I was wondering, Adam and Eve had only three male children: How did they procreate?Anyways, even if they had a daughter, how would they reproduce through incest? Incest children would become infertile or simply would die before reproducing.
>>18456426Your options are to either make up a bunch of bullshit to support the text, or accept that the text isn't historically true. Choose as you please.
It's easier to say God enabled creatures to evolve so that they could become humans.
>>18456426Cain and Abel were around 100 years old when Cain killed his brother. In Genesis 4:14 "...and I shall be a fugitive and vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me...:. That's when god put the mark on Cain. But understand the verse. That everyone that findeth me. Everyone. You see, Adam and Eve weren't the first. There was a lot of people around then. Hell, Adam lived 930 years before he died. Eve died 6 days after Adam. But there was a shitpot of people. Cain found himself a wife in fact.
>>18456437The bible plagiarized other works. The Enuma Elish, The Mahabharata, The Bhagavad Gita, Nag Hammadi, The Compendium of the Emerald Tablets. And others. That Enuma Elish, for example, was scribed on clay tablets 4000 years before the bible.
>>18456426The Land of Nod contains humans which God created at some unspecified later time. There is nothing within the commonly held Biblical canon which would deny or contradict this.
>>18456426Whoever answers you this doesn't really know. Nobody filmed it and there is no registry of how they procreate.
I was wondering, if all life is descended from a singular sludge protoplasm, how would they reproduce through incest? Incest children would become infertile or simply would die before reproducing.
>>18456426>I was wondering, Adam and Eve had only three male children: How did they procreate?That's not so, Genesis 5:4 says "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters."
>>18456426SIMIAN HOMINIDS.
>>18456479Where does the Bible say that God created humans other than Adam and Eve?
>>18456426It is heavily implied in Genesis that Adam and Eve were not the first humans but they were the first man and woman that would be made in God's image. This gives them a special character relative to the other humans which existed, but it does not mean they were the first or that their sons would have had to asexually reproduce.
>>18456865The verse immediately before he creates Adam lmao
>>18456920If by "heavily implied" you mean "thing you have to assume is true otherwise the book is obviously false" then yes.
>>18456960My bad, it's not implied, it's directly stated. In Genesis 1:27 He creates man, and then in 2:4 He makes Adam.
>>18456920Where my thoughts lead me after reading your comment is the view of a cosmos with some planets containing life, and some cosmic consciousness or deity "visiting" to grant them a certain depth of soul. I think it's an interesting view but not widely accepted. Could you point to literature that might make me understand your view better?
Its all metaphorical.The three "sons" are Sol, Phanes, Jupiter in their eternal argument of who fucked who and who ends up together with whom.
>>18457529Good to know mankind isn't fallen then.
Incest isn't nearly as bad as people have come to believe it is. It works fine.
>>18456437Well actually I heard third cousin incest isn't actually a problem
>>18456810Why tf are we so close to slime molds?
>>18458801Adam was the forebearer of all preceding humans and each man repeats his fall. This is basic shit, I know next to nothing and even I know you are full of shit. If you bothered to actually engage with the material your critiques might be less obviously retarded.
>>18459968proceeding*
>>18456426There is a point when we define a color as red on a spectrum, just as there is a point when we defined the species of man on a spectrum of apes. Adam was the first man, but he was still having sex with apes.
>>18456426The bible says adam was the first man and first woman created by god. It never says they were the only ones he created.
>>18456470I don't think you know what plagiarism means.
>>18456920I dont think thats a defensible reading of the text, but ill hear you out if you would explain where you see this being "heavily implied"
>>18459982I suppose so but that doesn't make me a Christian.
>>18460008Here>>18457529
>>18456426i’m sure there’s some jewish midrash that talks about this
>>18456865The sons of god.
>>18460002If there were so many other women around, why was god so sad adam was alone he had to make a woman out of adam's rib instead of just letting him pick one of the many women wandering around?
>>18460036No, those are two different accounts, one from a macroscopic overview and the other one more detailed from the perspective of man.Genesis 1:27 says he created man (Genesis 1:10 says he created rivers and seas), but then Genesis 2:5 retcons that and says there is no man on earth or rain for the fields before describing how adam was created in 2:27 after detailing how the rivers and seas were created in 2:6.
>>18460139>No, those are two different accounts, one from a macroscopic overview and the other one more detailed from the perspective of man.This is one interpretation of the two separate accounts of the creation of man, yes. It does not require a retcon for this to be describing two separate creation events, however, and this is anon is right >>18460072 in that medieval (?) Jewish religious scholars subscribed to your interpretation of these verses.
>>184601392:6 also gives as a reason for their being no plants that no one was there to work the land, meaning that it may be referring to horticultural or agricultural practice, which fits thematically with the rest of the story in the Garden of Eden. If you want to find a much more obvious logical gap in the creation story you would see it with terrestrial angiosperms showing up so early in creation. That's not incredibly important to the overall timeline, however, and this may have been a simplified way of referring to protists. Either way Genesis never mentions bacteria or archaea, and depending on your belief in the divine authorship/inspiration of the Bible, this may or may not have been an artifact of those who wrote down the story not knowing that they existed. It could also be, however, an intentional choice on the part of the divine author, as the message of Genesis isn't concerned so much with phylogeny.
>>18460158>It does not require a retcon for this to be describing two separate creation eventsIt does if you are interpreting it anon's way where it is one singular linear account instead of the interpretation I presented where it starts with broad strokes in chapter 1, then fills in the gaps with the rest of genesis.
>>18460197>2:6 also gives as a reason for their being no plants that no one was there to work the land,So god was just too dumb to realize man was needed to work the land and cultivate the plants that god himself created until 2:15?
