Adam and Eve

[born2wonder]

IS Adam and Eve modern humans are no humans before Adam and Eve

Contra G, the Bible does address this directly. There were no other modern humans before Adam and none created alongside of Adam--not, anyway, if we are to take the text at face value and if it is real history (which we should do).

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Gen. 2:18)
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth (Acts 17:26)

You lost me on the statement that we should take the text at face value. Why should we, when we know that the account of Adam and Eve is entirely a myth? It is irrelevant whether the myth says there were other people or not, because it is not a true account of history anyway.

[Kurieuo]

We "know" do we? This thread isn't relevant to you if you want to stomp. Really, only addressed to Christians.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

You lost me on the statement that we should take the text at face value. Why should we, when we know that the account of Adam and Eve is entirely a myth? It is irrelevant whether the myth says there were other people or not, because it is not a true account of history anyway.

Who is the ''we'' ???

Sorry, but the Bible must be taken at face value. Also, Kurieuo is right when he says that this discussion is for believers only. You are not able to understand: give up.

FL

[born2wonder]

You lost me on the statement that we should take the text at face value. Why should we, when we know that the account of Adam and Eve is entirely a myth? It is irrelevant whether the myth says there were other people or not, because it is not a true account of history anyway.

Who is the ''we'' ???

Sorry, but the Bible must be taken at face value. Also, Kurieuo is right when he says that this discussion is for believers only. You are not able to understand: give up.

FL

I am new and I don't know who the people in charge here are. I am also a longtime Christian, who has in his last less than 20 years come to the realization that my beliefs were taught to me, and accepted but they have no basis in fact. That is my opinion - I could be wrong. I don't see that attacking me as a person is the way to approach me. I usually do not become beligerent on discussions sites, unless I see someone using their beliefs in an actual harmful way, such as advocating harm against certain people, and I have seen a lot of that on the sites that I have been previous to this. I have an 89 yr old mother who is a strong believer and extremely active in her faith, and her sister, a retired minister, who is even more active, as she is physically in better shape to do so. I do not attack or discuss these subjects with believers, except on discussion sites.

If I chose a wrong thread here, it is because I jump into things, without reading all of the small print, as I am a multi-tasker online, and I currently have a very strong addiction to a karaoke site, where I spend most of my day, when I am indoors.

The "we" you asked about, I think, was taken from a comment that I was responding to, which not having that comment right at my view at this moment, was a bit of an attack on non-believers.

If this response sounds disrespectful, please advise me, and if this is a thread were non-believers are barred then I will use other threads, if I am permitted to do so.

In experience, though, a discussion, with everyone on the same point of view slapping each other on the back, really doesn't go anywhere.

Re the Bible must be taken at face value, if that is the case, then there is no choice but to toss it all out, because there are parts of the Bible that are verified to be untrue, and in my background, which was in a very prominent, and leading, denomination, that was even taught to me in the curriculum of our Sunday School when I was a child some 50 to 60 years ago.

[Jac3510]

The point, b2w, is that "we" don't know that the creation account is myth. That you believe that is your prerogative. Don't impose that on others. The logic of the thread is simple enough, and if you go back and read it, you'll see it clearly, I imagine.

As for your background, you ought not pretend an air of superiority because of your involvement with a "very prominent, and leading, denomination." Others can say the same. Others here have formal degrees in this subject matter. Some of us may as well have formal degrees given the number of years we've spent not merely listening to our pastors and Sunday School teachers in our "leading denominations" but actually reading and studying for ourselves--reading scientists, atheists, theists, philosophers, and all the rest.

If, then, you choose to ignorantly through the Bible out, then that is, again, your prerogative. None of that changes the fact that we must take it at face value. That's the way communication works. Someone uses words, we hear/read those words, understand their meaning, receive the message, and accept or reject the message. If we allow ourselvse to take those words, receive the message, reject the message, and then in light of that rejection go back and impose our own meanings on the words whereby we can introduce and "find" a message we find acceptable--which is a process often called eisogesis, or more popularly, not having to take the text at face value--then all communication becomes absolutely impossible.

Allow me to demonstrate. Since I don't like your message, I choose not to take it at face value. I will choose to interpret your words to mean that you are a committed, evangelical Christian. You are clearly a young earth creationist, committed to the notion that the earth was created a mere 6,000 years ago. Obviously, I know I can't get that from what you actually said, but since we both agree that words don't have to be taken at face value, that's how I'm reinterpreting you.

And don't bother, by the way, to tell me that I've misinterpreted you. Because I won't bother taking that at face value, either. I'll simply reinterpret that to my liking as well.

Unless we actually do have to take words at face value--including Scripture. In which case, I'll just "toss [all your post] out, because there are parts of [your post] that are verified to be untrue, and in my background, which was a very prominent, and leading, denomination, that was even taught to me in the curriculum of our Sunday School when I was a child some [30] year ago."

All the best to you.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I am also a longtime Christian...

You are not now, nor were you ever, a Christian. What you are now - as then - is self-deluded.

Having a pious mother, a pastor aunt and going to church every Sunday doesn't make you any more a Christian than driving a Formula 1 on Xbox makes you a race car driver. Do you know what makes a Christian, a Christian?

I don't see that attacking me as a person is the way to approach me.

What are you, a chocolate bunny? Get yourself a backbone! I am not ''attacking'' you. I'm telling you plainly what is in the Bible.

FL

[Kurieuo]

B2W meet FL.

[B. W.]

B2W meet FL.

and I 2nd that...
-
-
-

[UsagiTsukino]

So don't humans have a similar ancestor? I mean if we think about it there are human like animals found.

[neo-x]

So don't humans have a similar ancestor? I mean if we think about it there are human like animals found.

Most christians here believe that God used similar building structures, like a common dna so that's why we find its footprints in all life forms. I don't think that, and as you said, to me common ancestor is undeniable, but I'm a minority on this front and I don't think you will have much luck either.