Adam and Eve

[thebesttrees]

My answer is "No"... I believe God created other men and women of all races (mankind). "Male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27). The story continues and focuses on Adam and Eve, because it was through their lineage that Messiah would come, which is why Eve is referred to as the mother of all living. Most scientist agree that its not genetically possible for all humans to have descended from one couple.. Admittedly, my opinion is of the minority. The 8th Day Creation of Man

To add credence to other beliefs such as yours, and support them using reason, we need to understand the meanings of the words "FLESH", "NUDE" , SHAME", "MAN", "WOMAN" and some other key words in light of the teachings of the New Testament. These are some of the key words used in Genesis chapter 2 and find verses 23 and 24:

23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

For instance the word "FLESH" cannot be the simple flesh that we are made of as such definition will not hold water in verse 24. The Word of God needs to be fathomed as He demands understanding from us. Simple reading had catastrophic consequences for the Jews when they rejected our Lord and crucified Him. They denounced Him as the Son of God did not conform to their simple reading of the verses of the Old Testament. Let us not fall prey to the same.

 

[tanach]

DAN58 Scientifically The whole story and some others mentioned in the Bible are not possible, including the resurrection.
but we are not talking about science. The story only mentioned one couple made in the image of God. Eve would be the Mother of all living if she was the first female. Bible scholars claim that there are actually two versions of the creation story in Genesis anyway. Whatever way it goes there would have to be a first pair of People, unless several pairs sprang into existence at once, like mushrooms.

 

[thebesttrees]

DAN58 Scientifically The whole story and some others mentioned in the Bible are not possible, including the resurrection.
but we are not talking about science. The story only mentioned one couple made in the image of God. Eve would be the Mother of all living if she was the first female. Bible scholars claim that there are actually two versions of the creation story in Genesis anyway. Whatever way it goes there would have to be a first pair of People, unless several pairs sprang into existence at once, like mushrooms.

Please see my previous posts here on this same thread as we still must reason from the Scriptures to arrive at our understanding. We cannot throw reason out the door just because scientists love to use it more than faith.

 

[atwhatcost]

Well Lynn incest is against the law (both secular and religious), against progress of civilization, and would surely not be accepted by any right minded person of any religion.
And if Christianity claims morality as its domain and the Bible as the only guide, any contradictions should be explored before anyone considers your religion.
And finally, it seems almost clumsy to make two people without thought of the future of the species other than incest. Why not make many people at once rather than cause so much obvious confusion and discussion?
Thank you for your reply

Sorry, wasn't really expecting a reply. I've asked the same question when people ask on other forums or back in the days of chatrooms, I'm kind of use to dead silence. (The chatrooms were funny. There really would be this long moment of silence where my question just lingered there. Either that, or it was 9600 baud made it look that way. lol)

But, have you tried reading the Bible yet? Noah may have been the last guy in OT to only have one wife. Abraham had two. His wife was also his sister. Abraham also went through great lengths for his son to marry in the family, although I think that was a cousin, not a sister. His grandson had four. The Israelite were supposed to marry within their own families. There were only 13 tribes (two from Joseph's sons, so they're called half-tribes), and it was only four generations since Israel took all his kids to Egypt. (Close to 3 million people from 12 kids in the space of 400 years. Someone was marrying their family even then. Not everyone, but most did.) Solomon (the man best known for being wise, although I often wonder how wise he was if he had that many wives) was over 500. (I think a 1000, but haven't read the story in a number of years.)

Funny thing. You claim moral superiority, but you haven't noticed. Several thousand years later and it's still legal and moral to marry your cousin. We're not that far away from that beginning you seem to be refusing.

So morally? Nope. How do you create the right conditions to fill the earth without first starting with family?

And, honestly? We don't claim morality. That's not our thing. Following the Christ is our thing. This "morality" junk is just a modern word for what people say they do when they make up their own rules and then try (and fail) to live by them. God's law has a base. All other law is subjective morality.

So, here we are. The reality is if you have no idea that many in the OT were married to more than one person, and usually closely related, then this is merely your excuse to avoid God. You cannot go with "any contradictions" as an excuse until you actually study the subject to find if there are any.

This really isn't about morality. This is about you asking whatever to avoid the obvious -- God is. You think if you can throw something out far enough away from the center of what we believe, no one will notice you're avoiding the main subject all together.

Like I said. I didn't expect an answer. I didn't expect an answer because that one usually kills off anything but an honest discussion of the God in the Bible. You simply pretended higher "moral" grounds to avoid that. Didn't work.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

This is what I count as a case of "Christian Baiting". It's like an old bass in a lake that years ago bit a new lure, that fell yet again for my 35 year old forgotten bass bait, a scratched up wooden black Heddon Zara Spook.

This question has been answered perhaps hundreds of thousands of times online and in books, but still makes the circle.

God introduced laws as sin increased. In Genesis there is no concept of "incest", no law against it. Without a law prohibiting an action, God won't punish that action under full penalty of sin judgment. He can and does withhold blessings when an action displeases him. Law defines and then manages sin. Blessings/curses in that order, apart from punishment through law sentencing are managers of behavioral problems that man doesn't seem capable of handling on his own. That principle works for parents in training their children. You don't have to abuse them, but do well to take away privileges, toys, etc.. until they come into agreement.

Adam violated the one law of God not to eat of the one tree. Adam's oldest son committed murder, not yet a prohibited act defined by God, yet God held off making a general law for all not to require life for life for murder, but added a curse on the works of a man's hands. Making laws without the events being regulated having happened to excess makes little sense.

Noah was limited to 3 sons, but without restrictions from God. Abraham was without restrictions as to how many wives. Moses didn't pass on a law restricting numbers of wives, allowing King Solomon to have hundreds of wives and concubines he was able to take care of as a responsible husband and father of their children.

DNA was discovered decades ago. Until then mankind has gone by what God says to do or not to do. That's the way God made it, and there's no change.

Gentile believers have been excused from the religious laws of the Jews, as recorded in Acts 15. That doesn't mean non-Jews can't be blessed by not obeying Jewish laws. There are blessings for anyone who obeys certain vital laws of Moses, even unbelieving Gentiles. There came a time in the course of humanity that men didn't need to have children by their blood sisters, there being many women of other familes to choose from.

 

[resurrection33]

As a new member I have a question that has been bothering me- I am curious about Christianity. Did Adam and Eve's children have children with each other? This is a question I have had problems with considering Christianity.
I would appreciate some enlightening on this topic.

Many thanks,

Charlie

I suppose Adam and Eve's children had children with each other. How else could the human race have grown? We would not exist if they hadn't had children.

 

[thebesttrees]

I suppose Adam and Eve's children had children with each other. How else could the human race have grown? We would not exist if they hadn't had children.

With all due respect and not wanting to insult anyone, not knowing "How else could the human race have grown?" does not constitute sound proof that Adam and Eve;s children had children together. It is like saying that if someone who has never seen an airplane nor knows about what it is, would say that the only way his cousins were able to go from California to Hawaii in a few hours was only possible because they were able to catch rides on some giant eagles.

 

[resurrection33]

With all due respect and not wanting to insult anyone, not knowing "How else could the human race have grown?" does not constitute sound proof that Adam and Eve;s children had children together. It is like saying that if someone who has never seen an airplane nor knows about what it is, would say that the only way his cousins were able to go from California to Hawaii in a few hours was only possible because they were able to catch rides on some giant eagles.

I believe the Bible's version that the Lord created one man and one woman, and the world was populated from those two. What else could have happened? Did the Lord create lots of Adams and Eves? Did we evolve from monkeys?

 

[thebesttrees]

I believe the Bible's version that the Lord created one man and one woman, and the world was populated from those two. What else could have happened? Did the Lord create lots of Adams and Eves? Did we evolve from monkeys?

I am not concerned about the other methods or scenarios. No I do not believe that we came from monkeys. No I do not believe that God created many Adams and Eves. But at the same time, I try to understand what the Bible teaches and not to jump into conclusions.

For me the Word of God is primarily guidance that I need to become closer to my Lord spiritually. In doing so, I try to understand the meaning of "flesh" in these two verses of Genesis 2:

23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Does the "flesh" in verse 23 mean the same as the "flesh" in verse 24?

 

[resurrection33]

I am not concerned about the other methods or scenarios. No I do not believe that we came from monkeys. No I do not believe that God created many Adams and Eves. But at the same time, I try to understand what the Bible teaches and not to jump into conclusions.

For me the Word of God is primarily guidance that I need to become closer to my Lord spiritually. In doing so, I try to understand the meaning of "flesh" in these two verses of Genesis 2:

23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Does the "flesh" in verse 23 mean the same as the "flesh" in verse 24?

Must you make me think so hard? This is my day off. Yes, I suppose it does mean the same thing. Does that mean I reached the wrong conclusion about something?

 

[Bowman]

As a new member I have a question that has been bothering me- I am curious about Christianity. Did Adam and Eve's children have children with each other? This is a question I have had problems with considering Christianity.
I would appreciate some enlightening on this topic.

Many thanks,

Charlie

Incest was not an issue in the beginning when our genes were pure.

 

[thebesttrees]

Must you make me think so hard? This is my day off. Yes, I suppose it does mean the same thing. Does that mean I reached the wrong conclusion about something?

Sorry. Will try to catch up with you some other time. Food for thought as the "flesh" in the second verse most probably denotes "purpose". Why not see the first verse in the light of the second one and numerous references in the New Testament to "flesh" and "Adam"? Please respond some other time when you are not on your day off. I know how precious such time is. God bless you.

 

[KJV1611]

23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Does the "flesh" in verse 23 mean the same as the "flesh" in verse 24?

Yes. When a man unites with his wife, a new birth takes place... a new baby. The two fleshes become one flesh in the child.
The spiritual version of that is when Christ knows (KJV version of uniting) his wife, a new birth takes place... our second birth.

 

[resurrection33]

Sorry. Will try to catch up with you some other time. Food for thought as the "flesh" in the second verse most probably denotes "purpose". Why not see the first verse in the light of the second one and numerous references in the New Testament to "flesh" and "Adam"? Please respond some other time when you are not on your day off. I know how precious such time is. God bless you.

Why would "flesh" in the second verse most probably denote "purpose"?

 

[Rockbysea]

Let's suppose Cain was born when Adam was 200 years old.....

This is not something you need to suppose because it’s in the bible. Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old (Gen. 5:3). When Seth was born (Adam’s 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] son), Eve said “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” Cain was the firstborn so we know Adam was a lot younger than 130 when he had Cain.

And when you go through the genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5 Cain is not mentioned because he was banished and not living among Adam’s decedents but was living in another region (the land of Nod) who were another people unrelated to Adam. Cain’s resulting genealogy is mentioned earlier in Gen 6: 16-24. Adam’s decedents begin with Seth (his 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] born) not with Cain. We can see therefore that Cain did not intermarry with any of Adam’s decedents which is why these two genealogies (Adam’s and Cain’s) are separately mentioned.

 

[Rockbysea]

Correction: Gen 4:16-24 not Gen 6:16-24

 

[Rockbysea]

I see you didn't bother to read the rest of my posts. For shame.

No need to address the rest of your commentary because it was all based upon the premise that “Adam and Eve were the only humans alive at the time…" which I don’t see evidence of in the scripture.

 

[Tintin]

Somebody tried to tell me once that Seth was born first... thank you for the age of Adam at the time of Seth's birth. But really we have no idea how long they were in the garden before being expelled. I have the link you gave open in another tab, to read when I am not so tired. Thank you, Tintin

We don't know specifics, but we can infer that it wasn't very long. Certainly longer than a couple days (the Bible mentions that God regularly walked in the garden in the cool of the day before the Fall), but nowhere near as long as a year. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and to multiply/to fill the earth and they would have obeyed! They had physically perfect bodies and this means that they would have been capable of conceiving immediately, at least with the first menstrual cycle. And yet Adam and Eve's firstborn, Cain was born sinful, as they had no children until some time after being banished from the garden of Eden.

 

[Tintin]

To add credence to other beliefs such as yours, and support them using reason, we need to understand the meanings of the words "FLESH", "NUDE" , SHAME", "MAN", "WOMAN" and some other key words in light of the teachings of the New Testament. These are some of the key words used in Genesis chapter 2 and find verses 23 and 24:

23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

For instance the word "FLESH" cannot be the simple flesh that we are made of as such definition will not hold water in verse 24. The Word of God needs to be fathomed as He demands understanding from us. Simple reading had catastrophic consequences for the Jews when they rejected our Lord and crucified Him. They denounced Him as the Son of God did not conform to their simple reading of the verses of the Old Testament. Let us not fall prey to the same.

Nope. Nope. Nice try, but nope. For the very reason Tanach and others (myself included) have already mentioned.

 

[Tintin]

DAN58 Scientifically The whole story and some others mentioned in the Bible are not possible, including the resurrection.
but we are not talking about science. The story only mentioned one couple made in the image of God. Eve would be the Mother of all living if she was the first female. Bible scholars claim that there are actually two versions of the creation story in Genesis anyway. Whatever way it goes there would have to be a first pair of People, unless several pairs sprang into existence at once, like mushrooms.

One creation story, two different focuses. The first chapter is broad in scope, covering the whole of Creation. The second chapter is the same Creation, but the focus rests on the creation of Adam and Eve, as being the first humans.