Did God create others after Adam and Eve?

[DannyM]

Byblos,

Sorry for the long delay. I'm not long back from NY - It's all about the Windy Apple. But all I could think about is getting right back to you!

I did not say that at all. All I said is that since they are not born to a fallen nature (because they are not from Adam's lineage) it's quite possible their inherent nature allows them not to sin and therefore not be in need for a savior. But if there exists such a people, indeed if only one person, then Christ's sacrifice is no longer needed. One can learn from such people how to save one's self..

Neither am I necessarily "from Adam's lineage" but I am still presented with the everyday potential to sin. Please explain how you can hypothetically accept an exitent people and yet suggest they are not under the scrutiny of our God? Your logic here simply does not fit mine; Christ came to save ALL people; not just Jews but gentiles too. Man's original "sin" literally opened his eyes and showed him the way. And this affected the whole of mankind. Just as Christ's sacrifice was to save ALL mankind, so Man's original "sin" brings together all mankind. How could you logically have an existent people NOT subject to the power of God? Isn't that demeaning God? Isn't that questioning his compassion and his power?

Not sure exactly what you mean by 'Adam the man is not explicitly mentioned until Genesis 4'. Genesis 3:20 begs to differ with you. Here it is from different versions:

Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

And the man called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

.

Adam is not a proper name in the biblical text. God does not name him Adam, and neither does man name himself Adam. Hence me acknowledging Genesis 4 as the explicit moment when the man (Adam, let's call him) is mentioned specifically and in a manner which is "doing". Eve is explicitly named by Adam, and if you read this text philosophically, it is a rather glorious statement; it is beautiful. Adam has just been admonished by God for his "sin" and has been shown in no uncertain terms that he is just a man, and (when compared to God) powerless at that. So man is exonerating the woman, he is placing her above even himself: She is the mother of all living. Maybe the man seriously believes, in his moment of ecstacy, that Eve truly is the only woman alive; maybe he thinks Eve will be the first woman to give birth; maybe he is claiming Eve to be the mother of all living in his line. Whatever, the text does not explain away the fact that Genesis indicates another people.

Where it says 'the man' instead of 'Adam', to whom do you think the reference is if not to Adam? Considering they mention his wife Eve, being the mother of all living. So no, I don't know what you mean that 'Adam the man' is not mentioned until Gen 4. Please elaborate. .

It means a specific man, but man isn't mentioned specifically. I hope you know what I mean by this.

Besides which, it really is irrelevant to the discussion. The mere fact that Eve is proclaimed to be the mother of all living should end it right there. How could there possibly be other non-adamic races when Eve is said to be the mother of all? That, my friend, is what makes no sense whatever, unless of course you want to argue that Eve bore children from other than Adam. .

It ends nothing. You, I fear, are taking things too literally and too seriously; a philosophical and nonliteral look is often required. You have no grounds whatsoever to insist as fact that Eve is the only woman. I'm truly ready to open this debate right up again, Byblos, as I am astonished at such claims. Please tell me from whence Cain's wife came ? And please, if you are going to mention phantom siblings born in between Cain and Abel, then explain why Cain and Abel are the only siblings focused upon? And please explain how the "feud" between Cain and Abel is a classic feud between two warring and competing brothers? The kind of classic competition for attention that you get from two brothers? And the classic case of the elder brother, being the pride and joy, resenting the newborn? Please tell me where you think a whole load of other siblings fit into this classical, perhaps prototypical scene of the two (and only two) brothers competing?

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.
Note the KJV goes even further: 'one blood'.

Perhaps Paul was speaking of his own nations of people past and present. Perhaps Paul really is saying what it looks like he might be saying. Who knows? But it does not erase the evidence.

Byblos, I've left the KJV in so as to point out how, along with the Catholic church itself. the KJV sometimes has a tendency to go its own way with things. Where it thinks it has the right to exaggerate the text is beyond me. It is things like this which turn me away from this particular book.

I look forward to a robust debate on this once more, seeing as it won't go away

God bless

[DannyM]

I keep messing up the quote system. Please read my reply carefully, and please could someone point out to me where I'm messing up with the quote system? Thanks.

Dan

[Byblos]

I keep messing up the quote system. Please read my reply carefully, and please could someone point out to me where I'm messing up with the quote system? Thanks.

Dan

Most likely you're missing the end quote in the nested quotes. No worries, I should be able to reformat it in my response.

[Byblos]

Byblos,

Sorry for the long delay. I'm not long back from NY - It's all about the Windy Apple. But all I could think about is getting right back to you!

Not a problem Danny. How was your trip to NY? You should have told me you were going to be in my neck of the woods. We could've done lunch or something. Were you in NYC at all?

I did not say that at all. All I said is that since they are not born to a fallen nature (because they are not from Adam's lineage) it's quite possible their inherent nature allows them not to sin and therefore not be in need for a savior. But if there exists such a people, indeed if only one person, then Christ's sacrifice is no longer needed. One can learn from such people how to save one's self..

Neither am I necessarily "from Adam's lineage" but I am still presented with the everyday potential to sin. Please explain how you can hypothetically accept an exitent people and yet suggest they are not under the scrutiny of our God? Your logic here simply does not fit mine; Christ came to save ALL people; not just Jews but gentiles too. Man's original "sin" literally opened his eyes and showed him the way. And this affected the whole of mankind. Just as Christ's sacrifice was to save ALL mankind, so Man's original "sin" brings together all mankind. How could you logically have an existent people NOT subject to the power of God? Isn't that demeaning God? Isn't that questioning his compassion and his power?

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying Danny. The traditional orthodox Christian position is that sin was propagated to humanity through Adam's lineage. If there are other lineages, please explain the precise mechanism by which sin was propagated to them then. If not by birth, then by what?

Not sure exactly what you mean by 'Adam the man is not explicitly mentioned until Genesis 4'. Genesis 3:20 begs to differ with you. Here it is from different versions:

Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

And the man called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

.

Adam is not a proper name in the biblical text. God does not name him Adam, and neither does man name himself Adam. Hence me acknowledging Genesis 4 as the explicit moment when the man (Adam, let's call him) is mentioned specifically and in a manner which is "doing". Eve is explicitly named by Adam, and if you read this text philosophically, it is a rather glorious statement; it is beautiful. Adam has just been admonished by God for his "sin" and has been shown in no uncertain terms that he is just a man, and (when compared to God) powerless at that. So man is exonerating the woman, he is placing her above even himself: She is the mother of all living. Maybe the man seriously believes, in his moment of ecstacy, that Eve truly is the only woman alive; maybe he thinks Eve will be the first woman to give birth; maybe he is claiming Eve to be the mother of all living in his line. Whatever, the text does not explain away the fact that Genesis indicates another people.

And maybe the whole story's just a nice little fabrication. We can of course insert countless maybes but it doesn't change the fact that when Moses penned these statements the most likely scenario is that he believed God was inspiring him that Adam was the first man and Eve was to be the mother of all living.

Where it says 'the man' instead of 'Adam', to whom do you think the reference is if not to Adam? Considering they mention his wife Eve, being the mother of all living. So no, I don't know what you mean that 'Adam the man' is not mentioned until Gen 4. Please elaborate. .

It means a specific man, but man isn't mentioned specifically. I hope you know what I mean by this.

I know what you mean. I and Christian Orthodoxy in general disagree with you. It takes a lot of special pleading and massaging to read into it other than the one man and the one woman.

Besides which, it really is irrelevant to the discussion. The mere fact that Eve is proclaimed to be the mother of all living should end it right there. How could there possibly be other non-adamic races when Eve is said to be the mother of all? That, my friend, is what makes no sense whatever, unless of course you want to argue that Eve bore children from other than Adam. .

It ends nothing. You, I fear, are taking things too literally and too seriously; a philosophical and nonliteral look is often required. You have no grounds whatsoever to insist as fact that Eve is the only woman. I'm truly ready to open this debate right up again, Byblos, as I am astonished at such claims. Please tell me from whence Cain's wife came ? And please, if you are going to mention phantom siblings born in between Cain and Abel, then explain why Cain and Abel are the only siblings focused upon? And please explain how the "feud" between Cain and Abel is a classic feud between two warring and competing brothers? The kind of classic competition for attention that you get from two brothers? And the classic case of the elder brother, being the pride and joy, resenting the newborn? Please tell me where you think a whole load of other siblings fit into this classical, perhaps prototypical scene of the two (and only two) brothers competing?

I am the youngest of 6 siblings. Growing up I often clashed with my older brother and we both were the constant butt of jokes among my cousins. Never once did they mention our brothers and sisters in between. Does that mean they don't exist? But to take such an idea (the apparent lack of direct mention of siblings between Cain and Abel) as license to invent a new race of non-adamic humans is simply taking it too far. And if you start taking Adam and Eve as philosophical and non-literal, why stop there? Why not the virginal birth, the Crucifixion, the resurrection? Maybe it's all philosophical, non-literal, symbolic; maybe none of it is history.

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.
Note the KJV goes even further: 'one blood'.

Perhaps Paul was speaking of his own nations of people past and present. Perhaps Paul really is saying what it looks like he might be saying. Who knows? But it does not erase the evidence.

Perhaps, maybe we should take his words exactly for what they are, considering he says 'all nations'. And what evidence is that you speak of? The fact that no siblings are mentioned? I'm sure you know the rule, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If the text says all descended from Adam and Eve, and it doesn't mention siblings between Cain and Abel, yet Abel had himself a wife, it's a not a far leap to surmise he married a sister. It's a gigantic leap to invent a whole new race because of it and insert that back into the text. Just out of curiosity, what it is about that you find objectionable? As it seems your entire position is built around the objection to Abel marrying his sister.

Byblos, I've left the KJV in so as to point out how, along with the Catholic church itself. the KJV sometimes has a tendency to go its own way with things. Where it thinks it has the right to exaggerate the text is beyond me. It is things like this which turn me away from this particular book.

Not sure exactly what you mean here, is there a typo? Are you a former Catholic? If yes, how far did you delve into Catholicism before deciding to convert? (if you don't mind me asking).

I look forward to a robust debate on this once more, seeing as it won't go away

Why would it go away? We're having a civilized discussion, and I don't anticipate either of us will be convinced of the other's position. These types of discussions generally serve those who sit on the fence of a particular issue but seldom serve to sway the hardened souls. Hmm, if only we had a supreme court of sorts that can settle such disputes!

[Gman]

And the man called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

.

Adam is not a proper name in the biblical text. God does not name him Adam, and neither does man name himself Adam. Hence me acknowledging Genesis 4 as the explicit moment when the man (Adam, let's call him) is mentioned specifically and in a manner which is "doing". Eve is explicitly named by Adam, and if you read this text philosophically, it is a rather glorious statement; it is beautiful. Adam has just been admonished by God for his "sin" and has been shown in no uncertain terms that he is just a man, and (when compared to God) powerless at that. So man is exonerating the woman, he is placing her above even himself: She is the mother of all living. Maybe the man seriously believes, in his moment of ecstacy, that Eve truly is the only woman alive; maybe he thinks Eve will be the first woman to give birth; maybe he is claiming Eve to be the mother of all living in his line. Whatever, the text does not explain away the fact that Genesis indicates another people.

It could be also that Eve was the mother of all living as in the spiritual living. Meaning that Christ's bloodline would stem from Eve to those in Christ or in God..

Jut a thought..

[DannyM]

Not a problem Danny. How was your trip to NY? You should have told me you were going to be in my neck of the woods. We could've done lunch or something. Were you in NYC at all?)

Do you know what Byblos, that's a lovely thing for you to suggest and next time I'm over I will pre warn you and take you up on lunch. We could put the world to rights

I think I have got the quoting system nailed down now

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying Danny. The traditional orthodox Christian position is that sin was propagated to humanity through Adam's lineage. If there are other lineages, please explain the precise mechanism by which sin was propagated to them then. If not by birth, then by what?)

I absolutely agree that sin was brought into the world through Adam's disobedience. Where I differ is that this in no way, nor is it suggested, that this has to be restricted to Adam's lineage. If you think about it, it would be ridiculous for Adam's transgression NOT to apply to all existent people. WEhy is God not God of all existence? Because God, for our benefit, focuses on Eve and Adam, does not mean that he had no dealings or no concern with others.

And maybe the whole story's just a nice little fabrication. We can of course insert countless maybes but it doesn't change the fact that when Moses penned these statements the most likely scenario is that he believed God was inspiring him that Adam was the first man and Eve was to be the mother of all living.)

I dod give a lot of maybes didn't I? Sorry. I have a few more, but I'll give them a swerve

I know what you mean. I and Christian Orthodoxy in general disagree with you. It takes a lot of special pleading and massaging to read into it other than the one man and the one woman.)

I agree that we are dealing with one man and one woman. I say Adam is not specifically mentioned until 4 because I mean in a "doing" sense, for want of a much better phrase! I simply mean that Adam could just as well have been named John. Ha 'adam, though the noun is male in gender, it's actual meaning is "human being" or "mankind" and is completely sex neutral, as proved in Genesis 5:2. So Adam is not a given name in the biblical text. I am aware you probably know all of this, Byblos, but this is why I say that Man in a singular act is not specifically mentioned until Genesis 4. Gees I hope I am making sense...

I am the youngest of 6 siblings. Growing up I often clashed with my older brother and we both were the constant butt of jokes among my cousins. Never once did they mention our brothers and sisters in between. Does that mean they don't exist? But to take such an idea (the apparent lack of direct mention of siblings between Cain and Abel) as license to invent a new race of non-adamic humans is simply taking it too far. And if you start taking Adam and Eve as philosophical and non-literal, why stop there? Why not the virginal birth, the Crucifixion, the resurrection? Maybe it's all philosophical, non-literal, symbolic; maybe none of it is history.)

But likewise you are using the lack of any other siblings and inventing a whole siblinghood. I am not inventing something out of nothing; I am following the textual hints; I am being led by the presupposition of the texts. On the other hand, there is no textual indication for your position. The nonliteral and philosophical suggestion is not "anti-orthodox", Byblos; there is no orthodoxy of the text. Orthodoxy is, as you know, "correct opinion," and there is no correct opnion involved here; it is about interpretation. The virgin birth is orthodoxy; there is no wriggle room. The crucifixion is orthodoxy; there is no wriggle room. Same with the resurrection. These are definite orthodox positions; they are "the correct" positions; there is no room for interpretation. But I should refrain, as I hope to get a thread up soon about this very topic.

Perhaps, maybe we should take his words exactly for what they are, considering he says 'all nations'. And what evidence is that you speak of? The fact that no siblings are mentioned? I'm sure you know the rule, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If the text says all descended from Adam and Eve, and it doesn't mention siblings between Cain and Abel, yet Abel had himself a wife, it's a not a far leap to surmise he married a sister. It's a gigantic leap to invent a whole new race because of it and insert that back into the text. Just out of curiosity, what it is about that you find objectionable? As it seems your entire position is built around the objection to Abel marrying his sister.)

I have no real argument here, Byblos, just on your "absence of evidence" comment. I do know the rule - I have had to point it out to many atheists - but I am not starting from this premise; my premise is the text itself and what it suggests. I take your earlier mention of two siblings at war among a siblinghood of 6. But the story of Cain and Abel, to me, points to a classic (indeed, I think this is the prototypical elder son resenting the newnorn) elder brother and newborn feud, a resentment from Cain of the next born Abel. I simply see no room for other siblings inserted between this hot jealously that Cain carries for Abel, who has intruded on his position.

Not sure exactly what you mean here, is there a typo? Are you a former Catholic? If yes, how far did you delve into Catholicism before deciding to convert? (if you don't mind me asking).)

No I don't mind at all, Byblos. I am a Protestant, always have been, but I prefer to look at Christianity from a neutral position. My problem with Roaman Catholicism is just the usual issue about hierarchy, Papism, and most of all how they use scripture to invent bogus orthodoxy. I have many criticisms too for the church of England, so this is not sectrian influenced, just dismay. But I think I'll cover this in the "orthodoxy" thread.

Why would it go away? We're having a civilized discussion, and I don't anticipate either of us will be convinced of the other's position. These types of discussions generally serve those who sit on the fence of a particular issue but seldom serve to sway the hardened souls. Hmm, if only we had a supreme court of sorts that can settle such disputes!

I quite agree. Well said, Byblos. Perhaps you'll convince me of your position. I'm open to persuasion...honest

God bless

[onslaughtmusic]

As far as i know there's nothing in the bible that tells us of anyone else created before or after Adam and Eve, however there's Lilith who was created by God just like Adam as an equal. To make it simple Lilith refused to "lay down beneath" Adam and was replaced by Eve who was more than happy to get Adam laid. Lilith remains in early Christian folklore as bad lady raping the young boys, making women commits sin, bearing illness and disease and so on to the point where she was practically demonized. Lilith appears throughout history in many writings, including the king james bible where she was personified as an owl and throughout her mythology she bears many children. So those people coming after Cain could be her descendants? to answer your question. Also as far as i know the Bible only refers to Adam and Eve's 2 sons, but in one of the rejected "heretic" gospels (i can't remember the name right now if someone needs it i can look it up in my notes and give you better reference) it says that Adam and Eve had more sons and daughters. It also indicates that incest was involved and thus sparkling humanity which is probably the reason why it was excluded from even emperor Constantine's bible.

[Byblos]

As far as i know there's nothing in the bible that tells us of anyone else created before or after Adam and Eve, however there's Lilith who was created by God just like Adam as an equal. To make it simple Lilith refused to "lay down beneath" Adam and was replaced by Eve who was more than happy to get Adam laid. Lilith remains in early Christian folklore as bad lady raping the young boys, making women commits sin, bearing illness and disease and so on to the point where she was practically demonized. Lilith appears throughout history in many writings, including the king james bible where she was personified as an owl and throughout her mythology she bears many children. So those people coming after Cain could be her descendants? to answer your question. Also as far as i know the Bible only refers to Adam and Eve's 2 sons, but in one of the rejected "heretic" gospels (i can't remember the name right now if someone needs it i can look it up in my notes and give you better reference) it says that Adam and Eve had more sons and daughters. It also indicates that incest was involved and thus sparkling humanity which is probably the reason why it was excluded from even emperor Constantine's bible.

I checked the KJV, NIV, & NASB and none mentions anything about anyone named 'Lilith' (the only one I know of is from Cheers, Frasier's wife ).

Can you please give us a source?

[waynepii]

Try http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/Lilith/.

AFAIK The only place she shows up in the Bible is in Darby's translation - Isaiah 34:14.

[onslaughtmusic]

I checked the KJV, NIV, & NASB and none mentions anything about anyone named 'Lilith' (the only one I know of is from Cheers, Frasier's wife ).

Can you please give us a source?

Lilith is found in Talmud, a Jewish book of civil and religious law.
Psalms 91 refers to Lilith as the demon of the night or something of the sorts
She is also mentioned in the Old Testament's Book of Isaiah {34:14,} - Though this source proclaimed as a mistranslation, if applied as an accurate translation fits the myth of Lilith very well.

There's many many many more references to Lilith after she abandons Adam and becomes a demon in a mythological format.

PS: Mayby the show is using it as a reference to demonize her as fraiser's wife I guess that adds to the comedy if you look at it that way lol

[Byblos]

I checked the KJV, NIV, & NASB and none mentions anything about anyone named 'Lilith' (the only one I know of is from Cheers, Frasier's wife ).

Can you please give us a source?

Lilith is found in Talmud, a Jewish book of civil and religious law.

Ok but you said the 'bible tells us', hence my question.

Psalms 91 refers to Lilith as the demon of the night or something of the sorts

If you're referring to Psalm 91:5 it simply says 'terror of night', nothing about any reference to a 'Lilith'. Otherwise, please list your reference with some kind of source to back it up.

She is also mentioned in the Old Testament's Book of Isaiah {34:14,} - Though this source proclaimed as a mistranslation, if applied as an accurate translation fits the myth of Lilith very well.

Please provide a source and an explanation of how you can arrive from Isaiah 34:14 to 'Lilith'.

There's many many many more references to Lilith after she abandons Adam and becomes a demon in a mythological format.

Sources please.

[waynepii]

As I said - http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?se ... chtype=all.

[Byblos]

As I said - http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?se ... chtype=all.

Ah, the Darby translation. And Wane, was that you all along?

Post edit: I must have missed your earlier post Wane. Yes, mentioned in only one place, in a questionable translation. Hardly the 'many, many, many' places.

[waynepii]

And Wane, was that you all along?

No, I just posted an answer to your first question. Then posted a link to the actual text when you seemed to have missed the first post. As I said in my first post, it's (very) thin, but it is there.

Oh - And it's "Wayne" not "Wane".

[Byblos]

And Wane, was that you all along?

No, I just posted an answer to your first question. Then posted a link to the actual text when you seemed to have missed the first post. As I said in my first post, it's (very) thin, but it is there.

Oh - And it's "Wayne" not "Wane".

I guess you missed my post edit as well, sorry for the confusion WaYne.