I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul21 mins ago
Do you really believe??????
39 Answers
Hello all,my question is basically about one thing,i am not out to judge anybody,nor offend or ridicule... all i want to know is,that with modern day technology,modern views and changing times. Also going on the more acceptable Darwin's theory of evolution,is there anybody out there who TRULY believes in Adam and Eve????
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by stevie1time. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I also believe the Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, two actual real people, not a myth.
Unlike Fingerprint, I don't think that biblical Christianity and evolution are compatible.
As Theland said, Jesus believed Adam and Eve to be at the beginning.
Death only entered the world because of sin, everything was perfect before then. Evolution would suggest that there was eons of death and suffering before man appeared.
Naomi, as for Cain's wife. Firstly the Bible doesn't say he met his wife in the land of Nod, just that he 'exiled' himself there. The Bible tells us that after Cain and Abel, and then Seth, Adam had other sons and daughters.
Cain inevitably married a sisiter (or maybe niece).
Shocking !!!! Well, no, they were the only people on earth, plus it wasn't until centuries later that God commanded against it.
Unlike Fingerprint, I don't think that biblical Christianity and evolution are compatible.
As Theland said, Jesus believed Adam and Eve to be at the beginning.
Death only entered the world because of sin, everything was perfect before then. Evolution would suggest that there was eons of death and suffering before man appeared.
Naomi, as for Cain's wife. Firstly the Bible doesn't say he met his wife in the land of Nod, just that he 'exiled' himself there. The Bible tells us that after Cain and Abel, and then Seth, Adam had other sons and daughters.
Cain inevitably married a sisiter (or maybe niece).
Shocking !!!! Well, no, they were the only people on earth, plus it wasn't until centuries later that God commanded against it.
Lighter, So Cain Married his sister and that was ok, and then centuries later God comanded against it ?
In fact (according to the bible) God didnt "command" against it. It was regarded as an abomination...something that was evil in God's sight.
So, lets get this right. Incest was ok for some time.(fun for all the family, so to speak) And then it was an evil thing to do? The question is...where do you you get your morality from? Is it absolute? or is it changing with the times?
In fact (according to the bible) God didnt "command" against it. It was regarded as an abomination...something that was evil in God's sight.
So, lets get this right. Incest was ok for some time.(fun for all the family, so to speak) And then it was an evil thing to do? The question is...where do you you get your morality from? Is it absolute? or is it changing with the times?
Wizard
Firstly you could do me a favour and tell what verse it says that marrying your sister is an abomination.
Who else was Cain to marry, the only other people on earth were his family?
Brothers and sisters had to marry, there was nothing wrong with this as long as they were faithful to each other etc. Noah's grandchildren would have had to marry their cousins, and Abraham married his half sister.
It wasn't until 400 years after Abraham that Moses was given this command, that close relations were not to marry.
Two reasons probably - there was no need for it now, sufficient number of people on the planet.
And secondly God's commands are not grevious, they are for our good. By that time genetic 'mistakes' in our make up would have made it unwise for close relations to have children.
As Adam and Eve were made perfect the first generations didn't have that problem.
I don't think it was a moral problem, it was more of a practical one, so I would say in answer to your question that my morality, or rather the morality found in the Bible, is absolute and not changing with the times.
Look at what's known as the Ten Commandments. Do you see a time when they would not be morally right?
Out of interest, since you don't believe in Adam and Eve, who do you think the first human being married/mated with?
Firstly you could do me a favour and tell what verse it says that marrying your sister is an abomination.
Who else was Cain to marry, the only other people on earth were his family?
Brothers and sisters had to marry, there was nothing wrong with this as long as they were faithful to each other etc. Noah's grandchildren would have had to marry their cousins, and Abraham married his half sister.
It wasn't until 400 years after Abraham that Moses was given this command, that close relations were not to marry.
Two reasons probably - there was no need for it now, sufficient number of people on the planet.
And secondly God's commands are not grevious, they are for our good. By that time genetic 'mistakes' in our make up would have made it unwise for close relations to have children.
As Adam and Eve were made perfect the first generations didn't have that problem.
I don't think it was a moral problem, it was more of a practical one, so I would say in answer to your question that my morality, or rather the morality found in the Bible, is absolute and not changing with the times.
Look at what's known as the Ten Commandments. Do you see a time when they would not be morally right?
Out of interest, since you don't believe in Adam and Eve, who do you think the first human being married/mated with?
According to the story, god knew Adam and Eve would sin so he put some special trees in Eden to see if they would sin(makes sense so far). Eve got tricked by a snake and so her and her partner in crime decided to steal from the tree of knowledge(is that a metaphor for nooky)?
So from there everything went bad.
After many years of sin god said,"Enough is enough" and made a child (was it a miracle birth) or had any more ribs gone missing?
So god waited around another thirty-odd years and said, "I'm sorry son, my plan for creation went wrong and so to teach everyone a lesson you're going to have to die".
Jesus replied, "Thanks Dad but what happens after I'm gone and once again you're plan doesn't work"?
"Ah! Don't worry son, all those people on the planet that pass you're message on are sure to get it across".
God screwed up so your all going to pay for his mistake.
So from there everything went bad.
After many years of sin god said,"Enough is enough" and made a child (was it a miracle birth) or had any more ribs gone missing?
So god waited around another thirty-odd years and said, "I'm sorry son, my plan for creation went wrong and so to teach everyone a lesson you're going to have to die".
Jesus replied, "Thanks Dad but what happens after I'm gone and once again you're plan doesn't work"?
"Ah! Don't worry son, all those people on the planet that pass you're message on are sure to get it across".
God screwed up so your all going to pay for his mistake.
Lighter and Theland, from my understanding you say you take the story of the creation literally. In that case, two different types of man were created. That's what the bible says.
However, if we go along with your assertion that Adam was the first and only man created in the beginning, and from there on take what's written as the literal truth, as you say you do, there were only three people on earth when Cain went to the land of Nod, so he couldn't have taken his wife with him. So, where did Cain's wife come from? She couldn't have been a relation because Adam and Eve's other children arrived much later in the story - long after Cain's wife had given birth to Enoch - and the chronology can't be at fault because, according to you, the bible is the literal truth. And just to add to the problem we're told that after Enoch was born, Cain built a city. A city? A city needs a population.
If you believe the bible to be the literal truth, your assertion that 'Cain inevitably married a sister (or maybe niece)', cannot be so, and therefore, you are in reality making the story up to suit yourself.
Frankly, I think I take the bible more literally than you because I read it as an historical document and my vision is not blinkered by religious dogma. I believe there are clues to our past in the bible, and in other ancient texts, but clearly you see what you want to see, twist it to suit yourselves, and ignore what's really there - and the bits you don't like.
Incidentally, Cain didn't exile himself. He was 'driven out'. (Gen 4:14).
However, if we go along with your assertion that Adam was the first and only man created in the beginning, and from there on take what's written as the literal truth, as you say you do, there were only three people on earth when Cain went to the land of Nod, so he couldn't have taken his wife with him. So, where did Cain's wife come from? She couldn't have been a relation because Adam and Eve's other children arrived much later in the story - long after Cain's wife had given birth to Enoch - and the chronology can't be at fault because, according to you, the bible is the literal truth. And just to add to the problem we're told that after Enoch was born, Cain built a city. A city? A city needs a population.
If you believe the bible to be the literal truth, your assertion that 'Cain inevitably married a sister (or maybe niece)', cannot be so, and therefore, you are in reality making the story up to suit yourself.
Frankly, I think I take the bible more literally than you because I read it as an historical document and my vision is not blinkered by religious dogma. I believe there are clues to our past in the bible, and in other ancient texts, but clearly you see what you want to see, twist it to suit yourselves, and ignore what's really there - and the bits you don't like.
Incidentally, Cain didn't exile himself. He was 'driven out'. (Gen 4:14).
I know what I wrote is a bit silly and I'm glad it made you laugh but much like yourself I believe that some ancient texts, scrolls or whatever tell certain truths but as you so rightly put it, I think a large proportion of the Christian ideas have been stolen, changed, twisted around and made to suit to sound appealing to others to follow.
The real story of our creation is either lost or hidden to protect the current fanciful story.
The real story of our creation is either lost or hidden to protect the current fanciful story.
Well to get back to the original question, even in the face of mockery, I still believe the Genesis accounts, for the reasons given earlier.
The expertise debunking Genesis, must be matched by other experts who support my views, otherwise they would all just pack up their Bibles and go home. That's not the case.
The expertise debunking Genesis, must be matched by other experts who support my views, otherwise they would all just pack up their Bibles and go home. That's not the case.
Naomi - <<there were only three people on earth when Cain went to the land of Nod, so he couldn't have taken his wife with him>>
You asserted yourself that Cain was 'driven out' from Gen 4:14. While reading that verse you may have noticed that Cain said "that every one that findeth me shall slay me". Cain knew there were more than three people on earth by that time.
<<She couldn't have been a relation because Adam and Eve's other children arrived much later in the story - long after Cain's wife had given birth to Enoch>>
Correction, the births of the other children are only mentioned later in the narrative, not later chronologically. The start of Gen ch5 is a summary of Adams history. Many of the other sons and daughters could have been born before Cain killed Abel, taking the Bible literally does not discount this.
City. Yes Cain built a city, which you say requires a population. But it doesn't need a population of millions, like cities today. The Hebrew word used here is 'enclosed place', so it need only have been a fenced village with Cain's offspring living in it, (growing with each generation).
You asserted yourself that Cain was 'driven out' from Gen 4:14. While reading that verse you may have noticed that Cain said "that every one that findeth me shall slay me". Cain knew there were more than three people on earth by that time.
<<She couldn't have been a relation because Adam and Eve's other children arrived much later in the story - long after Cain's wife had given birth to Enoch>>
Correction, the births of the other children are only mentioned later in the narrative, not later chronologically. The start of Gen ch5 is a summary of Adams history. Many of the other sons and daughters could have been born before Cain killed Abel, taking the Bible literally does not discount this.
City. Yes Cain built a city, which you say requires a population. But it doesn't need a population of millions, like cities today. The Hebrew word used here is 'enclosed place', so it need only have been a fenced village with Cain's offspring living in it, (growing with each generation).
Lighter: 'Cain knew that there were more than three people on earth by that time' - thanks Lighter - you've just proven my point. There were more people on earth in the beginning, and whilst the bible does suggest that more than one man was created, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that siblings mated. That's something man has invented to solve the dilemma - which needn't be a dilemma at all if only he believed what the bible says. It says god created man - it doesn't say 'one man' - it says 'man' - and then it says god created Adam because 'there was not a man to till the ground'. Odd that, considering god had not long finished creating 'man'.
As for 'the births of the other children are only mentioned later in the narrative'. If you read the bible literally, as you and Theland say you do, how do you know that? The bible tells us these were born long after a lot of other people, so why don't you believe it? It seems you only believe what suits you - and you make the rest up to suit you. You either believe it or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
As for 'the births of the other children are only mentioned later in the narrative'. If you read the bible literally, as you and Theland say you do, how do you know that? The bible tells us these were born long after a lot of other people, so why don't you believe it? It seems you only believe what suits you - and you make the rest up to suit you. You either believe it or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
Naomi - <<created Adam because 'there was not a man to till the ground'. Odd that, considering god had not long finished creating 'man'>>
What? The verse you allude to is Gen 2:5, which describes God making plants and trees, which happened on the third day, and man wasn't made until the sixth. So of course there wasn't anybody to till the ground.
<<The bible tells us these were born long after a lot of other people>>
The Bible doesn't. As I said before Gen ch5 is a historical overview of the first people on earth. In Gen 4 we have a personal story about Cain and Abel, then following that we are told somewhat of Cain's doings and his family. In the next chapter the text then switches to a summary of Adam's offspring, from focusing on particular events to a general overview.
What? The verse you allude to is Gen 2:5, which describes God making plants and trees, which happened on the third day, and man wasn't made until the sixth. So of course there wasn't anybody to till the ground.
<<The bible tells us these were born long after a lot of other people>>
The Bible doesn't. As I said before Gen ch5 is a historical overview of the first people on earth. In Gen 4 we have a personal story about Cain and Abel, then following that we are told somewhat of Cain's doings and his family. In the next chapter the text then switches to a summary of Adam's offspring, from focusing on particular events to a general overview.
Lighter, I'm doing what you say you do - taking the bible literally. Adam was created after god had finished his work, and Adam's other children were born long after Cain and Abel - and after a lot of other people too. That's what the bible tells us, but you're saying that those sections are an 'historical overview'. How can anyone possibly know that? You interpret anything that doesn't fit into your theology to make it fit. If you think the bible is open to interpretation, why say you believe it literally? You clearly don't.
Latest Posts
How it Works22 mins ago
ChatterBank26 mins ago
Is Labour Starting To Abolish Democracy...
News43 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles57 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles71 mins ago
