More misconceptions.

Submitted by Servant of Christ (United States), Oct 31, 2007 at 20:08

Dear S_of_Christ,

If Adam Eve were the first couple, then the next generation have to come from brothers and sisters, does it not? Brothers marrying sisters. Is it theologically acceptable?

At this time it was acceptable since there would be no other relationships. Furthermore, there were no defects in birth from these relationships yet so it was permissable until humanity's decay increased.

Adam and Eve's first son was Cain. It was mentioned that he married., But there were no mention about the daughters of the Adam till Cain's death.

Adam's children are mentioned later in Genesis 5:4, but that doesn't mean it happened after.

If he has married outside the race then there is someone else on the earth. Then if no other race means that he has married his sister of whom there is no mention in the Bible.

See above. It would obviously be one of the many daughters of Adam. The Hebrews weren't that stupid to look over that in the past 3000 years.

Conclusion: Genesis is false written by a Patriarchial Society where woman are secondary hot to be mentioned at all and taken out of the Rib of Adam.

LoL, it can be argued that woman is refined of purer material than man. If man was made from dirt and woman was made from man than woman was made of finer quality. Your argument has no evidence except your eagerness to disprove the Bible.

By the way whether Adam and Eve had navals in them. If not God has not created that Is it not? Adam and Eve have created the Naval since it was their son.

Spiritual image, not physical image. And I assume they did, but the matter remains irrelevant (I won't back my answer too much since it doesn't matter).

Absurdities increase if you delve deep ito the Genesis. ( What about the blood groups of Adam and Eve. These have to be the same but no mention about it. What about finger prints? The first menstrual cycle of Eve.)

What, is the only way you'll believe Genesis is if God gives us the DNA blueprint of Adam? No, Genesis was written to the Israelites at this period (historical context) and DNA codes would have been irrelevant to the message.

I think we have to avoid the first chapter of Genesis to proceed further.

Not until we reach into agreement. But I'm more than willing to continue.

Regards,

Shri Devi.

God Bless

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".