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?

[RickD]

You pretty much explained what a lot of theistic evolutionists believe. Except you're saying God created different races, and put them around the world. Many TEs say God created, and then used evolution to get different human "races" in different parts of the world.

[abelcainsbrother]

You pretty much explained what a lot of theistic evolutionists believe. Except you're saying God created different races, and put them around the world. Many TEs say God created, and then used evolution to get different human "races" in different parts of the world.

Good point but I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist and reject evolution.I don't see a need for evolution if this is the right interpretation.

[RickD]

You pretty much explained what a lot of theistic evolutionists believe. Except you're saying God created different races, and put them around the world. Many TEs say God created, and then used evolution to get different human "races" in different parts of the world.

Good point but I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist and reject evolution.I don't see a need for evolution if this is the right interpretation.

Sure. And I don't see a need for evolution if giant grasshoppers flew across the galaxy and delivered humans to earth.

You just seem like you are trying to fight evolution, by coming up with any idea that's not evolution.

Evolution is not anti-God.

I know you don't believe that. But what happened if God used evolution?

What happens if future discoveries point more towards evolution being true? What do you think that would mean for Christianity?


Evolution does not necessarily equal "abiogenesis without God".

[abelcainsbrother]

You pretty much explained what a lot of theistic evolutionists believe. Except you're saying God created different races, and put them around the world. Many TEs say God created, and then used evolution to get different human "races" in different parts of the world.

Good point but I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist and reject evolution.I don't see a need for evolution if this is the right interpretation.

Sure. And I don't see a need for evolution if giant grasshoppers flew across the galaxy and delivered humans to earth.

You just seem like you are trying to fight evolution, by coming up with any idea that's not evolution.

Evolution is not anti-God.

I know you don't believe that. But what happened if God used evolution?

What happens if future discoveries point more towards evolution being true? What do you think that would mean for Christianity?


Evolution does not necessarily equal "abiogenesis without God".

Actually this has nothing to do with evolution. I just tried to address evolution because you brought up Theistic evolution. This is about understanding the bible truthfully. I know evolution has nothing to do with God,I reject evolution based on the evidence for evolution
I never even bring up abiogenesis when discussing evolution I deal with life evolving and the lack of evidence life evolves. It is true that God could have used evolution but without real evidence life evolves I see no reason to believe he did. This is about understanding Genesis more truthfully and was not even about evolution.

[RickD]

What you're putting forth, is very similar to what many TEs believe. You're just claiming direct creation, instead of gradual evolution.

Maybe God did create different "races", in different areas around the globe.

But as I understand it, the beginning of humanity points to an African origin.

[abelcainsbrother]

What you're putting forth, is very similar to what many TEs believe. You're just claiming direct creation, instead of gradual evolution.

Maybe God did create different "races", in different areas around the globe.

But as I understand it, the beginning of humanity points to an African origin.

It mightnbe similar to TE,however then it would become an issue of time and that would start a debate about old earth or young world,young earth,etc. I'm simply just trying to understand Genesis more truthfully. I believe this earth is billions of years old but this world we live in is only about 6000 years old,while young earth creationists believe everything is 6000 years old and Theistic evolutionists make evolution fit into their old earth scenario. I'm just simply trying to understand Genesis more truthfully. I believe we could have been blinded by the traditions of man about Adam and Eve.

[RickD]

What you're putting forth, is very similar to what many TEs believe. You're just claiming direct creation, instead of gradual evolution.

Maybe God did create different "races", in different areas around the globe.

But as I understand it, the beginning of humanity points to an African origin.

It mightnbe similar to TE,however then it would become an issue of time and that would start a debate about old earth or young world,young earth,etc. I'm simply just trying to understand Genesis more truthfully. I believe this earth is billions of years old but this world we live in is only about 6000 years old,while young earth creationists believe everything is 6000 years old and Theistic evolutionists make evolution fit into their old earth scenario. I'm just simply trying to understand Genesis more truthfully. I believe we could have been blinded by the traditions of man about Adam and Eve.

Ok. But if you're only trying to understand Genesis correctly, you won't get what you're proposing from Genesis. It's simply not there. So, if you're going to say what you are saying, do you have any evidence anywhere that points to this theory? Or, are you just putting it out there for thought?

[abelcainsbrother]

What you're putting forth, is very similar to what many TEs believe. You're just claiming direct creation, instead of gradual evolution.

Maybe God did create different "races", in different areas around the globe.

But as I understand it, the beginning of humanity points to an African origin.

It mightnbe similar to TE,however then it would become an issue of time and that would start a debate about old earth or young world,young earth,etc. I'm simply just trying to understand Genesis more truthfully. I believe this earth is billions of years old but this world we live in is only about 6000 years old,while young earth creationists believe everything is 6000 years old and Theistic evolutionists make evolution fit into their old earth scenario. I'm just simply trying to understand Genesis more truthfully. I believe we could have been blinded by the traditions of man about Adam and Eve.

Ok. But if you're only trying to understand Genesis correctly, you won't get what you're proposing from Genesis. It's simply not there. So, if you're going to say what you are saying, do you have any evidence anywhere that points to this theory? Or, are you just putting it out there for thought?

OK if its wrong,why is it? No I did not give direct evidence however did bring up the issue of genetics,land bridges,where did Cain get his wife?,etc These issues are cleared up looking at it fromthis perspective. What makes it wrong?

[RickD]

What you're putting forth, is very similar to what many TEs believe. You're just claiming direct creation, instead of gradual evolution.

Maybe God did create different "races", in different areas around the globe.

But as I understand it, the beginning of humanity points to an African origin.

It mightnbe similar to TE,however then it would become an issue of time and that would start a debate about old earth or young world,young earth,etc. I'm simply just trying to understand Genesis more truthfully. I believe this earth is billions of years old but this world we live in is only about 6000 years old,while young earth creationists believe everything is 6000 years old and Theistic evolutionists make evolution fit into their old earth scenario. I'm just simply trying to understand Genesis more truthfully. I believe we could have been blinded by the traditions of man about Adam and Eve.

Ok. But if you're only trying to understand Genesis correctly, you won't get what you're proposing from Genesis. It's simply not there. So, if you're going to say what you are saying, do you have any evidence anywhere that points to this theory? Or, are you just putting it out there for thought?

OK if its wrong,why is it? No I did not give direct evidence however did bring up the issue of genetics,land bridges,where did Cain get his wife?,etc These issues are cleared up looking at it fromthis perspective. What makes it wrong?

I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying I don't think you can make the case from Genesis alone. I'm not dismissing it as a possibility.

[abelcainsbrother]

Well if it is wrong I would like for somebody to make a case for why it would be wrong biblically.Like I said,I realize it goes against tradition,I know most people are already settled on a particular interpretation,however I also think it is possible that we overlooked what it was really telling us this whole time.I realize people will disagree but if they do I'd like them to explain why biblically.I'm not claiming I'm totally sold in this interpretation but have been thinking about it for alittle while.So is it is wrong? Why is it? Besides just rejecting it out of hand.Put on your bible thinking caps.

[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.

[RickD]

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.

I agree Neo.

And that's what I was trying to say. There's no basis for this belief in Genesis.

[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.

[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.