If we all came from 2 people

[Indeependent]

why is incest frowned upon? Its human history Lol
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Interesting article although i dont believe they could ever know how many people we descended from.

that was always intended as metaphor. then thousands of years later a cult decided it was to be taken literally.

How do you know? Why is that a metaphor and not everything else?

well, there are stories that are based in history but pretty much because it was our book and it was viewed a certain way.

it didn't become a literal thing until the gospels got it.

do you think a man lived in a whale?

do you think a woman was turned to salt?

or were those stories intended to teach lessons?

Both.

 

[Indeependent]

why is incest frowned upon? Its human history Lol
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Interesting article although i dont believe they could ever know how many people we descended from.

that was always intended as metaphor. then thousands of years later a cult decided it was to be taken literally.

How do you know? Why is that a metaphor and not everything else?

well, there are stories that are based in history but pretty much because it was our book and it was viewed a certain way.

it didn't become a literal thing until the gospels got it.

do you think a man lived in a whale?

do you think a woman was turned to salt?

or were those stories intended to teach lessons?

There was mention of a whale?

 

[TNHarley]

We’re not told when Cain married or many of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that Cain’s wife was either his sister or a close relative.

A closer look at the Hebrew word for “wife” in Genesis reveals something readers may miss in translation. It was more obvious to those speaking Hebrew that Cain’s wife was likely his sister. (There is a slim possibility that she was his niece, but either way, a brother and sister would have married in the beginning.) The Hebrew word for “wife” used in Genesis 4:17 (the first mention of Cain’s wife) is ishshah, and it means “woman/wife/female.”

And Cain knew his wife [ishshah], and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch (Genesis 4:17).
The word ishshah is the word for “woman,” and it means “from man.” It is a derivation of the Hebrew words‘iysh (pronounced: eesh) and enowsh, which both mean “man.” This can be seen in Genesis 2:23 where the name “woman” (ishshah) is given to one who came from Adam.

And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [iysh]” (Genesis 2:23).
Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece). Hebrew readers should be able to make this connection easier; however, much is lost when translated.
Cain’s Wife—Who Was She?

You haven't read the story; you haven't cited any evidence; you don't know anything about pre-Adamic history and you then say "we can say for certain" History, science, the Bible and common sense all disagree with you.

Genesis literally states Adam was the first man. Its right there. I dont understand what the confusing part is.
Pre-adamism was created by pagans.

Actually, it doesn’t.
Read the text very carefully.

Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 through 8

Verse 5 in Genesis says there was not a man to till the ground. What that verse most assuredly does NOT say is that there were no men.

In Genesis 2 : 2 we find that the seven day creation is completed. But go back to Genesis 1: 26 and 27 and you find that man was created.

That is why you have the theory of Adam man being an "eighth day" creation. So, either what you're quoting is a repeat of the first chapter of Genesis (and that is theory not fact) or the chay creation explains the fact that there were people (as we know them) before Adam. In any event the evidence proves over and over that you are wrong as wrong can be.

yea, it also says no plants and no water

 

[jillian]

why is incest frowned upon? Its human history Lol
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Interesting article although i dont believe they could ever know how many people we descended from.

that was always intended as metaphor. then thousands of years later a cult decided it was to be taken literally.

What’s the explanation of the metaphor?

why? you were taught there was really an adam and an eve who ate an apple and tickied off G-d?

Apple?
Where is there an apple?
Have you ever attended a Torah class?
God never gets ticked off; everything is action/consequence.

if you ask a Christian they save eve gave adam an apple.

i think that was my point... that it was changed by a cult that came thousands of years later.

and yes.... i prefer kaballah.

why are you getting cranky about that?

 

[Humorme]

Why do ask if you don’t have the intelligence to read a post?

Maybe I'm too stupid to believe that a vengeful ghost from a book is real? Is that it? Is it?

If that's the case, your only motive for being on this thread is to troll those in a productive conversation. Isn't that trolling? Is that prohibited by the rules here?

If my questions are too probing for you, then back off. Pretty simple really.

You're being responded to. You just don't seem to be able to handle the truth.

So what's the truth that I'm missing?

You wrote:

"That peter quote means that time doesn't matter when you're with god. Please try again."

Your explanation cites NOTHING in support of the position whereas I said that God does not reckon time the same way men do... and what you said was little more than paraphrasing my point.

 

[jillian]

why is incest frowned upon? Its human history Lol
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Interesting article although i dont believe they could ever know how many people we descended from.

that was always intended as metaphor. then thousands of years later a cult decided it was to be taken literally.

How do you know? Why is that a metaphor and not everything else?

well, there are stories that are based in history but pretty much because it was our book and it was viewed a certain way.

it didn't become a literal thing until the gospels got it.

do you think a man lived in a whale?

do you think a woman was turned to salt?

or were those stories intended to teach lessons?

There was mention of a whale?

Book of Jonah - Wikipedia

 

[TNHarley]

why is incest frowned upon? Its human history Lol
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Interesting article although i dont believe they could ever know how many people we descended from.

Look up the Human Genome project I think you will find thier findings very interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have read it. It was also mentioned here, earlier.

It has been a while for me, but if I remember correctly their conclusions were RNA from one mother is in existance today and 1200 different male dna strands showing up today!

Indeed. But there was also other humans alive. I found it interesting they said the first man and woman likely never knew each other..
Also, those tests cant be too accurate. Mitochondrial DNA can disappear.
But still interesting!

 

[Humorme]

You haven't read the story; you haven't cited any evidence; you don't know anything about pre-Adamic history and you then say "we can say for certain" History, science, the Bible and common sense all disagree with you.

Genesis literally states Adam was the first man. Its right there. I dont understand what the confusing part is.
Pre-adamism was created by pagans.

Actually, it doesn’t.
Read the text very carefully.

Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 through 8

Verse 5 in Genesis says there was not a man to till the ground. What that verse most assuredly does NOT say is that there were no men.

In Genesis 2 : 2 we find that the seven day creation is completed. But go back to Genesis 1: 26 and 27 and you find that man was created.

That is why you have the theory of Adam man being an "eighth day" creation. So, either what you're quoting is a repeat of the first chapter of Genesis (and that is theory not fact) or the chay creation explains the fact that there were people (as we know them) before Adam. In any event the evidence proves over and over that you are wrong as wrong can be.

yea, it also says no plants and no water

Are you just trolling or do you have a point?

 

[Indeependent]

why is incest frowned upon? Its human history Lol
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Interesting article although i dont believe they could ever know how many people we descended from.

that was always intended as metaphor. then thousands of years later a cult decided it was to be taken literally.

What’s the explanation of the metaphor?

why? you were taught there was really an adam and an eve who ate an apple and tickied off G-d?

Apple?
Where is there an apple?
Have you ever attended a Torah class?
God never gets ticked off; everything is action/consequence.

if you ask a Christian they save eve gave adam an apple.

i think that was my point... that it was changed by a cult that came thousands of years later.

and yes.... i prefer kaballah.

why are you getting cranky about that?

I didn’t know you were mocking the NT crowd.

 

[TNHarley]

I have my fun with religion but it is one of my favorite discussion topics!

 

[Indeependent]

why is incest frowned upon? Its human history Lol
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Interesting article although i dont believe they could ever know how many people we descended from.

that was always intended as metaphor. then thousands of years later a cult decided it was to be taken literally.

How do you know? Why is that a metaphor and not everything else?

well, there are stories that are based in history but pretty much because it was our book and it was viewed a certain way.

it didn't become a literal thing until the gospels got it.

do you think a man lived in a whale?

do you think a woman was turned to salt?

or were those stories intended to teach lessons?

There was mention of a whale?

Book of Jonah - Wikipedia

Not a whale; a large fish.

 

[Indeependent]

Genesis literally states Adam was the first man. Its right there. I dont understand what the confusing part is.
Pre-adamism was created by pagans.

Actually, it doesn’t.
Read the text very carefully.

Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 through 8

Verse 5 in Genesis says there was not a man to till the ground. What that verse most assuredly does NOT say is that there were no men.

In Genesis 2 : 2 we find that the seven day creation is completed. But go back to Genesis 1: 26 and 27 and you find that man was created.

That is why you have the theory of Adam man being an "eighth day" creation. So, either what you're quoting is a repeat of the first chapter of Genesis (and that is theory not fact) or the chay creation explains the fact that there were people (as we know them) before Adam. In any event the evidence proves over and over that you are wrong as wrong can be.

yea, it also says no plants and no water

Are you just trolling or do you have a point?

I do not find TN to be unreasonable.

 

[TNHarley]

Genesis literally states Adam was the first man. Its right there. I dont understand what the confusing part is.
Pre-adamism was created by pagans.

Actually, it doesn’t.
Read the text very carefully.

Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 through 8

Verse 5 in Genesis says there was not a man to till the ground. What that verse most assuredly does NOT say is that there were no men.

In Genesis 2 : 2 we find that the seven day creation is completed. But go back to Genesis 1: 26 and 27 and you find that man was created.

That is why you have the theory of Adam man being an "eighth day" creation. So, either what you're quoting is a repeat of the first chapter of Genesis (and that is theory not fact) or the chay creation explains the fact that there were people (as we know them) before Adam. In any event the evidence proves over and over that you are wrong as wrong can be.

yea, it also says no plants and no water

Are you just trolling or do you have a point?

Lol There was man before water and oxygen? How did that work out?
"not a man to till the ground"
How else could someone interpret that?

 

[Indeependent]

Actually, it doesn’t.
Read the text very carefully.

Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 through 8

Verse 5 in Genesis says there was not a man to till the ground. What that verse most assuredly does NOT say is that there were no men.

In Genesis 2 : 2 we find that the seven day creation is completed. But go back to Genesis 1: 26 and 27 and you find that man was created.

That is why you have the theory of Adam man being an "eighth day" creation. So, either what you're quoting is a repeat of the first chapter of Genesis (and that is theory not fact) or the chay creation explains the fact that there were people (as we know them) before Adam. In any event the evidence proves over and over that you are wrong as wrong can be.

yea, it also says no plants and no water

Are you just trolling or do you have a point?

Lol There was man before water and oxygen? How did that work out?
"not a man to till the ground"
How else could someone interpret that?

A lack of rain to water crops does not mean no rain.
Water is already in the 2nd verse.

 

[TNHarley]

Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 through 8

Verse 5 in Genesis says there was not a man to till the ground. What that verse most assuredly does NOT say is that there were no men.

In Genesis 2 : 2 we find that the seven day creation is completed. But go back to Genesis 1: 26 and 27 and you find that man was created.

That is why you have the theory of Adam man being an "eighth day" creation. So, either what you're quoting is a repeat of the first chapter of Genesis (and that is theory not fact) or the chay creation explains the fact that there were people (as we know them) before Adam. In any event the evidence proves over and over that you are wrong as wrong can be.

yea, it also says no plants and no water

Are you just trolling or do you have a point?

Lol There was man before water and oxygen? How did that work out?
"not a man to till the ground"
How else could someone interpret that?

A lack of rain to water crops does not mean no rain.
Water is already in the 2nd verse.

See, i have thought that but the verse says there is no plants because god hasnt yet sent rain. Wasnt day three vegetation?

 

[Humorme]

Actually, it doesn’t.
Read the text very carefully.

Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 through 8

Verse 5 in Genesis says there was not a man to till the ground. What that verse most assuredly does NOT say is that there were no men.

In Genesis 2 : 2 we find that the seven day creation is completed. But go back to Genesis 1: 26 and 27 and you find that man was created.

That is why you have the theory of Adam man being an "eighth day" creation. So, either what you're quoting is a repeat of the first chapter of Genesis (and that is theory not fact) or the chay creation explains the fact that there were people (as we know them) before Adam. In any event the evidence proves over and over that you are wrong as wrong can be.

yea, it also says no plants and no water

Are you just trolling or do you have a point?

Lol There was man before water and oxygen? How did that work out?
"not a man to till the ground"
How else could someone interpret that?

I suppose you have a point. You are only one that will understand it.

Summation: God created the heavens and the earth; he created the water, land, etc. THEN he created man. WHEN God created Adam man, the Bible says there was no man to till the ground. Where did you go south on such a few so easy sentences?

Again, one theory holds that Genesis chapter 2 is a repeat of Genesis chapter 1. Either way, the order of things does not change. I simply think that when God created the chay beings, that accounts for the pre-Adamic race.

If you like debating this stuff so much, maybe you should actually read it before trying to debate it.

 

[Humorme]

Actually, it doesn’t.
Read the text very carefully.

Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 through 8

Verse 5 in Genesis says there was not a man to till the ground. What that verse most assuredly does NOT say is that there were no men.

In Genesis 2 : 2 we find that the seven day creation is completed. But go back to Genesis 1: 26 and 27 and you find that man was created.

That is why you have the theory of Adam man being an "eighth day" creation. So, either what you're quoting is a repeat of the first chapter of Genesis (and that is theory not fact) or the chay creation explains the fact that there were people (as we know them) before Adam. In any event the evidence proves over and over that you are wrong as wrong can be.

yea, it also says no plants and no water

Are you just trolling or do you have a point?

Lol There was man before water and oxygen? How did that work out?
"not a man to till the ground"
How else could someone interpret that?

God breathed into Adam the "breath of life." That don't have spit to do with oxygen. That has to do with the fact that man became a living soul. That soul is what separates Adam from the rest of the creatures on this earth.

 

[Indeependent]

Verse 5 in Genesis says there was not a man to till the ground. What that verse most assuredly does NOT say is that there were no men.

In Genesis 2 : 2 we find that the seven day creation is completed. But go back to Genesis 1: 26 and 27 and you find that man was created.

That is why you have the theory of Adam man being an "eighth day" creation. So, either what you're quoting is a repeat of the first chapter of Genesis (and that is theory not fact) or the chay creation explains the fact that there were people (as we know them) before Adam. In any event the evidence proves over and over that you are wrong as wrong can be.

yea, it also says no plants and no water

Are you just trolling or do you have a point?

Lol There was man before water and oxygen? How did that work out?
"not a man to till the ground"
How else could someone interpret that?

A lack of rain to water crops does not mean no rain.
Water is already in the 2nd verse.

See, i have thought that but the verse says there is no plants because god hasnt yet sent rain. Wasnt day three vegetation?

Would you eat crabgrass?
The grass and herbs were the roots that didn’t sprout until Adam prayed.

 

[TNHarley]

Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 through 8

Verse 5 in Genesis says there was not a man to till the ground. What that verse most assuredly does NOT say is that there were no men.

In Genesis 2 : 2 we find that the seven day creation is completed. But go back to Genesis 1: 26 and 27 and you find that man was created.

That is why you have the theory of Adam man being an "eighth day" creation. So, either what you're quoting is a repeat of the first chapter of Genesis (and that is theory not fact) or the chay creation explains the fact that there were people (as we know them) before Adam. In any event the evidence proves over and over that you are wrong as wrong can be.

yea, it also says no plants and no water

Are you just trolling or do you have a point?

Lol There was man before water and oxygen? How did that work out?
"not a man to till the ground"
How else could someone interpret that?

I suppose you have a point. You are only one that will understand it.

Summation: God created the heavens and the earth; he created the water, land, etc. THEN he created man. WHEN God created Adam man, the Bible says there was no man to till the ground. Where did you go south on such a few so easy sentences?

Again, one theory holds that Genesis chapter 2 is a repeat of Genesis chapter 1. Either way, the order of things does not change. I simply think that when God created the chay beings, that accounts for the pre-Adamic race.

If you like debating this stuff so much, maybe you should actually read it before trying to debate it.

By simply reading what genesis says, no one but me but would understand it? Thanks for the compliment, but there are billions of literate humans on this planet.
AGAIN< "pre adamic" theory is PAGANISM

 

[OldLady]

why is incest frowned upon? Its human history Lol
Did We All Come from Adam and Eve?
Interesting article although i dont believe they could ever know how many people we descended from.

Look up the Human Genome project I think you will find thier findings very interesting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have read it. It was also mentioned here, earlier.

It has been a while for me, but if I remember correctly their conclusions were RNA from one mother is in existance today and 1200 different male dna strands showing up today!

Indeed. But there was also other humans alive. I found it interesting they said the first man and woman likely never knew each other..
Also, those tests cant be too accurate. Mitochondrial DNA can disappear.
But still interesting!

Help me out here--how do the first man and woman not know each other? How did these chickens lay the egg without "knowing" each other?