Yes adam was said to be created on day 6. The accounts of eves creastion are contradictory.
As to how the human race continued is not specified, therefore you are interpreting,
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can I have both?
- Thread starter Jeremiah Ames
- Start date
Yes adam was said to be created on day 6. The accounts of eves creastion are contradictory.
As to how the human race continued is not specified, therefore you are interpreting,
Considering there are over 200 versions of the Bible in English and who knows how many in other language's, giving rise to over 50,000 sects of Christianity, each interpreting the version of the bible they favour differently to the rest. I see no consensus among Christians as to their interpretation. So im going to stick to how the majority books I've read are written
I will add, Cain's wife is one of the gaps in the Bible. Seems you've filled the gap with a filler that suits you.
Nope, 6th day mankind in general is created. I believe this to be our evolutionary ancestors. They evolved just as evolution tells us they did.
Sometime after the 7th day Adam and Eve. 1 very specific special family were created.
Cain and Seth's wife is not a gap. It is easily explained by the 6th day creations.
You are hung up on a false interpretation that Adam and Eve were the first humans. That is why you are experiencing gaps and what seems to be contradictions. The fault is in your rudimentary interpretation, not in what is written.
Mind you I am not trying to insult your intelligence. Just trying to help you understand.
Oh, poor maligned science.
How much does science really know about DNA, compared to what is yet to be discovered?
From your link....
"As of 2013, estimates for mt-MRCA and Y-MRCA alike are still subject to substantial uncertainty; thus, Y-MRCA has been estimated to have lived during a wide range of times from 180,000 to 580,000 years ago[6][7][8] (with an estimated age of between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the estimate for mt-MRCA[4][9]).
The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve.[10] This has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. The title of "Mitochondrial Eve" is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but rather shifts forward in time over the course of human history as the Eve maternal mtDNA lineage becomes extinct. Her female contemporaries, though they may have descendants alive today, no longer have an unbroken female line of descendants (daughter's daughter's daughter's … daughter) connecting them to living people."
When you take the Bible narrative as truth, it explains why humans lost so much of their 'godly' qualities when sin entered their DNA at the beginning of their history. It was passed on like some awful inherited genetic disorder with 100% chance of transmission. (Romans 5:12) No one missed out on this mutation of the genes.
Evolution makes no sense to a Bible believer for the simple reason that Jesus came to get back for Adam and Eve's children, what their disobedience took away from them. The theory of evolution is not a proven theory, but one that can change tomorrow with another discovery. It is not an exact science, but you'd never know it from the way evolutionists speak.
There is no way to reconcile the two scenarios. We either have to accept that the Bible is true (or more importantly, that we have the right interpretation of it) or we have to put our faith in men of science, who are largely driven by financial gain and academic status in the ego driven scientific community. They then become substitute 'religious' leaders in their temples of higher learning...
What we have is two conflicting belief systems, neither of which can be proven 'scientifically' by any method known to man.
It then becomes an exercise in faith either way IMO.
I take my position somewhere in the middle where I can accept what science can prove, as well as what it agrees with in the Bible. It agrees with much more than many people think, making our choices so much simpler. You don't have to give up the Bible to believe science, and you don't have to dismiss science to believe the Bible. True provable science compliments the Bible beautifully....after all, we believe that it was authored by the inventor of science.
The bible says nothing of mankind but the man
No it is not explained anywhere which is why scholars have been discussing it for at least 2000 years without an a answer.
I am hung up!on nothing i am simply stating what is written in the Bible. The one who is hung up is you hung up on your faiths interpretation of the gaps.
As for intelligence, i could in all probably leave you at the starting post. I'm not trying insult your intelligence though.
It clearly says man was made in our image on the 6th day. As I have already cited. Adam and Eve were not created until after the 7th day.
You are hung up on the idea that the bible claims Adam and Eve as the first men. Which is the root of your misunderstanding. You still can't get past it when you are presented with what the Bible actually says.
You are the one experiencing gaps which you have already admitted. These gaps are in your understanding, not in what the Bible has written.
Anyways we are at an impasse so it's best to just move on. Agree to disagree and move on. Thanks for your input!
Oh, poor maligned science.Really? Science puts itself up there like a replacement for God. It deserves to be challenged when it put suggestions forward as if they were facts. Most people are too uneducated to question them, so they accept everything they are told at face value....why? Because they are taught that science is way smarter than it actually is. Evolutionary science is mostly based on guesswork, not scientific facts. Their evidence is really the same as a Bible believer's....based on interpretation.
How much does science really know about DNA, compared to what is yet to be discovered?
From your link....
"As of 2013, estimates for mt-MRCA and Y-MRCA alike are still subject to substantial uncertainty; thus, Y-MRCA has been estimated to have lived during a wide range of times from 180,000 to 580,000 years ago[6][7][8] (with an estimated age of between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the estimate for mt-MRCA[4][9]).
The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to biblical Eve.[10] This has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. The title of "Mitochondrial Eve" is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but rather shifts forward in time over the course of human history as the Eve maternal mtDNA lineage becomes extinct. Her female contemporaries, though they may have descendants alive today, no longer have an unbroken female line of descendants (daughter's daughter's daughter's … daughter) connecting them to living people."
When you take the Bible narrative as truth, it explains why humans lost so much of their 'godly' qualities when sin entered their DNA at the beginning of their history. It was passed on like some awful inherited genetic disorder with 100% chance of transmission. (Romans 5:12) No one missed out on this mutation of the genes.
Evolution makes no sense to a Bible believer for the simple reason that Jesus came to get back for Adam and Eve's children, what their disobedience took away from them. The theory of evolution is not a proven theory, but one that can change tomorrow with another discovery. It is not an exact science, but you'd never know it from the way evolutionists speak.
There is no way to reconcile the two scenarios. We either have to accept that the Bible is true (or more importantly, that we have the right interpretation of it) or we have to put our faith in men of science, who are largely driven by financial gain and academic status in the ego driven scientific community. They then become substitute 'religious' leaders in their temples of higher learning...
What we have is two conflicting belief systems, neither of which can be proven 'scientifically' by any method known to man.
It then becomes an exercise in faith either way IMO.
I take my position somewhere in the middle where I can accept what science can prove, as well as what it agrees with in the Bible. It agrees with much more than many people think, making our choices so much simpler. You don't have to give up the Bible to believe science, and you don't have to dismiss science to believe the Bible. True provable science compliments the Bible beautifully....after all, we believe that it was authored by the inventor of science.
Actually it's you putting science up there. Science does not put facts forwards it puts observation forward. If you are to uneducated to comprehend that, then perhaps that's where your problems with arise.
Evolutionary science is based on many verified observations and evidence that has not been falsified. If you can falsify any... ANY... aspect of evolutionary science the whole theory will collapse. After 200 years of literally billions of people like you making claims of its invalidity, each has failed to disprove it.
Yes that's about what i said regarding the ages, your point is what?
Again, what i said, what i did say is the mother of us all and nothing about the only living female, again your point is what precisely?
Right and then you go into guesswork mode, the very sin you acute science of... Interesting.
How do evolutionists speak? They offer the observations, measurements etc, is this what you object to?
Actually i don't think that is honest because evolutionary theory is shown to be accurate in every way, sure it can be modified if new evidence is shown. Evolution is now so confident that any modifications will be minute in detail.
Belief is not relevant, only evidence matters
A man, not mankind
Provide evidence to disprove what you say i am hung up on, thats evidence, not faith.
Sorry, but the gaps are being filled by your imagination, i am simply Working from what is ACTUALLY written
Edit : i have noticed that when someone says "clearly" it is not clear at all and usually means the user is interpreting to suit his personal beliwf system
Last edited:
I already have, and I am not going to repost the same thing over and over. For you convenience though, refer to post #71.
I can't disprove anything. If you wish to maintain your assertion then the burden of proof is on you. I have cited scripture to back up my assertions on post #71, and it is quite substantial. So you need more than 1 misinterpreted bit of scripture to counter my argument.
No you haven't, you have provided opinion
Again, you have not quoted scripture but cited your interpretation of scripture. Im sure if you review you will see the difference
No misinterpretation on my part of what is, actually written.
The Book of Genesis is not my opinion. I cited specific verses.
Your interpretation is not maintainable. It already breaks down when Cain and Seth marry and have children, just a few verses from what you claim is proof Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans.
Unless you can cite where these 2 females came from, that conceived children with Cain and Seth, you cannot counter the 6th day creation argument.
Then gave your opinion on those verses
There is no biblical account of A&Es bloodline dying out, there is no biblical accounting of Cain's wife's parentage.
You are free to make up whatever fictions you ferl comfortable with to fill the gaps, the fact remains, they are fictions held together by your faith.
You are making the claim of said females. You demonstrate your evidence.
Post #71 has all the citations needed for my argument. I will not repost the same info over and over again. My argument has been cited. I am just waiting on you now.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
I had to say evolution in answer to your poll because there was no 'evolution and something else' option. I believe in creation in a certain way- in that I believe Brahma and other deities created particulars within the current state of the Cosmos. However, Buddhists don't believe a creator made the universe, or even that the universe has a beginning necessarily.
I have made my statements to which you have given opinion that in no way reflects the wording in the bible.
You will wait forever if you expect me to rewrite the bible to suite your belief
Post #71 may satisfy your belief when you make up stories to fill the gaps and change a few word meanings. Thats up to you
So you don't know how to debate ideas then. That's ok, but it is unfortunate, because you could not even provide evidence for this extraordinary claim. I gotta say I am very disappointed.
So you don't know how to debate ideas then. That's ok, but it is unfortunate, because you could not even provide evidence for this extraordinary claim. I gotta say I am very disappointed.
Ahh more ad hominem, i wondered when you'd return to that.
I am not debating ideas, i am making specific comment on the content of the Bible and your misrepresentation of it.
And i provided the evidence, hardly my problem if you chose to bastardise it to massage your belief
Provide evidence for your assertion here.
The Bible. Now its your turn to provide evidence that the claimed blooifline of A&E died out as you claimed. And that Adam was not the only human created in the biblical 6 days of creation.
.