Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

because, from a bible study perspective, the answer is "yup, that's what the bible says."the science angle at least has some debate. in accuracy/inerrancy, we could discuss whether or not what the bible says is accurate, mythology, or misread. but in bible study, the only reply can be "yes".

i'm not convinced that ICANT knows anything. the last couple of times i debated with him, it devolved into spelling lessons. while it's true that there seems to have been other people outside of eden, they're not especially relevant, because the only people who survive the flood are descendants of the people who came from eden.

that's not exactly true either. there seem to have been other people outside of eden, yes, and that seems to have been where the wives of genesis 2/3's adam's children came from. so noah, and his sons, are also (in part) descended from the people outside of eden.but that's still irrelevant to the question, as there would be no one alive today who is not descended from genesis 2/3's adam.

yes, this is often quite true. which is why i was specific, above, to refer to "genesis 2/3's adam". they are both using the word generically, but in slightly different senses. genesis 2/3, part of an older document (J), has "the man" as a single individual, and a metaphor for the everyman. he's a specific case that's written to be read as a generalization. genesis 1, in slight contrast, is from a newer document (P) and probably intended to entirely replace the older account. gen 1's "the man" seems to generic from the get-go, and apply to women too. it doesn't seem to be a specific individual even in the literal account, like genesis 2/3 does. well, no. the genealogy still bottlenecks through noah, who is descended from seth, who is named for the fact that he replaced cain and abel, gen 2/3's adam's (and eve's) sons. sure, but translation should take into account how the word has been used in the rest of the source (it has always seemed to mean the entire earth before it) and the implications and intentions of text. in this case, the implication and intention seems to be that yahweh is undoing his entire creation, by literally returning it to the primal chaos (water) that originated from. he is making the water above heaven meet the water below heaven.now, some have understood J's yahweh to be a local god, which would mean his creation is also local. and i don't think they're entirely wrong. i just think that this only really extends to his people, and that the missing portion of J follows a somewhat similar outline as the version we currently have in P, because this basic outline matches canaanite, sumerian, and even egyptian cosmology. and henotheistic as J seems to be, i just can't see her actively attributing anything to any other god. if it was the entire earth, the same would hold true.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.