I truly believe that Adam and Eve didn't physically pick an apple off a tree and eat it, it's symbolic. And, what really happened was the serpent beguiled them into sex and so then they figured out they were naked. Am I the only one? I have a hard time finding people who were taught this way,too.

I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home and was never taught that it was an apple or the sex-beguiling thing. If that was someone's teaching, that someone tweaked the story as they wanted to in order to mess with someone else's head. A careful reading of the first three chapters of Genesis refutes that.

Some churches interpret the Adam and Eve story as literal. Other churches say it's just a story that teaches a lesson.

The apple could have more likely been a fig from everything I was taught.
Like, for one thing, if they were near apple trees why did they cover themselves with fig leaves WHEN they 'saw they were naked'?
People say apple simply because it is appealing to the eye and taste.

Genesis 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (no mention of apple)

1 john 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.
Between Two Worlds: Powlison on Lusts of the Flesh: Question 1 (http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/03/powlison-on-lusts-of-flesh-question-1.html)

Adam and Eve very well were having sex before they "knew they were naked". Sex was not the sin or a sin with them since God DID create them as man and woman for each other.
Their eyes open and saw they were naked simply means they then KNEW things like embarrassment and their sinlessness nature was no longer existent.

Sex was taught by many religious people to be sinful and dirty even in marriage but the Bible never taught it was sin within marriage.

I think people focus too much on the fruit anyway. The fruit is not the point whether it was truly a fruit or whether it was symbolic. Some people wonder what was so bad about eating a piece of fruit. "Come on it was just a piece of fruit." The fruit is not the point, the point was disobeying God.

The apple could have more likely been a fig leaf from everything I was taught.

Nobody's going to tempt ME to eat a fig leaf!

Not a fig leaf > a fig
Need to edit:D

Not a fig leaf > a fig
need to edit:D

OMG! Thank you! Aren't they poisonous?

Hey! That would be a great interpretation of the story! The fig leaf that Adam and Eve ate poisoned all of mankind foreverafter.

First as I believe was noted the bible no where says it was an apple, merely a fruit. But no, sex would have been a natural ( not a sin or a dirty act) it was merely a part of nature created by God for all animals and man and even reproduction of plants and all.
No where did it way that reproduction was evil or some sin, ( that sounds like like too many years of catholic school)

In fact I fully believe that they had children prior to being sent out of the garden but it was not mentioned since it had no effect on the story of creation and the sin of mankind. My reason for that was part of the punishment was for eve to have pain in child birth, not much of a punishment if she had not known no pain in child birth before.

But as noted it was an act of disobeying God. And that action allowed adam and eve to know what sin was, and with sin, guilt and with guilt shame.

There are meny things about gen. that is said to be one way and is not. Was adam created in the garden or was he created and placed into the garden. Where there two sets of people. Gen5 .god created them male and female he created them in our likeness. Then he sleeps and on the 8th day he created adam. What of enock. What about the nefelm. Didn't Jesus free one of legion. There are meny terifing things in the bible. Who did cain have children with in the land of nod.

was adam created in the garden or was he created and placed into the garden.

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. Gen. 2.


on the 8th day he created adam

On the 7th day God rested, so he must have created Adam on the 6th day.


what of enock

What about Enoch?


what about the nefelm

You mean the Nephi? That's in the Book of Mormon.


didn't Jesus free one of legion.

Please give a reference.


who did cain have children with in the land of nod.

Genesis doesn't tell us EVERYthing. We don't know Cain's children's names either.

Where did the land of Nod come from? Who lived in it?

You mean the Nephi? That's in the Book of Mormon.



I think he means the Nephilim

Notes on the Nephilim: The Giants of Old (http://www.ldolphin.org/nephilim.html)

I truly believe that Adam and Eve didn't physically pick an apple off a tree and eat it, it's symbolic. And, what really happend was the serpent beguiled them into sex and so then they figured out they were naked. Am I the only one? I have a hard time finding people who were taught this way,too.

Normally, I try to stay out of these things. But the total illogic of this question prompted me to respond. How can you truly believe that the apple was symbolic but the serpent was not?

The whole story is symbolism, In my opinion. It seeks to explain how sin and evil came to be in the world. God, in his beneficence, created an idyllic setting for his creations. But he laid down certain rules. Because Eve defied those rules, man lost the idyliic setting. The lesson of Adam and Eve is simply that defying God doesn't pay. The fine points if the story matter not. At least that's my opinion, You can disagree, rake me over the coals or whatever, but there is no hard and fast proof one way or the other.

Oh and by the way. This has nothing to do with Christianity directly. The story of Adam and Eve is from Genesis the first book of the OLD Testament. The Old Testament is part of Judaism, Chrsitianity AND Islam.

This has nothing to do with Christianity directly.

Yeah, it does. It's the whole reason for Jesus' appearance in the NT. Check Gen. 3:15.

I will put enmity between you and the woman,
And between your offspring [1] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+3.15#f1) and her offspring;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise his heel.”

What does that have to do with Jesus?

But again I say that it has nothing DIRECTLY to do with Christianity. This is part of the Old Testament and is therefore universal to all three major religions that stem from the Old Testament. Whether any part of Genesis refers to the coming of a messiah or not doesn't change the fact that the Book of Genesis is common to all three.

What does that have to do with Jesus?

According to most Protestant denominations, Gen. 3:15 is the first promise of the Savior, God making a way out for the mess Adam and Eve had caused.

"The Lord God said to the serpent..."I will put enmity between your seed [Satan] and her seed [Eve's descendant, Jesus]; he [Jesus] shall bruise your [Satan's] head, and you [Satan] shall bruise his [Jesus'] heel."

I love these types of debates and questions. It promotes us all to think of God and our beginning. There are many stores. Adam with another woman in some belifes. The issues of relationship. Where did we come from. It is amazing. Gen. is a story passed down thrue the jewes traditions. I don't know about islam. And christian. Some say that if you look at the part where they (Moses) refused to kill the inhabitins of the promise land is where the islam faith came from. The lovers of Bal. christians are jews that believe the mesiah has come. Sorry about the spelling. Yes it was the Nephilim. From gen. What I meant about Enoch was is he the first emortel. For he walked with God and was no more. Did not say died. Every one else seas died. And there is outhers. About the blood line of cain it is almost as well documented as the blood line of sethh. Even saying that music , blacksmithing and many more things came from them. About the fruit. As trans lations have come and gone I believe the original text red fruit. Not fig or apple. The fruit of good and evil. But it is a cech 22 if she did not eat of the fruit then she would not know that what she did was wrong. God merly said fruit bad don't tuch. How meny of us can get away with that with our own children or our self.

How can you truly beleive that the apple was symbolic but the serpent was not?

The whole story is symbolism, IMHO. It seeks to explain how sin and evil came to be in the world.

Thank you.

And in the name of the religions that each took their own direction after that explanation, so much hatred to others has followed that it seems that the world would have been better served to realize that man's animalistic nature makes him want things his way at the expense of others... as in survival of the fittest. But then evolution is probably a dirty word in this discussion. Funny how even religions experience an evolution process.

According to most Protestant denominations, Gen. 3:15 is the first promise of the Savior,

That's an awful lot of filling in the blanks that may not even exist. But even conceding that the connection might be accurate. Genesis is part of the Old Testament which makes it applicable to all three of the big 3 religions, not just Christianity.

That's an awful lot of filling in the blanks that may not even exist. But even conceding that the connection might be accurate. Genesis is part of the Old Testament which makes it applicable to all three of the big 3 religions, not just Christianity.

Those are the blanks that Protestantism fills in in the way I described. The Catholic Church interprets it the same way: CATHOLIC BIBLE: Genesis 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen003.htm).

Throughout the OT are similar promises of the Savior that are handed down from one generation to another--thus all the turmoil, such as Jacob stealing Esau's birthright, and the lineages of Jesus that at the beginning of the NT.

If you ever have an opportunity, please take an overview course of the Bible to see how the two testaments fit together and how the entire Bible has one big message: Jesus Christ and his two commandments to love God and love one another.

I never said Genesis is not applicable to those three religions. I was telling you what the Adam and Eve story, and that verse in particular, means to Christianity.

You are missing my point. I'm not, in any way, disputing the connection of the Old Testament to the New. Or saying that the story of Adam and Eve has no bearing on Christianity.

What I'm saying is, since the Old Testament is common to Judiasm, Christianity and Islam, that any question or discussion of Adam and Eve is not specific to any one of those religions. That is a point of fact, not subject interpretation or opinion.

Yes, ScottGem. You are correct.

That's an awful lot of filling in the blanks that may not even exist.

But you did say the above which got my juices up.

This is in response to Wondergirl's "filling in the blanks" as ScottGem puts it. Wondergirl, you say that Protestantism teaches that Genesis 3:15 is the first mention of the Savior. I am Lutheran, one branch of Protestantism, and have never been taught that. Like ScottGem, I see nothing about the Savior in that first. Of course there are hints of the Savior in the OT but I also don't find them in that verse. Maybe you can tell us specifically which branch of Protestantism you are referring to, as there are many.

It actually is in symbolism between Adam and Christ, but you are correct it is not used in all branches of Christianity. And as you say Lutheran, there are seveal types of Lutherans from Mo Synd, WI Wynd, American Luterhan and a dozen more. Each one has very specific teachings.

And sadly I know in the Mo Synd, most of its members know little about a lot of its real teachings sadly. So much of Luthers teaching are never talked about much.

This is in response to Wondergirl's "filling in the blanks" as ScottGem puts it. Wondergirl, you say that Protestantism teaches that Genesis 3:15 is the first mention of the Savior. I am Lutheran, one branch of Protestantism, and have never been taught that. Like ScottGem, I see nothing about the Savior in that first. Of course there are hints of the Savior in the OT but I also don't find them in that verse. Maybe you can tell us specifically which branch of Protestantism you are referring to, as there are many.

I was born Lutheran, my father was a Lutheran minister, I attended a Lutheran college and took a number of doctrine courses, and have always been taught that Gen. 3:15 means exactly that, no matter which congregation I belonged to and who was the minister. Please check with your pastor.

It actually is in symbolism between Adam and Christ, but you are correct it is not used in all branches of Christianity. And as you say Lutheran, there are seveal types of Lutherans from Mo Synd, WI Wynd, American Luterhan and a dozen more. Each one has very specific teachings.

And sadly I know in the Mo Synd, most of its members know little about alot of its real teachings sadly. So much of Luthers teaching are never talked about much.

If you call pastors who are in each synod, I'm betting you will find out they agree about Gen. 3:15.

Why on earth do you say Luther's teachings are never talked about much? His disagreement with the Catholic Church is the foundation of the Reformation and the basis of what you believe if you are Protestant.

This is grate! The fact is every religion ties into adam and eve. Because it is fact. We have people that read the bible and love God. We each see the meseg that God wants us to see at the level of understanding at wich we are. I read a story from the bible to my dauter(6) and she sees what is at her level of understanding when I look at the same storry I may see something different. But it is beautiful to see God true the eyes of a child. Some say that God only brote hate and anger to this world fighting and killing over one name or the outher. There types of people in this world thouse that can hold strong to there faith and learn and become inriched, and thouse that say that there is no more to a subject matter and become violent when they here things that does not conform with the abc programing in there head. It is amazing that hear on a question and answer bord we all love to grow and become more.

Gen. 3:15 is the first promise of the Savior, God making a way out for the mess Adam and Eve had caused.

"The Lord God said to the serpent..."I will put enmity between your seed [Satan] and her seed [Eve's descendant, Jesus]; he [Jesus] shall bruise your [Satan's] head, and you [Satan] shall bruise his [Jesus'] heel."

I agree with you wondergirl but I was never taught about Gen 3:15 in the churches when I was growing up. I realized that and how Christianity prevalent is to and in the Old Testament when I accepted Jesus in my 20's and read it for myself.
But as Wayne says some are content at where they are with their understanding. But too that can be good because sometimes it takes a child's eyes to see things we often over look.

how Christianity is prevalent to and in the Old Testament

The Old Testament is full of stories of people failing and God forgiving. In effect, the NT Gospel is very much a part of the OT Law, and is always the better way to live--our being bound by Love and not by Rules.

Throughout the OT is the birthright thing, the oldest son inheriting the family fortune PLUS the promise that the hoped-for Savior (first promised in Gen. 3) will come through his lineage. Isaiah is especially full of prophecies of this Savior who will restore the Jewish nation. Unfortunately, many of the Jews both in the OT and in the New believed the Savior was going to be a political figure who would free the nation from the Romans or whoever their captors were and establish them in the land that God had promised to Abram in Gen. 12. The Jews are still waiting for their Savior; the Christians believe he has come, and not for political purposes.

It doesn't get more complicated than that.

Yes, it does when one reads the entire Bible with logic and reason and common sense and openmindedness.

Organized religion does not equal Christianity. Christianity does not equal organized religion.

Again I ask, what did your reading of the Bible from cover to cover tell you about Christianity?

If one is to find any 'moral' in the Adam and Eve fable, it cannot be taken literally, for it is totally contrary to reason on a number of levels. Basically it follows the same pattern of dozens of Creation myths that preceeded it, all of which claim a god or goddess who creates man/mankind out of dirt, dust, mud, clay, spit, or blood....most closely the Egyptian myth of the god Khnum creating man out of clay on a potter's wheel...a myth that would have been very familiar to the Old Testament writers. The entire purpose of the Adam and Eve fable was to point up the 'punishments' awaiting those who disobeyed the commands of Yahweh. It doesn't get more complicated than that.

Are you saying myth to everything but the punishments or do you say punishment is a myth too?
Why do you claim mankind out of dirt is a myth when science has proven humans are made of the same DNA as dirt?

If one is to find any 'moral' in the Adam and Eve fable, it cannot be taken literally

One does not have to take the Adam and Eve story literally in order to find a moral. Aesop's Fables offer real-life morals that you can take to the bank.

Have to spread the rep
Yeah either way true or symbolic the message is the same. Man messed up went against God...

There is nothing symbolic it is literal because God intended adam and eve to have sex because he comanded them to be fruitful and multiply on the earth and the way to to that is by procreating.

I think you missed the point of the discussion. There is no contention about being fruitful and procreation.

Point being the fruit and the serpent literal or figurative...
Procreation being literal is a given

I think it could be both literal and symbolic. I believe Adam and Eve went against God's commands, and I think that the LORD uses symbolism in the Bible.

The Bible is rife with symbolism -- e.g. "the hills clapped their hands" and "the four corners of the earth".

science has proven humans are made out of the same DNA as dirt?
I don't know much about Adam and Eve, but I do know that dirt isn't made of DNA.

I don't know much about Adam and Eve, but I do know that dirt isn't made out of DNA.

I always hear atheists say that bananas, monkeys, humans and dirt all share the same dna to try and prove that man evolved from amoebas to monkeys to humans or whatever it is they believe.
??

I don't know much about Adam and Eve, but I do know that dirt isn't made out of DNA.


Isn't dirt formed by the decay of living organisms? It's called decomposition or some would say composting... No, not all dirt forms that way, but mix it up a bit and its not hard to understand that dirt does have the potential to contain the DNA in cells... That logic doesn't really prove much. If you look for the building blocks of DNA in soil, want to wager as to what you will find?

On the other hand,

"There is nothing symbolic it is literal" seems opinionated. All of the various versions of religious texts seem to have been "given" to some man to share with the rest of the world. If someone today were to write such a book and tell the world it was all based on things that God told them, how many believers would there be?

Oh, lets not forget that the book should say that awful things will happen to those who don't believe, and that it will be acceptable to do awful things to others who don't believe the same way.

I always hear atheists say that bananas, monkeys, humans and dirt all share the same dna to try and prove that man evolved from amoebas to monkeys to humans or whatever it is they believe.
???
Well, see, until you take the time and make the effort to understand what it is that they actually do believe, you won't be very convincing in trying to refute it. Not all atheists are scientists, and not all scientists are atheists, so generalizations are dangerous.

Isn't dirt formed by the decay of living organisms? It's called decomposition or some would say composting.... No, not all dirt forms that way, but mix it up a bit and its not hard to understand that dirt does have the potential to contain the DNA in cells... That logic doesn't really prove much. If you look for the building blocks of DNA in soil, want to wager as to what you will find?
Well, as a scientific term, I'm not sure "dirt" has a precise definition, but I guess in the context of this discussion, I'd say it is the non-living part of soil. SOIL is a mixture of the products of weathering stone and decaying life forms, mainly plants. DNA is a complex molecule found within living organisms that fragments and disintegrates relatively quickly (geologically speaking) after life of the organism ends. Still, a healthy soil is also home to an astounding variety of life-forms, so I'm sure it would be hard to draw a precise line between the living (DNA-containing) and the non-living components of it.


All of the various versions of religious texts seem to have been "given" to some man to share with the rest of the world. If someone today were to write such a book and tell the world it was all based on things that God told them, how many believers would there be?
More than you might think, actually. It's been less than 200 years since Joseph Smith got his revelation, and worldwide membership in the church he founded is now close to 13 million. LDS Newsroom - Statistical Information (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e 94610aRCRD). The Urantia Book (http://www.urantia.org/about.html) has only been around since the fifties, but more than half a million copies in seven languages have been sold.

My impression is that revelations of this sort are coming thick and fast, and there seems to be a market for them. Yes, it's a niche market, but it's big enough to be economically viable, and information technology is continually bringing down the cost of publication and thus threshold of viability. With the internet, print-on-demand, etc. the start-up costs of prophet-hood are falling fast, so we can probably expect lots of new suppliers to enter the market.

Joseph Smith was one of the people I was thinking of as I wrote that post. I lived very near to Kirtland, Ohio for over 10 years which is where Joseph Smith was before the group went west...


How does this sound for a first verse? In the beginning appeared a great light, and that light was Zigbot.

I also had thought of Joseph Smith. I grew up near Palmyra NY where he found the golden plates.

As far as I know, those golden plates are missing or something right? Has anyone else ever seen them? Maybe I'll have to post it in the treasure hunting thread??

I have the plates in my home safe.

Right next to the Holy Grail? Heck, might as well throw in the golden goblet.

Not the Holy Grail. It fell down into a crack in the earth and is gone forever. And I haven't found the Ark yet in that huge warehouse.

I do have the two stones that contain the Ten Commandments. They were too big for my safe, so we set them up in the butterfly garden next to the sundial and the gnome in the back yard.

And here I was just planning an expedition to go and get those stones for my patio. Oh well, I'll just use some gopher wood (when I locate Noah's yaght) to build a deck instead.

When you find that warehouse, let me know, I think they might have a couple of old rugged crosses lying around... somewhere near Peter's sword.

In fact I fully believe that they had children prior to being sent out of the garden but it was not mentioned since it had no effect on the story of creation and the sin of mankind. My reason for that was part of the punishment was for eve to have pain in child birth, not much of a punishment if she had not known no pain in child birth before.

That's an interesting idea I've never heard before. My sister had 6 children and she said none of them hurt when she gave birth. I guess God decided not to punish her for Adam and Eve's sin? (She's had a hard life anyway.)

Fr. Chuck:
Chapter 4 of Genesis makes a point of stating: "And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord." This was AFTER the expulsion from Eden. Since the authors of Genesis placed such import on the FIRST BORN, it would seem rather amiss for them NOT to have recorded any sons born to Adam and Eve before CAIN. It also calls to question Eve's adjunct... "with the help of the Lord"... would previous children have been conceived WITHOUT the help of the Lord??

I believe we are enjoined NOT to add or take away from the bible, are we not?

Fr. Chuck:
Chapter 4 of Genesis makes a point of stating: "And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord." This was AFTER the expulsion from Eden. Since the authors of Genesis placed such import on the FIRST BORN, it would seem rather amiss for them NOT to have recorded any sons born to Adam and Eve before CAIN. It also calls to question Eve's adjunct...."with the help of the Lord"....would previous children have been conceived WITHOUT the help of the Lord?????

I believe we are enjoined NOT to add or take away from the bible, are we not?


True but how do you account for Cain's wife? Where did she come from?
Something HAS to be added... to include his wife since no other women are mentioned before this.
Although I believe you are right it wasn't Eve having other children although I believe she most likely had children after Cain and Able. The Bible talks like his wife came from outside the family.

True but how do you account for Cain's wife? Where did she come from?
Something HAS to be added....to include his wife since no other women are mentioned before this.
although I believe you are right it wasn't Eve having other children although I believe she most likely had children after Cain and Able. The Bible talks like his wife came from outside the family.

Cain's wife is a whole other ball of wax. If taken in it's 'literal' sense it leads to one of two conclusions... either there was another set of 'first' parents who settled in the land of NOD, or Cain's wife was the result of an incestuous relationship. THAT can of worms should not even be opened!!

The Bible confirms that EVE had other children AFTER Cain and Able... there was a third son, SETH (the only other one named... Genesis 4:25) and some daughters and other sons... Genesis 5:4)

Cain's wife is a whole other ball of wax. If taken in it's 'literal' sense it leads to one of two conclusions....either there was another set of 'first' parents who settled in the land of NOD, or Cain's wife was the result of an incestuous relationship. THAT can of worms should not even be opened!!!
Too late, the can is open and the worms are slithering over the edge. Do you take it in a 'non-literal' sense, or do you prefer one of the two conclusions you mention?

I once heard that Cain's wife was an ape like creature... leading to minorities... No, I'm not saying I believed it, but that there are people who preach that!

:)
Too late, the can is open and the worms are slithering over the edge. Do you take it in a 'non-literal' sense, or do you prefer one of the two conclusions you mention?

It is not of consequence which I prefer: If the entire First Parents scenario is to be taken literally, it can only lead to the inevitable taboo: incest. It has been bruited about that many, many generations passed before Cain killed Abel and found a wife in the land of Nod... presupposing 'cousins' ten or twenty times removed... but that would obiviate a belief in the established biblical time line... and THAT can of worms would lead to questioning the literal twenty-four hour, six-day creation.

:)

If the entire First Parents scenario is to be taken literally, it can only lead to the inevitable taboo: incest.

... or bestiality?

:)

It is not of consequence which I prefer: If the entire First Parents scenario is to be taken literally, it can only lead to the inevitable taboo: incest. It has been bruited about that many, many generations passed before Cain killed Abel and found a wife in the land of Nod...presupposing 'cousins' ten or twenty times removed....but that would obiviate a belief in the established biblical time line....and THAT can of worms would lead to questioning the literal twenty-four hour, six-day creation.
Yes, literalists must be vigilant not to slip off that "narrow way" and onto the slippery slope of questioning and reasoning and thinking about causes and consequences. I feel for them. I used to be one, so in their eyes I'm sure my story would be a cautionary tale.

....or beastiality??

ONLY if you believe that Yahweh actually tried to find a helpmeet for Adam among the animals... as is suggested when Yahweh realizes "it is not good for the man to be alone" and begins to parade the animals for Adam to choose.

Always wondered why Yahweh did not realize WHEN he created Adam that it would not be good for the man to be alone. :)

God commanded the species to be kept 'to their kind'
As I said Cain could not be held accountable to having a sister be his wife when that law didn't exist at that time. Although because the Bible says from the land of NOD I take it as meaning there may have been another group of people on the earth that God didn't feel necessary to include in the Bible just as he didn't feel it important to mention many women unless they were important to the whole scheme of things.

Yes, literalists must be vigilant not to slip off that "narrow way" and onto the slippery slope of questioning and reasoning and thinking about causes and consequences. I feel for them. I used to be one, so in their eyes I'm sure my story would be a cautionary tale.

It is indeed a pity that with so much that can be learned (and used) from the Bible, to improve the condition of our fellow men and women, literalists try to force us to accept idiocies that would not be tolerated in any other piece of literature, and do NOTHING to improve life on this planet! What they do is present a god who is contradictory, cantankerous and criminal i.e. How can we tell our children that it is monstrous to kill infants, when the god of the Old Testament ORDERS the wholesale slaughter of innocent women and children, merely to keep his reputation and taboos intact??

ONLY if you believe that Yahweh actually tried to find a helpmeet for Adam among the animals.....as is suggested when Yahweh realizes "it is not good for the man to be alone" and begins to parade the animals for Adam to choose.

Always wondered why Yahweh did not realize WHEN he created Adam that it would not be good for the man to be alone. :)

Where do you get that??
I think you are reading into things.

Gen 2
19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him.

That simply means that he named the animals and there was no mate for him on earth.
Not meaning he was looking to the animals for a mate...

Talk about literalists...

God commanded the species to be kept 'to their kind'
As I said Cain could not be held accountable to having a sister be his wife when that law didn't exist at that time. Although because the Bible says from the land of NOD I take it as meaning there may have been another group of people on the earth that God didn't feel necessary to include in the Bible just as he didn't feel it important to mention many women unless they were important to the whole scheme of things.

Am I confusing your response?
You seem to be suggesting that it was MOSES who outlawed incest, and not YAHWEH. And yet Yahweh insisted on incest so that species could be kept 'to their kind'. Your post also suggests that, despite claims that God is unchanging, and unchangeable, he can and does change his mind and his laws at whim.

Where do you get that???
I think you are reading into things.

Gen 2
19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him.

That simply means that he named the animals and there was no mate for him on earth.
not meaning he was looking to the animals for a mate.......

talk about literalists.....

Was it an oversight that you left out the first line of Genesis 2:18 that led Yahweh to create the animals?? "And the Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone: I will make him a help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field.......but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him." Did Yahweh not KNOW this when he was creating the animals??

Try not to take life so seriously; my reply to labman was a facetious rejoinder. :)

I don't take that to mean that he intended them to be for Adam.
I take that to mean that what was created from the earth was inferior to have a helpmate created for Adam from the ground.
I believe that they are two different things. Sort of like when you multi task and then you explain all the things to somebody but they aren't necessarily related.
I don't take life so seriously, but I do like to think about a wide variety of things.

Thread closed due to alias abuse