Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

because, from a bible study perspective, the answer is "yup, that's what the bible says."the science angle at least has some debate. in accuracy/inerrancy, we could discuss whether or not what the bible says is accurate, mythology, or misread. but in bible study, the only reply can be "yes".

You've argued enough with ICANT to know that things are not that simple. ICANT might well ask you which Adam it is that you think we are all descended from.

Thank you, all, for the responses.I guess the bottom line in this world is live and let live ... so long as you're not hurting anybody. I'm one of the many who simply can't believe in the myth. I'm not an atheist by deduction, not choice. But I do have faith that the Universe is indeed unfolding as it should.All the best from the Sun Burnt Country.

i'm not convinced that ICANT knows anything. the last couple of times i debated with him, it devolved into spelling lessons. while it's true that there seems to have been other people outside of eden, they're not especially relevant, because the only people who survive the flood are descendants of the people who came from eden.

Hmm. I thought it was: "She'll be right, mate" -- or "Throw another shrimp on the barbie."

Are we decended from Adam and Eve?Scientific: NoBiblical: Yes

Since Eve was just a clone of Adam it would be better to just say we are all descended from Adam.

Exactly. That means that there is an Adam that none of us are descended from. At least according to one person anyway.

that's not exactly true either. there seem to have been other people outside of eden, yes, and that seems to have been where the wives of genesis 2/3's adam's children came from. so noah, and his sons, are also (in part) descended from the people outside of eden.but that's still irrelevant to the question, as there would be no one alive today who is not descended from genesis 2/3's adam.

Faitheist, if you are interested in the more scientific aspects of this question you might go to YouTube and look up a series of videos by Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist. The name of the series is Who Was Adam?.Though Ross is an astrophysicist he has an organization called Reasons to Believe and works in conjunction with other creation scientists. I am not qualified to give wholesale agreement or disagreement. But he gets the discussion going in a balanced and scientific way.Its 11 videos. Here's the first one -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo8T1_PArJYEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Remember that there is a difference between what the Bible says and some people's interpretation.Notice that there are two Adams. Gen 1 has both men and women as Adam. Gen 2 has Adam as male alone. If you combine them, then everyone is descended from Adam and Eve. If they are separate people (and in far separate times) then everyone is descended from Adam of chap 1, but only some are descended from Adam and Eve.Similarly for the flood. The whole erets was flooded. It can be translated as earth, region or country. If it was region, then everyone in the region was killed, but others lived through it. Then, not everyone would be descended from noah, and through him, Adam and Eve. If it was region, you would expect that the Bible would mention that people discover an empty land to the east and move into it (Shinar/Sumer)

So you think that Adam and his wife Eve were not the first human beings created ?What would you say about the Apostle Paul's phrase "the first man Adam ..." (1 Cor. 15:45) ?

Too funny. That once again Paul was either ignorant or he was speaking idiomatically and using commonly known myths.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

yes, this is often quite true. which is why i was specific, above, to refer to "genesis 2/3's adam". they are both using the word generically, but in slightly different senses. genesis 2/3, part of an older document (J), has "the man" as a single individual, and a metaphor for the everyman. he's a specific case that's written to be read as a generalization. genesis 1, in slight contrast, is from a newer document (P) and probably intended to entirely replace the older account. gen 1's "the man" seems to generic from the get-go, and apply to women too. it doesn't seem to be a specific individual even in the literal account, like genesis 2/3 does. well, no. the genealogy still bottlenecks through noah, who is descended from seth, who is named for the fact that he replaced cain and abel, gen 2/3's adam's (and eve's) sons. sure, but translation should take into account how the word has been used in the rest of the source (it has always seemed to mean the entire earth before it) and the implications and intentions of text. in this case, the implication and intention seems to be that yahweh is undoing his entire creation, by literally returning it to the primal chaos (water) that originated from. he is making the water above heaven meet the water below heaven.now, some have understood J's yahweh to be a local god, which would mean his creation is also local. and i don't think they're entirely wrong. i just think that this only really extends to his people, and that the missing portion of J follows a somewhat similar outline as the version we currently have in P, because this basic outline matches canaanite, sumerian, and even egyptian cosmology. and henotheistic as J seems to be, i just can't see her actively attributing anything to any other god. if it was the entire earth, the same would hold true.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

How can you prove either of those ?Is it necessary simply because you don't believe there could be a first man ?Too funny.