MyKell

I'm not, by any means, suggesting that the story of creation is valid. My question is that: was there really people called Adam and Eve? Are there any accounts for such characters in history other than the bible?

UntamedSeductress

Not to my knowledge, mind you I don't know much.

What bothers me is that if these beings, known as Adam and Eve were in fact the first humans on earth - why are they only mentioned in the bible? Surely the beginning of our own race and the beginning of life on earth would be monumental, no?

Does the failing to find such accounts in any place other than the bible simply hold count to the fact that it is all make believe?

I would say yes.

malookiemaloo

Oh I see.

Because the Bible writers were the first/only people perceptive/knowledgeable enough to write about the Creation, they must be wrong!!

Some logic, eh?


malookiemaloo

Lobstrosity

Come on Malookie, even you have to know that there are hundreds of other accounts of creation. They all differ from each other and from the Biblical account, which itself is so unbelievable that most Christians today think of it only as a parable. UntamedSeductress's point is a valid one. The creation of the universe and of life on Earth are two monumental events that you would think deserve some sort of accurate documentation. Instead, all we're given is a parable (woo, thanks) that disagrees with every other creation "myth" out there. The stupidest part is that a parable not meant to be taken literally spends an entire chapter telling us specifically who begat whom and specifically how long they all lived. What the hell is that? If this isn't some pretty damn strong evidence that the writers of the Bible were just making it up as they went along I don't know what is.

MollyMac

No, I don't think the first humans were called Adam and Eve. I forget their precise names but it was something like Ugga and mugga. I haven't come across any other historical couples called Adam and Eve.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. It sounds like "if the story of the creation - talking snakes and all - were recorded in lots of places and not just one, then it might just be true"

malookiemaloo

I know I know.

Considering the flak I get on the SW at times I just temporarily lost control.

Like all these matters, it comes down to your faith stance. Paul and Jesus mention Adam as an actual person. That's good enough for me.


malookiemaloo

worldling

malookiemaloo wrote:

By what process of reasoning did you arrive at the conclusion that because these two characters from antiquity - at least one of whom is of dubious historicity - apparently believed in the existence of Adam, this constitutes "good enough" evidence for a rational and educated adult in the 21st century to accept Adam's existence as fact?

If you don't mind my asking.

Oxymoron

Jesus was a rabbi. Rabbis teach the OT. Why should he not mention Adam as part of the creation lie?

Of course, since the NT was written quite a while after the alleged events, anyone - including and especially Paul - could have creatively added anything. Given this, just because you have faith that one bit is true, it doesn't necessarily mean the rest of it is just as authentic.

This 'faith' you speak of is built on quicksand that can be - and has been! - undermined historically, scientifically, philosphically, and morally.

Why isn't the Koran good enough for you? Or the Guru Granth Sahib? Or the Cabbalah? Or the Purvas? Or L Ron Hubbard's writings? Or...

malookiemaloo

At the end of the day, it's a faith stance re Jesus's claim to be God.

You may care to join in the discussion on the will in the GRD.


m

Vorkosigan

No, malook. It's a faith stance that: (1) the words of Jesus were reported faithfully (2) nobody added or altered them (3) you've interpreted it properly (4)....etc. This "faith stance" of yours sneaks in all kinds of different faiths. Basically, you worship not Jesus, but the Bible.

Vorkosigan