Do You Believe in Adam and Eve?

PureX said:

Well, a shovel is a shovel, and an idiot is an idiot. Every large group of humans has it's share of idiots. Some are that way by accident, while others are that way by choice. But either way, they are what they are.
Who on Earth are you talking to? Who "believes in" both?

Click to expand...

Apparently, several see the biblical story as allegory. Holding some hidden message about the nature of man.

Etritonakin said:

Scientific knowledge does not support the assumptions made about Adam and Eve.

Assumption 1 -Adam was the first humanoid on Earth.

Incorrect -as is all (assumption) which follows.

Is the following about the first instance of man -or the next stage of the plan for already-existent man?
Does development negate creativity -or does extremely-purposeful-development indicate creativity?

"LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE"

Click to expand...

So you see Genesis as a prophecy?

BilliardsBall said:

Scientific knowledge does not support Adam and Eve? Are you thinking of mitochondrial Eve research? Or simple math and evolution, where only a few of a new species would propagate?

Click to expand...

The theory of evolution does not say that. Nor do you understand the concept of mitochondrial Eve. You really should try to learn how to argue properly.

If I had to guess I would say the first humans were about 30,000 people. Inbreeding is not healthy propagation.
I don't see how anyone can realistically believe humans were only two people originally.

Nakosis said:

Apparently, several see the biblical story as allegory. Holding some hidden message about the nature of man.

Click to expand...

Sure, but seeing the story as an allegory is not believing that Adam and Eve were actual physical humans. I see the story as an allegory.

osgart said:

If I had to guess I would say the first humans were about 30,000 people. Inbreeding is not healthy propagation.
I don't see how anyone can realistically believe humans were only two people originally.

Click to expand...

Please allow me to postulate Genus Homo-species forming into being when a couple of Australopithecus hetero zygotes, who had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by fusion of the whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mated together and reproduced viable and fertile offspring with 46 chromosomes. This first generation of Homo habilis then may have likely incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo habilis.

References:

1. J. Tjio and A. Levan. 1956. The chromosome number of Man. Hereditas, 42( 1-2): 1-6.
2. W. Ijdo et al.1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusión. PNAS, 88: 9051-9056.
3. Meyer et al. 2012 A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, 338:222-226.; K. H. Miga. 2016. Chromosome-specific Centromere sequences provide an estímate of the Ancestral Chromosome 2 Fusion event in Hominin Genome.Journ. of Heredity. 1-8. Doi:10.1093/jhered/esw039.

Nakosis said:

So you see Genesis as a prophecy?

Click to expand...

No. I believe -based both on what is stated in the bible -and also not specified -that Adam was created nearly 6,000 years ago (not the Earth initially).
However, I also believe he was not the first humanoid, but the first "man" by scriptural definition -not scientific definition -especially in the sense that with him specifically God initiated his plan to make men literally into gods -to be perfect and eventually be made immortal, be given spirit bodies, etc.

It is not actually stated that he was the first "man" by general definition. That is actually an assumption -the same is true of a young Earth. It is understandable that the language used can lead one to believe certain things without further study -but they are nonetheless errors.
People seem to think it is blasphemy to think there were other humans on Earth -or to think there was an Earth on which they could exist prior to Adam, so they ignore things even in the bible which indicate both an old Earth and humans besides those in Eden -not to mention science.

The bible is not focused as much on things which preceded Adam, but it actually places Lucifer and a third of the angels on Earth before the events in Eden -before Lucifer turned them against God and rebelled -and were cast back down to Earth. Satan is called destroyer. Of the demons it says they "kept not their first estate". Not only did they leave it to stage a coup against God, but they did not keep it in the sense of stewardship and management. They left it a mess -as stated in Genesis "the Earth" had become or became "formless and void" or "waste and ruin" -to an unspecified degree (except that which is done afterward in Genesis). Nowhere does it say the life forms of Genesis were the first -nor does it say the Earth was completely lifeless when God began to REPAIR it in preparation for Adam, Eve, etc.

So... no young Earth -no need for all to be descended from Adam -evolution is just fine -dinosaurs are still cool.... no reason for the E v C controversy...

Therefore.... scientific evidence of Adam and Eve would be much different. Even then, why wouldn't Adam be quite similar in makeup to others?
Just as God used Adam's material to make Eve, he could have referenced those who already existed. Perhaps there were some differences in Adam compared to others, but how could we know what to look for either way? How would you find one man who didn't quite belong due to lack of direct forebears -would there even be any evidence of such if God used existing "tech", as it were? If God made some tweaks and Adam was a bit different/better than others which made him more suitable for God's purposes, how would you track that down as his material mixed with that of others over time?

EDIT: The bible was written in an early human language -not one suited for the specifics of modern science (There were approximately 7,000 words in biblical Hebrew. There are presently about 171,476 words in the English language). Even today, however, one might use the word "man" to mean different things -and it might need clarification. Did one mean modern man, early man, all species ever considered man, etc.?
Things in the bible which at least hint at other humans on Earth outside of Eden are the fact that Cain found a wife in Nod when cast out of Eden -and was also worried that any people who found him would kill him. There is also the differentiation between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" -who were obviously compatible enough to breed. So.... even though God created Adam directly -and he was a "man", his offspring would certainly qualify as sons of God (some have assumed this must mean angels had relations with human women) as opposed to the daughters of men.

Eve is called the mother of all the "living" -not actually all those who were alive in the human sense. Adam and Eve were informed that they would live forever -not die -if they did not disobey -and would die if they did. Eternal life was on their minds. In the new testament, Adam is called the "first man" -by someone far removed from those events -who was likely not even considering the specifics of science. He was first for all scriptural intents and purposes. Even farther removed, WE put the focus on what we believe the words to mean.

What science might actually look for instead of Adam being the first human ever (that ship has pretty much sailed) -is an occurrence some time prior to 6,000 years ago which -ironically -resulted in what scientists are warning about now -the melting of ice and rising sea levels due to OUR irresponsibility.
Notice that when this renewal in Genesis begins.... the first thing described is darkness upon the face of the deep -the waters -which were already there. Later -after shedding light on the subject -water and dry land had to be separated.

Other than evidence of such, we're talking about very supernatural abilities -concerning both how things might have become disordered and how they were ordered again.
Again, the language might suggest an initial creation if that is already in your mind, but what is actually described is tweaking the function and juxtaposition of celestial bodies in relation to each other and Earth.

sealchan said:

It is not accurate to say that Newton's model has been proven incorrect. Saying that may falsely give you the sense that science is superficial or capricious. Newton's mechanics are still good enough for 99% of the technologies we have created and the difference between Newton's mechanics and the more complete relativity theory is negligible in most of our practical applications.

That makes Newtonian mechanics still a deep truth about our reality and one that represents just how stable scientific knowledge is.

Click to expand...

Sure, but still proven ultimately incorrect. Anyway, that was just one example and not even the best one.

In a similar way, every scientific theory is probably correct, it is only the progression of technologies built on the knowledge we have gained from those theories that is likely to put additional context to those theories without completely negating them. In this way, scientific knowledge, unlike most other kinds of multi-generational knowledge, progresses and even self-corrects without becoming invalid.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think that's a naive out look.

74x12 said:

Sure, but still proven ultimately incorrect. Anyway, that was just one example and not even the best one.

I don't think so. I think that's a naive out look.

Click to expand...

I think it is pretty well substantiated.

I've read a bit in the history of science...one book in particular traces the history of the understanding of rainbows from the Ancient Greeks to the modern theory. So long as theory was based on reproducible results, theory was useful. Aristotle's theory wasn't toppled until useful mathematical models and instruments were created to refine that understanding into one whose elegance and connectivity to non-rainbow phenomenon obviously made it superior.

But even so Aristotle's understanding can still approximate what one might tell a child or an adult with very limited education in scientific discoveries and technologies.

Nakosis said:

Scientific knowledge does not support the existence of an Adam or an Eve.

So if you do believe Adam and Eve existed, how do you square that with scientific knowledge.

Or if you see it as an allegory, then why not see God as an allegory too? Just a story created by ancient man to convey moral ideas.

Or do you just dismiss scientific theory altogether?

Click to expand...

I believe I know nothing of science that says there was no Adam or Eve.

Altfish said:

No, made up people to explain the unknown by dessert nomads.

Click to expand...

I believe your statement is total speculation based on flimsy evidence at best.

sun rise said:

There was a mitochondrial Eve. And there is a
Y-chromosomal Adam but they weren't necessarily married to each other or lived at the same time.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in the supposed mitochondrial Eve.or the Y Adam.

PureX said:

No one is obliged to "square" anything with scientific theory.

Click to expand...

I believe if one has an interpretation of scripture that contradicts scientific findings and there is another interpretation that does not contradict then the latter is better.

Muffled said:

I don't believe in the supposed mitochondrial Eve.or the Y Adam.

Click to expand...

Then you don't believe in science so should stop using a cellphone and computer since they're the outcome of scientific research.

sun rise said:

Then you don't believe in science so should stop using a cellphone and computer since they're the outcome of scientific research.

Click to expand...

Confirmed. Cellphone and computer technology are based solely on the study of human genetics. Anyone who disagrees; disagrees with science.

Muffled said:

I believe I know nothing of science that says there was no Adam or Eve.

Click to expand...

Eve as in the Eve created from Adam's rib and Adam created from the dust of the ground? I'm referring to the Adam and Eve in Genesis. According to scientific theory, man evolved from prior humanoid species.

74x12 said:

Confirmed. Cellphone and computer technology are based solely on the study of human genetics. Anyone who disagrees; disagrees with science.

Click to expand...

You can't not believe in the scientific method when it comes up with answers you don't like while still believing in it when it comes up with answers you like. A method is a method that when applied produces results.

Nakosis said:

dismiss scientific theory altogether?

Click to expand...

Adam means matter/soil/red & Eve is Chavah, which means the divine feminine quantum breath of life.

It is advanced quantum physics, and Moses told Egyptian Children's Stories as Legalism.

The idea the talking Snake tells the truth, and the Source of reality lies; should've let us know us it was metaphoric.

In my opinion.

sun rise said:

You can't not believe in the scientific method when it comes up with answers you don't like while still believing in it when it comes up with answers you like. A method is a method that when applied produces results.

Click to expand...

So don't question authority? Open my mouth and let them shovel in whatever they can slap a scientific sounding label on?

sun rise said:

You can't not believe in the scientific method when it comes up with answers you don't like while still believing in it when it comes up with answers you like. A method is a method that when applied produces results.

Click to expand...

So who has a monopoly on the scientific method?