Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

Um, don't you know how babies are born?You don't really think that God poofed some dude into existence, do you?

Excuse me? Besides the Coffee House, the forum I post most into is the Faith and Belief forum. Most of my posts are outside of the science forums. And I am a Christian. WTF? proofI would have to go with "yes". That would be less miraculous than the hand of God being involved. And you seem to only include natural processes.But I don't know why you picked that particular scenario...Anyways, now answer my questions.

From Message 79Maybe you should base your next judgement of a full assessment, then. What do you mean by "miraculous"? I don't see how anything can be as miraculous as the actual hand of God being involved. Oh, well they're wrong. But let's not get into abiogenesis, this thread is about the first man not the first life. You could've right-clicked on the link to the message you were replying to that was below the writing field, and then picked "open in new tab". Then you could've reviewed the message and replied to my question in this same post rather than submitting this one and starting a new one. Just sayin'From Message 80That's how the "first man" got here too.I use scare quotes, though, because its fairly impossible to draw a line to say that this particular hominin counts as a 'man' while that hominin that it came out of does not count as a 'man'. But, assuming that we wanted to draw that line somewhere, the first hominin that we would call a 'man' must have come out of a womb. We know that's how babies are born.Surely you can follow that logic, regardless of if you think its correct, yes? And you say you don't have enough faith for abiogenesis...You have an awful lot of assumptions and unknowns in your case, like whether or not the people who were saying that Jesus said something were correct in what he said. There's just not enough factual information there to be basing a denial of basic known biology on. I mean, maybe everything written really is correct and its just your own personal interpretation that is faulty. You must have a huge amount of trust in your own self to figure that you got this one right, and all the scientists are just wrong about biology. Took it seriously, sure. Thought that the events they described definitely happened in real life? Not so much.Jesus's audience would have been familiar with those stories. Jesus was found of using parables to make a point. I don't see that Jesus using the myths that people were familiar with as being an endorsement that those myths definitely happened for real.I could use the phrase: "just like Dark Vader was Luke Skywalkers father...." and that would not mean that I thought that story actually happened. It just means that I think you are familiar with story and it will make my point.You know, Jesus referenced Jonah being in the whale for 3 days, do you think that one really happened too? Come on now, a guy living in a whales belly for three days!? Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous? What if you're wrong?Is it really worth a public denial of some of the most basic know biology, because you think that you're correctly interpreting What Jesus must have thought? Mmhmm, and some guy totally lived in a whale for three days

Right, sometimes he used parables and sometimes he didn't. Neneveh was a real place, the Garden of Eden was not.As I said, referencing a place that is not real is not saying that you think it actually existed. I see. So you are willing to deny basic known biology to hold up your preferred version of reality.The thing that I think is dangerous, is that you're putting all your chips on your own interpretation of the particulars. What if you're wrong and Jesus knew that the Garden of Eden was a myth but he was just using a story that his audience was familiar with? Is it really worth denying some very basic and known biology because you think that you're correct in interpreting Jesus as saying that the story actually did happen in real life? You've seen where babies come from with your own eyes: they are born out of wombs.

You, yourself, have seen how babies are born. That's how men get here. They come out of wombs.There could not be a first man because he would have no womb to come out of.

Well there you go. You're willing to deny a basic known fact of biology to uphold your preferred version of reality.And you're willing to do this based on your own interpretation about what a book says that a guy said about a myth because you think that him mentioning the myth means that he thought the myth really happened.You don't see any issues with that?

You forgot about the scenario where you're just misunderstanding him.

Men are born out of wombs.

More like:1) Men are born out of wombs.
2) Adam wasn't.
C) The story of Adam is a myth and didn't really happen.Ya know, the story has a talking snake in it too... Its obviously not a for-real story. I'm not saying that God couldn't have created the first man. I'm saying that you're denying some basic known biology. And further, that your reasoning for doing so is too thin and weak to support such a blatant denial of something so basic and known. I'm not convinced that he did regard it as history. I think he just used a story that his audience was familiar with. Kinda like if I said something about Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father. Repeated where? Within the synotpic gospels? Those are just telling the same story.Heck, let's look at your passages:

quote:

---

Mark 10

​

1 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

​

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?

​

3 What did Moses command you? he replied.

​

4 They said, Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.

​

5 It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law, Jesus replied. 6 But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

---

Jesus is just reiterating what his audience knew of as what Moses had written for them. That isn't necessarily saying that the events actually happened.

quote:

---

Matt 19

​

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?

​

4 Haven’t you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’

---

If you change that too: "Haven't you seen, that Darth Vader is Luke's father", then you can see that it is not necessarily saying that the things actually happened.

quote:

---

John 8

​

39 Abraham is our father, they answered.

​

If you were Abraham’s children, said Jesus, then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.

​

We are not illegitimate children, they protested. The only Father we have is God himself.

​

42 Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

---

That one's a real stretch to take him speaking generally and then say that he must not only be directly reference Genesis, but also that he must have taken it as actually happening.Do you have any other passages where Jesus seems to be taking Genesis as actual events?

How do you know?Supporting your claim is not only good for your argument, but even those who don't disagree with you will get the opportunity to look into it and find something to learn.

Oh okay, I see what you're saying now. I misunderstood you before. Thanks for explaining.