Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrIsla
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MrIsla

Guest
this question must be a faq, but since i really wish to know it i want to ask anyways. and ill try to stop bothering you guys too.

Adam and eve were the first humans to be put on earth. Fact.
but what i dont understand is this. in the bible it says they had children too. Adam and Eve had two children in fact. so with that being said how did everyone else come about? Did Adams son have to have sex with Eve in order to populate the earth like wise did Adam have to have sex with her daughter?

i guess what im getting at here is i dont know enough about adam and eve. could you explain this to me.
 
Adam and Eve had more than two children (Cain and Abel).

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, …
Genesis 5:4 The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years; and he had other sons and daughters.
 
Adam and eve were the first humans to be put on earth. Fact.
No. That is an empty statement. You need to PROVE it before it becomes fact.

If you are getting at whether they & their later children had incest, then according to this story apparently Yes otherwise I do not see how thy could logically populate the entire Earth. Furthermore I find it interesting how they descendants got on other continents when no such advances water travel was invented yet.
 
Mrl,
First come to grips with genesis of being a symbolic story on creation and how the Earth was populated and you’ll be fine.

Adam and Eve (homo sapiens) were the first humans with souls correct, but there were other homo species whom their children mated with thus propagating homo sapien while the other species of homo died out or became assimilated. Simple answer.
 
Mrl,
First come to grips with genesis of being a symbolic story on creation and how the Earth was populated and you’ll be fine.

Adam and Eve (homo sapiens) were the first humans with souls correct, but there were other homo species whom their children mated with thus propagating homo sapien while the other species of homo died out or became assimilated. Simple answer.
What are you refering by HOMO SPECIES. Are you implying other humans? Or you mean men had sex with a different primate species & managed to have offspring??
 
What are you refering by HOMO SPECIES. Are you implying other humans? Or you mean men had sex with a different primate species & managed to have offspring??
If they had offspring then they would have had to be the same biological species. The only difference between the humans and almost-but-not-quite-humans would have been the presence or not of a soul. Since souls come directly from God it was up to God to decide which ones got a soul and which ones did not.

The presence or not of a soul will not show in either fossils or in DNA so biology cannot tell whether a given fossil, or a given piece of DNA, belonged to a being with a soul or without a soul.

rossum
 
The presence or not of a soul will not show in either fossils or in DNA so biology cannot tell whether a given fossil, or a given piece of DNA, belonged to a being with a soul or without a soul.

rossum
Isn’t that convenient.
If they had offspring then they would have had to be the same biological species.
So now it’s both incest & bestiality?
 
Isn’t that convenient.
Well, you’re an antagonistic one, aren’t you. What bee is up your bonnet?

Anyway, if you want to describe the fact that the supernatural is, by definition, not a part of the natural world as “convenient” then yes, it is convenient. Happy?
So now it’s both incest & bestiality?
According to evolution (which I’m assuming from your attitude that you believe in), every new species practices incest and bestiality, since new species don’t spring into being in large populations. So what exactly is your objection?
 
Anyway, if you want to describe the fact that the supernatural is, by definition, not a part of the natural world as “convenient” then yes, it is convenient. Happy?
Yes, thank you.
However then how do you differentiate between something supernatural that exists & does not?
According to evolution (which I’m assuming from your attitude that you believe in), every new species practices incest and bestiality, since new species don’t spring into being in large populations. So what exactly is your objection?
Yes I’m… erm… “fine” with bestiality in a natural sense. However, in Leviticus 18:23 God forbids bestiality; nevertheless, sets up the process of populating the Earth to require it.
 
Isn’t that convenient.
Do you have a problem with it?
So now it’s both incest & bestiality?
One or the other or neither, depending on how things are defined. Sex between a human-with-soul and a human-without-soul is not currently defined as bestiality because the question has never arisen. Bestiality is defined as sex between a human and a member of a different biological species.

We do not have enough detail in Genesis to say for certain whether or not incest happened if we have a population of unsouled humans around. In the absence of unsouled humans then incest is inevitable.

rossum
 
Yes, thank you.
However then how do you differentiate between something supernatural that exists & does not?
How does one differentiate between anything that might exist or might not? One requires some sort of evidence. And I can tell you that, as a long-time atheist who came back to the Catholic faith a few years ago, the evidence is there. I didn’t see it as an atheist, and I do see it now, everywhere. Of course that “new mode of seeing” will be different for each person, which makes it impossible to offer general answers. But I can say that, since we are beings with both a natural and a supernatural side, we must not limit our search for evidence to the natural world alone.
Yes I’m… erm… “fine” with bestiality in a natural sense. However, in Leviticus 18:23 God forbids bestiality; nevertheless, sets up the process of populating the Earth to require it.
God treats us the way any good parents treat their children. He teaches us (that is, his people, historically) one bit at a time, and builds upon what we already know. Thus throughout Judeo-Christian history, God has become more strict in some things and more loose in others, as we have advanced along the path of understanding God and our own nature and destiny.
 
We do not have enough detail in Genesis to say for certain whether or not incest happened if we have a population of unsouled humans around. In the absence of unsouled humans then incest is inevitable.”
With two people that would inevitable.
Do you have a problem with it?”
I have a problem with an empty statement, which I’m supposed to accept.
But I can say that, since we are beings with both a natural and a supernatural side, we must not limit our search for evidence to the natural world alone.”
But then what kind of experiments, methods, criteria do you use when concluding that a supernatural side exists? If they are in their nature “unreachable”, un-testable, etc: any claim about a supernatural event is equally valid because, as in your case, it relied on personal experience, which can not be tested.
“God treats us the way any good parents treat their children. He teaches us (that is, his people, historically) one bit at a time, and builds upon what we already know. Thus throughout Judeo-Christian history, God has become more strict in some things and more loose in others, as we have advanced along the path of understanding God and our own nature and destiny.”
So even though in God’s point of view certain actions are bad, yet he specifically provides circumstances where those actions would be a requirement & people resort to doing what is bad in his eyes because 1. he never said it was bad; 2. he left no other choice ?
 
But I can say that, since we are beings with both a natural and a supernatural side, we must not limit our search for evidence to the natural world alone.”
But then what kind of experiments, methods, criteria do you use when concluding that a supernatural side exists? If they are in their nature “unreachable”, un-testable, etc: any claim about a supernatural event is equally valid because, as in your case, it relied on personal experience, which can not be tested.
“God treats us the way any good parents treat their children. He teaches us (that is, his people, historically) one bit at a time, and builds upon what we already know. Thus throughout Judeo-Christian history, God has become more strict in some things and more loose in others, as we have advanced along the path of understanding God and our own nature and destiny.”
So even though in God’s point of view certain actions are bad, yet he specifically provides circumstances where those actions would be a requirement & people resort to doing what is bad in his eyes because 1. he never said it was bad; 2. he left no other choice ?
 
What are you refering by HOMO SPECIES. Are you implying other humans? Or you mean men had sex with a different primate species & managed to have offspring??
Other Homo species like Homo Neanderthalensis and Cro-Magnon (homo sapiens sapiens). Most probable with Cro Magnon and maybe small pockets of Neaderthals.
 
But then what kind of experiments, methods, criteria do you use when concluding that a supernatural side exists? If they are in their nature “unreachable”, un-testable, etc: any claim about a supernatural event is equally valid because, as in your case, it relied on personal experience, which can not be tested.
Not so. We have written testimonly of hundreds of interactions between God and humanity. You may choose to reject each and every one of those, but then you must reject most of written history. Do you apply such a standard evenly? Do you, for example, accept or reject the accounts of the Miracle of the Sun in Portugal in 1917, reportedly witnessed by 100,000 people? If you reject it, do you at the same time accept the reality of other events that were witnessed by fewer than 100,000 people?
So even though in God’s point of view certain actions are bad, yet he specifically provides circumstances where those actions would be a requirement & people resort to doing what is bad in his eyes because 1. he never said it was bad; 2. he left no other choice ?
No, there is no “in God’s point of view certain actions are bad” except the explicit rejection of God. What do you even mean by “bad”? God judges things that we do “good” or “bad” only insofar as they bring us closer to him or drive us further away from him. What brings us to him or drives us away from him differs depending on, among other things, what has been revealed to us. And God took thousands of years to complete that revelation.

My analogy with young children stands. We overlook it when small children do things that would get an adult arrested, and we have good reasons to do so. At the same time, we place restrictions on small children that we would not be justified in placing on adults, and we have good reasons for that as well.
 
Not so. We have written testimonly of hundreds of interactions between God and humanity. “
Hm… but how does that support a specific God of Catholic Christianity?
I am critical of it, yet accept the possibility that is happened. Nevertheless, as I remember they save 3 children, how is that support a specific deity?
My analogy with young children stands. We overlook it when small children do things that would get an adult arrested, and we have good reasons to do so. “
Yet, some kind of punishment is carried out nonetheless & PARENTS pay fines fore children’s misbehaviour.
 
With two people that would inevitable.

So even though in God’s point of view certain actions are bad, yet he specifically provides circumstances where those actions would be a requirement & people resort to doing what is bad in his eyes because 1. he never said it was bad; 2. he left no other choice ?
Why do you not marry your sister? (apart from the :bigyikes: factor), or your brother if you are a woman.
The only real reason I can think of is genetics, you know your offspring would be in immediate danger.
With Adam and Eve they were obviously created perfect in every way, by a perfect God, right down to their DNA. There were no diseases or genetic faults which could be passed from the original parents, and their children would be as perfect as they for many generations. Siblings could marry and have offspring without fear of genetic defects or problems?
 
With Adam and Eve they were obviously created perfect in every way, by a perfect God, right down to their DNA.
It is far from obvious to me. Their had a blind spot - imperfect. Their spines were not fully adapted to upright walking - imperfect. Their knees were not yrt adapted to taking all, rather than half, of their weight - imperfect. If they were perfect then they were not Homo sapiens and if they were Homo sapiens then they were not perfect.
There were no diseases or genetic faults which could be passed from the original parents, and their children would be as perfect as they for many generations.
Evidence?
Siblings could marry and have offspring without fear of genetic defects or problems?
So the prohibition against incest is not absolute morality but merely a piece of relative morality?

rossum
 
It is far from obvious to me. Their had a blind spot - imperfect. Their spines were not fully adapted to upright walking - imperfect. Their knees were not yrt adapted to taking all, rather than half, of their weight - imperfect. If they were perfect then they were not Homo sapiens and if they were Homo sapiens then they were not perfect.
  1. Whats imperfect about a perfectly necessary blindspot.
  2. Find me a fossil homosapien who was not designed to walk upright.
  3. Find me a homosapien, or any human fossil, whose knees do not fully support them.
Evidence?
Evidence against?
So the prohibition against incest is not absolute morality but merely a piece of relative morality?
What prohibition against incest?
 
this question must be a faq, but since i really wish to know it i want to ask anyways. and ill try to stop bothering you guys too.

Adam and eve were the first humans to be put on earth. Fact.
but what i dont understand is this. in the bible it says they had children too. Adam and Eve had two children in fact. so with that being said how did everyone else come about? Did Adams son have to have sex with Eve in order to populate the earth like wise did Adam have to have sex with her daughter?

i guess what im getting at here is i dont know enough about adam and eve. could you explain this to me.
Hi Mr Isla

Adam and Eve lived a long time and had many, many, children who married each other. I want to look at a few things 1) the story of Cain and Abel tells us how the fall of Adam and Eve grew to include jealousy and murder. 2) The Bible tells us Seth was born as a replacement for Abel, 3) At Seth’s birth Adam is 130 years. So how old was Eve when Seth was born? We are not told however we know she had two son (Abel & Cain) who sound to be grown, so lets assume a minimum 40 and we know she was younger than Adam so a maximum 129. 4) Now notice what is missing- Cain is older than Abel but not titled First Born which was historicly an important title. Why not? Probably Cain was not the first born of Adam. So now we would like to know how old was Adam when Eve was created? The bible does not tell us however some common sense would suggest they were close in age. So why does it matter? Well if Eve is close in age to Adam then she is over 120 when she bears Seth. If we look at another extreme making her 40 years old then a 90 year difference is between her and Adam, this makes no sense because then Adam did not need a woman for 89 years.

So what is the point? Adam and Eve lived much longer than you or I, and they bore many children for many more years than you or I can bear children. Had Eve bore children from the age of 20 and Seth was even her last child lets guess her 120 (10 years younger than Adam) then she would have bore children over a 100 years or roughly 50 children. Though the bible does not claim Seth as the last.

Now these children married each other however it was not actually “incest” because “incest” did not exist yet. Later god would stop the practice being able to marry any unmarried person and require the marriage only be only non-siblings.

Now while we are on this subject, if Eve bore 50 children, and those children did the same Eve would have 625 grand children, over 97,000 great grand children, and 2.4 million great-great grand children. And the next generation would over populate the earth! Only 6 generations and the earth would be over populated. So maybe that is why we do not live 900 years or bear children over a 100+ years.

*Genesis 2
21 So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, 23 5 the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.” 24 6 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.

Genesis 4

25 6 Adam again had relations with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she called Seth. “God has granted me more offspring in place of Abel,” she said, “because Cain slew him.” 26 To Seth, in turn, a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to invoke the LORD by name.

Genesis 5
1
1 This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God; 2 he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them “man.” 3 Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when he begot a son in his likeness, after his image; and he named him Seth. 4 Adam lived eight hundred years after the birth of Seth, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 The whole lifetime of Adam was nine hundred and thirty years; then he died. 6 When Seth was one hundred and five years old, he became the father of Enosh. 7 Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after the birth of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters. 8 The whole lifetime of Seth was nine hundred and twelve years; then he died.*
usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top