Kindest Regards, all!
Very interesting conversation so far. I think a lot hinges on “truth” versus “fact.” Since there is no direct evidence of the existence of Eden, it is really difficult to say with any certainty. Since I try to bring my understanding of truth into line with fact, I go with what can be shown using extra-Biblical supports to align my beliefs with fact so that my belief is not merely blind acceptance. I also realize this course is not for everybody, I don’t expect to sway anyone here. I am merely presenting my understanding, using some supposition, especially in my regarding Adam and Eve as historical people who actually did exist. I want to believe they were real people, not an allegorical myth to explain some episode in human development. That said…
Bandit said:
And Adam 'knew' Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Ah, but did you notice Adam is not mentioned? Eve bare a son, yes, but not by Adam. Notice especially that Cain is not included in the genealogy of Adam. Because the Bible is the (hi)story of the descendents of Adam.
Bandit said:
Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.
Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.
This requires a bit of a stretch of imagination. The “whole” earth was all of the earth, and then some, that these people, the descendents of Adam, knew. Indeed, a lot of the earth was covered no doubt, and there are evidences around that demonstrate massive flooding. But not everywhere. I mentioned Australia. How does one explain how such diverse animals as kangaroos, koalas, tasmanian devils and other creatures unique only to Australia got there? On the Ark? Then to get off and cross an ocean? And leave no trace anywhere else? I have a hard time reconciling that.
queenofsheba said:
“Adam” means “man of red earth” or “red clay,” possibly owing to the ruddy complexion as much as the constitution. “Ashes to ashes and dust to dust…”
Bandit said:
…the people before Adam would be under the curse of death because of Adams trangression & several other complications in the scripture.
Why?
Look at the days of creation. The first five days end “and it was good.” The sixth day creation, the “hunter-gatherers,” the “Adam” without the article, ended with “and it was very good.” My emphasis, the word is in the manuscripts. By contrast, the eighth day creation, “ha-Adam,” the man Adam, was created to tend the garden. This marked the dawn of agriculture. I have shown over and again how important this is to human development. Before ha-Adam, there was no man to till the soil. The sixth day creation were outside of the promise and obligation made to and of the man we know as Adam. The sixth day creation, like all of wild nature, were created innocent and perfect, just the way God intended, even if we do not understand His ways. The fall of Adam and Eve may have affected all of creation, including the sixth day humans, but they were not born that way.
Look at the curses: Adam would earn his bread by the sweat of his brow; weeds, thorns and thistles would plague his efforts. Eve would travail in labor. (Morton wrote an interesting piece dealing with this that I referenced quite some time ago on another thread, having to do with the size of the infant skull and the fact human infants are so slow to mature in comparison with other creatures of comparable size and weight) And the serpent, who until that time walked about on legs like humans, was cursed to crawl on his belly. I don’t think this was all snakes, but snake anatomy is interesting, they have residual hips and limbs.
mynameisstephen said:
Many skeptics have claimed that, for Cain to find a wife, there must have been other ‘races’ of people on the Earth who were not descendants of Adam and Eve.
To many people, this question is a stumbling block to accepting the creation account in Genesis and its record of only one man and woman at the beginning of history
Perhaps for some, I will not disagree. There are those who will find any excuse they can to disagree with the teachings of the Bible. However, I will state emphatically and for the record, this is not my motivation. I no longer find this a “stumbling block” in my walk.
Bandit said:
some feel that even the serpant/Satan procreated with Eve (but we cross the line there with THAT WHICH IS BORN OF FLESH IS FLESH...)
That is fine, you know I value your opinion. I have heard such teaching before. In my walk I find it difficult to justify rationally after some of the other things I have pointed out. If the serpent were indeed Satan, which may or may not be, it only further justifies what I have been saying, that prior to the curse he was not only able to, but did procreate with Eve. It is for that transgression that he was cursed as much or more than the opening of the eyes to “good and evil.” As has been pointed out by you and others, God had a purpose in mind for Adam and his descendents from the beginning. And at the beginning, the serpent (Satan) tried to derail the process. In some small way he succeeded, at least until Jesus.
JonMark said:
the line of adam are the only ones who can be saved... they are the only ones who need saving, as they are the only ones cursed by adam's sin.
I want to say first that you are very astute, and have managed to capture a great deal of nuance in your understanding. I agree with a great deal of what you have to say in this regard. However, here I will take a minor issue. Why would God not save the creation prior to Adam? Especially if it was very good? If all flesh was preserved alive in the Ark, it could be argued some of the sixth day creation also went along for the ride. Personally, I think many were spared the ravages of the flood by reason of where they were at.
The descendents of Adam concern the monotheistic races. The rest are as God intended. I can see here some of the things bananabrain has been saying all along about how the Jewish Laws are not contingent upon those who are not Jews, who are only required to observe the Noahide Laws, which roughly correspond with what I call “common human decency.”
There is something path of one said, I guess it was in another thread, dealing with pigmentation of the skin in peoples from the Northern and Southern hemispheres, and how peoples were darker coming from the South because of harsher sunshine, or something to that extent. This is something I struggle with as well. If the implications are correct, and I haven’t looked closely at the data, then Neandertal would have been the fair skinned races, and Cro-Magnon would have been the darker skinned races. In the stuff I have posted elsewhere, time and again Neandertal is shown to have been in the North in the depths of the Ice Age, while the relative new-comers, the Cro-Magnon, were invaders from the South. Something to think about…modern humans then would all be descended from the African races, yet the depictions in the biology books show otherwise…
So yes, Bandit, sometimes even Darwin must be looked at with questioning eyes, perhaps our biology books still contain a great deal of myth…
But the point of Adam and Eve still is not lost on me. Whether literal or symbolic, they represent the beginning of the promise to which I find myself aligned. And historically they represent the landmark moment of the “opening of the eyes,” the dawn of the agricultural revolution, without which modern humanity would still be living in caves.
that is one reason why they have this place for us, to share our beliefs without feeling discarded. i am a pretty good listener & head nodder & I really do try to understand what others are seeing.
