Was Adam really the first man, according to the Bible?

Post Reply New Topic

The same "right" that Europeans had to steal North America and Central America from the aboriginals who had lived there for thousands of years.

It is called violence and force rationalized to an insane degree of immorality.

Here is how it is done: You see land that you want. You kill or enslave the current inhabitants with superior force and you convince yourself that it is God's Will. Simple, yes?

ruveyn

Now honesty, that is a quality I admire, hats off to you sir, I would have more admiration for the likes of Bush and Blair if they just came out and said, "Lets go murder a load of Arabs and steal thier oil" raher than this "Al Quida" BS.

By the way, as a European, I take no pride in our nations role in stealing and murdering around the world in a lot more places than just the Americas!

It is not unreasonable. It is ambiguous. One cannot infer from the text of Isaiah that the Moisheach will be born of of virgin, and even if the Moisheach was born of a virgin (all women start out as virgins, by the way) he will have been conceived by a human male.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 20 Jan 2011, 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, Hercules' father was the god Zeus, and his mother was a woman named Alcmena. You do believe in Hercules, don't you?

If you take any stock in Jubilees

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/4.htm

Jubilees 4:9

Jubilees 4:11


Adam and Eve's sons were marrying their sisters.

Who else could they mate with?

ruveyn

daughters of adams first wife.
-Jake

Last edited by JakobVirgil on 25 Feb 2011, 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, I cry FOUL!! !

When I brought up the mates for the first few generations of Adamites I was rebuked and ganged up on, and you just go at it.

AND I thought panda would take this topic out of pgd-land by bringing up the Gap hypothesis, but I see no sign of it.

And I will not engage ruveyn because he knows what he is and does not hide it, but you might ask whether he was there he knows so much what did did not happen.

But ladies and gentlefolks, WHERE stands it written that ONLY a mortal can impregnate a human virgin [or should it be virgin human?]. Is that like only another horse can impregnate a horse?

According to the Bible (aside from vague passages like Genesis 1), Adam was the first man.

Anything else is extra unnecessary additions to what the texts state.

why if you don't believe it anyway?
genesis was oral tradition for year before it was writen down
and was most likely derived from multiple texts.

weird flash of light

Does the genesis say explicitly that Adam (plural name? or not) was the only man?
or is he the only one who shows up in the narative?
How a text is used often very different then what it denotatively says.
I often wonder if a group of martians read the bible without context
what sort of religion they would end up with.
I don't think it would be Rabbinic Judaism or Calvinistic Christanity.

-Jake

The biblical Adam was an individual. The biblical Adam was also mythical. We know more about how humans came about than the bronze age dudes who gathered the bible myths into a transmissible corpus. The bronze age dudes thought the sun and stars moved around the Eartth.

ruveyn

The purpose of Genesis 2 is clear. It's to highlight the origin of man through Adam and Eve.

Allegorical interpretations are a joke.

One of my informants was a very smart guy. Better klinguist than I am, if he had gone that way.

I asked him about a local [cutural feature - pick your preferred term] that says telling stories while the sun is up is bad luck.

He tells me, there are two types of people. One believes what has been passed down from the ages: if you tell stories by day, the WILD MAN will come and eat you, or lightning will strike, or the crops wil wither. Whatever. They don't want bad outcomes, they don't tell stories.

The other type sees, if the youngsters [and even some of the adults] start sitting around shooting the breeze all day, no work will get done. Therefore you need to hold off the entertainment till quitting time; after dark you can watch a movie before bedtime. They tell the offspring, if I catch you telling stories, you gonna get whupped. Those kids don't want bad outcomes so thery don't tell stories.

This is a problem only when Sam - a Bogeyman believer - gets into a fight with Alan - a stories will get you the strap believer. And they start a commotion which is maybe worse than telling a story would have been.

Yes, extreme allegorical interpretation of [name it] is silly.
So is extreme literal interprewtatipon of [name it].

And fighting over node of interpretation is silly, and dangerous, and falls under the de gustibus rule, and misses the whole point.

in my opinion assuming the purpose of a text writen by commitee is a joke.
we don't (can't) know why it was writen we only know how it is used.
and how it is used differs with the goals of the folks using it.
anyway I am not arguing for a allegorical reading I am asking does it literaly say what you think it says?
there are multiple valid literal readings.
kxmode idiotchief help me out here.
-Jake

I could an if I would supply you with all kinds interpretations.

But long back I swore off interacting with MCalavera except to save lives.

And I do not think you are in danger, just discomfort.

Compare Genesis 1/2 to any mythological stories to do with the origin of mankind (almost all, if not all, claim that there was a first man and a first woman through which the human race sprang forth). Why should Genesis be treated differently?

And Eve is called the mother of all living for a reason. You're being misled by those Christians who've been trying to make Genesis compatible with science.