Alice's Take on Adam and Eve

But Alice doesn’t need a special creation. Adam and Eve are defined as the first two of the linage of priests. Makes sense to me. All perfectly natural. Nothing magical going on. Anthropological science fits well. Evolutionary science fits well. Any new finds could support it. It is testable. Predictions: anthropological finds are going to find that there was a priestly group that had a beginning with a first couple and a lineage described in the Bible.

1 Like

Yup. This is really similar it seems to @jongarvey and @Guy_Coe’s take. They see no need for de novo creation either. That is an option feature that only some find important.

1 Like

no offense to Jon and Guy, but Alice describes it in a more profound way supported by anthropological evidence of the period Genesis was written and the knowledge people had about the world that they lived in.

1 Like

That’s right. She is situating Adam and Eve with archeology. @jongarvey has been more focused on the theological meaning they come to take, without precisely trying to nail down the exact time they lived. Both their stories are compatible; perhaps they are just explaining the same thing in different ways, with different emphasis.

Alice is lined up with the science, the known history, the archaeology, even the genetics. It is even possible to finds the graves of Adam and Eve. Also it would fit with any ancient genome found of the period and location. For example, the preistly group should have a very tightly constrained genome if mate selection was made. There might be mutations to identify this group and could be traced backward to the first appearance.

Occam’s razor applies here - the simplest solution tends to be the right one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

1 Like

How far we have come.

Then Atheist Declares His Adam. Now you are tracking with Adam as historical figures? Very fun to watch your transformation @Patrick. :wink:

What about their graves?

Yes, it is very clear that the Adam and Eve story is of the genre of fables.

Okay, I’m not trying to start an argument on that. My real point is that people disagree on what the Bible clearly says. So maybe what you take to be clear isn’t as clear as you think.

1 Like

I can accept with archaeological and genomic evidence that a religion started in the Near East that had a first couple who started their priestly linage. It is similar to how the Pharoah of Egypt started. First as the only ones that could take to the Crocodile god Sodon, Then after getting rid of the crocodile god, the high priest became Pharoah - God. @Alice_Linsley am I misrepresenting the evidence on the path from crocodile god to Pharoah?

1 Like

It says God created man. this means to the readers the MEN they know exist on earth. This man was created by way of a single man. Adam. This man only could reproduce after the woman was taken out of his body.
there were no other people much less reproducing in the usual way.
its clear in the intent of the writer.

What is the word for “man” in that passage? It is not “man”, it is “adam”.

It says there was no women/men right there in the Garden, not across the earth.

Have you read Genesis recently? It is a really good read. It is worth getting familiar with.

But the bible was written by men. And we know a lot about when it was written, by whom it was written and why it was written. There is a lot of archaeological evidence for it. In short, the bible exists, the OT was written by priests in the Near East around 2500 years ago. It says things that fit with technology of the day and it was deemed sacred texts of a new monotheistic religion. But the fact that it was written doesn’t make it anything more than a book about a new religion no more insightful than all the other sacred texts of numerous religions that man has invented throughout history.

2 Likes

Adam was created from dust and thus not born. No parents. The parents otherwise would not of been created from dust on creation week. Eve was taken out of adam. This because the readers would understand no other options for her birth.
Its very clear and all the bible backs this simple conclusion.
Saying there is others comes only from modern evolutionism wild ideas of fossils or its basic hypthesis.
Not evidence to sink your teeth into.

There is nothing in evolutionary science that contradicts this. Have read this yet?

Entirely consistent with the genetic evidence, it is possible Adam was created out of dust, and Eve out of his rib, less than 10,000 years ago in a divinely created garden where God might dwell with them, the first beings with opportunity to be in a relationship with Him. Perhaps their fall brought accountability for sin to all their descendants. Leaving the Garden, their offspring blended with their neighbors in the surrounding towns. In this way, they became genealogical ancestors of all those in recorded history. Adam and Eve, here, are the single-couple progenitors of all mankind. Even if this scenario is false or unnecessary, nothing in evolutionary science unsettles this story. So, evolution presses in a very limited way on our understanding of Adam and Eve, only suggesting (alongside Scripture) that their lineage was not pure.

From Alice facebook page:

“Then the LORD God formed a man [adam] from the dust of the ground [adamah] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7

The Hebrew words adam and adamah represent a word play. The Hebrew אדם ('adam) also means “to be red”, referring to the ruddy color of human skin as with Esau (Gen. 26), a ruler of Edom, and David who had Edomite ancestry. If we consider the Akkadian word adamu, which means “to make”, we find another play on words.

Jeff A. Benner, an expert on ancient Hebrew, explains:

"We are all familiar with the name “Adam” as found in the book of Genesis, but what does it really mean? Let us begin by looking at its roots. This word/name is a child root derived from the parent דם meaning, “blood”. By placing the letter א in front of the parent root, the child root אדם is formed and is related in meaning to דם (blood).

By examing a few other words derived from the child root אדם we can see a common meaning in them all. The Hebrew word אדמה (adamah) is the feminine form of אדם meaning “ground” (see Genesis 2:7). The word/name אדום (Edom) means “red”. Each of these words have the common meaning of “red”. Dam is the “red” blood, adamah is the “red” ground, edom is the color “red” and adam is the “red” man. There is one other connection between “adam” and “adamah” as seen in Genesis 2:7 which states that “the adam” was formed out of the “adamah”.

In the ancient Hebrew world, a person’s name was not simply an identifier but descriptive of one’s character. As Adam was formed out of the ground, his name identifies his origins."

The Biblical writers recognized that the people among them with a red skin tone had an ancestral line of extreme antiquity. Some of these people were rulers in Edom. These are listed in Genesis 36

Edom was called “Idumea” by the ancient Greeks. Idumea means land of red people. Ancient Edom extended on a north-south axis from Hebron to Beersheba. This was Abraham’s territory. His half-sister wife, Sarah, resided in Hebron. His patrilineal cousin wife, Keturah, resided in the area of Beersheba. Both locations appear on this map of Idumea.

image

@deuteroKJ do you have any comments on this word study?

I am still a long way from making a pilgrimage to Ark Encounter. :sunglasses:

1 Like

Remember…The Ark Encounter or The Bible Museum?

The Bible Museum I will probably get to as it is in Washington instead of Kentucky, it has been corrected by FFRF historians, and its free instead of $48.

1 Like

I though you were Going to the Ark Museum! a while back…what happened?