Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So explain how did God make [a woman], from [a mans rib] then?
Since the text itself says that it's figurative, there's no problem.
Adam, created first, from the dust of the ground.
No, that's wrong. Mornings and evenings without a sun make it clear that it is not a literal account.
Non-sequitur. It was the Light of Christ's face, in my OEC view, over seven long days.
Three days, anyway, if you interpret it as a literal account. But "morning" doesn't mean "big light in the sky." Otherwise moonrise would be morning.
No, in my reading, God shined His Light 7 long GALACTIC days, and quenched it six times, to produce six GALACTIC nights, over 4 billion years, simulating (Galactic) mornings and evenings to any extent He desired.
"Let there be light." The Light of Christ's face is an "addition" to Scripture? What Bible are you reading?
I'm looking, but I don't see Christ's face illuminating the Earth anywhere in Genesis 1 or 2,
I can't prove anything 100%, but Paul is clear enough. 2 Cor 3 and 4 talks about the Light in Moses' face. Then at verse 4:6, Paul directly cites Genesis 1:3:
Biblical revelation is progressive. Certain details are omitted in the early accounts. For example Genesis 1 doesn't clearly delineate a Trinity.
Also, saying that Christ was created on the first day would be theologically incorrect and dangerous. JW's may believe this.
Peter was just a small stone built atop the bedrock of something much bigger than himself: namely, the truth that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. Put simply, Peter was not the rock; Christ is the Rock.
Biblically speaking we didn't just come from Adam but also Noah then from one of his son's Shem, Ham, or Japheth. That line is revealed through the offspring of Seth a child of Adam and Eve. But who Seth married and had children with is not revealed, anything else is conjecture. However there is a sense of "others" being around otherwise what's the point of marking Cain after he killed Able? On a greater point I really don't think these accounts are supposed to answer those questions. The line that is biblical established is goal driven to establish a golden line for the Hebrews outside that perspective is really out of it's scope. This golden line is less driven by factual details or step logic like western thinking demands. the important thing is the goal, which is establishing a pure line under God, but the details that make up that goal can be somewhat fluid, this is very common for ancient eastern culture. These accounts also are pre-history (certainly for the Hebrews it was) and written well after the fact. If we follow the biblical timeline from creation to Moses it's about 2500 years. I think the OP really is asking the wrong question and it is more productive of us to look for the meaning behind the genealogies established at the time it was written for the Hebrew and by extension what is means to us since we are adopted into that line. I would suggest the meaning is more abstract and spiritual than it is literal. I'm not challening the literalness per se, but rather saying the literalness is probably the least important parts of the accounts and it is misfocused to put our energy into it.
Nothing in later scripture says that, either. I get that it has to be inserted to make a literal Genesis plausible, but that doesn't seem like a sufficient reason.
