Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

Apparently, while you were dozing off you missed my explanation of what could account for the dependencies in details between the two chapters.The second may have been more local so that Adam could witness some things which he would not have if he was created last.I don't see any devastating insurmountable contradictions, just possibly accounts told from different points of emphasis.Moses linked the two together in Genesis 5:1.If he as the editor or the author KNEW that some contradiction was so important to clarify that it ruined the overall impact of the revelation, he would have attended to that.My opinion is that probably as a faithful servant and prophet of God he did what God told him to do - no more, no less, no offering his own opinion to school God on what God should do.(like some other people I have met)

No I certainly didn't miss it and in fact even point that out in the part of that message you failed to quote. Moses didn't do anything, even if Moses actually existed. Some editor or redactor may have tried to cover up some of the outright contradictions.And, of course, thanks to the blessing man received in the tale found in Genesis 2&3 we are capable of and charged to correct God when his behavior is wrong or immoral.

You claim it, then support it. Do you even read what you write?Amazing I have to rehash the argument so that you can understand what you wrote.Lets go back to Message 345
where you said, and I quote. To which in Message 352 I responded. So I am surprised by your comment I explained why. So if you don't agree that means you should explain why. That is how a debate works. Every book is unique so this is a pretty silly statement. I don't believe I have ever stated it was not unique. Using a strawman is a very deceptive and dishonest debating technique. You are arguing that is "uniqueness" makes it somehow special and therefore more "true". Also, for some reason you think brevity ahs some outstanding virtue too. Still waiting for the explanation on that. A little christian persecution complex, maybe? It is stunning, and very telling, that from one simple word you infer all sorts of nefarious goings on. By "our" I meant simple everyone that visits and contributes to this site. If there was some sort of "concerted team effort" wouldn't you think that more people would be chiming in. Or do you think we conspire and work on our posts as a team?

But scientifically this is not accurate. Your 'gut" is not a good judge of scientific facrs and observations. Well if that is logical to you so be it. I have no "personal" feelings about it at all. I read some of the scientific literature and I am awed by the discoveries we have made. There is nothing "personal" about it at all. The origin of man is not anywhere on my radar of things that affect me personally. You speak as if you think everyone has the same thoughts and ideas as you. You seem to be proposing a very self centered, libertarian view of life. I honestly can say that I am not like you. I have a sense of wonder of new scientific and historical discoveries we find every day and rarely if ever think of how is this going to make myself easier. So please don't suppose that you know me and what drives me. Yours is a very scary and worrisome view of life, but alas typical fundie. So no evidence. Why didn't you say so? Using Jesus as an authority is beyond a Argument from Authority fallacy. You can't use a source to support itself. You can't use the bible to provide support for the bible. Well I guess you can, but not if you want to be taken seriously by people who do not feel the same about the bible as you do. Oh, personal attack again. No it doesn't. You see you making bald assertions does not show that people are stupid. Neither do they show that the bible is some how especially unique. How is it more unique than any other book.Maybe you don't know what the word "unique" actually means. Lets take a look at the definition, maybe you are using it in a way I am missing
Unique

quote:

---

1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint.
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area: a species unique to Australia.
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities: Certain types of problems have unique solutions.
5. not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.

---

Are you using #2? That again would be a logical fallacy. You are arguing the bible as "having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable" because it is"having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable".Not a very good way to debate. Now if I am wrong and you are using another definition, please explain how that makes YOUR bible somehow special.BTW, what bible do you think is the real bible?

Can you please not rewrite you whole post after you posted it. You do know there is a preview button so you can look at it before you post.Now my response does not address your post. I am not going to rewrite my response. I do not feel like dealing with more of your fallacies this morning.Edited by Theodoric, : Changed subtitle

You have your method, I have mine.
I pasted the entire thing into a writer on the side, dealt with it, and pasted it here.And I have better things to do today too myself, than read your stuff.
I'm finished with you, whatever you wrote.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Your method makes it very difficult to respond to your posts. If you are constantly changing your posts it is impossible to adequately address them and have a meaningful debate. That is very poor behavior for a forum like this. It is also makes it deceptive, because people may be responding to a prior version to what you have finally edited it to.Your attitude and "method" speaks volumes as to your purpose and motives. Good day, sir. Not surprised. Edited by Theodoric, : spelling

If you mean that God is the other intelligence, okay. If you mean that there is another intelligent source of evil - i.e "Satan" - then no. The story is pretty plain; the snake is a fictional character representing man's ability to make decisions, including bad ones. You seem hell bent on using ad hominem instead of addressing the argument. On the contrary, it would be nice to have a Sky Daddy to make every choice for me so I wouldn't have to take responsibility for anything. That isn't in the story. Isn't it bad enough that Adam and Eve lost their son? Why do you have to put the blame on them when the story doesn't? God puts the responsibility squarely on Cain, not on any inheritance. What if pigs had wings? See Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Ships made of wood required a flexible material, insoluble in water, to seal the spaces between planks. Pine pitch was often mixed with fibers like hemp to caulk spaces which might otherwise leak. Crude gum or oleoresin can be collected from the wounds of living pine trees.

---

Of course there was oil in the ground before the flood - not because of any "previous world" but because the world was already very very old by the time the flood (supposedly) happened. It isn't said by the Bible.

God told Cain what the first step was in "crushing the snake": don't let it in the house.

If all else fails, try a bigger shoehorn.

You mean continued as in continued from the 1950's? You are seeing things. Israel has been controlled more by non-Jews than by Jews over the last 2,000 years.

Modern Israel does not even match, territorially, biblical Israel, for which there is no historical record that matches the biblical claims. Also, the jewish religion is vastly changed from the times of the old testament.So this statement by Jaywill Seem at at odds with reality. Then again reality seems to very little influence on fundies.

The secular nation of Israel is not the Israel of old. It is not a theocracy, with a temple, the high priest and a King. It's creation is what is known as a 'self full filling prophecy'.. but it's creation does not match what was hope for and predicted in the Tankah.

I will also point out that 'the City of Sodom' is discovered every 2 or 3 years, always in a different place, and never any good collaboration for it.Something like Noah's ark.

And, why all those questions are useful in a theological/philosophical discussion, as well as looking at Genesis as literature, it does not show that the Story of Adam and Eve was anything more that Midrash, rather than historical.The internal evidence in Hebrew shows it was a midrash, not history. The puns in it alone should show it is a 'just so' tale for teaching, rather than true history.