Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

davewhite04 said:
So, do you think Adam & Eve were the only humans on the planet when they were created?
Click to expand...
That is not what the OP asks.!

The OP asks specifically if we are (we're) Adam and Eve, not if Adam and Eve were the first humans.
So, before we can accurately begin to discuss the matter, we might want to edit the OP title, no?

Just in the interest of scientific accuracy, I'd hate to also see literature fall prey to scriptural errors....:)
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
That is not what the OP asks.!

The OP asks specifically if we are (we're) Adam and Eve, not if Adam and Eve were the first humans.
So, before we can accurately begin to discuss the matter, we might want to edit the OP title, no?

Just in the interest of scientific accuracy, I'd hate to also see literature fall prey to scriptural errors....:)
Click to expand...

My question still applies I presume?
 
Jan Ardena said:
The same word that describes a snake, also describes a serpent. They are not the same.
Click to expand...
Then why do Bible translations use the words interchangeably?

Once again, you are beaten by simply posting the text from the Bible. When your greatest enemy in an argument is the Bible, you might not want to hew to it all that closely. From your own post - "you have to accept what is written."
 
davewhite04 said:
No I didn't say it was common as it happens. I don't appreciate accusations, so if you have nothing of value, only deceit, then admit to yourself, "I am a liar", say it out loud.
Click to expand...
It's sort of his MO. Give him another few posts - he will start saying "no YOU are the liar! Why do you lie?"
 
Jan Ardena said:
Haven’t you been reading what I write ?
The bible clearly states that God created mankind on the sixth day both male and female. Adam was created sometime after .

Jan.
Click to expand...
I did listen but you aren't actually thinking or explaining exactly what position you are defending or exploring.
 
davewhite04 said:
My question still applies I presume?
Click to expand...
It has been answered. We are now discussing details of correctness. Let's start with correcting the OP, then Scripture, then we can discuss the scientific significance of all this, if any.......:)
 
Tiassa said:
Which in turn is as obviously mythical as the perfect child pornography or harmless rape you advocated.
Click to expand...
Where did that come from? Apart from being a personal attack out of the blue, it's wildly off topic.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Do you accept God?
Click to expand...
This thread isn't about atheism or sideshowbob's personal beliefs. However...

You don't seem to get it. If somebody rejects God, or accepts it, he or she implicitly acknowledges that it exists. If it doesn't exist, there's nothing to accept or reject.

We get it. You're confused as what atheism means, because you've never really considered the possibility that your God doesn't actually exist. Since you take it for granted that it exists, you assume that everybody else, deep down, much also take it for granted that your God exists. It follows, in your thinking, that atheists can only, therefore, be "in denial" of an established truth.

The real position is that your Truth is not established to the satisfaction of atheists. They don't reject your God. They don't deny your God. There's no good evidence that your God is substantial enough to be capable of acceptance or denial.
 
James R said:
You don't seem to get it. If somebody rejects God, or accepts it, he or she implicitly acknowledges that it exists. If it doesn't exist, there's nothing to accept or reject.
Click to expand...
I do think it is possible to reject the notion (concept) that god exists....:)
 
Write4U said:
I do think it is possible to reject the notion (concept) that god exists....:)
Click to expand...
Sure. It's also possible to accept it. It's also possible to simply not have an opinion. (Like my take on Louis XIV furniture, or Khloe Khardashian's political views.)
 
James R said:
This thread isn't about atheism or sideshowbob's personal beliefs. However...
Click to expand...

A thread doesn’t have to be about atheism, to mention atheism.

James R said:
You don't seem to get it. If somebody rejects God, or accepts it, he or she implicitly acknowledges that it exists. If it doesn't exist, there's nothing to accept or reject.
Click to expand...

So it is simple, you don’t accept God. Now does that mean there is no God for you to accept. Or does it mean there is a God, but you don’t accept.

If the former then I have been right all along, in that for you the atheist there is no God for you to accept.
If the latter then you just simply disbelieve in God.Either way you have to convince yourself

James R said:
We get it. You're confused as what atheism means, because you've never really considered the possibility that your God doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...

There is nothing confusing about atheism, because either way there is no God, which is, how and why you are atheist.

“God doesn’t exist” is an atheist perspective, because they are atheist. You seem to be of the unfortunate opinion that atheism is the only fo

James R said:
It follows, in your thinking, that atheists can only, therefore, be "in denial" of an established truth.
Click to expand...

It is simply a matter of common sense.
There are theists and atheists. Theists believe in, and accept God. Atheists don’t. What follows is what is based on those two positions.

Because for you there is no God it is not hard for you to contemplate that God does not exist, because for you, there is no God. Do you understand that ?

James R said:
The real position is that your Truth is not established to the satisfaction of atheists. They don't reject your God. They don't deny your God. There's no good evidence that your God is substantial enough to be capable of acceptance or denial.
Click to expand...

The truth is hidden in the fact that you need to be satisfied by explanations, in order establish if, your there is no God position, is a valid one.
Name one theist who was persuaded by satisfactory explanations. Seriously, go on you tube, look at some videos by former atheists, and see if that is the case. They will, almost, all tell you they were kidding themselves. That God is always there, but they chose not to see.

Your “there’s no good evidence” is simply a standard excuse. As an atheist you can not know God. For that you have to stop. When you stop, then you can know God.

Jan.
 
billvon said:
Then why do Bible translations use the words interchangeably?

Once again, you are beaten by simply posting the text from the Bible. When your greatest enemy in an argument is the Bible, you might not want to hew to it all that closely. From your own post - "you have to accept what is written."
Click to expand...

If the religionists were to even question the idea that A+E were not the first ever humans, it would throw the current Christian ideals under the bus.

It would mean that God isn’t exclusively Christian. It would mean we could learn about God from all the scriptures in the world. A+E need to be the first ever humans for current Christianity to work.

Jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top