Adam & Eve

Kaboogie

If Adam and Eve were the first Man and woman, they had two sons, where did we come from?

Call_Me,Stan

They only had two sons, that's news to me.

Read up, at least a bit, before you post a question like that

Kaboogie

They had two sons Cain and Abel.

sanvean

I think the Bible mentions another child, but I'm not sure if this is correct. Seth? It also suggests that Eve had alot of other children, but doesn't specifically name them.

I think Cain and Abel are said to have gone to the land of Nod (?) and took their wives there. It would seem obvious that the people inhabiting these lands were their siblings, and so therefore alot of inbreeding took place. Literalist readings of the bible, (see: creationists, LDS, mormons, etc) argue that as the people around then were of a more pure stock, inbreeding didn't affect them in the same way that it would now.

Essey

A sort of antiquated Desperate Housewives with a little incest thrown in for good measure. Man TV must have been really fun back in those days.

Orla1

Well my guess is that Adam and Eve either had more kids that we were not told about
OR
Eve had kids with one/ both of her sons ?????

The General

MODERATOR'S NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS UNSUBSTANTIATED, GOES AGAINST THE CHARTER OF THIS BOARD AND IS DEEPLY IGNORANT.
~
no offense lads but the bible is all bollocks, obviously everything in it isnt through, whoever wrote it wrote it the way they wanted

Call_Me,Stan

It might make more sense to you guys if you actually read it.

For a sec, suspend disbelief, and tell me what you find.

Danno

Show me where in the Bible that Eve had ONLY two sons...

here is a Bible Search Portal: www.biblegateway.com to get you started in your research.

Call_Me,Stan

Exactly, it doesn't say it.

I was talking to the "naysayers" above, btw.

Danno

Same here

mr_angry

Its fairly clear to most people that humans evolved from apes, and that Adam & Eve (if they ever existed) were not the parents of the human race. I've had this discussion several times before (hello neuro if you're reading), and its always emerged that the start of Genesis was not meant as a factual document of the beginnings of human existence.

No offence to any Christians out there, but I think this is one of the most over-simplified un-intelligent threads I've seen on Boards in the past while.

Call_Me,Stan

Have to say that's a compromise. There's little evidence and no proof that Genesis was supposed to be taken as just a story.

Why do assume just because that we cause you agreed on something with someone that it must be true. That's the definition of being narrow-minded.



Btw, evolution is alot easier to tear apart then the biblical acount.

mr_angry

Call_Me,Stan wrote:

Have to say that's a compromise. There's little evidence and no proof that Genesis was supposed to be taken as just a story.

Why do assume just because that we cause you agreed on something with someone that it must be true. That's the definition of being narrow-minded.

Btw, evolution is alot easier to tear apart then the biblical acount.

Note that I said "discussion" rather than "conclusive proof". I never claimed that my conclusion was absolute fact, nor that anybody should accept it at face value. Feel free to read the good book and come to your own conclusions. However, it could easily be interpreted as a non-factual document, bear that in mind.

On another note, if evolution is so easily torn apart, why don't you go ahead and disprove it there Stan?

Call_Me,Stan

If I even not going into it, you'll just tear me apart, so it's best that I leave you to reexplore it yourself.

I just want to repair misconceptions about the Bible.

robindch

> It might make more sense to you guys if you actually read it.

Quite right!

> For a sec, suspend disbelief, and tell me what you find.

Well, upon reading Genesis' chapter four et seq, and briefly lifting the trusty sword of critical reasoning from the neck of Genesis, we find that Adam + Eve (the first people) produced Cain and Abel. Abel was killed by Cain, who then left Eden and emigrated to the land of Nod, found a wife (from where?? must have been a sister), had a kid named Enoch, then built 'a city' for all three of them. Enoch then sired Irad, Irad begat Mehujael and so on for some while (including the killer Lamech Gen 4:23). Meanwhile, back home, Adam produced a lad called Seth at age 130 (hey, hey!), then Adam produced further sons and daughters (marrying each other, since there was nobody else around) for the remaining 800 years of his life. Adam's line was notably long-lived, most living into their 900's, and Methuselah hanging on he 'til was 969 years old, and good on him for doing it too!

Reading Genesis' extremely garbled account, I really don't see how we can reasonably conclude anything other than that Adam's progeny were, er, an improbably long-lived group of incestuous people, including the odd murderer or two.

Darn it, that trusty sword just slipped!

> There's little evidence and no proof that Genesis was
> supposed to be taken as just a story.

The fact that various bits of Genesis are simple retellings of a set of earlier Sumerian legends, discovered in Iraq on clay tablets at the end of the 19th century would perhaps suggest to most people that it is indeed a story, and an unoriginal one at that.

> I just want to repair misconceptions about the Bible.

So do I

- robin.

sanvean

mr_angry wrote:

Its fairly clear to most people that humans evolved from apes, and that Adam & Eve (if they ever existed) were not the parents of the human race. I've had this discussion several times before (hello neuro if you're reading), and its always emerged that the start of Genesis was not meant as a factual document of the beginnings of human existence.

No offence to any Christians out there, but I think this is one of the most over-simplified un-intelligent threads I've seen on Boards in the past while.

Kaboogie asked a question about the Bible. I answered it from Genesis' perspective. How is a discussion of the Bible over-simplified? And unintelligent?

Playboy

robindch wrote:

> It might make more sense to you guys if you actually read it.

Quite right!

> For a sec, suspend disbelief, and tell me what you find.

Well, upon reading Genesis' chapter four et seq, and briefly lifting the trusty sword of critical reasoning from the neck of Genesis, we find that Adam + Eve (the first people) produced Cain and Abel. Abel was killed by Cain, who then left Eden and emigrated to the land of Nod, found a wife (from where?? must have been a sister), had a kid named Enoch, then built 'a city' for all three of them. Enoch then sired Irad, Irad begat Mehujael and so on for some while (including the killer Lamech Gen 4:23). Meanwhile, back home, Adam produced a lad called Seth at age 130 (hey, hey!), then Adam produced further sons and daughters (marrying each other, since there was nobody else around) for the remaining 800 years of his life. Adam's line was notably long-lived, most living into their 900's, and Methuselah hanging on he 'til was 969 years old, and good on him for doing it too!

Reading Genesis' extremely garbled account, I really don't see how we can reasonably conclude anything other than that Adam's progeny were, er, an improbably long-lived group of incestuous people, including the odd murderer or two.

Darn it, that trusty sword just slipped!

> There's little evidence and no proof that Genesis was
> supposed to be taken as just a story.

The fact that various bits of Genesis are simple retellings of a set of earlier Sumerian legends, discovered in Iraq on clay tablets at the end of the 19th century would perhaps suggest to most people that it is indeed a story, and an unoriginal one at that.

> I just want to repair misconceptions about the Bible.

So do I

- robin.

/clap

pretty-in-pink

Yup, pretty sure it's just a story. It was to explain to man back in the old testament days where we had come from. They were not able to get the whole life-before-humans thing, and so the garden of eden was born.

A presbyterian man I know believes the Adam and Eve story, but according to the nuns in my secondary school, it was just a story. People were simplier back then, and so needed very basic easy-to-understand stories.