Adam and Eve...

sammydee · Jun 9, 2007

Hi All

This question is for people who take Genesis literally.

Do you believe Adam and Eve were the only humans God ever created?

If so, does this mean that their son's and daughters were incestuous? Otherwise how did they multiply into the number of humans we see today?

Sam

calidog · Jun 9, 2007

Actually Adam was not created as such, God formed him from the earth and God formed Eve from Adam.
Yes, they intermarried.

sammydee · Jun 9, 2007

So Adam and Eve's son's and daughters intermarried.

Surely that would result in a lot of inbreeding and genetic problems like deformities, recessive dieases etc?

The current number of people required to maintain a stable genetically diverse population indefinately is considered by biologists to be at least 500. How do you reconcile the genetic diversity we see in humans today, when there were supposedly only two original people?

Criada · Jun 9, 2007

Mutation!
It happens a lot - where do you think natural variation comes from?

tapero · Jun 9, 2007

sammydee said:
Hi All

This question is for people who take Genesis literally.

Do you believe Adam and Eve were the only humans God ever created?

If so, does this mean that their son's and daughters were incestuous? Otherwise how did they multiply into the number of humans we see today?

Sam

Hi Sam,

Yes, Adam and Eve were created by God, and all mankind came thru them. We are all descendents of Adam and Eve.

blessings,
tapero

jabechler · Jun 9, 2007

Adam and Eve were created by God and yes they're children did intermarry. We must remember that all problems diseases genetic mutations occured because of sin. These problems occured so rapidly that at a certain time God did say that intermarriage was not to be allowed anymore. Biologists say that more than 2 were needed to bring about the variation of genetic offspring but they will also say that each one of us carries such a diversity of genetic codes that it could have happened just as the Bible says.

hlaltimus · Jun 10, 2007

Remember this with the proposition that God did allow for early intermarriage: Adam was much closer to being a perfect human being than we are now. The reasons why intermarriage is discouraged now didnot apply at so early and pristine a state, even taking the fall into consideration. Defects have progressed through the history of humanity from the time of Adam and this would tend to justify the intermarriage of his children then and there only.

sammydee · Jun 10, 2007

My next question is, were Adam and Eve black or white (or even chinese)?

Sam

tapero · Jun 10, 2007

sammydee said:
My next question is, were Adam and Eve black or white (or even chinese)?

Sam

The bible doesn't say, so we don't know.

Merlin · Jun 10, 2007

1-no
2-Incest was a law given to honour and respect relatives.
The law was given thousands of years after Adam and Eve.

Secundulus · Jun 10, 2007

sammydee said:
How do you reconcile the genetic diversity we see in humans today, when there were supposedly only two original people?

Because it happened a long time ago.

Your argument is going nowhere because even if you take the evolutionary view the adaptation/mutation that resulted in humans began in a single offspring.

Criada · Jun 10, 2007

sammydee said:
My next question is, were Adam and Eve black or white (or even chinese)?

Sam

Does it matter?

The garden of Eden was in what is now Iraq, so I would guess that they were of Arabic appearance - but I don't know!

calidog · Jun 10, 2007

sammydee said:
My next question is, were Adam and Eve black or white (or even chinese)?

Sam

We have no way of knowing but they were middle eastern.

As for your presumtion:

God created Adam and Eve; He therefor created them with everything they would need to carry out His plan:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

BigNorsk · Jun 10, 2007

sammydee said:
My next question is, were Adam and Eve black or white (or even chinese)?

Sam

Probably an intermediate skin color. Pretty certainly not redhead or else running around naked would have presented a serious sunburn problem. So best guess would be fairly dark. In any case we don't really know. Skin color has never been the focus of God. Of course when we speak of skin color it is just different amounts of the same substance, eumelanin, but common among redheads and blondes is pheomelanin, which is less effective at protecting from the sun. People with the second type will freckle from sun exposure instead of tanning and so they sunburn more easily.

Marv

sammydee · Jun 11, 2007

Secundulus said:
Because it happened a long time ago.

Your argument is going nowhere because even if you take the evolutionary view the adaptation/mutation that resulted in humans began in a single offspring.

I thought you guys didn't believe in evolution? Isn't that WHY you believe in Adam and Eve - because you don't believe we can have evolved?

That said, I don't "believe in" evolution either, I merely accept it as a good scientific theory that is falsifiable, makes sense, is the simplest explanation and has a lot of supporting evidence. I don't "believe" in it any more than I believe in the theory of gravity.

Yes scietntists do believe there was a common ancestor, a female. This is completely compatible with the theory of evolution.

From wikipedia (yes I know, but its reliable enough for this):

A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species (1859), and later in The Descent of Man (1871). This theory is now generally accepted by biologists, and the last universal common ancestor (LUCA or LUA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms, is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago. The theory of a common ancestor between all organisms is one of the principles of evolution, although for single cell organisms and viruses, single phylogeny is disputed (see: origin of life).

So this is certainly not proof that Adam and Eve were real. Also, if you don't believe evolution occurs, how do you explain the fact that black people are adapted to living in the harsh sun of the tropics and africa, whereas white people are adapted for living at higher latitudes? Adam and Eve cant' have been black and white!

Sam

Secundulus · Jun 11, 2007

sammydee said:
I thought you guys didn't believe in evolution? Isn't that WHY you believe in Adam and Eve - because you don't believe we can have evolved?

That said, I don't "believe in" evolution either, I merely accept it as a good scientific theory that is falsifiable, makes sense, is the simplest explanation and has a lot of supporting evidence. I don't "believe" in it any more than I believe in the theory of gravity.

Yes scietntists do believe there was a common ancestor, a female. This is completely compatible with the theory of evolution.

From wikipedia (yes I know, but its reliable enough for this):

So this is certainly not proof that Adam and Eve were real. Also, if you don't believe evolution occurs, how do you explain the fact that black people are adapted to living in the harsh sun of the tropics and africa, whereas white people are adapted for living at higher latitudes? Adam and Eve cant' have been black and white!

Sam

What are Adam and Eve? They were the first humans.

How is that not compatible with what your statement that says that humans all derive from a common ancestor?

sammydee · Jun 11, 2007

Yes but you don't believe Adam and Eve existed 3.9 billion years ago do you

Secundulus · Jun 11, 2007

sammydee said:
Yes but you don't believe Adam and Eve existed 3.9 billion years ago do you

I don't know how long ago they existed.

sammydee · Jun 11, 2007

Well no but if you're taking the bible literally wouldn't that put the start date of creation at about 10,000 years ago max?

Sam

Secundulus · Jun 11, 2007

sammydee said:
Well no but if you're taking the bible literally wouldn't that put the start date of creation at about 10,000 years ago max?

Sam

This may surprise you but most Christians do not take every statement of the Bible literally. Some is literal history, some is prophesy, some personal letters, some is poetry, and some allegory.

We believe the Bible is inspired writing and that everything in it illustrates theological truths about God.

In this instance, the theological truth is that God created humans. How he did this, whether from clay or through evolution is not really important.

"How" is in the realm of science, not theology.

Adam and Eve...

Member

Veteran

Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Active Member

Senior Member

Member

Legend

Paradigm Buster

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Contributor

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency