Adam and Eve

[gluadys]

Do you believe God made monkeys in his image? Can monkeys commit sin and thus be held responsible for their deeds?

No and no.

But via evolution, God did make monkeys and humans from a common ancestor.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

Science no longer believes in apes into Human .

 

[greentwiga]

Science fully believes in a common ancestor of Chimps and Humans and our branch slowly evolved into humans.

All I know is that at some point, something changed, and there were Humans. Gen 1 describes this. If God used evolution to accomplish this, then 70,000 BC at the great leap forward in Africa, would be a good candidate. If so, Adam and Eve would then be a separate event in the Middle East.

 

[Lollerskates]

Were they just the first Homo Sapiens and not the first humans?

Adam and Eve = first humans. There has to be a prime (two is prime,) and they were the primes - for for each sex. Sexual reproduction can explode a population very quickly.

 

[Lollerskates]

Edit Addition: Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is a very concise description of God's plan - from literal beginning to end. Genesis 2:4 - The End of Time is the long version of the first seven days - lived through us. That is why Genesis 2:4 says "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." It is setting up for the next descriptive story.

The original "bible" had no verses or chapters. Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 would have been like a foreword to the book that is Genesis:2-4 - The End of Time. That is why I say Adam and Eve were the first humans - the same [hu]mans described in Genesis 1:26.

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit.

1 Cor 15:45

Notice Paul refers to the first man by name - he isn't just using the Greek word to refer to general humanity. The phrase reads: "...o protos anthropos Adam..." in Greek.

 

[gluadys]

Adam and Eve = first humans. There has to be a prime (two is prime,) and they were the primes - for for each sex. Sexual reproduction can explode a population very quickly.

That is not scientifically accurate. In the process of evolution, all of the population can mate with all others of its generation, even if one or two of them are "human" and the rest "not-quite-human". It is not necessary, for example, for the first "human" female to find a male who is also "human" since there would be no barrier to her reproducing with any male in the population. Ditto in reverse.

 

[greentwiga]

It all depends on your interpretation of the Bible. If you make Adam of Gen 1 the same as Adam of Gen 2, then they are the first humans. If you call Adam of Gen 1, which includes unknown numbers of males and females, and Adam of Gen 2 (wnich is only a single male) something different, then the people of Gen 1 would have been the first fully humans. Then, Adam and Eve of Gen 2 would have been the first chosen people. This interpretation does not conflict with science.

 

[Jonathan95]

No and no.

But via evolution, God did make monkeys and humans from a common ancestor.

Where does the Bible say this? If it goes against the Bible, it's not true. Science that contradicts the Bible is no science at all.

Eve and Adam had no "ancestors," if you don't include God, if that's possible.

Eve and Adam were the first humans, so how can you say humans had an ancestor? Do you believe God created man in His image, as the Bible says?

If monkeys are human in any way, then they must have a sinful nature and a spirit, not only a soul.

 

[Jonathan95]

Science fully believes in a common ancestor of Chimps and Humans and our branch slowly evolved into humans.

All I know is that at some point, something changed, and there were Humans. Gen 1 describes this. If God used evolution to accomplish this, then 70,000 BC at the great leap forward in Africa, would be a good candidate. If so, Adam and Eve would then be a separate event in the Middle East.

No and no.

But via evolution, God did make monkeys and humans from a common ancestor.

"The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." 1 Cor 15:47

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7.

Then Eva: "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:22.

No evolution here!

 

[Lollerskates]

That is not scientifically accurate. In the process of evolution, all of the population can mate with all others of its generation, even if one or two of them are "human" and the rest "not-quite-human". It is not necessary, for example, for the first "human" female to find a male who is also "human" since there would be no barrier to her reproducing with any male in the population. Ditto in reverse.

You are still thinking of it from evolution POW; I was speaking generally (could be evolution processes or general regulated human regulations on reproduction.) But, I surely never suggested incest is off the table. I simply said that there has to be primes - which there does. The number can be large, but there needs to exist one mating pair of each species and one respective reproductive sex. Adam and Moreover, I said reproductive populations are explosive - and I was just thinking about "two people reproducing produces one kid at a time." I believe the firsts of Adam were multiples (in fact, Cain and Abel were paternal twins.) I believe if there was one boy, a girl twin would be born. Two boys; two girl twins... I believe these siblings were their wives, who they had sex with, and produced even more multiples. This happened up until the generation was far and varied enough from Adam and Eve - a generation in which the genetics could no longer take inbreeding/incest. But, this incest/inbreeding was allowed to preserve bloodlines; dignitaries of today still do it to keep their monarchy bloodline "pure." Once enough people were born there was no need for inbreeding.

Now, that is just what I believe based on reading the Western Bible canon, some African and Eastern canons, historical literature and mythology, and deduction. As far as the main question in the OP, Paul said Adam was the first man (protons anthropos Adam).

 

[gluadys]

You are still thinking of it from evolution POW;

That is why I said "scientifically".

But, I surely never suggested incest is off the table.

I never suggested that you did. But you did say that there had to be a human male and a human female or there could not be reproduction. From an evolutionary POV that is not true.

I simply said that there has to be primes - which there does. The number can be large, but there needs to exist one mating pair of each species and one respective reproductive sex. Adam

Assuming that a first human male or female was part of a population of non-quite-humans, that individual human would be the same species as that not-quite-human species. "human" in this context would be a variety or sub-species of the larger population, not yet a species of its own. So a first human male would have any number of females from which to choose a mate, and the same for a first human female.

The separation of a fully human population from a not-quite-human population would occur gradually over several generations and hybrids of the two groups could be possible for quite some time (as it appears there was some hybridization between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis.)

and Moreover, I said reproductive populations are explosive - and I was just thinking about "two people reproducing produces one kid at a time." I believe the firsts of Adam were multiples (in fact, Cain and Abel were paternal twins.) I believe if there was one boy, a girl twin would be born. Two boys; two girl twins... I believe these siblings were their wives, who they had sex with, and produced even more multiples. This happened up until the generation was far and varied enough from Adam and Eve - a generation in which the genetics could no longer take inbreeding/incest. But, this incest/inbreeding was allowed to preserve bloodlines; dignitaries of today still do it to keep their monarchy bloodline "pure." Once enough people were born there was no need for inbreeding.

Now, that is just what I believe based on reading the Western Bible canon, some African and Eastern canons, historical literature and mythology, and deduction. As far as the main question in the OP, Paul said Adam was the first man (protons anthropos Adam).

That's an interesting set of beliefs.

 

[gluadys]

Science no longer believes in apes into Human .

It is a bit more complex than that. What science holds is that "ape" does not refer to a species, but to a family of species. The scientific name of the family is Hominidae.

Just as you can have several children in one family, all children of the same parent, so you can have several species in a taxonomic family, all descendants of the same ancestral species.

The various different species in the family Hominidae are like cousins and siblings to each other. None of them changed into any of the others, but they all go back to a common ancestor.

The various living species in the Hominidae include 2 species of orangutan, 2 species of gorilla, 2 species of chimpanzee and 1 species of human. (There used to be many additional species which are now extinct.)

Since Hominidae is just the scientific name for "the ape family", this means humans actually are a member of the ape family.

 

[gluadys]

Where does the Bible say this?

It doesn't. There are a lot of things about the world the Bible does not speak of. Galaxies, for example, and icebergs and bacteria and coral atolls.

If it goes against the Bible, it's not true.

It doesn't go against the Bible. It is just not mentioned in the Bible.
If anything not mentioned in the Bible is interpreted as "going against the Bible" we are all going against the Bible when we use computers, drive cars, listen to a radio, etc.

Science that contradicts the Bible is no science at all.

And interpretations of the Bible which contradict well-established and observed facts are clearly incorrect interpretations. Even when they seem to be common sense literal interpretations. The Psalmist tells us in words as plain as possible that God fixed the earth in place so that it does not move. People who held that "science that contradicts the Bible is no science at all" refused to believe the evidence that the earth does move in two senses: on an orbital pathway around the sun, and in a spinning motion as it rotates on its axis.

But given the clear testimony of the facts provided by the world itself (which after all is also an utterance of the creative Word), most Christians now interpret the Psalmist differently.

Eve and Adam had no "ancestors," if you don't include God, if that's possible.

That would certainly be a literal interpretation, just as "the earth does not move" interpreted literally would mean the earth does not orbit the sun. However there are many indications in the text that this story has other good interpretations that do not contradict the evidence of human origins from pre-human ancestors.

Eve and Adam were the first humans, so how can you say humans had an ancestor?

Even from scripture, that is not obvious. There is the age-old question of why Cain feared for his life if he was separated from his family. From whom was the mark God placed on him intended to protect him? As you will see elsewhere in this thread, some Christians think it likely that Adam was not the first human biologically, but the first human spiritually. Another possibility is that Adam is intended to be the first ancestor of Israel.

So we have plenty of interpretative options that do not conflict with science. Why insist on one that does?

Do you believe God created man in His image, as the Bible says?

Yes.

If monkeys are human in any way, then they must have a sinful nature and a spirit, not only a soul.

Monkeys are not human in any way. But humans and monkeys have a remote primate ancestor in common. Interestingly, some monkeys are more closely related to humans (and other apes) than they are to other monkeys!

 

[greentwiga]

Where does the Bible say this? If it goes against the Bible, it's not true. Science that contradicts the Bible is no science at all.

Eve and Adam had no "ancestors," if you don't include God, if that's possible.

Eve and Adam were the first humans, so how can you say humans had an ancestor? Do you believe God created man in His image, as the Bible says?

If monkeys are human in any way, then they must have a sinful nature and a spirit, not only a soul.

Adam was the first Adam and Jesus was the last Adam (1 Cor 15:45) How can Jesus be the last Adam. There have been many Adams (Men) since. If last means something different, such as the ultimate, then can Adam be the first in a different sense also? Be a Berean and search the Bible to see if what you have been taught is right.

 

[Jonathan95]

Adam was the first Adam and Jesus was the last Adam (1 Cor 15:45) How can Jesus be the last Adam. There have been many Adams (Men) since. If last means something different, such as the ultimate, then can Adam be the first in a different sense also? Be a Berean and search the Bible to see if what you have been taught is right.

Take a look at my #29 post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7786923-3/#post64513340

 

[AV1611VET]

Were they just the first Homo Sapiens and not the first humans?

Adam & Eve were the first humans.

"Homo sapiens" is just a term coined by evolutionists for evolutionists; and it's not even Biblical.

Paul warns that going around calling oneself "wise" can lead to atheism.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[greentwiga]

Adam & Eve were the first humans.

"Homo sapiens" is just a term coined by evolutionists for evolutionists; and it's not even Biblical.

Paul warns that going around calling oneself "wise" can lead to atheism.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Actually the first humans were Gen 1:27. There, God calls both male and female "Adam." In Gen 2, Adam only refers to the man. It is a common interpretation to equate creation of Gen 1 with making of Adam in Gen 2. There are some problems with the Bible if you do that, such as plants being created after man in Gen 2. The Bible is accurate, but our interpretation is not necessarily accurate. I believe the Bible 100%, but I am willing to consider different interpretations, such as Gen 1 and Gen 2 were separate events.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually the first humans were Gen 1:27. There, God calls both male and female "Adam." In Gen 2, Adam only refers to the man. It is a common interpretation to equate creation of Gen 1 with making of Adam in Gen 2. There are some problems with the Bible if you do that, such as plants being created after man in Gen 2. The Bible is accurate, but our interpretation is not necessarily accurate. I believe the Bible 100%, but I am willing to consider different interpretations, such as Gen 1 and Gen 2 were separate events.

I'm a KJVO myself, but do you think the NIV takes care of this "interpretation problem"?

Genesis 2:8 [NIV] Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

 

[greentwiga]

I'm a KJVO myself, but do you think the NIV takes care of this "interpretation problem"?

Genesis 2:8 [NIV] Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

No, that was just one example. The sequence is:
5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprouted because 1) God had not sent rain and 2)there was no man to cultivate the ground.

7 Then God formed man.

8 God planted a garden.

Man was formed before God planted the garden and clearly stated there were no plants of the field. In Gen 1, plants were clearly created before man was formed. I have heard rather awkward interpretations trying to justify the problem.

What is amazing is if you separate the two events. Then Adam and Eve lived in the exact location (down to the exact mountain) that plants were first domesticated. The plants of the field were domestic plants like wheat, chickpeas, and lentils. they are the only plants that need cultivation and they didn't exist until there was a man who knew how to cultivate the plants. My question is, by joining the two events together, do we miss out on the glorious truth the Bible contains?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is amazing is if you separate the two events. Then Adam and Eve lived in the exact location (down to the exact mountain) that plants were first domesticated.

I take it you're assuming they lived in [what is now] Mesopotamia?

If you interpret "Eden" as "Pangaea," then a garden "eastward in Eden" would be in [what is now] China, would it not?