Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

[Write4U]

Wow. I did not know that. I was not aware Islam was so strict.

I admit this came from a news flash in regard to the Taliban in Afghanistan and probably was a local phenomenon, but Iran has an active standing morality police. Just like the Inquisition in old Europe.

Who they are: Iran has had various forms of "morality police" since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but the Gasht-e Ershad are currently the main agency tasked enforcing Iran's Islamic code of conduct in public.

Their focus is on ensuring observance of hijab - mandatory rules requiring women to cover their hair and bodies and discouraging cosmetics.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36101150

Apparently they fill a role in daily Iranian society.

 

[mmatt9876]

Is the story of Adam and Eve a story shared by all Abrahamic faiths?

 

[mmatt9876]

I admit this came from a news flash in regard to the Taliban in Afghanistan, but Iran has an active standing morality police. Just like the Inquisition in old Europe.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36101150

Apparently they fill a role in daily Iranian society.

Religion can be a harsh thing at times.

 

[Write4U]

Religion can be a harsh thing at times.

No sh.t!
More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other justification. How's that for "God loves you"?

 

[mmatt9876]

No sh.t!
More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other justification.

Many people overlook that.

 

[Write4U]

Whatever his or her name was, the very first human had 23 chromosomes, whereas all other hominids have 24 chromosomes.
The "fused chromosome" is a genetic mutation which distinguishes humans from other hominids.

All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

If we could find a site which had fossils of 24 chromosomal hominids and one or more fossils of 23 chromosomal hominids (first humans), we'd know that would be the site of origin of the human species. At that time we would not know the difference between the newly split species, the actual physical and social divergence happened much more slowly.

 

[mmatt9876]

Whatever his or her name was, the very first human had 23 chromosomes, whereas all other hominids have 24 chromosomes.
The "fused chromosome" is what distinguishes humans from other hominids.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Very interesting. I did not know that. I read this shows evidence of a common ancestry between 24 chromosome apes and 23 chromosome humans, with the fused Human Chromosome 2, if I am right.

 

[Write4U]

Very interesting. I did not know that. I read this shows evidence of a common ancestry between 24 chromosome apes and 23 chromosome humans, with the fused Human Chromosome 2, if I am right.

Yes, the 24 chromosome hominids continued to become the modern great apes except for humans who emerged when they split from the ancestral 24 chromosome line through a mutative fusion between two small chromosomes into a single larger chromosome.
note; there was no loss in chromosome potential, there was a fusion of two potentials into a combined greater single potential for ..... brain growth?

From my own speculation; imagine in the 24 chromosomes hominid there would be two stop growth commands in some brain growth function, which might have limited the brainsize to as they appear today in the great apes.
OTOH, chromosome two has only one stop growth command and allows for a continued growth function in brain size which is the single thing that sets us functionally apart.

All other differences have evolved after the split occurred. Some apes perfected tree life (orangutang,tree people), some ground life (lowland gorilla), some very opportunistic and versatile (chimpanzees, bonobos).

Humans lost their hair and stood straight upright and with their bigger brains invented lots of stuff.

Koko The Gorilla Dies; Redrew The Lines Of Animal-Human Communication
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/6221...edrew-the-lines-of-animal-human-communication

p.s. Koko, I miss your wonderful humor and felt your grief when you lost "all ball".

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

That shift to the Religion subforum actually becomes relevant here, anyway, because inasmuch as you might have had anything to say about theists, and I can think of a few others on that point, too, the thing that doesn't make sense is the pretense of atheism intending to muck things up even worse. For instance, remember, you are the one who requires the trolls you and other people complain about. Whatever else you might think of my or any other expectation of rationality from the people ostensibly complaining on behalf of rational discourse, you are the one who requires the presence of those you and others complain about. So, now we have the address of, what, an irrational evangelist. As I said, before: We know about the theists, but what is anybody else's excuse?

I don't dispute that I choose to confront what I regard as certain irrationalities on this site. I also do not dispute that we at sciforums do not, as a matter of course, simply ban those whom we might regard as irrational. It sounds like you would like to move policy in that direction.

You say I "complain about" certain people. There are complaints and there are complaints. Yes, I might well "complain" about irrational arguments in the context of a debate, for example, where "complain" means pointing out the irrationality and continuing the discussion. On the other hand, if I "complain" about disruptive trolls, spammers or people who refuse to abide by our site rules, that is a different kind of complaint. I don't engage those people in debates; I act as a forum moderator.

You are not obliged to engage the irrational in debate, any more than I am. You can choose which discussions you want to participate in as a member of this community, and which ones you feel are a waste of your time or attention. In a debate, you can "complain" about debating tactics and irrational arguments. In that case, you "require" a target of your complaints no less than anybody else engaged in a debate.

When it comes to the legitimate challenges, for instance, involving Christianity in the United States—a subject I believe we included in our consideration of what people know about what they criticize—the boots on the ground reality is that a bunch of solipsistic evangelical atheists like this wouldn't actually be helpful, most likely encouraging deeper entrenchment among the most problematic of religionists. This ought to be obvious in consideration of who people seem to think they're dealing with. The tenor of discussion presumes religious people are ¿just how stupid?, yet two-bit fallacies for the sake of satisfaction are expected to compel what reaction? The one thing the evangelical atheist accomplishes by screwing up in favor of satisfaction is to reaffirm these superstitious, allegedly not too bright people's distrust of atheism, infidels, and other transgressions against their religious faith.

Sure, but aren't you overlooking the behaviours of the theists in your rush to criticise certain atheists? It's usually not the case that our resident theists are bringing sophisticated religious arguments to the table for debate, after all. If the theists act just how stupid, are we to take them seriously, or are we better off looking to their motives and what they hope to get out of the interaction? It's a natural reaction for people to dig in when they feel threatened - and sometimes to lash out in anger.

Compared to concerns some might describe about theists and the harm religion causes, the inability of atheists to hold their own while flipping shit at what should be a fairly easy target is grotesque. The whole bit with serpents and snakes is ridiculous...

From my point of view, I'd say the atheists, in pointing out the ridiculous extent that some theists will go to in order to defend the indefensible, are holding their own quite adequately.

Still, though, say what you will about theists. To the one, Jan actually has a couple points were we to take the question seriously, but, to the other, he doesn't take reality seriously enough to know what to do with them; to the beeblebrox, I don't feel like writing the creationist tale on this occasion.

Like you, I am often surprised at the apparent inability of our theists to make their own case in the best way. A lot of the time, I could write their arguments better than they do. I think it often comes from their being embarrassed to admit what they really believe. It's almost like they are ashamed to own their own beliefs in the presence of atheists. I don't know why that is.

It's not so much a point of laughing off what seems a silly and even digressive inquiry. If the smarter people really are that smart, they already know that answering the question constrains them to particular rhetorical limits by establishing an actual argumentative position. Such as it is, talking snakes is part of a weird straw man, an imposed pseudoliteralism tracking back to post number two.

As I see it, Jan Ardena is arguing for the literal truth of the Garden of Eden story. The talking snake is part of that story, so it's not exactly as straw man. If Jan doesn't believe in the talking snake, then he is not being consistent if he insists on the literal truth of the narrative as a whole.

More to our microtragedy, though, is the promotion of lazy, ignorant disrespect as some manner of solution or, at least, useful response to the problems caused by extraordinary superstition.

I'm no fan of lazy, ignorant disrespect either. In a thread about how the bible is to be interpreted, it's lazy and disrespectful to try to send the argument off on a tangent that debates again the existence of God, for instance. Yet we see that kind of thing on both sides of the discussion (i.e. from theists and atheists).

The main point at issue in this thread appears to be whether, according to the bible, Adam and Eve were the first humans. To discuss the matter in any reasonable way, it must be understood that what is being discussed is the most sustainable reading of a story, not whether that story actually reports on events that happened in reality. That is a separate discussion. The opening post is clearly framed as a discussion about biblical interpretation.

However, even the theists have been unable to stick to the ostensible topic of the thread, so the discussion has spun out into a debate over whether the story is literally true, among other things. Of course, if you happen to be a theist who believes that the story is literally true, then the "correct" interpretation of the story does take on some real-world significance.

To the other, site administration promotes that lazy, ignorant disrespect, despite pretending the rules, including rational discourse, are somehow still in effect. In practice, people have no real reason to behave any better toward the serially irrational people they complain about but site administration insists must be allowed to continue to behave poorly.

It sounds like you want to move policy in the direction of editing or censoring the content of posts to enforce a subjective standard of "rational discourse", as determined by you (primarily) on a case-by-case basis. You ought to understand by now why I am wary of starting down that kind of path.

Sometimes a ministry itself is less dangerous than its congregation, but this version of it is, truly, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever witnessed. Antisociality is not a virtue.

Unfortunately, it is a depressingly common human trait, and we're stuck with it. Typically, it goes along with a misplaced sense of entitlement and self-importance.

Think of a weird honor among thieves thing: I generally know what to expect of cheap, self-centered evangelism; I also generally know what to expect of antisociality willing to range into harm advocacy; the religious evangelist, on this occasion, is the lesser of dangers in the world.

I don't understand. What harm advocacy are you referring to from atheists on sciforums?

 

[sideshowbob]

More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other justification. How's that for "God loves you"?

The worst of it is that God loves you for killing the people He doesn't love.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Spasebo, fixer.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R

As I see it, Jan Ardena is arguing for the literal truth of the Garden of Eden story. The talking snake is part of that story, so it's not exactly as straw man. If Jan doesn't believe in the talking snake, then he is not being consistent if he insists on the literal truth of the narrative as a whole.

You haven been paying attention James.
My argument is to show that the bible does not say or mean A+E were the first ever humans, from which all other humans come from. So far no one has shown that this is not the case.

Snakes don’t talk, James.
The Serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly.
Snakes already crawl on their belly.
The only people who seriously think the bible means a talking snake, are atheist, secularists, modernists, religionists, and people who try to ridicule Christianity.

Like you, I am often surprised at the apparent inability of our theists to make their own case in the best way.

Either your way, or the highway. Hey James?

A lot of the time, I could write their arguments better than they do.

Maybe you could, but you’re not interested in truth James.

I think it often comes from their being embarrassed to admit what they really believe.

We believe in God, James.
It seems you cannot get your head around simple truth.

It's almost like they are ashamed to own their own beliefs in the presence of atheists. I don't know why that is.

Please put a ‘Do not drink while reading this’ sign up.
Are atheists narcissists?
Theists believe in God

The main point at issue in this thread appears to be whether, according to the bible, Adam and Eve were the first humans.

Congratulations!

Can you alter the OP title from ‘We’re’ to ‘Were’?

However, even the theists have been unable to stick to the ostensible topic of the thread,

“Atheism” is very much at the heart of the misunderstanding of the bible, and as such, is not a topic change for me.
Have you noticed how the atheists cannot accept what the bible actually says, and means?
Have you noticed they adamantly go with the undocumented belief?
It’s funny how “smartness” is modernly asociated with “modern atheism”. Yet somehow they can’t bring themselves to admit that the bible doesn’t support to the first two people ever belief. Where’s your critical thinking now?
Atheism (not club or institute), lies at the heart of these attitudes.

so the discussion has spun out into a debate overwhether the story is literally true,

The atheists keep wanting to take it there.
I’ve already stated we are not discussing whether or not it is literally true.

Of course, if you happen to be a theist who believes that the story is literally true, then the"correct" interpretation of the story does take onsome real-world significance.

We need to wake up from the belief, see what the bible actually states, then we can decide if we believe it is true. Are you down with that?

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

It does if you read it literally.

No it doesn’t. Stop lying.
The only time reference for the creation of the Earth, is, “In the beginning”.

Scholars have gone through and added up all the ages claimed in the Bible (like Adam's 930 years) and come up with times between Biblical creation and recorded history (like the crucifixion of Christ.)

Based on the belief that A+E were the first ever people, a claim the Bible, Torah, or Quran, does not make. They are backing up one lie, with another.

Because people don't live 930 years in reality.

They don’t today. But how can you be so sure it was so in the very ancient past?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

No it doesn’t. Stop lying.

I gave you two theologians who have done the math. Hundreds have done so, and been believed. In a 2017 poll, 65% of people who attended a protestant church regularly believed that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

The only time reference for the creation of the Earth, is, “In the beginning”.

Yep. Before that there is nothing - no Earth, no Sun, no sky. (Per the Bible.) And six days later, the Earth and all its creatures existed. That 'starts the clock.'

Based on the belief that A+E were the first ever people, a claim the Bible, Torah, or Quran, does not make.

Genesis 1:27 NKJV: So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
1 Timothy 2: For Adam was formed first, then Eve
1 Corinthians 15: The first man Adam became a living soul

They don’t today. But how can you be so sure it was so in the very ancient past?

Because the fossils we have of ancient man show shorter than modern-day lifespans based on bone growth patterns.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

You haven been paying attention James.

Yes I have.

My argument is to show that the bible does not say or mean A+E were the first ever humans, from which all other humans come from. So far no one has shown that this is not the case.

See my posts on your pre-Adamite position earlier in the thread. You must have skipped over those.

Snakes don’t talk, James.

The bible doesn't say that they didn't talk back in the Garden of Eden days.

The Serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly.
Snakes already crawl on their belly.

The bible doesn't say that snakes crawled on their bellies before God cursed the "serpent".

The only people who seriously think the bible means a talking snake, are atheist, secularists, modernists, religionists, and people who try to ridicule Christianity.

Perhaps now would be a good time for you to explain to all of us the difference between a "serpent" and a snake, as well as what the "serpent" in the Genesis story was, exactly. That serpent, by the way, definitely talked, as is clear from the bible.

Either your way, or the highway. Hey James?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

We believe in God, James.
It seems you cannot get your head around simple truth.

A silly and failed attempt to obfuscate once again, Jan. I've never once questioned that you believe in your God, and you know that. It's the single most visible aspect of your persona on this forum; you make sure everybody knows this, above all else. How could anybody here fail to get their head around it?

It's really easy to repeat the mantra of "I believe in God" over and over, and maybe to convince yourself that means something. But what do you really believe? What's the content of your belief system?

You believe in the Big Guy in the Sky, okay, but then we get this thread where we find that you also believe in that the Genesis story is literally true, provided of course that you get to determine what it "literally" means.

Can you understand that I'm interested in probing behind that shield you erect, with your vague and shifting belief "in God"? In particular, I'm interested in discovering the empirical beliefs that follow from your metaphysical beliefs.

Your God belief is not that interesting to me in and of itself. When it leads you to rationalise facts like evolution away, however, then I become interested, particularly in the psychology and the mindset behind it all. I'm interested in the lengths you need to go to in order to maintain a minimum level of cognitive dissonance that leaves you comfortable in your belief system. I'm also interested in the lengths you are willing to go to in order to try to defend your beliefs in the face of common sense and widely accepted facts.

In this particular case, we have opened up another can of worms to discover that you actually need to fight mainstream Christian beliefs in order to prop up your own peculiar interpretation of the bible.

I don't know much about the Hari Krishnas, but do they all believe as you do?

Are atheists narcissists?

Where did that come from? I'm sure some of them are. What of it?

Can you alter the OP title from ‘We’re’ to ‘Were’?

I already did that long before you asked. Didn't you notice?

“Atheism” is very much at the heart of the misunderstanding of the bible, and as such, is not a topic change for me.

Nah. I think that atheists understand the bible just fine. They just don't believe that it's infallible, like you do. They recognise it was written by human beings, and that its main aims have nothing to do with historical accuracy or objective truth.

Have you noticed how the atheists cannot accept what the bible actually says, and means?

What it says is one thing. What it means is very much up for debate.

Your complaint is that atheists don't bow down to your preferred "meaning". That's all.

Have you noticed they adamantly go with the undocumented belief?

Like the majority of mainstream Christians do, you mean?

Do you think the bible should be studied in isolation, apart from the religions that take it as their foundational text? Surely how Christians or Jews interpret the bible is relevant to determining its meaning? No?

It’s funny how “smartness” is modernly asociated with “modern atheism”.

Is it? In that case, you have to wonder if there's some truth behind the stereotype.

Yet somehow they can’t bring themselves to admit that the bible doesn’t support to the first two people ever belief. Where’s your critical thinking now?

Most of the people who take the bible as their sacred text say the opposite to what you say - at least the ones who, like you, insist that the text is to be taken as the literal historical truth. On that basis, I think the problem of bringing yourself to admit things is more at your end than at theirs.

Atheism (not club or institute), lies at the heart of these attitudes.

Atheists don't get to determine the mainstream interpretation of the bible, though, if for no other reason than sheer force of numbers. So it's a bit precious of you to claim that atheists are the problem. You need to take your fight to the mainstream fundamentalist Christians. It seems your main argument is with them, not with atheists, on this.

The atheists keep wanting to take it there.
I’ve already stated we are not discussing whether or not it is literally true.

Then you'll agree that there are many different interpretations, and we can leave it there. We needn't worry about which interpretation is to be preferred because, not being literally true, nothing important hinges on the "correctness" of one person's interpretation of the story over another person's. Right?

We need to wake up from the belief, see what the bible actually states, then we can decide if we believe it is true. Are you down with that?

The problem is that "what the bible actually states" is inextricably tied up with the way you choose to interpret it. Interpretation fills in the gaps that aren't part of the literal text. Hence the endless arguments about the age of the Earth as "given in the bible", to take just one example.

What you really need to do is to wake up from the belief and see the bible for what it is: a set of texts deliberately written and selected by human beings in order to convey a particular set of values, a particular version of history, a particular mythology. You get all bogged down because you start from the position that the bible must in some way be "true" to your religion. If it doesn't seem to be, on the face of it, then you selectively interpret it to match your beliefs. You ignore some parts completely. You enhance some parts and downplay others. You label some parts as metaphor or story, while insisting that other parts represent historical fact. You play with the meanings of words to make them say what you want them to say. You read between the lines, inserting your own beliefs into the gaps in the text.

The bible is no different than Moby Dick. What is means is nowhere stated explicitly in the text. The reader extracts meaning. Different readers take away different things, although over time a majority consensus does tend to develop about "the meaning". There are always minority dissenters.

Moreover, if you're interested in historical truth, you need to investigate more widely than looking at one particular text. If you really want to know how human life developed on Earth, for example, it's no good just reading the bible, no matter how holy you think it is. It's not a complete record. It's not a complete explanation. It isn't even correct about lots of things.

Similarly, if you want to know what whaling was like in the 1800s, you need to read more widely than Moby Dick. It isn't a complete record. It's not correct about lots of things. No matter how great a novel you think it is, it isn't the be all and end all on the subject of whaling.

 

[James R]

By the way, Jan, you skipped over this, from earlier in the thread:

"And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being" (1 Corinthians 15:45).

How do you reconcile Paul's words that Adam was the first man with your reading of Genesis? Was Paul wrong? Is there a mistake in 1 Corinthians 15:45?

Note Paul's words, by the way. He claims "it is written". What source do you think Paul is referring to there? Where did he think it was written? Was Paul wrong? If so, why did God allow Paul's mistaken words into his Holy Bible?

Please explain.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@bilvon

I gave you two theologians who have done the math.

You could have given a million theologians doing the math. They have no basis for their calculations. Unless they star with the belief that A+E were the first folk.

Hundreds have done so, and been believed. In a 2017 poll, 65% of people who attended a protestant church regularly believed that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Like you said, they (and you) accept and b

Yep. Before that there is nothing - no Earth, no Sun, no sky. (Per the Bible.) And six days later, the Earth and all its creatures existed. That 'starts the clock.'

The Bible says nothing of the sort.

Genesis 1:27 NKJV: So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

I can only assume you’re not prepared to accept that “man” is translated from the word “Adam” which refers to “mankind”, which is obviously plural. I can also assume you have no interest in making sense of the Bible. I would go as far as to say that you have a vested interest in the documents not making sense.

1 Timothy 2: For Adam was formed first, then Eve

A
The bible does state this. Adam was formed first.

1 Corinthians 15: The first man Adam became aliving soul

The first of the linage leading to the birth of Jesus.

Adam was the first, and Jesus was the last.
Why do you only quote half the verse, when the whole verse is needed to gain a greater understanding.

The subject matter, in the context of that verse, is talking about the different stages of the body.
The material body, and the spiritual body.
The material body is corrupt, and corruptible.
The spiritual body, the body that is raised in resurrection, is neither corrupt or corruptible.

This was an explanation to a question, which was...

1Co 15:35 - But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come.

Another point to note is the verse where Paul remarks...

1Co 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

It seems Adam was the first patriarch of a whole race of people.

It is scientifically understood that the white race came on the scene a lot later than say, the African, and other primitive (as in the first) races.
I think Adam was the origin of the white race. This makes sense as another meaning of the term “Adam” describes a person of ruddy (red) complexion, through showing blood, in the face.
Obviously there has been mixing with the darker races, producing a kind of olive to dark complexion of people in those regions. And some have remained pure.

James, if you read this, hopefully it explains the same query you raised in your most recent post to me.

Because the fossils we have of ancient man show shorter than modern-day lifespans based on bone growth patterns.

I wouldn’t know about that.
I think what we term as “modern man”, has been around for millions of years, not just 200 thousand or so years, cited by modern scientists.

Jan.

 

[billvon]

You could have given a million theologians doing the math. They have no basis for their calculations.

I just explained the calculations. Did you not understand?

Unless they star with the belief that A+E were the first folk.

Doesn't matter. Even if one takes your magical "God created a whole lot of other people secretly" thing seriously, the timeline from Adam and Eve through Noah all the way to Jacob is pretty clear - 2255 years, through simple math. Then there is the Exodus in 2266. 480 years later the Temple is built, and it stood for 430 years. Then some time later (exact timing disputed) Jesus is born. A common theological belief is that there is a great cycle (4000 years) between Creation and the year 164 BC, when the Temple was re-dedicated by the Maccabees.

Again, people quibble over those details. But they are arrived at by simply adding up numbers in the Bible and making assumptions on things like when people have their first child.

ep. Before that there is nothing - no Earth, no Sun, no sky. (Per the Bible.)

The Bible says nothing of the sort.

Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.

Again, if your arguments are so trivially defeated by quoting the actual Bible - perhaps find new arguments?

I can also assume you have no interest in making sense of the Bible. I would go as far as to say that you have a vested interest in the documents not making sense.

NO ONES version of the Bible makes sense. Not the real version, not your screwed up fantasy version. It is not a science book. It is not a history book. It is a transcript of an oral history spreading back over thousands of years. It doesn't make sense any more than The Iliad does. Doesn't mean either is worthless - just that they don't make any literal sense.

The bible does state this. Adam was formed first.

You recently stated "There is no reason to conclude that A+E were the first ever humans." I guess now you conclude that you were wrong.

Let's hope you apply that level of introspection to the rest of your nonsense!

 

[Write4U]

Perhaps now would be a good time for you to explain to all of us the difference between a "serpent" and a snake, as well as what the "serpent" in the Genesis story was, exactly. That serpent, by the way, definitely talked, as is clear from the bible.

I'd be very interested also.....

 

[Write4U]

Do you think the bible should be studied in isolation, apart from the religions that take it as their foundational text? Surely how Christians or Jews interpret the bible is relevant to determining its meaning? No?

Lewis Black's Christian interpreting the Tanakh (Old Testament)