# If Eve was made from Adam's rib...



## atlashunter (Aug 1, 2012)

doesn't that make her genetically identical to Adam?


----------



## Mars (Aug 1, 2012)

Im not sure. Ive never heard of another case of a person being created from another persons body part.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm still waiting for one person to step forward and show us that they have traced their ancestry back to Noah and/or those on his boat, let alone Adam&Eve.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm still waiting for one person to step forward and show us that they have traced their ancestry back to Noah and/or those on his boat, let alone Adam&Eve.


Here you go.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...to-be-grandfather-of-everyone-in-Britain.html


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Here you go.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...to-be-grandfather-of-everyone-in-Britain.html




I think those findings do not add up to what you perceive Adam&Eve to be.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm still waiting for one person to step forward and show us that they have traced their ancestry back to Noah and/or those on his boat, let alone Adam&Eve.





hobbs27 said:


> Here you go.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...to-be-grandfather-of-everyone-in-Britain.html





bullethead said:


> *I think those findings do not add up to what you perceive Adam&Eve to be*.


I find this kind of thing very interesting. You wanted someone to show you where someone has traced their ancestry back to at least Noah, and you were showed that someone has traced there ancestry all the way back to Adam and Eve. Instead of accepting that fact, you move to the point of Adam and Eve not being what Hobbs perceives.

I find that this happens a lot in here. A point gets proven, and the questioner, without giving any credit, seamlessly slides to another subject.

I'm not pointing the finger at you only Bullet, I just find it interesting.


----------



## fish hawk (Aug 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I find that this happens a lot in here. A point gets proven, and the questioner, without giving any credit, seamlessly slides to another subject.
> 
> I'm not pointing the finger at you only Bullet, I just find it interesting.



There good at that!!!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I find this kind of thing very interesting. You wanted someone to show you where someone has traced their ancestry back to at least Noah, and you were showed that someone has traced there ancestry all the way back to Adam and Eve. Instead of accepting that fact, you move to the point of Adam and Eve not being what Hobbs perceives.
> 
> I find that this happens a lot in here. A point gets proven, and the questioner, without giving any credit, seamlessly slides to another subject.
> 
> I'm not pointing the finger at you only Bullet, I just find it interesting.



Apparently YOU DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE IN IT"S ENTIRETY.

Not one thing in there points to the Adam and Eve of the Bible.

Another thing that happens a lot in here is someone(NOT POINTING FINGERS AT ONLY YOU STRING) will read a title or first few lines of an article and assume that it ends along the same lines they are thinking of, when in fact it does not.


----------



## hunter rich (Aug 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I think those findings do not add up to what you perceive Adam&Eve to be.



The biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years...

 "A retired lecturer who took a DNA test to find out where his ancestors came from has been found to be directly descended from the first woman on earth, who lived 190,000 years ago."

I believe this helps Bulletheads case...


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm still waiting for one person to step forward and show us that they have traced their ancestry back to Noah and/or those on his boat, let alone Adam&Eve.



 noah reproduced with a being not from this place and enoch was born....i want to know about that one


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> The biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years...
> 
> "A retired lecturer who took a DNA test to find out where his ancestors came from has been found to be directly descended from the first woman on earth, who lived 190,000 years ago."
> 
> I believe this helps Bulletheads case...



And according to same article:
“Adam also lived in central Africa, perhaps only 140,000 years ago. Only his YDNA survived to father all of the male lineages on earth.

Stringggggg, you have sum 'splainin to do!


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> The biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years...
> 
> "A retired lecturer who took a DNA test to find out where his ancestors came from has been found to be directly descended from the first woman on earth, who lived 190,000 years ago."
> 
> I believe this helps Bulletheads case...



Bullethead made an assumption of my personal belief, this is where he is wrong.You say using scripture itself as a guide shows a biblical age of Earth to be 6,000 years old. Care to share a specific verse that can't be disputed with ," one day is with the Lord as a thousand years"?

The part of the article that impresses me is that again Science is proving old theories wrong, and has now come to the theory of one man and one woman started this thing off.
 As for putting woman ahead of man by using dna. I think that will also go by the way of Dinosaurs extinct because of predation, I mean disease, no..no..I mean asteroid...oh no thats not it anymore, it was global warming, or whatever the latest proven theory is.
 I am one of those fortunate Christians that God got to through all the skepticism I used to have, so I know somewhat of how you guys think, but just as Saul was blinded and spoke to by the Lord, and got a new name as Paul, I too had a dramatic experience with the Lord and was born again and became a new man.
 I say that to say  it is easy to say the Bible aint true and Science is true, but as we all grow older and realize man has had it's best minds and smartest people working on how we became to be...No one has ever found that undisputable evidence that proves it, and everything in the Bible still holds true.
 When you think of it, it's hard to say the creator of all things wasnt able to make Eve without duplicating Adams Dna!


----------



## hunter rich (Aug 1, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Bullethead made an assumption of my personal belief, this is where he is wrong.You say using scripture itself as a guide shows a biblical age of Earth to be 6,000 years old.



http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2012)

hunter rich said:


> http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm



To answer this I will reply with another link...not meant to derail the subject.

http://www.oldearth.org/old.htm


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 1, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Bullethead made an assumption of my personal belief, this is where he is wrong.You say using scripture itself as a guide shows a biblical age of Earth to be 6,000 years old. Care to share a specific verse that can't be disputed with ," one day is with the Lord as a thousand years"?



Is it a thousand years? Or is it _like_ a thousand years? Please explain the context of that verse. I'd hate for it to be taken out of context.




hobbs27 said:


> The part of the article that impresses me is that again Science is proving old theories wrong, and has now come to the theory of one man and one woman started this thing off.



Really? Where did you get that from? Even Francis Collins doesn't agree with that.




hobbs27 said:


> I say that to say  it is easy to say the Bible aint true and Science is true, but as we all grow older and realize man has had it's best minds and smartest people working on how we became to be...No one has ever found that undisputable evidence that proves it, and everything in the Bible still holds true.



Not by a long shot.




hobbs27 said:


> When you think of it, it's hard to say the creator of all things wasnt able to make Eve without duplicating Adams Dna!



If she was made by duplicating Adam's DNA wouldn't that make her a male genetically?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Bullethead made an assumption of my personal belief, this is where he is wrong.You say using scripture itself as a guide shows a biblical age of Earth to be 6,000 years old. Care to share a specific verse that can't be disputed with ," one day is with the Lord as a thousand years"?
> 
> The part of the article that impresses me is that again Science is proving old theories wrong, and has now come to the theory of one man and one woman started this thing off.
> As for putting woman ahead of man by using dna. I think that will also go by the way of Dinosaurs extinct because of predation, I mean disease, no..no..I mean asteroid...oh no thats not it anymore, it was global warming, or whatever the latest proven theory is.
> ...



If you've read your own article you will see that Eve pre-dated Adam by about 50,000 years.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If you've read your own article you will see that Eve pre-dated Adam by about 50,000 years.



I know it does...thats why I used the many theories scientists have come up with to explain the exctinction of dinosaurs ..just in my lifetime...Eventually science will catch up to what God told us to be true long ago.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 1, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> I know it does...thats why I used the many theories scientists have come up with to explain the exctinction of dinosaurs ..just in my lifetime...Eventually science will catch up to what God told us to be true long ago.



Yeah science will catch up eventually... 



> Numbers 5
> 
> 11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 2, 2012)

Oh boy!


----------



## Nastytater (Aug 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I find this kind of thing very interesting. You wanted someone to show you where someone has traced their ancestry back to at least Noah, and you were showed that someone has traced there ancestry all the way back to Adam and Eve. Instead of accepting that fact, you move to the point of Adam and Eve not being what Hobbs perceives.
> 
> I find that this happens a lot in here. A point gets proven, and the questioner, without giving any credit, seamlessly slides to another subject.
> 
> I'm not pointing the finger at you only Bullet, I just find it interesting.



You noticed that too huh.


----------



## mtnwoman (Aug 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah science will catch up eventually...



Even at 6000 years it took them a long long time to  make penicillin, or how to make chapstick, or what to use poppys for much less 6 million years or how to make plastic or bleach or xanax etc etc etc....
I'd say they are a few million years behind.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah science will catch up eventually...



I thought you might like that.Some of these are pretty good, and some are taking out of context.
Here's 10 of the 101 listed things science lagged behind on.
from:http://raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101science.cfm



1. - The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true - "He hangs the earth on nothing." 



2. - Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. 



3. - The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago. 



4. - When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water. 



5. - Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste. 



6. - Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors! 



7. - There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea. 



8. - Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator's presence - "in Your presence is fullness of joy" (Psalm 16:11). 



9. - Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled" and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" long before science understood its function. 



10. - The Bible states that God created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that God distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe - namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Apparently YOU DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE IN IT"S ENTIRETY.
> 
> Not one thing in there points to the Adam and Eve of the Bible.
> 
> Another thing that happens a lot in here is someone(NOT POINTING FINGERS AT ONLY YOU STRING) will read a title or first few lines of an article and assume that it ends along the same lines they are thinking of, when in fact it does not.





> “A woman who might be called Eve and a man who might be called Adam really existed


Ok, so they used the word "might".

And BTW, I read the entire article the first time I clicked on it.



bullethead said:


> And according to same article:
> “Adam also lived in central Africa, perhaps only 140,000 years ago. Only his YDNA survived to father all of the male lineages on earth.
> 
> Stringggggg, you have sum 'splainin to do!



I don't have anything to explain, I simply made an observation on the disengenuous arguing techniques employed by some on this forum.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't have anything to explain, I simply made an observation on the disengenuous arguing techniques employed by some on this forum.



When someone thinks they have proven a point but haven't it isn't disingenuous to point that out.

If any well respected expert in this area of science would be sympathetic to the Genesis account of creation it would be Francis Collins and even he acknowledges the genetic evidence does not point to a historical Adam and Eve.

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall



> Genetic evidence shows that humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago.  This conflicts with the traditional view that all humans descended from a single pair who lived about 10,000 years ago.  While Genesis 2-3 speaks of the pair Adam and Eve, Genesis 4 refers to a larger population of humans interacting with Cain.  One option is to view Adam and Eve as a historical pair living among many 10,000 years ago, chosen to represent the rest of humanity before God.  Another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an allegory in which Adam and Eve symbolize the large group of ancestors who lived 150,000 years ago.  Yet another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an “everyman” story, a parable of each person’s individual rejection of God.  BioLogos does not take a particular view and encourages scholarly work on these questions.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> doesn't that make her genetically identical to Adam?



This is a question from a highly evolved mind????

Adam and Eve were the first.  They were each manufactured in the mind of God.  God brought them both into existance as the first of the males, and the first of the females.

No one knows if they had a belly buttonl!  No one was there.

The question cannot be answered!

No one knows their DNA similarities!  No one was there.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 2, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> This is a question from a highly evolved mind????
> 
> Adam and Eve were the first.  They were each manufactured in the mind of God.  God brought them both into existance as the first of the males, and the first of the females.
> 
> ...



Let's be honest about this, no one knows any of this to be true at all. But since theists are in the business of making unfounded truth claims I was curious to know what the claim would be concerning Eve. The whole point of her being made from his rib instead of made from scratch like Adam was that she was to be made of his flesh. Being made of his flesh seems to suggest she would share his DNA. If she was made from his flesh without any genetic alteration that would mean she was a genetic male and incapable of reproduction. If we are to assume that his DNA was altered then what was the point of making her out of his flesh?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> If we are to assume that his DNA was altered then what was the point of making her out of his flesh?



I was hoping this discussion would eventually get around to this question.Thank you.

God took a rib from adams side to create a bride for him.

A Roman soldier pierced the side of Christ on the cross and water and blood rushed out.....This represents the birth of the New Testament Church also known as the Bride of Christ, and just as assured as I am that Eve shared the same blood type as Adam, it is Christs blood that runs through the veins of us Christians spiritually speaking.Theres a lot more into this than I can share right now, but you get my point, although dispute it as you may, this is what I see in it.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 2, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> I was hoping this discussion would eventually get around to this question.Thank you.
> 
> God took a rib from adams side to create a bride for him.
> 
> A Roman soldier pierced the side of Christ on the cross and water and blood rushed out.....This represents the birth of the New Testament Church also known as the Bride of Christ, and just as assured as I am that Eve shared the same blood type as Adam, it is Christs blood that runs through the veins of us Christians spiritually speaking.Theres a lot more into this than I can share right now, but you get my point, although dispute it as you may, this is what I see in it.



Doesn't really address the genetic question but this does bring up an interesting point. If what you say is true wouldn't that mean that the making of Eve was done with intentional symbolism for events that would derive from the original sin? If that is true then original sin must have been part of the plan all along.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 2, 2012)

Well, I disagree with Bro Hobbs as to my "knowing" that Eve had the same blood type as Adam.  I couldn't possible know the answer to that and I'm not about to lose my credibility by making that sort of claim.

For all I know Adam was 6'8" tall and Eve was short and dumpy.
They were what God chose for them to be.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Doesn't really address the genetic question but this does bring up an interesting point. If what you say is true wouldn't that mean that the making of Eve was done with intentional symbolism for events that would derive from the original sin? If that is true then original sin must have been part of the plan all along.



It could have been.But I suspect God was doing what He always does and that's, providing a way!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, so they used the word "might".
> 
> And BTW, I read the entire article the first time I clicked on it.
> 
> ...



What was "disingenuous" about me stating that the article in no way showed evidence that coincides with the Adam and Eve of the Bible?
I asked if someone could trace their lineage back to Noah and was presented with an article that talks about an "Adam" and "Eve" that in NO WAY represent the Bible's version....and then you somehow think I got what I asked for and changed the answer to suit me????
Sorry my man, but your not even close on this one.


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> doesn't that make her genetically identical to Adam?



If God could create an entire being from the rib of another, could He not also alter his/her genetic code? Yeah, probably.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 11, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> If God could create an entire being from the rib of another, could He not also alter his/her genetic code? Yeah, probably.



Perhaps we should pencil that part into Genesis. Assuming that is how it went down, what was the point of making her out of Adam instead of out of clay like Adam was made?


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 11, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Perhaps we should pencil that part into Genesis. Assuming that is how it went down, what was the point of making her out of Adam instead of out of clay like Adam was made?



I think God told Adam he was going to create a companion for him that would be his equal physically, mentally, sexually and emotionally. It would only require one of Adam's legs. Adam replied, "What do I get for a rib?"


----------



## fishinbub (Aug 13, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Perhaps we should pencil that part into Genesis. Assuming that is how it went down, what was the point of making her out of Adam instead of out of clay like Adam was made?



Why make her out of clay instead of a rib?


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 14, 2012)

fishinbub said:


> Why make her out of clay instead of a rib?



Seems logical given that is how Adam was created. The story teller had her coming out of a part of Adam for a reason.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 20, 2012)

Two people....one flesh.


----------



## atlashunter (Aug 21, 2012)

If they were one flesh she would be a he genetically speaking. The people that wrote that story didn't know there was more to gender than different body parts.


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 21, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Well, I disagree with Bro Hobbs as to my "knowing" that Eve had the same blood type as Adam.  I couldn't possible know the answer to that and I'm not about to lose my credibility by making that sort of claim.
> 
> For all I know Adam was 6'8" tall and Eve was short and dumpy.They were what God chose for them to be.



I bet she was the best looking woman on the planet


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 21, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> I bet she was the best looking woman on the planet


----------



## StriperAddict (Aug 21, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> I bet she was the best looking woman on the planet


I have no doubt.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 21, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> I bet she was the best looking woman on the planet



Her sons thought that same thing!


----------



## WELLS8230 (Aug 21, 2012)

There is going to be a lot of surprised folks when whatever is going to happen happens.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 21, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> I bet she was the best looking woman on the planet



After a few years, Adam probably didn't think so.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 21, 2012)

Adam didn't have to worry about lust. At least until his sons wives show up from another land.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 21, 2012)

bigreddwon said:


> Her sons thought that same thing!



They might have had good looking sisters as well.


----------



## Huntinfool (Aug 22, 2012)

> If they were one flesh she would be a he genetically speaking.



Why?  Because, in what you know about Christians and God, you believe that God is somehow limited by the bounds of nature?

The whole premise of the thread seems just odd to me.  I get that you don't believe anything related to Christianity or God and that's fine.

But, don't you think that, if you're going to dig into the belief system you need to play within the bounds of the same?  What about the God of the Bible indicates to you that he is bound by the laws of nature (regardless of whether you believe it) or what you know about genetic code.  For that matter what, in Genesis, indicates to you that God took the rib and then cloned Adam?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 22, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> They might have had good looking sisters as well.



That's ok, nobody had peed in the gene pool yet.


----------

