Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

The talking snake. Do you take Donald Duck seriously?

We live in hope.

The talking snake communicates to people down through the ages that besides man there IS an intelligence which is subtle, sneaky, twisting God's word, getting us to doubt God's hearts, suspicioning us of God's good heard toward us, and slandering God's motive of utmost love and care for His creature man.Yes, everyone knows that a serpent is not supose to talk. And I have not yet figured out why Eve was not surprised. Someday I hope to know.However, critical underlying truth is conveyed. Trouble with mankind began when what God said was twisted and combined with a lie. Trouble with mankind began when man took in the thought that God did not have man's utmost benefit in mind.It is also highly possible that we are only TOLD certain details about what happened which are critical to know the history. It is possible that many other things were going on which we are not explicitly informed of.You go ahead and have your good chuckle about that detail. I am paying more attention to other things.1.) Why was a lying intelligence there ?
2.) Why does it seem to possess previous experience with death ?
3.) Why did it initiate its attack firstly through the woman to get to the man?
4.) If it KNEW Adam would die WHY did it WANT Adam to die?
5.) Why did it insituate that God wants no competition ?
6.) Why was it given NO promise of salvation as Adam and Eve were given?
7.) What does it mean for it to expect to have its head crushed?
8.) What does it mean that it will bruise the heel of the Crusher?
9.) What are the deeper significances if any of it being condemned to eat dust?
10.) Why does it totally disappear from the remainder of the Old Testament.
11.) What would have happened if Adam had first taken the tree of life, as far as the lying serpent was concerned?
12.) How come some people when you study the Bible with them SOUND so much like the serpent in Genesis ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The fact that a talking snake is used should make it obvious that the intelligence is not "besides" man - it is man. Trouble with mankind began when God created them with the ability to choose. It wasn't a "lying" intelligence outside of them. It was an intelligence within them with the ability to choose. God put it there. Indeed, why, if there supposedly was no death before "the fall"? Clearly, Adam and Eve were aquainted with death. They had seen things die - lions eating gazelles, for example. What they weren't aquainted with was their own death. Realizing one's own mortality is yet another aspect of growing up. Again, "it" is not an external entity. Why did the woman think of eating the fruit first? Well, it was a fifty-fifty proposition. If the man had thought of it first, would it really make any difference to the story? If there was a talking snake (tee hee) and if it did know that they would die, what it wanted was irrelevant. It knew that they would die whether they ate the fruit or not. What promise of salvation? All Adam and Eve are promised in the story is blood, sweat, toil and tears. It's a throw-away character. It serves its purpose and then it's gone. The questions in Eve's mind (about God's veracity, for one thing) had to be voiced in some way for the audience. If Shakespeare had written Genesis, it would have been a soliloquy, "To eat or not to eat...."It's yet another indication that the character is not real. We don't know that he didn't. Because the snake is in all of us. He represents human intelligence.

You misconstrue my words. I said there is AN intelligence besides man. In other words MAN'S intelligence is not the ONLY intelligence in the creation. That is a ironical statement for a man who seems hell bent on wanting to CHOOSE not to come to God's salvation.Isn't it the terror of losing your freedom the main reason for all your arguing here over the years? "Don't mess with my CHOICE" you are screaming out. It seems your free will is what you spend you energy on protecting.But you prefer that God had made you a robot with no choice ? You say the trouble is that God made them with an ability to choose. This intelligence you say, God put within them. And He was wrong to have done so.It sounds like you simply want your analysis to come out so that God is to blame for everything.Had Eve realized that what happened to them was GOING to happen to them, I don't think she would have fallen for the LIE.To grow old from such a youthful and pristine perfection, losing a son to murder and another to exile in the same moment, was heart breaking. Can you see the couple kneeling before the bloody corpse of their child Abel? Can you feel the heartbreak they must have had at the realization of what they led their family into? And at the same time another son fled away forever, a wanderer frightened for his life.As sins became manifested, and disharmony, family decay, dysfunction, old age, encreasing weakness and anxiety and finally death ... had she known that the LIE "you will not surely die" was not worth all this. Depends on whose Bible interpretation you follow.This requires more discussion. Briefly, Paul said "through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin ..." My opinion is that there must be some parameters on what is meant by "the world". It may mean Adam's world. It may mean the world that was prepared for Adam.What if there was a previous world that was prepared for another being before Adam was created ?Did you notice that Noah coated the ark with pitch in Genesis 6:14 - "Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make rooms in the ark and shall cover it within and without with pitch." That is a petroleum product related to OIL. And OIL is related to dead organic material. And before the flood of Noah there was apparently oil or pitch in the ground.That is all I would say now. But "the earth was was waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep" in Genesis 1:2 strongly implies a previous judgmental overthrow from God of another world before the six days to commence.Death could have been known in that previous pre-Adamic world. And the serpent had previous experience with it. The carnivorousness of animals is said not to have commenced until AFTER the flood of Noah.Compare Genesis 1:29,30 with Genesis 9:1-4. I do not claim to understand this totally. But we know that in the restoration it is promised that the lion and the bear will eat straw like the ox (Isaiah 11:6-8)

quote:

---

"Righteousness will be that which girds His loins, And faithfulness will be that which girds His hips.

​

And the wolf will dwell with the lamb;
And the leopard will lie down with the kid,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a young boy will lead them about.

​

The cow and the bear will graze; Their young will lie down together;
And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child will play by the cobra's hole,
And upon the viper's den the weaned child will stretch his hand.

​

They will not harm nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah, as the water covers the sea.

​

And in that day the root of Jesse, Who stands as a banner to the peoples - Him will the nations seek, And His resting place will be the glory."

---

In this remarkable transformation of nature we apparently have a restoration to the Edenic condition before the animals were carnivorous.I have to consider these things as a serious Bible reader, though I do not have all the answers.That is all I can respond at this time. Aside from being warned that to eat of the tree of knowledge would cause them death, I see no other warning or indication that they should expect to live for a time and then die.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think the enemy of God and man went first through the weaker vessel.I didn't say the weak vessel. I said the weak-ER vessel.
I don't think it was a 50/50 chance thing. I think Satan deliberately targeted the wife.I think Paul agrees - (First Timothy 2:9-15) Women were the first to witness the resurrected Son of God. The men were in bed depressed and sleeping. Neither your giggling or your interpretation can I take seriously.Any tee hee-ing from me would have to be related to how you are attempting to contort the story.While I have made a reasonable attempt to take your viewpoint seriously with its attempt to DE-mythasize the account and put a kind of humanistic sociological point of view to it, your lampooning attitude just poisons the well of discussion.I'm sure your skepto buddies are cheering you on. The last laugh may not be yours. The subsequent generations expected SOMEONE to come to relieve them of the labors of the cursed ground. They expected that that Savior was Noah - "And Lamech lived a hundred eighty-two years and begot a son. And he called his name Noah, saying, This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands, which come because of the ground which Jehovah has cursed." (Genesis 5:28,29) They still remembered the history of their forefather Adam. And they expected that a savior was to come. Where did they get this expectation ?I believe the got this expectation from the words that God had prophesied to Adam and his wife after their tragic misfortune of disobedience - "And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed; He will bruise you on the head, But you will bruise him on the heel." (Gen. 3:15) We know the ultimate positive referent of this prophesy is Jesus Christ, the Son of God who was born of the virgin woman. That is the woman's seed.Many precursors and previews of the Savior Jesus came in the Old Testament first. Noah was one - a foretaste of the ultimate saving One - the Son of God. That they were expecting. They also received a promise of a savior to crush the one in the head who led them astray. And he would be bruised on the heel in doing so.Some of us take this a promise that they somehow hoped in, a setting of things right somehow. It is evidenced that they may have thought Cain was the fulfillment of that promise. Of course Cain became a big disappointment.The promise was for far in the future after Adam and Eve expired. But in this Savior all their decendents would one day be blessed. God continued this kind of universal promise of blessing in the calling out of Abraham - "in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3) I re-state that. His activity continues - the slander, the deception, and the opposition to God and God's purpose. In the form as a speaking serpent he disappears.In light of the rest of Scripture it is clear to me that this enemy was outside of man and got into man.This is really the significance of Adam EATING the forbidden fruit. What he ATE got INTO him. That was the line that he must not cross. Whatever else he did, as long as he did not EAT, he remained innocent.When he ATE, that evil matter entered into his being. Satan's entering and Adam's eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil coincided. We know that the two trees were mutually exclusive. So to eat of one closed the door to eat of the other.I think Adam never ate of the tree of life because of what 3:22 says "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and live forever -

​

... He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction to guard the way to the tree of life." Had Adam previously put forth his hand and previously eaten of the tree of life then upon eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil after that would have resulted in the same danger to God.So for this reason, at this time, I believe that Adam never ate of the tree of life. The two were mutually exclusive at that time.Sometimes I believe that had Adam eaten of the tree of life that it would have resulted in the destruction and judgment upon that serpent. And the serpent knew this and acted to preempt it.This is my speculation based on the whole scheme of the rest of the Bible's revelation.Adam was to keep the garden. And the creeping things he was to have dominion over rather than they have dominion over him.I think Adam in harmony with God would have said that this lying creature who is slandering His creator HAD TO GO. And God would have said - "Music to my ears. Get rid of him my son."By the way the church is going to put this snake into the lake of fire anyway. We will do so by allowing Jesus Christ to saturate us with His Spirit. Our turning our whole beings over to God's process is our executing the image and dominion with which God originally entrusted to man.We are the real environmentalists. And through our cooperation Satan the little lying snake will be crushed under the feet of the churching people as we follow our Victor Jesus. Our victory is based on His victory.

quote:

---

"Now has come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ, for the accuser of our brothers has been cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night.

​

And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they loved not their soul-life even unto death." (Revelation 12:10,11)

​

"Now the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. " (Romans 16:20)

---

The first step in crushing the snake is to stop listening to his way of slandering God and twisting God's words. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

So just how you feel? I think you are making my arguments for me. You have no evidence or logic just your gut. More personal feelings. No logical evidential reason. If the authority is truly an authority and if the argument has evidence. It is realistic to compare them based upon your claims that you believe the bible because it mentions real places. Typical fundie, the competition has to meet a higher burden your bible. The bible is not one book. There isn't even one bible. Even if it did explain all of these things, what the fuck does that have to do with it being a factual account or divinely inspired. I smell logical fallacy. So the fewer words the more accurate an account is? That is a really weird way to to attain knowledge. You would think something more in depth and accurate would be a better way for your god pass on knowledge.

Especial interesting.He is presenting as an important example of reality a book that in its first two chapters present mutually exclusive and contradictory list of the order of creation.

quote:

---

God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

---

No examples of ancient writings paralleling Genessis.
Not even a try.Talking about laziness ...

Oh a personal attack too. Your debating skills continue to amaze me.Also, I notice that you didn't address my post at all. I addressed your post and if you actually read mine you would have seen that I explained why yoru request for parallels to genesis was silly, disingenuous and setting the bar higher for anything other than the bible.If you want to actually respond to my post go ahead. If not, don't waste our time.

As if you didn't accuse me of "intellectual laziness". Got a glass jaw Theodoric? You can dish out in spades but can't take your own medicine ? "Setting the bar higher for anything other than the bible" makes little sense to me. If the book is unique then we should just admit it. Doesn't mean you believe it.If the bar is highest with a unique book then that is just the way it is.I'll go back an reply to each line latter. By the way, who do you refer to as "OUR" in "our time" ? Do you have some concerted team effort back there coming in droves into the Bible Study room to preach evo fundie-ism or something ?If you can't be honest and admit that the Bible is unique in this regard (economy and scope) , then don't waste " our time" either ... a few of us who want to examine the Bible .I'll go back over the last few exchanges, get my bearings, and respond to your post you said I ignored. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Ah yes. Now I remember why I skirted over your post not wasting much time Theodoric When a guy thinks he has to become a potty mouth in order to make his point "strong" I consider it juvenile and bordering on having contempt for the Forum rules. (which curiously apparently no longer exist !?!)You can make your point without gutter language. That's why I said to myself " not going to spend a lot of time here."Debating skills you were wringing your hands over ? In a little while for my own sake, I'll go through your list of comments.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Can you point out the contradiction which makes Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 mutually exclusive ?I take the differences as not insurmountable inconsistencies but rather difference in emphasis.If you are referring to when the animals were created, I think the second account could be being told from a more local perspective. Ie. Since Adam was not alive when God had formed and created animals previously, He may have reserved the event locally for Adam to witness.I'm inclined to think that because exhaustive details are not provided we could view some details as being contradictory. We may just not have been told enough. We were told what was crucial.Also I think God knows that we human beings are prone to MISS the most important points. In both chapter one and in chapter two - it is MAN who is on the top. Among all the other living creatures man is at the most preeminent place.This is consistent in both chapters and is probably the point God did not want us to miss. Albeit we may scratch our heads - " Now did God make the other creatures FIRST and THEN man (ch. 1)?
Or did God make man FIRST and THEN the other living creatures (ch. 2) ?" It is a paradox. Maybe it is a contradiction. But I am inclined to think it is a device purposely included so that we humans would focus on what is most important in God's mind.Man was the top living thing on the earth among all other living things.
You know we are experts at missing the POINT when it comes to God's revelation. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Yawn.Of course I can point out the contradictions and in fact I did point to one in the very post you are replying to.The order of creation and the method of creation are two examples.You continue to pervert what is actually written just as you pervert Christianity, Christ and Christs message, God, the Bible and Christianity.You just willfully make shit up to avoid the truth.

I choose to look at matters of truth "holistically" involving my whole being. I don't mind getting around to the Homeric stories. But FIRST I need to consider this Bible thing. It has much more expedience to my understanding of the nature of the world, mankind, and our destiny.Achilles and Hector are interesting. But I have this book here "the Bible" which speaks, I think, much more to the central meaning of human life, accountability toward God, and salvation. It is at the top of the list of writings that my "gut" tells me is important for me examine. Homer's stories rank lower.Besides, an "intuitive" sense about evidence is warranted in this matter. If I am pretty sure that no one has ever witnessed a non human being giving birth to a human being, I intuitively suspect that claims that it happened are less than scientifically reliable. Through human history all the people came from people.Look at the other aspect of the problem, if all the humans have been observed to come from other humans, I also "intuitively" feel in my gut that an infinite regress is impossible. There had to be a first human rather than an infinite regress of ancestors. The first one had to have come about some OTHER way.1.) We observe all people came from other people.
2.) It is logical that an infinite regress of descent is impossible. So the first human must have come into existence another way. Above I gave you both logical evidence - what humans have observed through human history.
And I gave you some "gut feeling" about it too.As for objecting to my consideration of responsibility, I don't think you are totally without some feeling about what all this origin of man means to YOU personally, either.When some people boast of the wonderful things in medical field have resulted from science, I am sure that they are considering also what the healing benefits of these by-products mean to them and their loved ones. Sure scientists get a personal stake involved for mankind and even themselves.My basic feeling about science is that it is not a matter solely of objective curiosity. Eventually research results in making a better weapon, or advancing technology to get some "thing" to do a job for us, perhaps leaving us more leisure time."What is this knowledge going to do for us?" involves a concern for relieving personal discomfort, or personal inconvenience, or getting our enemies off our backs, or otherwise making the world a less burdensome place. And I spoke to that already. I said I first came to the Bible unwilling to take Genesis seriously. The authority of Jesus in His integrity, His unquestionably high level of honesty, wisdom, adherence for truth above His own life, not to mention I believe He both raised people from the dead and Himself rose from the dead. These factors added to the sense of His authority on the subject, which He apparently took as history - early Genesis.Skipping down - Okay. But I don't think I said that the mention of specific places, as much other ancient literature does do, was not my only reason for believing it. I said it "encouraged" me. Right here - I usually write this in response to people who say things like "Oh that book is like a Donald Duck Comic or a Harry Potter novel or the stories of Homer. There is nothing unique about the Bible."This is how I often protest to that unrealistic generalization. And typically they fail to counter that the Bible is just a book like any other book. They usually jump to some other objection. Like you do below If the Bible has a higher bar that is not "unfair" in some way. It simply makes the point for its uniqueness.
Uniqueness is just uniqueness. It doesn't prove it contains truth. It does prove that people are stupid to speak of it in the same sense as a Donald Duck comic, a Harry Potter novel, or even the Homeric stories. The issue was its uniqueness based on these aspects.
No logical fallacy there because I did not say these things PROVED it true.
These things argue for its uniqueness.
So skeptics can stop pretending that it should be given no more serious consideration than Harry Potter.At least some of us feel that way. C.S. Lewis area of expertise was literature of all types. He recognize bogus comparisons skeptics make between other writings and the Bible. Our priorities may be only to have our curiosity satisfied about many things. God's priorities are to relate to us the crucial pieces of knowledge which are related to our salvation and His eternal purpose.He could have given us 66 books which do nothing but discribe what WATER is or what the GROUND is made up of.
He has His priorities in revealing to us the most important things we need to know about His eternal purpose. And also how we may come forward to have a relationship of intimacy with God. It is a book of life - divine life. Is it a fact that there was no first human being - Adam ?
I don't think we can state that this is a known FACT.
There's a belief that no man was a first man.
I think it must be incorrect. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.