Adam and Eve..

Adam and Eve. Real?


  • Total voters
    71

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Genesis is not a science book
Genesis is a book of beginning. Even God declares the end from the beginning. So every science book that was ever written shows us how true and accurate Genesis is. The word of God is pure, tested 7 times. The Bible has the same mathematical precision that we find in the Universe.

Chapter one talks about beginnings, chapter two talks about the generation, chapter 3 talks about the serpent and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We need to choose right or wrong, good or evil. We choose life or death, blessing or curse, sickness or health, poverty or prosperity. No one can make our choice for us. We have to make our own choice.

Damage to the brain's frontal lobe is known to impair one's ability to think and make choices. And now scientists say they've pinpointed the different parts of this brain region that preside over reasoning, self-control and decision-making.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There is overwhelming evidence that Adam and Eve is true. All of science and all of history can verify how true the story is. There is nothing anywhere to show that the story is not true. Skeptics and scoffers may not understand, but their lack of understanding has no impact on how accurate and true the Bible is. Even we are told: Romans 1:28, "God gave them up unto a reprobate mind"
What evidence? Article in peer-reviewed journals? If so, please post links or provide citations.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Genesis is a book of beginning. Even God declares the end from the beginning. So every science book that was ever written shows us how true and accurate Genesis is. The word of God is pure, tested 7 times. The Bible has the same mathematical precision that we find in the Universe.

Chapter one talks about beginnings, chapter two talks about the generation, chapter 3 talks about the serpent and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We need to choose right or wrong, good or evil. We choose life or death, blessing or curse, sickness or health, poverty or prosperity. No one can make our choice for us. We have to make our own choice.

Damage to the brain's frontal lobe is known to impair one's ability to think and make choices. And now scientists say they've pinpointed the different parts of this brain region that preside over reasoning, self-control and decision-making.
I'm not sure I see your point here. Did you know Moses didn't write in verse and chapter so it would be arbitrary if your trying to get some harmony based on chapter/verse divisions. As for your last part I don't know how that applies.
 
Upvote 0

Athanasius377

Out of the deep I called unto thee O Lord
Supporter
Apr 22, 2017
1,370
1,515
Cincinnati
✟702,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Luke 11:51

45Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. 46And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. 47Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. 52Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.


Matthew 19

3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.


John 5

45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Jesus seems to believe that he did. He also seems to believe in Able along with Adam and Eve.

I'm not saying people have to believe Jesus was right. But if you think he's wrong...

Agreed. I think anytime one's view of Scripture is lower than the view Jesus has it's a real problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Were Adam and Eve real or is it all a lie and myth.

Let's talk about that.

If Adam is not a real person, and is not the progenitor of the entire human race, and was not created directly by God from dust, then the reality of Christ can also be legitimately questioned. For Scripture contrasts them often, the first Adam with the last Adam.

It's like like saying is Abraham real? Or is Moses real? Or is Jesus real? Or was Paul real?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nic2018

Member
Jul 31, 2018
7
17
33
City
✟8,369.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
i believe we (as humans) can not explain on a science level of how the world was created in a few lines of text of the bible. Let alone from a worldy stance of the big bang theory.

For us to comprehend any of it of with our few pounds of brian we all have, is really unknown to me.

(And yes i believe with creationist theroy)
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
i believe we (as humans) can not explain on a science level of how the world was created in a few lines of text of the bible. Let alone from a worldy stance of the big bang theory.

For us to comprehend any of it of with our few pounds of brian we all have, is really unknown to me.

(And yes i believe with creationist theroy)
The Big Bang theory is based on the fact that everything in the universe is expanding, moving away from one another. The Big Bang simple projects backwards using a mathematical model. People ask me if I believe in the Big Bang, I say sure, God spoke and there it was. Actually I'm not kidding. With regards to evolution I believe the process known as evolution started 6000 years following creation.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Adam means "earth" and Eve means "sense-perception". The text is definitely an allegory. These are not anthropogenic but symbolic names. The earth has always been the symbol of sin.

St Paul said that it is through a man (Adam) that sin entered the world.
Which means: it is through the earth (Adam) that sin entered the world.

Sin is in the earthly world and bliss in the heavenly world.

There is no allegory. Jesus taught Adam and Eve as literal people. He taught that Adam and Eve are the example of marriage for us, as ordained by God, that a man and woman leaves father and mother and cleaves together.

We also have the genealogy of their children in scripture. You don't give a genealogy to metaphor or allegory.

Then there's the fact that Jesus is called the last Adam, who takes back what the first Adam lost. It's clear that sin entered the world through Adams disobedience. If the first Adam is symbolic, and non existent, that would mean the second Adam would have to be the same.

Even science says humans have been tracked back to one woman, called mtDNA (mitichondrial) Eve, and one man called Chromosomal Adam.
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Big Bang theory is based on the fact that everything in the universe is expanding, moving away from one another. The Big Bang simple projects backwards using a mathematical model. People ask me if I believe in the Big Bang, I say sure, God spoke and there it was. Actually I'm not kidding. With regards to evolution I believe the process known as evolution started 6000 years following creation.

I find it interesting that the standard cosmological model prior to the BB theory, was the "steady state" model, aka uniformitarianism, that said the universe had always existed.

When the BB theory came along, (original name: The Primordial Atom Theory), it found a lot of resistance at first, because everyone knew the implications of a cosmology model that aligns with the Genesis account that the heavens had a sudden beginning, out of nothing, instead of contradicting it, as the steady state model did.

Astronomer Fred Hoyle gave the BB it's name by mocking the Primordial Atom theory by calling it, the Big Bang, and no doubt to his chagrin, the name stuck, and so did the new theory.

Also interesting is that they think the universe is expanding based on the red shifting of light, yet there are many red shift anomalies, that to me, indicate doubt as to the expansion.

One problem is that no matter what part of the earth you look at celestial bodies, the light has a red shift, which would make the earth the center of the universe, and center of the Big Bang, and the universe is expanding away from us.

Another problem is that red shifts are "quantized". ( you'll have to google that).

I think red shifting that we observe is caused by light passing through dust clouds and nebulae, and gravitational lenses, for two.

But I don't object that much to the BB theory because it does support the Genesis account, vs the steady state model that contradicts it.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,279
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,793.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
I find it interesting that the standard cosmological model prior to the BB theory, was the "steady state" model, aka uniformitarianism, that said the universe had always existed.

When the BB theory came along, (original name: The Primordial Atom Theory), it found a lot of resistance at first, because everyone knew the implications of a cosmology model that aligns with the Genesis account that the heavens had a sudden beginning, out of nothing, instead of contradicting it, as the steady state model did.

Astronomer Fred Hoyle gave the BB it's name by mocking the Primordial Atom theory by calling it, the Big Bang, and no doubt to his chagrin, the name stuck, and so did the new theory.

Also interesting is that they think the universe is expanding based on the red shifting of light, yet there are many red shift anomalies, that to me, indicate doubt as to the expansion.

One problem is that no matter what part of the earth you look at celestial bodies, the light has a red shift, which would make the earth the center of the universe, and center of the Big Bang, and the universe is expanding away from us.

Another problem is that red shifts are "quantized". ( you'll have to google that).

I think red shifting that we observe is caused by light passing through dust clouds and nebulae, and gravitational lenses, for two.

But I don't object that much to the BB theory because it does support the Genesis account, vs the steady state model that contradicts it.

Might want to look at this maybe: https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-in-the-universe.8029635/page-3#post-73158598

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chrétien de Troyes

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
418
44
Montreal
✟13,499.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Then there's the fact that Jesus is called the last Adam, who takes back what the first Adam lost. It's clear that sin entered the world through Adams disobedience. If the first Adam is symbolic, and non existent, that would mean the second Adam would have to be the same.
This is what I call an allegory
 
Upvote 0

Tutorman

Charismatic Episcopalian
Jun 20, 2017
1,637
1,349
52
california
✟103,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Catholic Church says Adam and Eve were the first two humans, not merely a mythological story.

Yes so does the EO and other Churches including mine (not the Catholic Church)
 
Upvote 0

Knee V

It's phonetic.
Sep 17, 2003
8,415
1,741
41
South Bend, IN
✟100,823.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
To address a couple things:

1) While the events of Genesis 1-3 aren't foundational in the same sense that the Resurrection is foundational, much of what Christ and the Apostles taught depends on those events being real and true. I believe whole-heartedly that Adam and Eve were our real and true first parents.

2) Just because Adam's name means "dirt" or "clay" doesn't mean that the story is an allegory. Many people in Genesis were named because of something significant in the mind of the one naming the child. We see this with the twelve sons of Jacob. We also see it when God re-names Abram and Jacob to Abraham and Israel. The fact that Adam's name means the same as the dirt that we was formed from simply means that Adam was named after something significant, which is the fact that he came from the dirt.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chrétien de Troyes

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
418
44
Montreal
✟13,499.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
2) Just because Adam's name means "dirt" or "clay" doesn't mean that the story is an allegory. Many people in Genesis were named because of something significant in the mind of the one naming the child. We see this with the twelve sons of Jacob. We also see it when God re-names Abram and Jacob to Abraham and Israel. The fact that Adam's name means the same as the dirt that we was formed from simply means that Adam was named after something significant, which is the fact that he came from the dirt.
You seem to forget that in Judaism the earth (clay) symbolizes sin.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Adam means "earth" and Eve means "sense-perception". The text is definitely an allegory. These are not anthropogenic but symbolic names. The earth has always been the symbol of sin.

I always marvel when I hear things like this.

Adam's name had a meaning therefore, he's not real. He's just allegory.

OY! This is the argument many put forth, but do they realize what they are saying? BTW, Jesus' (Joshua's) name also had a meaning. Does that me he's really an allegory? Abram's name comes from the word father. Does that mean he's just sort of an allegory for the fathers of the world?

Obviously, this is total nonsense. Yes Adam's name comes from a word for the ground in the hebrew. Virtually all hebrew names use consonants from words to form the name and give it a meaning. This tells us nothing except that's where there name came from.

In Adam's case, we can make some conjectures, since Scripture tells us he was made from the dust of the ground, that's likely why God gave him that name.

And since Adam is the forefather of us all, that's why we are all called adam. Some are also called by the name of their ancestors. Some are Israel, etc. But all of us are adam for we all descend from Adam. (from one blood-Acts 17).
 
Upvote 0

Chrétien de Troyes

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
418
44
Montreal
✟13,499.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
OY! This is the argument many put forth, but do they realize what they are saying? BTW, Jesus' (Joshua's) name also had a meaning. Does that me he's really an allegory? Abram's name comes from the word father. Does that mean he's just sort of an allegory for the fathers of the world?
For your opinion to be relevant, it must first be shown that the allegorical interpretation is illogical. For my part I find it quite in tune with the gospel.

Cordially
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Big Bang theory is based on the fact that everything in the universe is expanding, moving away from one another. The Big Bang simple projects backwards using a mathematical model. People ask me if I believe in the Big Bang, I say sure, God spoke and there it was. Actually I'm not kidding. With regards to evolution I believe the process known as evolution started 6000 years following creation.

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
For your opinion to be relevant, it must first be shown that the allegorical interpretation is illogical. For my part I find it quite in tune with the gospel.

No, you can have an interpretation that is wrong, but doesn't violate logic. And you can have something that is both allegorical and literal. Paul uses Sarah and Hagar allegorically without denying their historicity.

But this has nothing to do with Hebrew names having meanings. It's just a silly argument.
 
Upvote 0