Who believes in Adam & eve?
Who believes that they were the start of man kind?

I'm more of an evolution man - primordial soup, humans from apes, that whole thing. I find hard to believe that humans and all other living things just "appeared" out of nowhere.

I somewhat agree you needkarma totally!
But want to hear what other people think about it.

Adam and eve? Please. I think the closest that it can come to truth is in a metaphore for "evolution".

Just like with other religious things, that were written when things couldn't be proven, people believed them, and put their faith in them, and now they are turning out to be untrue.

Evolution, has been proved, and yet people still going on about adam and eve, and then make that whole "its not adam and steve" joke. Then I remind those people that we evolved from creatchers that were once a-sexual.

Evolution baby! Sorry than it wasn't a contrasting argument :D

I believe in Evolution myself.

I come from a catholic background and my brother went to a Private Catholic school and in religion classes they also finally brought up the topic about evolution. Which is good.

As people who believe in Adam & Eve, need to think that it goes against what religion believe in.

Adam & Eve, had 2 children, Kane and Abel.
2 boys... right... OK...
So for people who people in Adam & Eve, then how did their family carry on?
That's the question.. Did Eve sleep with one or two of her boys.
Doesn't make any sense does it?

That is also another point that was recently my msn name!

If you believe in adam and eve, you also believe in incest.

Precisely
Which goes against any form of religion.

HEy, let people do what they want lol, but it's not something I personally would do, and Im sure my sister would agree. So, yes, adam and eve just seems to be a story... and by the looks of things that trend might continue. What is interesting however, is that, I think as I said before, that a lot of what is said may be metaphoric for other things, or actually, just complete stories.


And I have a funny feeling if you are "jedi" incest isn't frowned upon too much, because Luke and Liear (sp) nearly got jiggy in one of the side plots.:D hehe

Sorry, that post was really badly phrased :( what I metn was its interesting to think of things as metaphores... not that I'm interesting.

Sorry, that post was really badly phrased :( what i metn was its interesting to think of things as metaphores.... not that im interesting.

Has anyone said you're not interesting? :rolleyes:

I thought I came across as big headed! And I don't want that, because I'm really not!

I wrote my point wrong, but thank you for that, and your interesting too :)

My favorite description of the Bible is that "It is a book of myths that at some point, people started believing were facts." --unknown (er... it's probably know to someone, I just don't remember who said it.)

I think it's a bit wacky to say evolution doesn't exist when the evidence is so abundant. However, evolution in and of itself is not a creation theory. It is a "how we got from A to B" theory. Personally, I don't have problems with theories of Intelligent Design, as I don't feel that they necessarily contradict evolution.

I do not believe the story of Adam and Eve to be fact, but as others said, myth used to explain what no living person ever could (and maybe never will).

Yes, allot of religion is putting god as the answer to things that people couldn't answer at the time. Your right in saying that evolution is a from a to b theory, but, due to evolution it has been possible to trace back to where we DID come from, and what a was, and that was to my knowledge, that was bacteria. Beyond that, it was just a biological accident, that many web pages describe in more detail the correct bonding of atoms to make protein's etc, and so on making in the long run, cells, bla bla, blabla.


When I think god, I think the beginning of the universe. And to say god placed us on earth, as in god the "person", and us as a human race is one of the most self centred conclusions, and closed minded ones too. IMO of course.

Of course the story of Adam and Eve is true. The Bible, which is the inerrant and inspired Word of God, tells us it is so. If people would read and really study their Bible, they would realize they can trust in what it says. Let's face it, most people are lazy and have never read it cover to cover--yet they feel qualified to judge it. They have not done their homework and will not pass "their final exam." It's similar to when I was in engineering school and discussing differential equations with someone who has not taken advanced Calculus--it doesn't go very far and accomplishes little. A tremendous part of the Bible concerns prophecy. Over 900 prophecies have been fulfilled already, showing us that the Bible is trustworthy and that God is in control. Ignore the Bible at your own risk. Through Adam and Eve, God shows us where we came from and how sin entered the world. The rest of the Bible is pointing us sinners toward Jesus, because we are in desperate need of a Savior. God warns us, warns us, warn us, then "payday" comes.

To me, evolution is one of the biggest hoaxes ever. It's a theory, with a supposed "scientific" stamp of approval, for rebellious man to hide behind, so he can be sinful, shake his fist at God, and do whatever he pleases. Most of us at age 3 knew that God created man and the universe--some are just slower learners and take longer to arrive at the truth.

Of course the story of Adam and Eve is true. The Bible, which is the inerant and inspired Word of God, tells us it is so. If people would read and really study their Bible, they would realize they can trust in what it says. Let's face it, most people are lazy and have never read it cover to cover--yet they feel qualified to judge it. They have not done their homework and will not pass "their final exam." It's similar to when I was in engineering school and discussing differential equations with someone who has not taken advanced Calculus--it doesn't go very far and accomplishes little. A tremendous part of the Bible concerns prophecy. Over 900 prophecies have been fulfilled already, showing us that the Bible is trustworthy and that God is in control. Ignore the Bible at your own risk. Through Adam and Eve, God shows us where we came from and how sin entered the world. The rest of the Bible is pointing us sinners toward Jesus, because we are in desperate need of a Savior.


Im catholic too, been to catholic school and had religion lessons everyday (lucky me)..
And as I've said previously even in catholic schools they now teach the prossiblity of evolution.
I can't comprehend and believe the story of Adam and Eve, besides it goes against what we believe in... incent!
I mean how did Adam & Eve carry on the family after their 2 boys?
The bible doesn't mention any more kids from their behalf... so anyway the story goes.. its all incent...
It don't make sense!

Prophecies? I think I could have made a few prophecies about things and they would have happened too. I prophecies me getting a job, and my sister going to school tomorrow. Indeed people make prophecies everyday.

Im really sorry, but I have to disagree with allot of what you said txgreasemonkey, but then you will disagree with what I'm about to say. And that is that evolution has been PROVEN. The actual act of adam and eve being the only two people on the planet, walking about a garden, is a ridiculous thought because we evolved. We weren't suddenly just "here". And also, there is the problem of how two people, and only two people procreate without side effects.

I also don't think I need to read the whole bible, every single word, to offer an opinion on adam and eve, which, I have actually read about.

I also find the thought of blindly following a book completely shallow, and the only reason people do so is out of fear that they won't pass your talked about final exam, and get an eternal afterlife of pleasure.

Im not really into a god who wants me to be a follower, and to disregard everything around me. And if they are there to be tests, these PROVEN facts, then I don't really want a god who thinks its fun to P*ss me about.

Im catholic too, been to catholic school and had religion lessons everyday (lucky me)..
And as ive said previously even in catholic schools they now teach the prossiblity of evolution.
I can't comprehend and believe the story of Adam and Eve, besides it goes against what we believe in... incent!!
I mean how did Adam & Eve carry on the family after their 2 boys?
The bible doesnt mention any more kids from their behalf...so anyway the story goes.. its all incent...
it dont make sense!


Perhaps it doesn't make sense because you haven't read Genesis.

Genesis 5:4 (King James Version)
4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

Please consider other possibilities before jumping to such drastic conclusions.

The Genesis genealogies are given through the male but that doesn't mean that there was an absence of females. The writer's of Genesis assumed that you would assume that femails were born to Adamand Eve. In fact, one of them is mentioned in reference to Cain.


Genesis 4:17 (King James Version)

17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


BTW
A taboo is established in order to prevent harm.
Incest taboo prevents birth defects and also prevents role confusion within the family group.

Initially, however, the incest taboo between brother and sister wasn't operational due to the special circumstances which required that mankind procreate and fill the earth. Neither were children marred by being born from such close relationships at that time for two reasons.


1. Man was closer to physical perfection

2. God's blessings.

It was only after mankind distanced itself from physical perfection that such relationships began to be harmful. Furthermore, as non-imdediate family members became availbale fort marriage choosing those more distantly- related helped preserve nuclear family role
Clarity.

Please consider other possibilities before jumping to such drastic conclusions...

The writer's of Genesis assumed that you would assume that femails were born to Adamand Eve. If everyone made their own assumptions then the book becomes anything to anyone, I can assume that Jesus slept with prostitutes because he kept company with them. See how it serves no end to imply a multitude of events that are not written?

BTW
This thread could easily boil down to a question of faith since faith is a belief that cannot be proven.

If everyone made their own assumptions then the book becomes anything to anyone, I can assume that Jesus slept with prostitutes because he kept company with them. See how it serves no end to imply a multitude of events that are not written?

BTW
This thread could easily boil down to a question of faith since faith is a belief that cannot be proven.

True! In the DaVinco Code, didn't it say that Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdelene?


Those who think that the Bible is open to all and any interpretation and that all these interpretations are all equally valid regaredless of how greatly they differ from one another do not understand the Bible and perhaps never will.

About assuming, I'm not assuming anything though when faced with the obviously ridiculous and the rational a reader is expected to choose the former in preference to the latter unless bias is his agenda. In any case, your accusation that no daughters of Adam are mentioned is false.

About Jesus, he condemned sexual immorality.
Anyone familiar with his teachings would never reach such a ridiculous conclusion.

BTW
I suggest that you apply the same skeptisism to your evolutionary ideas since they are
based on preconceived notions, biased opinions, assumed causes, and educated conjecture.


Starman, u don't know a lot, you are well educated with all of this.
But remember religion is all down to faith. Its not faced with facts and the obvious as u state

I believe that we have already had a discussion concerning Evolution and Inteligent Design. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/member-discussions/intelligent-design-15098.html)
It would be best to take this to that thread.
I'll even open it so you can all post.
See I can be nice ;)

OK I have moved all the evelution comments to the thread mentioned above.
Please feel free to continue that discussion there.

True! In the DaVinco Code, didn't it say that Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdelene?

Why should I believe the DaVinco Code in preference toi the Word of God?



Starman, u don't know a lot, you are well educated with all of this.
But remember religion is all down to faith. Its not faced with facts and the obvious as u state

I don't know a lot yet I am well educated in all of this?
Isn't that self contradictory?


You are 100% wrong about religion. My belief in God is based on the evidence of a universe which shows clear indications of planning, design, forethought and, contrary to what you have been taught and have chosen to believe, which blind chance could nerver produce. So unlike evolutionists who must dig holes our evidence and support for our belierf in a creator is always at hand and ever present.


Evidence For Intelligent Design -
Phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are machines at the deepest, molecular level.
www.allaboutthejourney.org/evidence-for-intelligent-design.htm

Believing in Adam & Eve does not mean believing in incest. Just because Adam & Eve were the first to be created by God, doesn't mean they were the ONLY to be created by God.

Also, Adam & Eve does not disprove evolution and evolution does not disprove Adam & Eve.

Those are just general facts.

As for my personal beliefs, I believe in Adam & Eve. I don't know if they actually existed or if they were used to illustrate that which could not be easily explained. Either way, I still believe in them... I believe in what they are meant to convey. And yes, I believe that either way, they were the start of mankind.

Starman my typing error ooppss
I meant you DO know a lot... you are well educated in all of this..

But don't tell me what I chose to believe in is 100% wrong!
Religion is faith.
There are no facts, you believe there are facts because you want to believe.

http://starwars.mytopix.com/img/d/darth_vader-0.jpg "KRS there is no point - the force is strong in this one."

31pumpkin I opened this thread for opinions like I gave mine and I didn't even know there was another thread for intellegance design vs evolution, and I earlier wrote that I made a typing error where I wrote that to starman. He does know a lot!
Im not challenging the bible, not at all, I'm catholic and have nothing at all against the bible. I own a bible and I do read it.

Point taken anyway - case closed.

31pumpkin i opened this thread for opinions like i gave mine and i didnt even know there was another thread for intellegance design vs evolution, and i ealier wrote that i made a typing error where i wrote that to starman. he does know alot!
Im not challenging the bible, not at all, im catholic and have nothing at all against the bible. I own a bible and i do read it.

Point taken anyways - case closed.

I don't think 31pumpkin has posted in this thread (yet). :p

DrJizzle I know she didn't but she commented on a 1 of my posts earlier and I just wanted to have my say that's all :)

I agree with most of you. Adam & Eve is a creation story IMO. Told so that the creation of the world would make sense to people in an ancient culture who had little science or technology. Creation stories exist in every culture.

Krs - Sorry if I interrupted the flow of the thread at all. I meant there are many forums (true- not one I could find here) that debate Creation. You wouldn't believe (I could hardly) what one satanist said to me about the Bible! Gosh- are they just looking for attention.. or what?

Yes, I believe the story about Adam and Eve. Thank you Starman for clarifying the part in Genesis about the "incest". I never thought about it, I was looking for the actual count of women or sisters there. I saw ENOCH but I couldn't figure out where his wife came from. Like you said, mostly the men were mentioned. Anyway, people lived to be 1000 yrs. Old then too. And the commandments came later.

Yup. I believe it. And they've been blaming the woman ever since! :(

I think the Adam & Eve story is a metaphorical one illustrating how human civilization so easilly succumbs to temptation.

I somehow think it is connected to the flood (with Noah and the Ark) in explaining why the "cleansing" of the Earth was necessary.

It's the same issue raised in the Scope's Trial, where the question was asked, "who did Lot marry?" It had to be one of his sisters, even though it is not explicitly stated in the Bible. This is because, as Starman correctly points out, the genealogy in the Bible is usually along the male line. Yes, Adam and Eve had daughters as well as sons--we just don't know their names. In the final analysis, we don't judge the Bible but it judges us.

I once heard a theory (not sure from where) that the descendents of Cain are the African people. But if one believes in the flood, then that can't be true, because all of his descendents would have been wiped out in that case. Or am I missing something?

starman my typing error ooppss
i meant you DO know alot... you are well educated in all of this..

But dont tell me what i chose to believe in is 100% wrong!
Religion is faith.
there are no facts, you believe there are facts coz u want to believe.

Everything you believe isn't 100% wrong. Sorry I gave you the impression that I was saying that. What I meant is that saying that a religious belief is 100% faith is 100% wrong because part of our religious belief is based on observable facts and logical reasoning. It isn't something totally lacking in evidence. Did you go to the links I provided. They explain what I mean much better. Also, please consider Thomas Aquinas's logical reasons on why the existence of God is inevitable and you will understand what I am trying to say .


Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica q.3, art. 3
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not possible to be, since they are found to be generated and corrupted. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true then even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence -- which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. (4)




BTW
Thanks for the compliment.

That Thomas Aquinas quote simply points back to the "who created god then?" question. Since that cannot be proven or explained then both sides are at standstill it would seem.

He seems to say in 50 words what one could say in 10, overly verbose for me.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica q.3, art. 3
....We find in nature things that are possible to be and not possible to be, since they are found to be generated and corrupted. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true then even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence -- which is absurd....
I can't even begin to understand this. As you understand it, can you clarify?

I can't even begin to understand this. As you understand it, can you clarify?

If we remove all causes then, as Thomas said, there would never have arisen anything at all. Thomas Aquinas was pointing out that our experience teaches us that all things come into existence via another. For example, life comes from life, movement is caused by movement such as an object in motion or a chemical reaction which is itself involves motion.


There is always a previous mover a causer. Now, since all things are caused by another, then there had to be something which caused everything but which itself wasn't caused. That something, that prime mover who himself needs no other cause we call God.

In short, Thomas tells us that our logic of cause and effect should be applied only to the caused. But that by necessity, there has to be causer of all things, a necessary being, and a prime mover who himself I remains uncaused and unmoved by anything prior to it. Otherwise nothing would exist since infinite regression, or an infinite number of causers stretching back into infinity is impossible.

If one believes in a Creator then he must admit that the Creator could have created any way He pleases.

... I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be without error, however this does not mean that every word should be taken as literal fact. Surely all would agree that the parables and "sayings" in Proverbs are not to be all taken literally.

... I am also convinced that much of Genesis may very well be stories that are meant to teach something rather than explain a historic fact.

... so as for Adam and Eve. I'm 50/50 on whether they were the first two humans on the planet.

As for the "who created God" question, Life as we know it is a time line... linear. Without this linearness, causality would not exist either. Therefore, God, which transcends time and is eternal, is not bound by causality. God is and was and will always be... all at the same time. There was not before God because there is not "before" and "after" when in the realm in which God resides.

Gosh, the responses to the original question are becoming few and far between :rolleyes:

Oops.. ummm...

I do and...

I do!

:cool: :D

speedball1 disagrees: The world wide flood has been disproved. While there was a flood in the area it was not worl wide.

Yup I know that, Tom. I don't believe in the world wide flood or in the descendents of Cain. But I've heard several people talk about both as being true, so I was kind of playing devil's advocate here, and hoping someone would answer / explain their beliefs.

as for the "who created God" question, Life as we know it is a time line... linear. Without this linearness, causality would not exist either. Therefore, God, which transcends time and is eternal, is not bound by causality. God is and was and will always be... all at the same time. there was not before God because there is not "before" and "after" when in the realm in which God resides.


speedball1 disagrees: All this hinges on belief and, unfortunately, belief is not knowledge.

The absence of causality in such a state is not a belief but knowledge. Without a time line, when all things are in existence infinitley, causality (cause and effect) does not take place.

The comment in relation to God, is a belief... I apologize, I wasn't attempted to make it sounds as fact; however, it was in response to the direct question "then who created God?" Assuming, hypothetically, there is a God, I responded... and left out the supposedly's and the would-be's :cool: :D

DRJIZZLE

Believing in Adam & Eve does not mean believing in incest. Just because Adam & Eve were the first to be created by God, doesn't mean they were the ONLY to be created by God.
Very logical statement and it works for me!

True! In the DaVinco Code, didnt it say that Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdelene?




Starman, u dont know alot, you are well educated with all of this.
But remember religion is all down to faith. Its not faced with facts and the obvious as u state
Sorry, did not mean to agree. The Davinci code is fiction, so quoting it has no importance.

Sorry, did not mean to agree. The Davinci code is fiction, so quoting it has no importance.

How do we know!
No one knows the truth.
Based on the story if its true or not no one knows.

You chose not to believe it as your choice, but you can't call it fiction like I can't call it the truth.

The absense of causality in such a state is not a belief but knowledge. Nope, not knowledge, actually it's our ignorance. In other words it's the absence of the knowledge of causality.

How do we know!
No one knows the truth.
Based on the story if its true or not no one knows.

You chose not to believe it as your choice, but you can't call it fiction like i can't call it the truth.

It is not my belief. The author says it is fiction. That is enough for me.

Would u even consider that maybe its told to be fiction to save lots of questioning and wondering and riots?

Would u even consider that maybe its told to be fiction to save lots of questioning and wondering and riots?


No, I don't think it would cause riots or even questions. I am amazed at how many people believe it to be a non fiction book and have really bought into it and there does not seem to be much ado about it. There was a program on TV about it. He even got a lot of information from another book that was fiction and they were interviewing the other author. The name escapes me. Too early in the morning, I will try to remember.

Nope, not knowledge, actually it's our ignorance. In other words it's the absence of the knowledge of causality.

Point taken... until I exist in such a timeless state, I cannot KNOW whether the law of causality would exist there.

I once heard a theory (not sure from where) that the descendents of Cain are the African people. But if one believes in the flood, then that can't be true, because all of his descendents would have been wiped out in that case. Or am I missing something?


Genesis 6:10
And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The Messiah would come through Shem.


KJV


The descendants of Ham, one of Noah's three sons is the progenitor of what is called the black race. These include descendants of Cush, Mizraim and Put who settled in Africa immediately after the confusion of languages in Mesopotamia and Caanan who settled in what is today called Palestine


Genesis 10:6
And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.KJV


I don't say "African" because there are white people and Arabs living in Africa today and in ancient times as well. Arabs are descendant of Abraham through Ishamael a son Abraham had by means of his Egyptian concubine Agar. Making them also descendants of Shem another of Noah's sons.

The Phoenicians were a Caananite people who founded Carthage on the African Mediterranean coast after Alexander destroyed their capital city of Tyre. These were also descendants of Ham but are not considered to be of the black race.

The descendants of Cain did not pass the deluge. The descendants of Seth who took the place of Abel did.

Genesis 4:25
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. KJV


Noah was a direct descendant of Seth: Here is the genealogy. I will highlight the key people in bold.


Genesis 5 (King James Version)

Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

7And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

8And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

10And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:

11And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

12And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:

13And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:

14And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.

15And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

16And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:

17And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.

18And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

19And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

20And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.

21And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

22And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

23And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:

24And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

25And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.

26And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:

27And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

28And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:

29And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:

31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.

32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Genesis 10:1
Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. KJV


BTW
Jesus is traced back to Adam and from Adam to God via Bible Genealogy

It has long been held that Cain's descendants came through the Hamitic line by way of Ham's wife. In the 18 and 19 centurries it was much spoken of, but seems to have fallen into misuse.


M:)RGANITE


That is also another point that was recently my msn name!

If you believe in adam and eve, you also belive in incest.


Hold up there old hoss! Believing in Adam and Eve as the first parents of the whole human race, as per Gensis, means only that the first or first few generations of Adam's children would marry their siblings. It does not mean that those who believe the sory "believe in incest." They believe that incest was divinely approved - what else? - in the special circumstances surrounding the initial populating of the earth. That is a far cry from 'believing in incest' and I trust you can make the differentiation.

Historically you could ask yourself why there was a taboo on incest and when it was founded and by whom, etc.

The economy of heaven is dark and the best we can do in understanding it is the best we can do. There are not answers available to all questions, especiallty not to those questions that are repeatedly trotted out to discomfit believers - not that I suggest for one moment that this is what you have set out to do - but there are some that will.

We are safe in concluding, however, that unless God had a plan that he has no shared with us about how the earth was to be populated, then we are sure in assuming that the course the children of Adam undertook to fulfill their charge was in accordance with the mind and will of God.




M:)RGANITE

Sorry This story is so illogical and I cannot accept it literally, I do think that God created many Adams and many Eves across the world ,that makes logical sense, but what did ancient man in the persian gulf know of the rest of the world. I guess he had to come up with something.

I [...] believe the Bible to be without error [...].


The Bible does contain errors, although it is more than likely that it did not when the original monographs left the hands of the originators. The rabbis were the first to notice the errors that have crept in due to scribal incompetence, enfolding of gloses into the body of the text, changes made to mauintain a hedge around ha-shem, and deliberate changes made for changing theological positions.

Knowing this does not alter what the Bible is, but it does enable us to see it exactly for what it is and not as somehting that it does not claim for itself. Various camps of the Bible-believing world have engaged in the struggle over the issue of biblical inerrancy and infallibility. The Bible offers no justification for the fundamentalist tenets of infallibility and inerrancy. The Bible makes no claim to either. One cannot fairly say that they are biblical doctrines.

In 1976 Harold Lindsell, a founding faculty member of the Evangelical Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, published his now famous book The Battle for the Bible. Lindsell's book chronicled the battle for the doctrine of inerrancy of the Bible within the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, and the Fuller Theological Seminary itself, where moderately liberal Bible scholars were teaching by the 1970s.

While Lindsell's book is still a favorite among American fundamentalists, Lindsell himself made clear that it would be inaccurate to reduce the large variety of Protestant positions on the Bible to two camps only—liberal and fundamentalist—since, in fact, dozens of different positions between the two extremes seem to exist.fn Scholarly studies on Protestant fundamentalism, not to mention the study of fundamentalism as a broader category not necessarily confined to the Protestant world, have boomed in the last two decades.

Since the publication of the movement's manifesto, The Fundamentals, between 1910 and 1915, fundamentalism was often represented as a reaction against science. Recent scholarship, on the other hand, has suggested an alternative explanation, seeing fundamentalism as an attempt to secure for biblical truth the same certainty that science enjoyed according to the Newtonian and positivist paradigm.Evangelicalism and fundamentalism had, according to George M. Marsden, "a love affair with Enlightenment science" and hailed "objective scientific thought ... as the best friend of the Christian faith and of Christian culture generally."

As there was only one "true" science (needless to say, not including evolution theories), so—the fundamentalists reasoned—there could be only one objective "truth" about the Bible: that it was the inerrant, infallible Word of God. Marsden has proved that hostility to science was originally foreign to fundamentalism and emerged as a later development, when science started to be secularized and to change its own paradigm.fn Fundamentalism, as a consequence, has been particularly hostile to late modernist and postmodernist assumptions that there is no "one science," but that science could be a collection of conflicting points of view, often selected for practical purposes without necessarily implying that one is more "true" than the other.

Paradoxically, fundamentalism maintained the objectivity of "scientific truth" when this claim was no longer made by mainline science itself.

It is to be hoped that you are aware that the Bible has come down to us through many translations and that it has been copied many times; moreover that there is no original manuscript of any of the books of the Bible. The scribes in the beginning and through the years had to write every word by hand. Moreover, the original Hebrew manuscripts were not written as we write today with separate words but in uncials, that is to say, the words ran together in this fashion and there were no written vowels sthttbcmvrydffclttdscvrthcrrctmnng, and errors crept in.

No Bible student today believes that the Bible has come down to us in its perfect and original appearance in the manuscripts. Scribes left out words and phrases, just as we do at times in typing, missing one whole line and thus changing the meaning. Moreover, the scribes added or interpreted according to their own opinions at times. These things are quite generally understood. Therefore we still find errors and contradictions in the Bible, and we have to deal with them honestly. That is our task as Bible believers.



M:)RGANITE


Sorry This story is so illogical and I cannot accept it literaly, I do think that God created many Adams and many Eves across the world ,that makes logical sense, but what did ancient man in the persian gulf know of the rest of the world. I guess he had to come up with something.

What has logic to do with religion?




M:)RGANITE


That Thomas Aquinas quote simply points back to the "who created god then?" question. Since that cannot be proven or explained then both sides are at standstill it would seem.

He seems to say in 50 words what one could say in 10, overly verbose for me.


That is because you stand in a different tradition than he. Horses for course, horses for his time and horses for our own, academic horses, and lay horses. The language of each is different. Thomas would be as hard on today's minimalism as you are on his fuilness.

M:)RGANITE


Would u even consider that maybe its told to be fiction to save lots of questioning and wondering and riots?

It is fictional because it is ahistoric and many of his supposed academic and historic references are just as fictional as his plot.

Will you riot? I will not!


M:)RGANITE

It has long been held that Cain's descendants came through the Hamitic line by way of Ham's wife. in the 18 and 19 centurries it was much spoken of, but seems to have fallen into misuse.


M:)RGANITE
In view of the genealogical record in Genesis which shows that Noah and his sons Japeth, Shem, and Ham came through Seth and no mention is made of Ham's wife's genealogy, how did they ever get that Idea?

In view of the geneological record in Genesis which shows that Noah and his sons Japeth, Shem, and Ham came through Seth and no mention is made of Ham's wife's geneology, how did they ever get that Idea?


There were black people before the flood and there were black people after the flood, so a means of perpetuity must have been established. Ham is an adjective in Egyptian for black, and the hamitic people are believed to be descended from that son of Noah.

Was the wife of Ham a descendant of Cain who was cursed for murdering his brother? Was it by Ham marrying her, and she being saved from the flood in the ark, that the black race was perpetuated?

Early interpretations of the Bible led many Western scholars to believe that all of humanity was descended from Noah. Chapters 9 and 10 of the Book of Genesis deal with the branching off and splitting up of Noah's sons into the world, this is open to interpretation, but the name of Cush, Ham's eldest son, means 'black' in Hebrew. Noah curses Ham and Canaan, Cush's brother, saying that he and his descendants would be a "servant of servants". Hebrew scholars used this passage to justify the Israelite subjugation of Canaan. These scholars, worked around the 6th century AD.

The question of the origins of races is still very much a live issue within academia. The division of humanity into distinct "races" can be traced as far back as the Ancient Egyptian sacred text the Book of Gates, which identifies four categories that are now conventionally labelled "Egyptians", "Asiatics", "Libyans", and "Nubians". However, such distinctions tended to merge differences defined by features such as skin color, with tribal and national identity. Classical civilizations from Rome to China tended to invest much more importance in family or tribal affiliations than in physical appearance (Dikötter 1992; Goldenberg 2003). Ancient Greek and Roman authors also attempted to explain and categorize visible biological differences between peoples known to them.

Such categories often also included fantastical human-like beings that were supposed to exist in far-away lands. Some Roman writers adhered to an environmental determinism in which climate could affect the appearance and character of groups (Isaac 2004). But in many ancient civilizations, individuals with widely varying physical appearances could become full members of a society by growing up within that society or by adopting the society's cultural norms (Snowden 1983; Lewis 1990).

Medieval models of race mixed Classical ideas with the notion that humanity as a whole was descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth, the three sons of Noah, producing distinct Semitic (Asian), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (European) peoples.

The word race entered the English language in the 16th century, from French race "race, breed, lineage" (which in turn was probably a loan from Italian razza). Meanings of the term in the 16th century included "wines with a characteristic flavour", "people with common occupation", and "generation". The meaning "tribe" or "nation" emerged in the 17th century. The modern meaning, "one of the major divisions of mankind", dates to the late 18th century, but it never became exclusive. The ultimate origin of the word is unknown; suggestions include Arabic ra'is meaning "head", but also "beginning" or "origin".

The English word "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, were products of the European era of exploration (Smedley 1999). As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences between human groups. The rise of the African slave trade, which gradually displaced an earlier trade in slaves from throughout the world, created a further incentive to categorize human groups to justify the barbarous treatment of African slaves (Meltzer 1993).

Drawing on classical sources and on their own internal interactions—for example, the hostility between the English and Irish was a powerful influence on early thinking about the differences between people (Takaki 1993)—Europeans began to sort themselves and others into groups associated with physical appearance and with deeply ingrained behaviors and capacities. A set of "folk beliefs" took hold that linked inherited physical differences between groups to inherited intellectual, behavioral, and moral qualities (Banton 1977). Although similar ideas can be found in other cultures (Lewis 1990; Dikötter 1992), they appear not to have had as much influence on social structures as they did in Europe and the parts of the world colonized by Europeans.

There could well be singfificant social and economic reasons for assigning black peoples to the family of Cain through Ham and Ham's wife. (see: http://www.experiencefestival.com etc.)



M:)RGANITE




"there is the problem of how two people, and only two people procreate without side effects.






I assure you that my wife and I - who are two people and only two people - have procreated very successfully on several occasion without side effects. If we can do it, then Adam and Eve could do it.





M:)RGANITE

I think you should actually read the contest of what was being said morganite =]

Two people, and only two people, if you read it properly, it was in the context of the ONLY two people on the planet, (as we are talking about adam and eve, the supposed first and only humans on the planet, and where all other humans came from), and normally the problems with incest means unhealthy children, which would have been the problem.


And I'm glad your penis works. :)

And I can differentiate. Ta.

- Chris.

If you want a modern day example of modern day inbreeding check out the Amish and the problems they are having.

I think you should actually read the contest of what was being said morganite =]

Two people, and only two people, if you read it properly, it was in the context of the ONLY two people on the planet, (as we are talking about adam and eve, the supposed first and only humans on the planet, and where all other humans came from), and normally the problems with incest means unhealthy children, which would of been the problem.


And im glad your penis works. :)

And i can differentiate. Ta.

- Chris.



Those genetic problems would not arise because God blessed them.


Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Adam and Eve were created specifically for that purpose.

Once more returning to the original post...

Nope!

Nope!

( I have been interested in the incest theory though - especially when you look at some of the nutters running this world ) :D

Unbiased-thinker and Galveston, your commets have been moved to the correct thread right HERE (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/member-discussions/intelligent-design-evolution-15098.html).
This thread is now closed as it continually moves away from KRS' original point.
ANy probelsm/comments PM me