids throughout ancient history, who have been depicted as highly intelligent, and knowledgable.

Right. But those are from FICTION. There really aren't any talking snakes.

While this has no bearing on the subject matter, I wonder why you have to choose a snake as the seducer of Eve.

Because serpent and snake mean the same thing, and are used interchangeably depending on the translation.
Genesis 3:1 NIV: Now the snake was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God really say, “You must not eat from any tree in the garden”?’
Genesis 3:1 NKJV: Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
Genesis 3:1 NCV: Now the snake was the most clever of all the wild animals the Lord God had made. One day the snake said to the woman, “Did God really say that you must not eat fruit from any tree in the garden?”
Genesis 3:1 YLT: And the serpent hath been subtile above every beast of the field which Jehovah God hath made, and he saith unto the woman, `Is it true that God hath said, Ye do not eat of every tree of the garden?'
Genesis 3:1 CEV: The snake was sneakier than any of the other wild animals that the Lord God had made. One day it came to the woman and asked, “Did God tell you not to eat fruit from any tree in the garden?”

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

Because you asked if it was likely from a Biblical perspective. Since the book of Genesis explicitly describes children having sex with their parents, it is likely - again, from a Biblical perspective. You may say "that's a myth!" If so, no problems there.

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

If I can discredit the Bible by quoting parts of it, it is in serious trouble without my help.

You know that with God, all things are possible . . .

Including children having sex with their parents, apparently.

You’re denial shows . . .

I'm not the one denying what is in the Bible.

 

[Write4U]

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?

Credibility. Theists recognize the fact that religions are founded on pure speculation, so they they try to make connection with science , because science lends credibility to observed knowledge.

Of course theism is directly opposed to the natural sciences, so any association tends to confirm the science and discredit the religious scripture.

 

[davewhite04]

If I can discredit the Bible by quoting parts of it, it is in serious trouble without my help.

The bible has to be perfect as it's part of the myth.

 

[billvon]

The bible has to be perfect as it's part of the myth.

Given that not even the US Constitution is perfect after dozens of changes, that's a pretty high bar to meet for a 2000 year old document that you're not allowed to update.

 

[davewhite04]

that's a pretty high bar to meet for a 2000 year old document that you're not allowed to update.

Exactly. That's why it's a myth for you and a training tool for someone else or a crutch whatever floats your boat.

 

[iceaura]

If the serpent was a snake, there would have been no need to be cursed to crawl thy belly.

And that's how snakes came to be cursed to crawl on their bellies.
Yes, it's a Just So story.

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

Not as much as someone who demands it be read as a repository of biological fact. That makes it ridiculous.

 

[Write4U]

The bible has to be perfect as it's part of the myth.

You're right. The bible is a perfect myth! All myths are perfect, they're myths, not history.........

 

[exchemist]

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?

Because both are serious bodies of human thought, as shown by the fact that you can get degrees equivalent in intellectual rigour in both fields, from good universities. A theology degree from Oxford commands as much respect as one in chemistry.

 

[iceaura]

A theology degree from Oxford commands as much respect as one in chemistry.

The subject was religious belief, not theology.

Because both are serious bodies of human thought, as shown by the fact that you can get degrees equivalent in intellectual rigour in both fields, from good universities.

So how does that translate into posting such oddly irrelevant comparisons as a taxi driver's understanding of biology?
A taxi driver is not (presumably, we all know exceptions) a biologist. A biologist is not necessarily an expert in the understandings of taxi drivers, and no one would demand that someone dealing with the understandings of taxi drivers familiarize themselves with - say - the reproductive structures and mating behavior of Ctenuchid moths. Or vice versa.
A Christian believer is a Christian. A theologist is not necessarily an expert in the beliefs of Christians, and it makes no sense to demand that people dealing with Christian believers and their beliefs familiarize themselves with Oxford theological complexity.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Right. But those are from FICTION. There really aren't any talking snakes.

They’re not from fiction.

You’re mistaken when you say snakes

Because serpent and snake mean the same thing, and are used interchangeably depending on the translation.
Genesis 3:1 NIV: Now the snake was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman,

“Snake” is translated from the Hebrew word “nawkash”, which means snake, or serpent.
The being that seduced Eve was not a snake. That is the idea of religious belief that makes no sense. Of course you will go along with it because it helps maintain your delusion.

Because you asked if it was likely from a Biblical perspective. Since the book of Genesis explicitly describes children having sex with their parents, it is likely - again, from a Biblical perspective. You may say "that's a myth!" If so, no problems there.

Having sex with your parent isn’t a biblical perspective. The biblical perspective is thou shalt honour thy mother and father, and thou shalt not commit adultery.
Show where incest is accepted, in the bible, or any ancient scripture for that matter.

If I can discredit the Bible by quoting parts of it, it is in serious trouble without my help.

You’re not discrediting the bible, you’re discrediting yourself, by fooling yourself.
Aren’t you glad you got me to straighten you out?

Including children having sex with their parents, apparently.

Isn’t God great!

I'm not the one denying what is in the Bible.

You are denying and rejecting the bible, because you deny and reject God.
The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
Once that is affirmed, it sets in, and you are forced to reject and deny.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And that's how snakes came to be cursed to crawl on their bellies.
Yes, it's a Just So story.

While I understand the logic, that isn’t the case, whether it is just a story, or not.

Not as much as someone who demands it be read as a repository of biological fact. That makes it ridiculous.

I’ve already told you it is not a biology book.
You don’t really pay attention to what is being said. Do you? You just seek to defend your atheism.

It’s simple. The bible does not in anyway allude to A+E as the origin of mankind. You cannot point to one verse, or give any account, that says, or implies they were. Gen. 1.26 clearly explains that God made both male and female, in abundance, and in one go, on the sixth day.
Yet you accept the nonsensical belief. Why?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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?

Of course it’s obvious that snakes, that we are accustomed to, do not talk. So why

Aside from religionists who believ that it was a “snake”, as in the types of snakes we are accustomed to, why do you accept that it was.
Especially as you have access to information that can bring to light what is meant by “nawkash”, the word the religionists ruggedly translated as “snake”.

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

I draw it the same way you draw it, the same way all humans draw it. I’m just not quick to accept things because it was told to me. I can’t. Dont know how.

You are repeating, and accepting the idea that put into the bible, not what it means, or what it could possibly mean.
As an atheist, you have no reason to seek out God, or discriminate between what is, and what is not, God. Because for you there is no God.

My position is, I accept and believe in God, so I have a reason to seek out God, and to do that I have to discriminate between what is, and what is not God.

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Aside from religionists who believ that it was a “snake”, as in the types of snakes we are accustomed to, why do you accept that it was.

I just accept what the story says. I don't twist it like you do to try to make literal sense of it.

I draw it the same way you draw it, the same way all humans draw it.

Obviously not. For me, Genesis is on the myth side.

I’m just not quick to accept things because it was told to me.

We're not talking about anything that was "told to me". It's what the story says, as opposed to your interpretation that you made up in your head.

You are repeating, and accepting the idea that put into the bible, not what it means, or what it could possibly mean.

Yes, exactly. I'm accepting what is actually there. I'm not trying to duct-tape on a spooky "meaning" like you are and I'm not considering woo-woo "possibilities" like you are. It's "possible" that the Adam and Eve story predicts the fall of Communism or the invention of Rice Krispies but I'm not as eager to read that into the story as you are.

As an atheist, you have no reason to seek out God, or discriminate between what is, and what is not, God.

On the contrary, many (most) atheists have sought out God and couldn't find any sign of Him. And people like you, with your appallingly bad arguments - not to mention your appallingly bad behaviour - only make your God seem much less likely.

Because for you there is no God.

You should learn what atheism is. I don't even self-identify as an atheist. I self-identify as agnostic. I am certainly willing to accept the possibility of a god - but your version of god is one of the worst candidates.

 

[billvon]

They’re not from fiction.

"Depictions of reptile humanoids throughout ancient history" aren't from fiction? You think "The Secret Doctrine" by Blavatsky is real? You think "The Shadow Kingdom" by Howard is real?

That's . . . pretty gullible of you.

You’re mistaken when you say snakes . .

Not me, the Bible.

Genesis 3:1 NIV: Now the snake was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God really say, “You must not eat from any tree in the garden”?’
Genesis 3:1 NCV: Now the snake was the most clever of all the wild animals the Lord God had made. One day the snake said to the woman, “Did God really say that you must not eat fruit from any tree in the garden?”
Genesis 3:1 CEV: The snake was sneakier than any of the other wild animals that the Lord God had made. One day it came to the woman and asked, “Did God tell you not to eat fruit from any tree in the garden?”

Does it bother you to deny and twist the Bible to serve your own selfish purposes? Or is it OK when you do it, but no one else?

Having sex with your parent isn’t a biblical perspective.

The Bible depicts daughters having sex with their father to procreate. That doesn't mean it's officially approved by the Bible. It just means that, per the Bible, it happened.

You are denying and rejecting the bible, because you deny and reject God.
The fool says in his heart, there is no God.

Have you ever met any of these "fools" as you call them?

 

[sideshowbob]

“Snake” is translated from the Hebrew word “nawkash”, which means snake, or serpent.

So the Hebrew calls it a snake but it wasn't a snake? You're quite a gymnast.

The being that seduced Eve was not a snake.

The snake didn't "seduce" Eve. It just told her the truth.

That is the idea of religious belief that makes no sense.

Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup. It doesn't make sense. You have to stand it on its head to make sense of it.

Of course you will go along with it because it helps maintain your delusion.

People don't actively maintain delusions. If they knew they were deluded, they wouldn't be deluded.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People maintain delusions, they just don't realize/admit they're delusions.

 

[iceaura]

I’ve already told you it is not a biology book.

Alternating with you telling me it has biological facts in it, such as a coherent account of the creation of "mankind".

It’s simple. The bible does not in anyway allude to A+E as the origin of mankind. You cannot point to one verse, or give any account, that says, or implies they were. Gen. 1.26 clearly explains that God made both male and female, in abundance, and in one go, on the sixth day.
Yet you accept the nonsensical belief.

That the story of Adam and Eve is in the Bible, as printed in English, I can read it for myself. I can read what the translators who wrote the words meant by what they wrote, in centuries of extensive commentary. I can also read the other stories in the Bible. You are arguing with the translators, not me.

 

[mmatt9876]

I agree.

And importantly, this does not necessarily negate the utility of scripture as a philosopical instrument for advancing social morality. IMO, this is what it was designed to do. A willful God was and is a convenient enforcer, just like in days of old. But like Santa Claus, God rewards those who have been good, not bad. Really?

However, I totally agree that scripture correctly identified the seven mortal sins as well as the seven virtues. But that's about personal behavior, not about implacable cosmological functional constants.

One good thing about believing in Christianity and reading the Bible is that it can put a lost and wayward person in line and give them purpose and happiness.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One good thing about believing in Christianity and reading the Bible is that it can put a lost and wayward person in line and give them purpose and happiness.

Or make them blow up a bus full of school kids.

 

[davewhite04]

Dave,

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

Jan.

Absolutely, people don't change and "nothing new under the sun" etc.