Genesis\n4 and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters. \n\n5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. \n\nGreat.........so we are either descended from incest or monkeys...mmmm what a choice!!!!!!\n\nCan anyone enlighten me as to why people think that the above was SUCH a great start from mankind???????
129498
God started by creating Adam and Eve who were the first to begin procreating. They were having sons who were marrying wives after settling in other areas. Nowhere does it say Adam and Eve were the ONLY humans God created. He created wives for Adam and Eve's Sons.\nWhat you're suggesting makes no sense. If any human or animal or creature attempts to mate with the wrong species, even if successful at it, the progeny end up sterile.\nIt's pretty clear from Genesis Chapters 4 and 5 that Eve was not mating with her sons.\n***\nAs for the sister theory it doesn't work either because Genesis gives a sequential account of who Eve was giving birth to. There were no sisters yet for Cain.\n***\nI'm using a New American Standard version which is considered the to be the most scholarly accurate as far as I know and it's a bit different from what you wrote:\n5:1 - This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.\n2 - He created THEM male and female, and he blessed them and named THEM Man in the day when they were created.\n\nThere is no account of incest of any kind. God created wives for Adam's sons separately.
654862
No, Eve was not created with Adam.  There is the legend of Lilith, the first woman, she refused to do what Adam told her and she flew off to eventually marry Salathiel (an Angel gone bad) and they had some hellashish creature babies.  OOOOOO now the Christians are gonna jump me, they ought to check out how many of each kind of animal was on the ark, and who really killed Goliath, and were did the Sons of Anak come from if all the giants died in the flood.  Just a few inconsistencies in that great book.  But I believe in what is right, my own version, and if their versions every denomination can be "the way," then so can mine, but only for me!  Thanks man, this was fun.
38219
I think these were probably descendents of Adam and Eve. That means when Cain married that women it was probably his sister. I don't know how it works but I guess we just have to trust in God. (you know who knows how old cain and able were when cain killed him, maybe plenty of time for Adam and Eve to have more kids; also people back then tended to marry very fast so there were marriages and children poppin all over the place!) Hope I made a little sense! God Bless
170155
Kinda prejudiced in the way you asked, dontcha think?  :-)\n\nThe story of Adam and Eve is a parable.  I don't expect it was meant literally even by the people who wrote it.  I feel very sorry for the small-minded people who have to have the story be "true" in order to see any value to it.\n\nEvery human on the planet has a gene that, if it worked, would make us as furry as chimpanzees are.  It doesn't work, it has a transposon (a type of genetic parasite) stuck in it.  Without that transposon, we'd all have to pay a lot more for shampoo every month!\n\nSo, the question before the creationists is, wherefore doth we have it?  Did God create us with a broken gene, complete with parasite, that we don't even want?  Or were Adam and Eve furry?  So far, I've only found one creationist willing to accept that Adam and Eve were hirsute people.\n\nThere are a thousand arguments like this.  To date, creationists flee in terror from all of them, while presenting the same old, tired, long refuted nonsense in support for their cause.  They cannot explain the pattern of genetic similarity.  They cannot explain how the Great Flood hasn't left the entire surface of the earth salt-infused and sterile.  They cannot explain how any species more complicated than a protozoa survived the flood.  They've got nothing.\n\nResponding to some of the nothing they have:\n\nPopulation Growth:\n\nAssuming a constant rate of population growth is simply naive and silly.  We *know* the population growth hasn't been constant.  Remember the black death?  60% of Europe *died*.  That's not growth!\n\nIf we apply the same argument to fruit flies, we find that the entire earth is covered in fruit flies in a matter of days.  Funny how that hasn't happened.  It's almost as if populations do not experience continuous growth because limits are set by the environment!\n\nAnother fun fact about the constant population growth argument:  If it's true, the Bible LIES!  After all, at the time of Exodus, it says more people left Egypt than existed on earth at the time!\n\nSo, dump the rather silly population growth argument.\n\nDinosaurs:\n\nThere are NO human fossils found with dinosaur fossils.  Not a single one.  You're welcome to point out a specific exception.  There are three sites showing "human" and dinosaur footprints, but Paluxy is a product of wishful thinking and some faking by townsfolk hoping to get more tourist dollars (they admitted this) and the other two (Tuba City and some site in Russia I don't remember) are just really bad fakes.\n\nDinosaurs are not lizards.  Let a lizard grow forever and it will not turn into anything resembling a dinosaur.  This is one of Carl Baugh's silly claims and it causes nothing but ridicule for creationists.  Lizards belong to the suborder Laertes.  They have sprawling legs.  A large lizard has large sprawling legs.  Dinosaurs have legs better mounted. Small dinosaurs have smaller legs.  Small dinosaurs cannot be mistaken for lizards.  (Well, if you're utterly ignorant about biology, I suppose they could.)\n\n(At least Baugh stopped claiming that breathing pure ozone would help you live for hundreds of years, despite the fact that ozone is explosive and poisonous!  But since when has a creationist needed to understand a subject before making declarations about it.) \n\nSea monsters as evidence?  Gee, now that's desperate.  I'm sure you'll present the physical evidence that dinosaurs were fire-breathing next, right?  Sheesh!\n\nOh, and carbon dating has not been "proven wrong".  Not that it matters.  There are thousands of different dating systems.  Carbon dating, by the way, only works on organic materials:  NOT FOSSILS.  Dinosaur fossils are NEVER dated by carbon dating.  So, you're wrong.  Again.\n\nLaw of Angular Momentum:\n\nUm... because other collisions happen?  I know, stunning!\n\nReally dumb argument.\n\nHistoric
505483
Adam and Eve were created perfect in every way. Their children would also, no doubt, be born physically and genetically perfect. Therefore, Cain's wife could be one of his sisters with no problems. Likewise, many of Adam and Eve's children would have inter-married with no problems. \n"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. " (Leviticus 18:6).\nGod does not condone near-relative marriages. Had God's command to Israel been given to Adam and Eve, and they and their children all obeyed it, mankind would have quickly died out. God, therefore, had to temporarily allow intra-family marriages to increase his earthly family. \n By the time of the flood severe genetic weaknesses had likely set in, making close-kin marriages impractical, so after the flood God reduced the life span of mankind to seventy years. This would prevent another population explosion of the pre-flood magnitude. (Mathematicians have calculated a billion people may have died in the flood.)\nOne might wonder why genetic weaknesses set in. It's obvious Cain didn't care about God's law, else he would not have murdered his brother (Genesis 4:8; Exodus 20:13). If he disobeyed God in this matter, he likely disobeyed God in matters of diet (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14), and ate whatever pleased him.
663911
Okay...so Adam was a disobient guy missing a rib, would couldn't control his wife, who went on to see his kids commit incest in order to procreate.   What's your point?\n\nOh, yes, and you forgot the fact that he was a liar claiming to be the first man when we all know he is a myth and that humankind is a product of evolution.
3224
ofcourse nice question ... and this leads us to another question ...\n\nWhat was Adam's and Eve's DNA!!?\n\nJesus is like Adam ... No earthly or non-earthly father ... he is a messenger that God created from nothing just like he created Adam and Eve!
214140
Cause according to the bible (which was originally written in Hebrew but mostly read in English these days) - the world is less than 6,000 years old. So, if we had Adam and Eve around 6000 years ago, we should all be their descendants - millions of yours....
384073
Read your Bible from the beginning and review the sixth day of creation. You will find that male and female of first humans were created along with animals of every kind. No covenant  was made with humans except to rule over the animals.See the difference, Plants first, Animals next and Humans third,\nOn the Accounts of Adam and Eve, there were no plants yet, no animals yet even The Vegetations and rivers first, then Adam next followed by animals and then Eve.\nGo to Jeremiah 31:27 "The days are coming," declares the Lord," when I will plant the house of Israel and the House of Judah with the offspring of men and animals".\nThe offspring of men and animals are the gentiles whom God created before Adam and Eve a reason why Cain was worried he will get killed by anyone who will find him wandering around and instead was able to find his wife and have his own family outside Eden.\nIncest may have happen in the time  of Abraham and Lot when God told Abraham that his descendant will be as plenty the stars in the sky. Thinking that they must only be the Jewish tribe that has to grow so they started marrying within the family although men were allowed to look outside their tribe as long as the woman is willing to embrace their belief and women would marry only within their relatives of  immediate or distant cousins. Incest was later disallowed in the time of Moses during their Exodus out of Egypt. Do not believe the teachers who did not understand the Bible so much.
602602
I think you're absolutely right abou this. All of our theories about language evolving (there's that word again) from proto-language over a period of millenia just doesn't make any sense. The idea that things come from other things is simply a heap of rubbish.\n\nWe're clearly ignoring the possibility that Adam was created, fully formed, and went about naming the animals, using language for the first time.\n\nWhen will we learn?
645179
Ok Buckar you have a point here, now years ago when Lucy evolved and passed our DNA on down the line we soon began to walk different and get taller. See we had short legs to be able to survive on the terain and the legs were the power to run from the animals that could eat us. Oh sorry we are on Adam and Eve aren't we. After reading all these great answers I noticed one thing. Most have different answers. Now I find that there are 2 Creators, God and Lord God who created God. Jesus did have kids and hung with Mary so he could use her money to support him and he supposedly had kids too. He may have had illigedimate ones too cause they didn't have good birth control back then.As for the nipples on man they may be for the gay men. I mean its like you said God doesn't make misakes and I know a lot of gay people that are Religious and good.As for the person that stated woman was created as a helper to man I think he should have said slave cause a lot of women are supporting lazy men today.I don't see why people say the bible is fact but when I say my horoscope is true all the time they say oh that is man written and the chance of it being true is only cause some people may believe it and might have a day where it might go that way. Make sense eh ! I think we evolved from like viruses and stuff like insects did. If animals were created first and then man in Gods image only by feelings and not physical then animals are too. I say my animals love me and never sin against me where as man does, did and will continue to. Most preachers that are child molesters think it is not a sin because it is not with a woman and a man is ok cause they have written this down through time. The Monks had homosexuallity all the time and hid it, yet burned people at the stake cause they thought they were witches. This was to cover up their fears that they may be found guilty of being gay.Noah, This is utter nonsense, No way can you get 2 of all creatures on Earth into a boat for 40 days and not have them eat each other.Too many species to find to fit the boat.And how did it flood the whole world when they didn't have the weather map to show that all was flooded.I am sure that the 2 so called Gods did not send hundreds of animals from thousands of miles all over the world to get to a boat in one spot.I wonder why Jesus was in one spot on this vast Earth and at the time where there was no travel to spread the word of 2 Gods faster. If Noah had God mentally control the animals to board the boat and control the situation then why didn't he crack the whip on those darn Unicorns ! And if man is all so mighty over animals then someone was reincarnated into my parakeet cause he can say over 120 different phrases and I can't fly or immitate his language. Sorry so long as I just stopped here cause it was an interesting question .
313059
I am not sure where you got those figures but they are not correct. We do not have the exact time fram from Adam out. The earth is approximately 6000 years old. The only thing we know for sure is that Jesus was born in 1ad and was crucified and resurrected in 32ad. So right now we are 1974 from when Jesus died and rose again. There so there is around 4000 years prior to Jesus coming. The prophecy in Daniel 9 refers to the coming of the Messiah. The prophecy begins with the command to rebuild Jerusalem which came in Nehemiah 1 on our Calendar March 14th 445bc. It goes forward 473 years to April 6 32ad when Jesus presented Himself as Messiah to the Jews on what we now call palm Sunday. We do not know when satan will be bound in the pit but it will not come until the end of the tribulation (the 70th week of Daniel). We do not know when the tribulation will begin. So again those numbers you have are way off base and mean absolutely nothing in reality because we do not know the exact amount of time that passed from creation to Jesus. Keep your eyes on what is clearly revelaed in Scripture and don't worry about extrabiblical ideas.
339646
Probably the "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" one.  This argument totally overlooks the fact that God created hermaphrodites.  And anyone who believes that God creates humans, will have to agree that God created hermaphrodites, because they were born that way.  So obviously the Adam and Eve story does not cover all the people that God created.
669464
Good question.......I asked how did Adam and Eve have two sons and carry on the human race. Was it incest? i have no idea.\n\nWe have this idea that Adam and Eve were white (seen in pictures) but who really knows what race they were or if they truly existed. I was told that the bible is theory and it is symbolic not to be  taken literal. So take it for the "story" book it is.
590663
Since Adam lived several hundred years, having lots of children was not a problem. The Genesis account does not tell us about the order of the births nor does it tell us how old they were. By having many children it is certainly possible that there were many women around. This would mean that Cain married either a sister or a niece or some other relation. Of course at this point, the question of inbreeding is raised. But it is not a problem early on in the human race because the genetic line was so pure. Therefore, the prohibition against incest was not proclaimed until much much later (Lev. 18:6-18).
515294
Interesting but contrary to Scripture. I understand the problem you're considering and offer this as a possible solution...\n\nAdam and Eve were perfect and it took several generations before the degenerating gene pool became severe enough to forbid incest.
137292
The correct answer IS no one.  However, I understand where your confusion comes from.  In Genesis 1 we read an overview of the entire creation.  In verse 27 we see that God created man and woman, but are not given any names.  However, this doesn’t mean that they are not Adam and Eve.  The end of chapter 1 concludes the brief account, or summary if you will, of creation, and chapter 2 then elaborates on some important details.  These include how God created man and woman and their names.  Chapter 2 verse 7 describes the creation of Adam, but we know that it is an elaboration on the creation of man given in 1:27, because in 2:5 it specifically says that there was no man on the earth.  \n\nHope that clears it up a little.\n\n_______________  EDIT _______________\n\nTo James,\n\nI'm afraid you are mistaken about the meaning of the word "man" as it applies to Genesis 1 and 2.  I encourage you to look at the original Hebrew words as it makes it clearer that both chapters refer to the same "man".  It is understandable that some confusion is introduced when translating into English, so it is helpful to look at the original words to determine their meaning both individually and in the context of the surrounding scripture.  For example, the word for "man" is the exact same Hebrew word in both chapter 1 and 2, AND it is essentially the same word as the man's name! ADAM!  And it is a form that is used much more often as a singular form, while a different word (Alef + Yod + Shin) is used more often to indicate MEN - plural.  The word in Genesis 1 & 2 in Hebrew is Alef + Dalet + Mem.  \n\nCheck it our more for yourself -- you'll be surprised how consistent it is with the rest of the Bible's idea that Adam WAS the first man!