Adam & Eve

God talked to Moses quite often so I don't see why it would be hard to believe that God would have inspired Moses to write parts of the Bible.

As far as Cain and Abel's wives, Adam and Eve had other children so they would have married a sister, etc. Since Adam and Eve were the first (and only) human beings, their children would have no other choice than to intermarry. God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there was enough people that intermarriage was not necessary (Leviticus 18:6-18).

The reason that incest often results in genetic abnormalities in children is that when two people of similar genetics (i.e. a brother and sister) have children – genetic defects are far more likely to result because both parents had the same defects themselves. When people from different families have children – it is highly unlikely that both parents will have the same genetic defects. The human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries as genetic defects are multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation.

Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, so that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. As a result, it was safe for them to intermarry.

 

Yeah, both parents had extra chromosomes.

 

Holy Hell!

 

spare us the pseudo-scientific rationalizations and just say you don't believe in genetics.

 

Like I said, I struggle with all of that.

 

I've been wondering about this and here is a possible explanation from Andrew Wommack's study bible :

1 (Lk 3:23) The geneology in Matthew is from Abraham to Jesus while Luke traces Jesus' ancestry from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The geneologies are the same from Abraham to David, but from David to Jesus, they are totally different. Both these geneologies were accepted by the early church despite their differences, which is proof enough of their accuracy.

The answer appears to be that Matthew traces David's line through Solomon (Mt.1:6), while Luke traces the royal lineage through Nathan, another of David's sons (Lk3:31; 2Sam. 5:14). This would by pass the curse on Jechonias' seed listed in Jeremiah 22:24-30 (see ref. bb at Mt 1:1, p.4).

The justification for two genealogies is that Matthew records Joseph's line while Luke records Mary's line. Luke does say Joseph was the son of Heli, which would appear that Luke is also tracing Joseph's lineage, but that would not have to be the case. There is scriptural precedent for a man's first son to be reckoned to the mother's genealogy if her father had no sons (Num 27:1-11 ;and 36: 1-12 with Ruth 4:6). This could explain the substitution of Joseph's name in Luke's account. This is especially appropriate since Jesus was the seed of the Woman (Gen. 3:15), not the seed of the man.

 

This is what I think the story of "eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" was all about. Before this, humans were not self-aware. I think that according to the biblical account, their choosing to "eat of the fruit" was a decision that they wanted to become self-aware & not depend on God to tell them what was right or wrong--to decide for themselves instead.

Then, once people began deciding for themselves instead of relying upon a divine being for direction, corruption began--they made mistakes because they acted without complete understanding.

How do you determine if the bible "presents itself as literal?" Allegory presents truth without adhering strictly to fact. There are plenty of brilliant allegorical works. The greatest of literature (including fiction) illuminates truths about the human condition without being literal factual accounts. I'm not aware of anything in the bible itself that declares it to be literal. Truth, yes; literal, no.

 

The Garden of Eden, like all creation myths (including those of my religion), is symbolic. Its truths lay the foundation for the faith it pertains to, setting up the world in such a way as to make sense within the given religion's cosmology.

If more people accepted this idea, there'd be less pointless bickering between science and religion, which are both merely branches of philosophy, and each serve separate functions within the human psyche.

 

Very well said, ECILAM.

 

Well I'm obviously going to disagree that the creation story is a myth but for those that believe Adam and Eve were not real, just know that they are mentioned over 30 times in the Bible. If they didn't exist why are then mentioned so often?

Looks like some folks who like to think that the Bible is just made up of "truths" will take another look at the archeological evidence.

From the Drudge Report:
Biblical Pool of Siloam Is Uncovered in Jerusalem
Tue Aug 09 2005 00:09:33 ET

Workers repairing a sewage pipe in the old city of Jerusalem have discovered the biblical Pool of Siloam, a freshwater reservoir that was a major gathering place for ancient Jews making religious pilgrimages to the city and the reputed site where Jesus cured a man blind from birth, the LOS ANGELES TIMES reports.

The pool was fed by the now famous Hezekiah's Tunnel and is ``a much grander affair'' than archeologists previously believed, with three tiers of stone stairs allowing easy access to the water, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review, which reported the find Monday.

``Scholars have said that there wasn't a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit'' to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. ``Now we have found the Pool of Siloam ... exactly where John said it was.''

A gospel that was thought to be ``pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history,'' he said.

The discovery puts a new spotlight on what is called the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, a trip that religious law required ancient Jews to make at least once a year, said archeologist Ronny Reich of the University of Haifa, who excavated the pool.

``Jesus was just another pilgrim coming to Jerusalem,'' he said. ``It would be natural to find him there.''

The newly discovered pool is less than 200 yards from another Pool of Siloam, this one a reconstruction built between A.D. 400 and 460 by the empress Eudocia of Byzantium, who oversaw the rebuilding of several Biblical sites.

Developing...