Adam's mother

[mharrell08]

Gen 2:24  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.

So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?

[John from Kentucky]

Gen 2:24  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.

So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?

Who was Eve's father and mother if she came from Adam and she was the mother of all living?  Could Gen 2:24 just be a general statement applicable to future human beings other than Adam and Eve?

Or could the entire story of Adam and Eve be a parable since that seems to be God's preferred way of teaching?  A snake that talks and stands upright; a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Tree of Life; the Tree of Life guarded by Cherubim and a flaming sword that moved in all directions; eating of forbidden fruit; God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day?  Is all this literal or a parable?

[daywalker]

Gen 2:24  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.

So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?

Who was Eve's father and mother if she came from Adam and she was the mother of all living?  Could Gen 2:24 just be a general statement applicable to future human beings other than Adam and Eve?

Or could the entire story of Adam and Eve be a parable since that seems to be God's preferred way of teaching?  A snake that talks and stands upright; a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Tree of Life; the Tree of Life guarded by Cherubim and a flaming sword that moved in all directions; eating of forbidden fruit; God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day?  Is all this literal or a parable?

You know, I've heard and considered this idea of the Story of Eden being a parable, but the one "flaw" that I haven't got any answers for is the genealogical records in the Bible. Example:

Luke 3:23-38 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,....... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

I don't see how this could be explained (away)...seems there must've been a real "Adam" at some point.


As for the serpent, I don't believe it was an actual snake that walked up or slithered around the tree talking to Eve, I think it was Satan talking much in the same way he talks to anyone else--through their mind (like Judas for example):

John 13:2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,

Before Satan actually "entered" or possessed Judas (verse 27), he had already been active in perverting his mind to betray Jesus. I'm thinking in the same way he 'worked' Eve's mind (though he never actually possessed her at any time). I don't believe that Eve ever actually "saw" anyone, though it appears somehow she was aware of his presence because she accuses him of tricking her (Gen 3:13). I could be wrong, but this is the way I see it.

Daywalker 

[indianabob]

mharrell,
It is very hard to conceive of God making a precursor to the carnal being that was to be the ancestor of His only begotten son.
It is hard to imagine the precursor of "adam" as an upright hominid that lived in the wild and ate grass and foraged like a deer reproducing in kind until God chose to add a sentient mind capable of language and awareness of self and its creator.
The whole idea is repugnant.

Indiana Bob

Gen 2:24  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.

So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?

[John from Kentucky]

Gen 2:24  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.

So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?

Who was Eve's father and mother if she came from Adam and she was the mother of all living?  Could Gen 2:24 just be a general statement applicable to future human beings other than Adam and Eve?

Or could the entire story of Adam and Eve be a parable since that seems to be God's preferred way of teaching?  A snake that talks and stands upright; a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Tree of Life; the Tree of Life guarded by Cherubim and a flaming sword that moved in all directions; eating of forbidden fruit; God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day?  Is all this literal or a parable?

You know, I've heard and considered this idea of the Story of Eden being a parable, but the one "flaw" that I haven't got any answers for is the genealogical records in the Bible. Example:

Luke 3:23-38 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,....... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

I don't see how this could be explained (away)...seems there must've been a real "Adam" at some point.


As for the serpent, I don't believe it was an actual snake that walked up or slithered around the tree talking to Eve, I think it was Satan talking much in the same way he talks to anyone else--through their mind (like Judas for example):

John 13:2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,

Before Satan actually "entered" or possessed Judas (verse 27), he had already been active in perverting his mind to betray Jesus. I'm thinking in the same way he 'worked' Eve's mind (though he never actually possessed her at any time). I don't believe that Eve ever actually "saw" anyone, though it appears somehow she was aware of his presence because she accuses him of tricking her (Gen 3:13). I could be wrong, but this is the way I see it.

Daywalker 

Being a "son of" can also be a parable or not literal.  See Matthew 1:1.  Jesus is called the son of David, the son of Abraham.  That is not strictly true or literal.  Adam is also the Hebrew word for "humanity".

Also your statement about Satan is an opinion.  I yearn for absolute truth, not opinion.  If a talking, standing serpent is not literal, which I have doubts about since I've never seen one ; how do we distinguish between literal and parable?

[Kat]

Hi Marques,

I had not thought of that verse, that does give us even more to consider.

So did God literally scoop up dirt and make Adam? That would have been contrary to how He had been doing things? We can also see where He "formed" the animals.

Gen 2:19  And out of the ground Jehovah God formed(H3335) every animal of the field,

Gen 2:7  And Jehovah God formed(H3335) man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Maybe Adam was the beginning of a different race that God brought out of the indigenous people of the time? We still have indigenous people to this day. But if so Adam was separated from them (actually he might have been an outcast, being different and all) and was brought to the "garden," there God could work with him. We know that God walked with Adam and taught/commanded him things.

Gen 2:15  And Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Gen 2:16  And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying...

Maybe God was teaching Adam and giving him the knowledge he needed (which he passed on to his generation) of how to develop the advances needed to start the 'civilized' race of people?


Daywalker, the verse in Luke 3:38 "Adam, the son of God," seems similar to what Paul said referring to man as God's "offspring."

Acts 17:28  for in Him we live, and move, and are; as also certain of your poets have said: For of Him also we are offspring.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[John from Kentucky]

mharrell,
It is very hard to conceive of God making a precursor to the carnal being that was to be the ancestor of His only begotten son.
It is hard to imagine the precursor of "adam" as an upright hominid that lived in the wild and ate grass and foraged like a deer reproducing in kind until God chose to add a sentient mind capable of language and awareness of self and its creator.
The whole idea is repugnant.

Indiana Bob

Gen 2:24  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.

So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?

Bob,

It is not repugnant if it is true.  My problem with the first part of Genesis is that I do not know what is literal and what is parable.  I lean toward it being a parable.

John

[indianabob]

Literal or parable, it still leaves us with the idea that God created a lower animal species that 'evolved" into a man that was the progenitor of Jesus.
OR that God put into place circumstances that left to their natural consequences evolved into a human like being that God then selected to become the progenitor of God's only begotten son. It leaves too much to chance occurrence.

OR if not, then it has God having to experiment with a being that would be suitable to become one made in the image of God.

Why is any of this supposition necessary? Why not have a first couple and then have their children just procreate together and grow a large family of cousins.

I do not see any reason that God could not begin with two people or two rabbits or two deer etc. Why do WE have to complicate something that should be relatively simple? Why do two rabbits have to come from a "lower" animal?
Why do two humans have to come from a tribe or community of less intelligent beings and have God then develop an UPGRADE so to speak. God is perfectly capable of developing a finished product the first time.

Just my never to be humble opinion.
Thank you for your comment John, Indiana Bob

[Akira329]

Gen 2:24  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.

So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?

That does give us more to consider....
The only thing that bothers me about this theory is Eve's existence.
The scriptures make it pretty clear that she came from Adam. If women were around, why a different creation for Eve?
I guess I would be assuming women were around....
Though Cain found a wife from somewhere....
This also brings up another question....Was marriage between men and women even something done with early man?

It would seem a lot of this is left up to science for an answer.

Antaiwan

[dave]

You my friend have opened something that can only have one answer. "..man shall leave his father," I must believe that mans father is his former/creator, " and mother" this can only be the "ground and dust mixed with the mist."
Luk 3:38  the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
I have to believe that man/adams mother is the ground/dust mixed with the mist, and the father is Jehovah
God.
Now the digging begins. I will say right up front, I accept that Genesis is an allagory. I believe that the Bible is a parable. Did all of the written words of the Bible happen, were all the folks, men of God, prophets, an actual real part of how the world, the earth has become what it is. I say yes, there is history. But history, I do not accept is what we are to glean from. It is what HE SAID, WHAT HE DID, and WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO.
I believe that we need to listen and hear and begin with this base, God is Spirit, the Words that I say are spirit, they are life. God is One. This is my trumpet that He as set before me..Eph 4:3  being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of the peace;


I may stand alone, but as of now I stand. Spirit IS.

[DougE6]

This is an interesting question.   It is undeniable that our physical bodies really are created out of the dust from the ground.  If you remove the water, and cook us down to our constituents, our physical bodies are pretty indistinguishable from dirt. We are minerals.  So the Genesis text is quite correct on we are made of dirt.  So we may be literally created from the ground, in one supernatural event, as described in genesis, or if merely allegory, then it may show the physical solidarity of our bodies with the physical creation.  We share very much in common with the animals, we share the beast nature that comes from the physical, with them. Hunger, thirst, reproductive urges, are all shared in common with animals all down the chain.  Thankfully we have a conscience and a spiritual right and wrong sentient understanding that takes us much higher, though.

but on the other hand, the New Testament clearly talks about Adam a lot!  Specially in contradistinction to Christ. The First man, the Second man, the one who has caused death to fall on all others, the one who saves all those who are under the death of the first.  So would the Bible compare a real life figure..Christ; with a mythical figure, that was only an allegory? I have trouble with that. Maybe others would not. I like the simpler parallel of two men. That both were universal.  If you say it is an allegory, then if others were around, at that time, how could satan tempt them all? Or is that allegory too?  because then the offspring of Adam could mate with others who had not sinned in committing a transgression. Or was the entire group, around at that time, simultaneously made aware? Too many hypotheticals for me.  I like and feel that the creation, an ongoing event, over millions of years, took Gods superintendence and interventions to make it happen. I believe that.  I see the creation of Adam as one example of millions of interentions, throughout geological time.  I do not believe that evolution has the power, in and of itself, merely coupled with natural law, without the over riding superintendence and hand of God,  to make it all happen.

[octoberose]

Ray wrote on this recently. It's very interesting that there's two stories of creation in Genesis and we keep looking at them as one- but what if they are not? What if man came and then Adam came? I'm not going to put my hat in the ring and say this is it, but it's pretty intriguing.  And when Cain was afraid he would be put to death, who was he afraid of? Christians I know say he was afraid if the siblings he didn't have yet from Adam and Eve, but that sounds like nonsense to me. And just who was the "sons of God and daughters of men" in Genesis 6? Is the story literal? Yes. Is it symbolic?  Yes. The physical first and then the spiritual is what we are taught.
I don't understand why a man leaving his father and mother isn't God telling how the story will unfold from Adam and Eve on. A man will leave his father and mother- is it written in the future tense in Hebrew? I don't know.

[Stacey]

Gen 2:24  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.

So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?

My pennies worth.

There isn't a mother for Adam I can see unless we consider the dirt to be the mother I suppose. Think I'll stick with no mother. We have Adam"s creation spelled out simply as being formed out of the dust of the earth and then later Eve being made out of Adam. I don't see this as further proof for anything other than how marriage between a man and a woman is supposed to work.

I have 3 translations that use the word "now" in Gen. 2:23. There may be more.

Look at verse 23. Adam says this is "now" (now what? a beginning? consider Gen.3:20, marriage?) which indicates to me, from this point forward a man shall leave his father and mother. In verse 24 we have the "therefore" which indicates "for this reason" for what reason? The reason given in verse 23, the "now". From this point forward this is how it is gonna work, a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave, be joined, as if they are the same flesh and bone joined to one another, a close nit relationship not to be separated.

The point Jesus was making to the Pharisees is all about Marriage, once united, joined together as one flesh and bone, it is never meant to be separated. He was telling them in the strongest manner possible that they didn't know squat about how marriage is supposed to work.

Mat 19:8  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

What beginning? The beginning of Marriage, the first one recognized.

Gen 2:23  And Adam said, This is now (now what, still part of me, my wife, my woman, the beginning in Mat. 19:8 ) bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Gen 2:24  Therefore (for this reason, marriage will work like this) shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave (to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly) unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Then again, if anyone wants to look at Gen. 2:24 as a parable or the whole book as a parable for that matter, it can lead down many paths. I'm not saying it's one or the other, just that this is how I understand Gen. 2:24 and what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees.

Marques , I didn't intend to try explaining away the possibility you bring up with my limited and simple understanding but I just don't see Adam having a mother at all. As always with scripture I know there is more than meets the eye.

[Kat]

The whole human race had their start with Adam and Eve is what the church teaches! That Adam was literally formed from the dirt and gave life is what the church teaches! One thing I have learned from Ray is that if the church teaches it.... well it's probably not right, as they receive their understanding from the father of liars.

John 8:44  You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do... for he is a liar and the father of it.

It seems we still cling to those old ideas that we were raised up believing. How many of us believed the flood was worldwide before? Then after Ray showed us his research of what 'seemed' obvious in Scripture, who of us still believe the waters covered the whole earth?

What about the creation days, that seemed to be without question... 6 literal day. But now we know there is a great deal more to it, billions of years more to it.

So why would this account of Adam be any different? It is quite clear that there were other indigenous (hunter gathers) people on the earth way before the time of Adam.

We need to look at this subject with an open mind.  There is no reason to fight one another over this idea, we are here to reason these things out and let the spirit reveal what is true.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

[lauriellen]

I recently read a book by a Christian scientist who was the head of the "Human Genome Project" that basically mapped out the human dna. If you haven't read his book or listened to his lectures on You Tube, i H-I-G-H-L-Y recomend it. (you can email me for his name and info as i know we are not allowed to post links here: lecallicoat@hughes.net). the scientific efidence is so clear and so undeniable that a 'man-like' creature has been on the earth for tens of thousands of years, and came about by the process of evolution. also that 'adam and eve' could not have been 'less than' a gene pool of approximately 10 thousand. remember this is written by a CHRISTIAN scientist who totally believes in God, but that He used the process of evolution to creat man and all living species.  very very thought provoking book. just my 2 cents worth.
lauriellen

[Akira329]

Kat,
I can see Adam being separated/outcast especially if he had desires different from those around.
Everyone would have been a hunter and gathering type and Adam comes along and starts talking about tilling the ground to grow your own food. Think about how that must of sounded to everyone around.
It could also be possible that at this time he took his wife with him, something no one has done before, and left the group.
(therefore leaving his father and mother)

Its hard for me to believe biology separated Adam and his wife but that their belief is what caused this separation.
Adam would be the first of man to believe in God(the God of Abraham, not some other god)
Eve just as well(The mother of all living)Why? because she believed too.

The problem I see in genesis is that it generally talks about man(as a whole, the human race, mankind) and then throws around a personal name such as Adam, which means the same thing. This alone can be confusing.

Antaiwan

[Rene]

A lot of good points being made in this thread and this subject really intrigues me!

I believe those the Lord has chosen are inspired to think "outside the box" when it comes to spiritual matters.  Those in the church are "in the box" and that box is dark and deceived.  As Kathy reminded us, if the church teaches it, that's a good reason to take a second look.

René

[lauriellen]

could it be that when God 'breathed' into "Adam" the 'breath of life' and he became a 'living soul' (all symbols), that perhaps for the first time 'man' became 'self aware' and was giving a consciouseness that set him apart from all the other 'creatures' for the first time?

[Deborah-Leigh]

Jesus is "awake".

Adam is still sleeping. ~

Arc

[daywalker]

Gen 2:24  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh

When the Pharisees approached Jesus to test Him, one of their questions was about marriage & divorce. Jesus quoted this passage of scripture to them in referring to Adam & Eve, who were joined as one.

So when God made this statement, who is the mother that the man (Adam) left to be joined with Eve? Is this further proof that Adam & Eve were not the first humans?

Who was Eve's father and mother if she came from Adam and she was the mother of all living?  Could Gen 2:24 just be a general statement applicable to future human beings other than Adam and Eve?

Or could the entire story of Adam and Eve be a parable since that seems to be God's preferred way of teaching?  A snake that talks and stands upright; a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Tree of Life; the Tree of Life guarded by Cherubim and a flaming sword that moved in all directions; eating of forbidden fruit; God walking in the Garden in the cool of the day?  Is all this literal or a parable?

You know, I've heard and considered this idea of the Story of Eden being a parable, but the one "flaw" that I haven't got any answers for is the genealogical records in the Bible. Example:

Luke 3:23-38 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,....... 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

I don't see how this could be explained (away)...seems there must've been a real "Adam" at some point.


As for the serpent, I don't believe it was an actual snake that walked up or slithered around the tree talking to Eve, I think it was Satan talking much in the same way he talks to anyone else--through their mind (like Judas for example):

John 13:2 During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,

Before Satan actually "entered" or possessed Judas (verse 27), he had already been active in perverting his mind to betray Jesus. I'm thinking in the same way he 'worked' Eve's mind (though he never actually possessed her at any time). I don't believe that Eve ever actually "saw" anyone, though it appears somehow she was aware of his presence because she accuses him of tricking her (Gen 3:13). I could be wrong, but this is the way I see it.

Daywalker  

Being a "son of" can also be a parable or not literal.  See Matthew 1:1.  Jesus is called the son of David, the son of Abraham.  That is not strictly true or literal.  Adam is also the Hebrew word for "humanity".

Also your statement about Satan is an opinion.  I yearn for absolute truth, not opinion.  If a talking, standing serpent is not literal, which I have doubts about since I've never seen one ; how do we distinguish between literal and parable?

John, as if I yearn for opinion and not absolute truth? Let's be fair, your assessment of the Genesis story being a parable is just as much "opinion" as my statement on Satan. Though let me also add I didn't come to this "opinion" without reason, but I used a Scriptural example for why I feel as I do.

True, Jesus is called the son of David though He wasn't literally the son of David. But does this fact mean or even suggest that Jesus didn't actually exist at all? Of course not! Likewise, Adam being the "son of God" could indeed be figurative, yet does that mean Adam, the man, never existed at all? I am aware that Adam in the Hebrew means "humanity", and I'm not dogmatically denying the possibility of the Genesis story being a parable...I just haven't been convinced yet.

Godspeed,
Daywalker