Adam and Eve

[abelcainsbrother]

As you know because tradition most Christians today believe God only created Adam and Eve and they are the father and mother of us all,but is this what the bible really teaches?I'm going to propose another view that I believe makes much more sense.

Genesis 1:26-31 "And God said,Let us make man in our image,after our likeness:and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle,,and over all the earth,and over everything that creepeth upon the earth.
And God created man in his image,inthe image of God created he him;male and female created he them.
And God blessed them,and God said unto them,Be fruitful,and multipily,and replenish the earth,and subdue it:and have dominion over fish of the sea,and over the fowl of the airand over everything that moveth upon the earth.

From tradition we've been led to believe that this was just Adam and Eve,one man and one woman,however I believe that is not what it is saying God created all of the races,both male and female,and some were fisherman,some were hunters,and some were farmers and he spread them out all over the earth.Hello Australia! ,American Indians,etc. No land bridges needed too.

Then in chapter 2 of Genesis he creates Adam and Eve because this is the race Jesus would be born from. This clears up the problem of incest too,where did Cain get his wife?,but also genetically it is impossible for all of the different races we have today to come from just one man and one woman Adam and Eve.

So what do you think? I realize it throws tradition in the trash can,however it makes much more sense,what do you think? Do you agree? If this is wrong,why and what makes it wrong?

It makes sense under evolution why there are so many races, migrations and all that. But in the Genesis scenario there is no support for this. What we have is silence on the matter. We do know there were other people present but where did they come from the Bible doesn't say.

Some Islamic traditions have the same view, that God created specific people with skills and diiferent races and placed them around the globe and gave them various languages. But if you ask me, biblically, this is at best a blank and anyone can fill it with what they like.

And yes the human diversity we have today can't come from a single couple...but I digress.

What do you mean there is no support for this? Are you meaning scholarly? Perhaps we need to dig into the hebrew? however I usually just go by the English translation first.How does it make sense under evolution,but not this way? It seems to me if you can interpret it that way with evolution then you could for this interpretation as well.

I am sorry but this is not a matter of interpretation. I reject parts of the genesis story, I don't like to fit it into the evolution mechanism to make it work, so this isn't, "well you can do then so can I".

Another point you should know is that interpretation without merit from the text is just an opinion, and everyone has one.

OK well what about this? You brought up a good point about the bible being silent so instead of saying God created all the different races and scattered them,what if I said he just created the different races at that time both male and female but did'nt scatter them accross the earth?because I don't like to add to the text.

[melanie]

Everyone has an opinion and interpretation.
It being so varied because well we just don't know.
Scientifically or biblically exclusively.
The Bible is not a scientific manual, written for a people long before scientific understanding but yet so many truths lay within.
And science is man's understanding of Gods domain. Our understanding cannot fathom or truly hold complete or near understanding.
So religion and science go head to head.
And every interpretation within that.

When it suits us with a particular theory we say that we have no way of knowing the time span between different versus within text in Genesis. Does a day mean a day as we understand it? Did God create man and woman to have dominion, then some ...... timespan later create Adam and Eve?
Yet in Genesis 2 it also states that not a shrub had appeared or plant.
So how does that tie in with the possibility of there being humans roaming the earth without vegetation??

I don't think we know. It's an educated guess at best.

[abelcainsbrother]

Everyone has an opinion and interpretation.
It being so varied because well we just don't know.
Scientifically or biblically exclusively.
The Bible is not a scientific manual, written for a people long before scientific understanding but yet so many truths lay within.
And science is man's understanding of Gods domain. Our understanding cannot fathom or truly hold complete or near understanding.
So religion and science go head to head.
And every interpretation within that.

When it suits us with a particular theory we say that we have no way of knowing the time span between different versus within text in Genesis. Does a day mean a day as we understand it? Did God create man and woman to have dominion, then some ...... timespan later create Adam and Eve?
Yet in Genesis 2 it also states that not a shrub had appeared or plant.
So how does that tie in with the possibility of there being humans roaming the earth without vegetation??

I don't think we know. It's an educated guess at best.

You bring up a good point about vegetation that actually gets me to thinking.But I see vegetation in Genesis 1 after he creates man and male and female as we have tradionally believed and so it could apply to this interpretation as well,I think.It really clears up the genetic problem but some will bring up the tower of babel and claim that when God confused the languages that was when other races were then produced,but again I'm not sure,because the problem was they would'nt spread out like God wanted,perhaps at that time all races spoke the same language until then even when there were already different races.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Yet in Genesis 2 it also states that not a shrub had appeared or plant.

There is no contradiction between the account of the creation of man in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Plants were created on Day 3 and man was created on Day 6. If you look at Ge 2:8, you'll see that «...God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. (NIV) So, while no shrub or plant had yet appeared on the surface of the earth , Ge 2:5-6, apparently there was a garden - like a potted plant - somewhere in this bleak landscape.

The vegetation was limited to Eden at this time, if you take the Bible at its word.

[B. W.]

Yet in Genesis 2 it also states that not a shrub had appeared or plant.

There is no contradiction between the account of the creation of man in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Plants were created on Day 3 and man was created on Day 6. If you look at Ge 2:8, you'll see that «...God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. (NIV) So, while no shrub or plant had yet appeared on the surface of the earth , Ge 2:5-6, apparently there was a garden - like a potted plant - somewhere in this bleak landscape.

The vegetation was limited to Eden at this time, if you take the Bible at its word.

That's the time line... only I would say all the earth had plants and trees on the third day while God made a special protected place in Eden.

The Genesis account makes sense from an OEC perspective as I mentioned stated in the Genesis Cahpters 1-3 thread

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 9&start=30
-
-
-

[neo-x]

As you know because tradition most Christians today believe God only created Adam and Eve and they are the father and mother of us all,but is this what the bible really teaches?I'm going to propose another view that I believe makes much more sense.

Genesis 1:26-31 "And God said,Let us make man in our image,after our likeness:and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,and over the fowl of the air,and over the cattle,,and over all the earth,and over everything that creepeth upon the earth.
And God created man in his image,inthe image of God created he him;male and female created he them.
And God blessed them,and God said unto them,Be fruitful,and multipily,and replenish the earth,and subdue it:and have dominion over fish of the sea,and over the fowl of the airand over everything that moveth upon the earth.

From tradition we've been led to believe that this was just Adam and Eve,one man and one woman,however I believe that is not what it is saying God created all of the races,both male and female,and some were fisherman,some were hunters,and some were farmers and he spread them out all over the earth.Hello Australia! ,American Indians,etc. No land bridges needed too.

Then in chapter 2 of Genesis he creates Adam and Eve because this is the race Jesus would be born from. This clears up the problem of incest too,where did Cain get his wife?,but also genetically it is impossible for all of the different races we have today to come from just one man and one woman Adam and Eve.

So what do you think? I realize it throws tradition in the trash can,however it makes much more sense,what do you think? Do you agree? If this is wrong,why and what makes it wrong?

It makes sense under evolution why there are so many races, migrations and all that. But in the Genesis scenario there is no support for this. What we have is silence on the matter. We do know there were other people present but where did they come from the Bible doesn't say.

Some Islamic traditions have the same view, that God created specific people with skills and diiferent races and placed them around the globe and gave them various languages. But if you ask me, biblically, this is at best a blank and anyone can fill it with what they like.

And yes the human diversity we have today can't come from a single couple...but I digress.

What do you mean there is no support for this? Are you meaning scholarly? Perhaps we need to dig into the hebrew? however I usually just go by the English translation first.How does it make sense under evolution,but not this way? It seems to me if you can interpret it that way with evolution then you could for this interpretation as well.

I am sorry but this is not a matter of interpretation. I reject parts of the genesis story, I don't like to fit it into the evolution mechanism to make it work, so this isn't, "well you can do then so can I".

Another point you should know is that interpretation without merit from the text is just an opinion, and everyone has one.

OK well what about this? You brought up a good point about the bible being silent so instead of saying God created all the different races and scattered them,what if I said he just created the different races at that time both male and female but did'nt scatter them accross the earth?because I don't like to add to the text.

But you are still adding to it, to answer questions which are important. There is no margin in Genesis to add that and you have no merit from the text to do that. You can have it as your opinion but that is it.

[RickD]

Yet in Genesis 2 it also states that not a shrub had appeared or plant.

There is no contradiction between the account of the creation of man in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Plants were created on Day 3 and man was created on Day 6. If you look at Ge 2:8, you'll see that «...God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. (NIV) So, while no shrub or plant had yet appeared on the surface of the earth , Ge 2:5-6, apparently there was a garden - like a potted plant - somewhere in this bleak landscape.

The vegetation was limited to Eden at this time, if you take the Bible at its word.

That could be talking specifically about the garden of Eden.
If you take the bible at its word.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

That's the time line... only I would say all the earth had plants and trees on the third day while God made a special protected place in Eden.

The text doesn't say that. The text is quite clear when it says that ...no shrub or plant had yet appeared on the earth...» yet there was a garden planted in the east. Genesis 1:9-13 doesn't say that the whole earth was covered in vegetation.

In this, neo has it right:

But you are still adding to [the text], to answer questions which are important. There is no margin in Genesis to add that and you have no merit from the text to do that. You can have it as your opinion but that is it.

That could be talking specifically about the garden of Eden.
If you take the bible at its word.

If so, you still have to assume that there was some vast & sterile expanse of land (Ge 2:5) in the middle of a lush, green earth; and in the middle of this barren space was the Garden. In any case, you too must add to the text. Neo's quote also applies to you:

But you are still adding to it, to answer questions which are important. There is no margin in Genesis to add that and you have no merit from the text to do that. You can have it as your opinion but that is it.

[RickD]

FL wrote:
If so, you still have to assume that there was some vast & sterile expanse of land (Ge 2:5) in the middle of a lush, green earth; and in the middle of this barren space was the Garden. In any case, you too must add to the text. Neo's quote also applies to you:

Au contraire mom frère.

The word translated as earth, also means land. So, read the verse with "land" where it says "earth".


Not adding to the text, and still taking the bible at its word.

5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to [a]cultivate the ground.

Now with land:

5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the land, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the land, and there was no man to [a]cultivate the ground.

Still keeping the literal meaning of scripture.

[abelcainsbrother]

It makes sense under evolution why there are so many races, migrations and all that. But in the Genesis scenario there is no support for this. What we have is silence on the matter. We do know there were other people present but where did they come from the Bible doesn't say.

Some Islamic traditions have the same view, that God created specific people with skills and diiferent races and placed them around the globe and gave them various languages. But if you ask me, biblically, this is at best a blank and anyone can fill it with what they like.

And yes the human diversity we have today can't come from a single couple...but I digress.

What do you mean there is no support for this? Are you meaning scholarly? Perhaps we need to dig into the hebrew? however I usually just go by the English translation first.How does it make sense under evolution,but not this way? It seems to me if you can interpret it that way with evolution then you could for this interpretation as well.

I am sorry but this is not a matter of interpretation. I reject parts of the genesis story, I don't like to fit it into the evolution mechanism to make it work, so this isn't, "well you can do then so can I".

Another point you should know is that interpretation without merit from the text is just an opinion, and everyone has one.

OK well what about this? You brought up a good point about the bible being silent so instead of saying God created all the different races and scattered them,what if I said he just created the different races at that time both male and female but did'nt scatter them accross the earth?because I don't like to add to the text.

But you are still adding to it, to answer questions which are important. There is no margin in Genesis to add that and you have no merit from the text to do that. You can have it as your opinion but that is it.

I'm still not convinced.I don't like to think of God not knowing about genetics and eventhough at the time it was written the people did'nt either, I believe God knew we would learn about genetics in the future and this interpretation I came accross clears it up,if we can admit we interpreted it wrong this whole time,until now. Right now I have not got into the hebrew and am just going by our english translation,but perhaps we need to dig a little deeper to see if the hebrew can reveal it was not just talking about God creating just one man and one woman,but all of the different races both male and female at that time in Genesis 1,it does seem to imply it too just by reading the english because he wanted them to be fruiful and multiply and replenish the earth then later in Genesis 2 created Adam and Eve. I'm seriously considering changing my interpretation that I always thought was right,but is'nt perhaps. Let's not forget God's word is living and we are warned about traditions of man too.

[abelcainsbrother]

I also don't see how it would hurt any interpretations we have either whether YEC,OEC,Gap,TE,etc. It would help us all out genetically,I think.So why would it hurt your present interpretation?

[DBowling]

This is a topic of recent interest for me, so let me jump in with some thoughts.

Here is my understanding of what Scripture claims.
1. God created mankind in his image on "day 6" of creation. Genesis 2:4 shows that day/yom within the context of the creation account is not 24 hours, so there is no Scriptural time frame given for the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27.
2. God created the Garden of Eden and placed Adam and Eve in the Garden in Genesis 2. The Scriptural narrative of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 takes place sometime after the creation of mankind in Genesis 1. Tradition claims that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of the events of "day 6" of Creation, but Scripture does not make that claim.
3. The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 does begin a genealogical timeline which places the historical Adam and Eve in Mesopotamia somewhere in the 5000 to 6000 BC time frame.
4. According to Scripture, Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all the Semitic races with the Israelites being the focal point of Old Testament history and God's chosen people from whom the Messiah would come, who would conquer sin and death and redeem not only Israel but all of mankind.

So the focus of the Old Testament Scriptures is primarily on the Israelites and does not speak to the origins of the other human racial groups.

Where Scripture is silent, genetics has given us some additional information.
Genetics tells us that all human racial groups can eventually trace their genetic roots back to the first physically modern humans who lived in Africa 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Humans then migrated out of Africa somewhere around 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, developed racial differences, and populated the planet tens of thousands of years before Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden in Mesopotamia circa 5000-6000 BC.

Even though the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve may not have been the genetic progenitors of all mankind. Genetics does tell us that all humans do have common ancestors from Africa some 200,000 years ago.

In Christ

[abelcainsbrother]

This is a topic of recent interest for me, so let me jump in with some thoughts.

Here is my understanding of what Scripture claims.
1. God created mankind in his image on "day 6" of creation. Genesis 2:4 shows that day/yom within the context of the creation account is not 24 hours, so there is no Scriptural time frame given for the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27.
2. God created the Garden of Eden and placed Adam and Eve in the Garden in Genesis 2. The Scriptural narrative of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 takes place sometime after the creation of mankind in Genesis 1. Tradition claims that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of the events of "day 6" of Creation, but Scripture does not make that claim.
3. The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 does begin a genealogical timeline which places the historical Adam and Eve in Mesopotamia somewhere in the 5000 to 6000 BC time frame.
4. According to Scripture, Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all the Semitic races with the Israelites being the focal point of Old Testament history and God's chosen people from whom the Messiah would come, who would conquer sin and death and redeem not only Israel but all of mankind.

So the focus of the Old Testament Scriptures is primarily on the Israelites and does not speak to the origins of the other human racial groups.

Where Scripture is silent, genetics has given us some additional information.
Genetics tells us that all human racial groups can eventually trace their genetic roots back to the first physically modern humans who lived in Africa 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Humans then migrated out of Africa somewhere around 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, developed racial differences, and populated the planet tens of thousands of years before Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden in Mesopotamia circa 5000-6000 BC.

Even though the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve may not have been the genetic progenitors of all mankind. Genetics does tell us that all humans do have common ancestors from Africa some 200,000 years ago.

In Christ

Wow! I agree with almost everything you said,except for the last part about "out of Africa" are you talking about the imaginary mito-Eve that is yet to be found? If so? would'nt this cause problems biblically?Seems to me to remain biblical we need to reject the imaginary mito-Eve that was just made up because they found evidence the bipedal primates are not man,so they made up mito-Eve kicking the can down the road to buy more time for excuses and to keep the evolution myth going.

[DBowling]

Wow! I agree with almost everything you said,except for the last part about "out of Africa" are you talking about the imaginary mito-Eve that is yet to be found? If so? would'nt this cause problems biblically?Seems to me to remain biblical we need to reject the imaginary mito-Eve that was just made up because they found evidence the bipedal primates are not man,so they made up mito-Eve kicking the can down the road to buy more time for excuses and to keep the evolution myth going.

Everything I mention above involves species homo sapiens sapiens... real live humans. No evolution or other hominid species anywhere in my post.

Archaeology and genetics both point to Africa as the origin point for physically modern humans/species homo sapiens sapiens/us.
The oldest human remains were found in Africa and are dated to around 190,000 years ago.
Genetics confirms that the common human ancestors for all the human races across the globe are also from Africa and are dated from 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

The "out of Africa" model for the origins of humans in Africa doesn't cause any Biblical problems at all.
There is no specific time stamp or location given for the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27.
We do have a time indicator and location for the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve who appear later in Genesis 2. Mesopotamia somewhere around 5000-6000 BC.

The only problem is with tradition not Scripture.
If you presume that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27 then there is a conflict between the "Out of Africa" model and the recapitulation tradition.

On the other hand if you read Genesis 1 and 2 sequentially then all alleged contradictions between the Out of Africa model and the Scriptural narrative disappear.
The creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27 on creation "day 6" could have taken place in Africa 200,000 years ago.
After the events of Genesis 1:26-27 mankind migrates out of Africa and eventually populates the whole planet, thus fulfilling God's mandate in Genesis 1:28.
Then later, in Genesis 2 God creates the Garden of Eden in Mesopotamia and places the Biblical/historical Adam and Eve, the progenitors of his chosen people and the future redeemer of all mankind, in the Garden somewhere around 5000-6000 BC and Biblical history begins.

In Christ