Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Basic Question: How Many Adams/eves Were There?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6 replies to this topic

#1 Mongo

Mongo

    Apostate

  • Atheist
  • 958 posts
  • Location:Canada
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :No

Posted 15 May 2007 - 09:13 AM

When I read Gen 2 about the creation of Adam and Eve, I find that I can substitute "man" for Adam and come away with the sense that this bible passage could be interpretated to mean several Adams and Several Eves created at the same time.

Have any of you come accross this argument for or against?

Does anyone have an answer to this?

Mongo
  • 0
I am an atheist, not because I am able to disprove that god's finger created man, but rather I am convinced the evidence shows that man's finger created god. - Mongo


#2 Warrior_of_god

Warrior_of_god

    Atheist

  • Regular Member
  • 619 posts
  • Location:Charlton, MA
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Never was, never will be

Posted 15 May 2007 - 11:26 AM

I dont see how you came to that conclusion. It does say Adam, not man, I take it to mean that only one person was created. I also have never heard of any other interpretation of that passage.
  • 0
Robert Hanssen: One might propose that I am either insanely brave or quite insane. I'd answer neither. I'd say, insanely loyal. Take your pick. There's insanity in all the answers.

#3 Jun

Jun

    Free Thinker

  • Senior Member
  • 1,895 posts
  • Location:Hiratsuka, Japan & Sydney, Australia
  • Interests:Japanese history and martial culture. Hoplology.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Navel lint!

Posted 15 May 2007 - 11:54 AM

When I read Gen 2 about the creation of Adam and Eve, I find that I can substitute "man" for Adam and come away with the sense that this bible passage could be interpretated to mean several Adams and Several Eves created at the same time.

Have any of you come accross this argument for or against?

Does anyone have an answer to this?

Mongo


Genesis 2 records that God first formed Adam out of "the dust of the ground" and then "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" causing him to "become a living soul" (Gen. 2. 7, KJV). God then placed Adam in the Garden of Eden, giving him the commandment that "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2.16-17, KJV).

Adam's name is a reference to red earth or red clay, but it also can be interpreted as 'the one who blushes' or 'turns rosy'. This correlates with Adam's capacity for shame and/or embarrassment. Note that the reddish clay suggests the presence of iron oxide, which is the mineral that makes blood red and accounts for the red-faced countenance of blushing. The same root word turns up in the Biblical Hebrew as "admoni" in subsequent descriptions of Esau and King David, where the description is commonly interpreted as 'ruddy' and/or 'red-haired' (1 Samuel 16-17).


It could be taken either way I guess.
  • 0
Rev. Junpei
It is high time that the original doctrine of the Buddha, stripped of the cultural trappings and meta-physical speculations
that has gathered around it during its long sojourn in a dozen Asian lands, is brought forward.





#4 mwc

mwc

    Sarcastic? Me?

  • Senior Member
  • 8,915 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where are you from?
  • Interests:Things and stuff
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :meh

Posted 15 May 2007 - 12:54 PM

When I read Gen 2 about the creation of Adam and Eve, I find that I can substitute "man" for Adam and come away with the sense that this bible passage could be interpretated to mean several Adams and Several Eves created at the same time.

Have any of you come accross this argument for or against?

Does anyone have an answer to this?

Mongo

Normally these types of questions are answered based on the context. It appears that the references are all singular, meaning one man, but I'm far from an expert in this. The word can, and is, used for both singular and plural (as well as some other uses). The translations are also a bit misleading, in my opinion, in that the word does mean "man" but at some point they take the transliteration of that and make it a proper name "Adam" as if he suddenly got named. As far as I know the first man had no name but he does name the first woman "Eve" (it was his job after all) which seems to be just another name for the fertility goddess Asherah.

If this story is based on the earlier poems I pointed out in the other threads on creation then their were most definitely more than one pair of humans created to do the work. The fact that Cain came across someone to marry while wandering (and ignoring later explanations of forbidden, but temporarily approved, incest) indicates others were around. These could be the "creations" of other gods or other "fallen" critters since this god probably wasn't all powerful during this time and the later editor messed this up.

mwc
  • 0
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think they'll hate you. - Don Marquis

PLEASE NOTE: Just because I speak as if YHWH/jesus exist does not mean they do. It's simply for the sake of the argument.

#5 NotBlinded

NotBlinded

    I can see!!!

  • ☆ Silver Patron ☆
  • 4,397 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Oklahoma City, OK
  • Interests:Philosophy, Mythology, Comparative Religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christian Mysticism, and that whole Oneness thing.
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :None, in any sense of understanding.

Posted 15 May 2007 - 03:26 PM

When I read Gen 2 about the creation of Adam and Eve, I find that I can substitute "man" for Adam and come away with the sense that this bible passage could be interpretated to mean several Adams and Several Eves created at the same time.

Have any of you come accross this argument for or against?

Does anyone have an answer to this?

Mongo

I find it makes a lot more sense when Adam is understood as mankind. Eve is the female aspect.

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

"Who would be so childish as to think that God was like a human gardener and planted a paradise in Eden facing the east, and in it made a real visible tree, so that one could acquire life by eating its fruit with real teeth or, again, could participate in good and evil by eating what he took from the other tree? And if the text says that God walked in the garden in the evening, or Adam hid himself under the tree, I cannot think that anyone would dispute that these things are said in the figurative sense, in an effort to reveal certain mysteries by means of an apparent historical tale and not by something that actually took place. . . . . " (On First Principles - 4: 16 by Origen of Alexandria)

Paradise is referenced in the bible as being a spiritual realm.

Makes sense to me when read this way. (Not in a literal creation, but in the state of mankind)
  • 0
"Ultimate" reality is exactly the same as "mundane" reality. The transformative experience of the so-called mystic doesn't take us anywhere but here. In a more direct sense it's like turning on the light in a darkened living room. Doing so doesn't change the living room into the kitchen, but it does change how we are able to move through it. Rev R

#6 Evolution_beyond

Evolution_beyond

    Apostate

  • Atheist
  • 966 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester, England
  • Interests:Buddhism, science fiction, fantasy, mythology, nature, evolution, South Park, Doctor Who, music
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :A divine presence exists in all things

Posted 15 May 2007 - 07:44 PM

When I read Gen 2 about the creation of Adam and Eve, I find that I can substitute "man" for Adam and come away with the sense that this bible passage could be interpretated to mean several Adams and Several Eves created at the same time.

Have any of you come accross this argument for or against?

Does anyone have an answer to this?

Mongo


I noticed a long time ago that in the footnotes of the NIV it notes that Adam means 'man'. Since I already viewed the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor and a creation myth rather than a literal truth I naturally concluded that Adam was actually just an archetypcal figure representing mankind. It's an allegorical story in many ways.

Just one of the ways that symbolic interpretations of certain Bible stories make more sense than literal interpretations.

Fundies are incredibly stupid for taking what is clearly a folk tradition about origins and taking it literally.
  • 0
We don't hate the christian, we just hate christianity ;)

I'm not interested in picking sides - I'm only interested in the truth.

The way to learn about reality is to study nature. Even if God existed, you wouldn't learn about him from a book.

#7 Ramen666

Ramen666

    The Original Ramenista

  • Regular Member
  • 9,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Gaming, Politics, Food, Movies
  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what? :Raptor Jesus

Posted 18 May 2007 - 01:10 PM

When I read Gen 2 about the creation of Adam and Eve, I find that I can substitute "man" for Adam and come away with the sense that this bible passage could be interpretated to mean several Adams and Several Eves created at the same time.

Have any of you come accross this argument for or against?

Does anyone have an answer to this?

Mongo


I noticed a long time ago that in the footnotes of the NIV it notes that Adam means 'man'. Since I already viewed the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor and a creation myth rather than a literal truth I naturally concluded that Adam was actually just an archetypcal figure representing mankind. It's an allegorical story in many ways.

Just one of the ways that symbolic interpretations of certain Bible stories make more sense than literal interpretations.

Fundies are incredibly stupid for taking what is clearly a folk tradition about origins and taking it literally.



That is something that I can agree on. It does make sense if you make it a figurative story about the Bible. If you take it literal it just does not make sense.

Pssssttttt....

Christians do not want to hear that this is just a metaphor it can destroy the whole Creation strory. :scratch:
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users