Of course it is. And it's a bad one, with insertions to fix the parts you don't like.It’s not an interpretation.
They don't seem to comprehend that "him" in Genesis 1 is singular.They simply comprehend what they are reading
But I'm not a Christian, and neither are most of the posters in this thread. We have no vested interest in agreeing with the Christians. We just happen to agree on what Genesis plainly says.Because Christianity is a religious institute, and you have to agree with its doctrine, in order to remainin it.
Of course it does, in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.In no part of any scripture, does it say that Adam and Eve were the first ever humans, or the origin of the human race.
And also:
1 Corinthians 15:45 - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
And also:Isaiah 43:27 - Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me.
(relating the "first father" - i.e. the original human - with the sin of Adam in Genesis 3.Indeed, the Bible is wrong about the biology and the history. But that doesn't change what the story actually says. You can't change the story to shoehorn it into biology and history.Nothing in our current existence, be it religious, science, or philosophy, even remotely validates that belief, other than its belief.
For the same reason that I'm convinced that Goldilocks and the Three Bears has talking bears in it - because that's what the story says. And that's how we know the story is fiction.As an atheist, why are you so convinced that any scripture even remotely gives this idea.