Adam and Eve's children a couple?

[flint]

if (according to the bible) adam and eve were the first people on earth, then supposing they had a boy and a girl, that would mean to continue the human race incest would have to have happend right? That seems a bit odd for a religion to say how the human race was started doesnt it?

[redhead23]

how is it incest ? they were not related

[redhead23]

ive never read anything that suggests they were related
he made a man adam
and a woman eve
it does not say they were brothers or sisters

the fact is they didnt concieve a child anyway because adam got tempted somehow i think god knew this was going to happen because we give in to temptation

[ne2]

Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel,both male so who gave birth to their children?

[reachesme]

Of coarse there was incest, thats the only way itcould have happened, Eve had kds by her sons and so on, we are still commiting incest if christianity was true ,as we are all related, but don't worry, it's all a load of the stuff that comes out the back of male cows.

[redhead23]

what???????
eve had kids by her sons???what on earth

[luna-tic]

I'm not biased toward the creation or evolutionary theory but I can't seem to picture the first neanderthal or what ever variation of human being called Adam and Eve .............perhaps Ug and Eh would be more suitable.
Or on the otherside of the coin, It was the snake's fault that caused all that sin between the two. Naughty snake.

[naomi24]

According to the Church's version of the story Adam and Eve were the first and only people created by god. The bible says they had several children. The church says these children mated with each other to produce the human race, so, yes, incest would have been involved.

However, if you read the first couple of pages of the bible, you will see that initially god created man - and it doesn't say one man - it says man - so that could have been a whole race of men. Then after god had finished creating everything, the bible says there was not a man to till the ground, which is very odd since on the preceeding page he had already created man. Anyway, that's when he created Adam and Eve - and presumably he created them as workers. So the bible actually tells us that by the time Adam and Eve were created there were already human beings in existence which makes far more sense to me - but the church doesn't believe it - it prefers the incestuous version.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Eve was supposedly created from Adam's rib (though you have to ask why, since God is omnipotent. It seems a bit unneccesary. Hey ho; "nonsense in Bible shocker"...), so Flint is right to say that incest had to occur.

Strange how eating from the tree of knowledge gives rise to ultimate sin, but eating from your sibling is sanctioned by God. Hey; "more nonsense in Bible scandal"...

[flint]

right, well thanks for all your answers, i guess your opinion really depends on how you choose to interperate the bible.

[Octavius]

Yes interpretation, but many would also agree that the bible should not be taken literally.

Mankind/Womankind = Adam & Eve
Cain & Able = The descendants of mankind
Garden of Eden = The lush tropical rainforest that dominated much of the world throughout the Paleocene Epoch
Dinosaurs = yes they are in the Bible but the writers didn't know they were called dinosaurs until the Victorians invented the word in the 19thC. They used words like behemoth and Leviathan.

One suggests that it was not the actual origin of man that was narrated in Genesis, but rather the passage from the Palaeolithic era to the Neolithic era. The Garden of Eden is a symbol of an era in which man was part of nature and lived on the fruits of the earth and animals around him. Then man chose to eat from the tree of knowledge � i.e. evolved into a conscious being. This in turn led to man�s acknowledgment of the possibilities of evil and resulted in the loss of mans primeval innocence.

I am not saying I am right, just offering a potential explanation to the original Q. In Proverbs, we are told to read and understand the Bible in a plain or straightforward manner. This is usually what people mean when they say �literal interpretation of the Bible� (look up hermeneutics).

Reading the Bible �plainly� means understanding that literal history is literal history, metaphors are metaphors, poetry is poetry, etc. The Bible is written in many different literary styles and should be read accordingly. This is why we understand that Genesis records actual historical events. It was written as historical narrative and our ancient ancestors tried to explain historical events in the only way they understood how to. Some say it is the best story ever written, some say its ballocks, either way you take from it what you will or ignore it as poppycook.

[naomi24]

What a magnificently flexible book the bible is. Don't like that bit? OK, we won't believe that then - we'll just find something we like better and say it's true.

[Octavius]

Indeed, also why The DaVinci Cose was so popular. Different people get different things from it.

[naomi24]

A good comparison. Both works of fiction - and both best sellers.

[WaldoMcFroog]

LOL, Naomi! :-D

[naomi24]

Well, honestly! Thanks Waldo. 0:o)

[wizard69]

naomi for minister of common sense...
(can I be your deputy in the cabal)?

[naomi24]

Well, Wiz, that's certainly a step up from tea lady!

[Octavius]

You arrived exactly at my point. Can you understand why so many people believe Dan Browns story?

No. It is unexplainable isn't it, but the belief exists - like it or not.

[naomi24]

Octavius, no, I haven't arrived at exactly your point and belief in the Da Vinci Code it isn't inexplicable. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "like it or not", because whilst both books are works of fiction, Opus Dei exists, and Jesus could well have married Mary Magdalene and produced a child, so there's certainly more reason to believe Dan Brown than the authors - and the editors - of the bible.