Not sure I would trust anything from the creation museum to be actually biblical.
I know there’s an ancient myth about Adam having a first wife before Eve — there’s probably also other myths that fill in the blanks. There’s also nothing stopping God from making more people during this period like he made Adam and Eve. They were probably just the “first batch” so to speak.
Adding a bit to that, it’s very likely that the old judaic religion was polytheistic like every other in the nearby region (assyrians, babylonians, egyptians, hittites), but started to consolidate around a single deity (not clear when, the tradition was oral). That meant some stories were left out for whatever reason, others changed, as they did several times over the centuries before being written, and every other god of their pantheon became yaweh, which explains why he has such drastically different personalities in the bible
Also, at some point any creation story is going to have to stop specifying literally every single thing that happened and start to hit broad strokes. Things like “we just didn’t explicitly mention every single kid she had” is probably the easiest explanation.
They were probably just the “first batch” so to speak.
the standard response to this is that if there were other independently created people in Eden then they wouldn’t have been expelled for Adam and Eve’s mistake. and after the fall no other people could be created because a) they would be sinless which messes everything up and b) “God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th”.
I loved their explanation regarding building the Ark authentically when Noah lived to be over 900 years old. It’s simple really. He built it when he was like 300. You see it makes perfect sense. Next question.
weirdly that might effectively be true, many other animals don’t really suffer from inbreeding, and there’s an hypothesis that humans are so vulnerable to it because a shiteload of us died all at once a long time ago.
nice little dig at evolution calling mutations “mistakes”. as in, they happen but they can only be negative.
since God’s Word is the only standard for defining proper marriage
oh - and where’s that? the bit where multiple wives are ok (Solomon), or where multiple wives is commanded (Levrite marriage) or where slave girls are ok (“concubines” being the usual euphamism) or where polygamy is disallowed but only for church leaders (this seems like the worst one tbh, the very necessity of this rule means there were sufficient polygamous relationships in the early church that it even warrants a mention…)
From the Creation Museum. Directly from their website, so they’re proud of this:
Number six is my favorite. “Because God said incest was okay back then and who are you to judge?”
They really said that genetic disease is an accumulation of sin. Like someone is born with Downs Syndrome because their grandmother cheats at rummy.
“Why are you fucking your sister?!”
“Uh, God said I could. How dare you question Him."
No one commented on “get his wife”? I assume a bride mail order catalog? They must have existed back then.
Around that time, in that region, it was more often a trade, gimme something and get my property (daughter).
6 sounds more like “if you want to allow gay marriage you better shut up about incest”
Oh my parts 3 and 4 they’re so close to figuring out what the Darwin guy was talking about
Not sure I would trust anything from the creation museum to be actually biblical.
I know there’s an ancient myth about Adam having a first wife before Eve — there’s probably also other myths that fill in the blanks. There’s also nothing stopping God from making more people during this period like he made Adam and Eve. They were probably just the “first batch” so to speak.
That would be Lilith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Your wiki lead me to watching Hazbin Hotel. It’s pretty funny so far.
The serpent was actually Sir Pentious, believe it or not.
TIL. Lilith sounds way more fun & attractive than boring compliant Eve
The story of Lilith has certainly been an inspiration to a lot of writers.
But I suppose so has Eve being tempted by the fruit.
Adding a bit to that, it’s very likely that the old judaic religion was polytheistic like every other in the nearby region (assyrians, babylonians, egyptians, hittites), but started to consolidate around a single deity (not clear when, the tradition was oral). That meant some stories were left out for whatever reason, others changed, as they did several times over the centuries before being written, and every other god of their pantheon became yaweh, which explains why he has such drastically different personalities in the bible
Also, at some point any creation story is going to have to stop specifying literally every single thing that happened and start to hit broad strokes. Things like “we just didn’t explicitly mention every single kid she had” is probably the easiest explanation.
the standard response to this is that if there were other independently created people in Eden then they wouldn’t have been expelled for Adam and Eve’s mistake. and after the fall no other people could be created because a) they would be sinless which messes everything up and b) “God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th”.
I loved their explanation regarding building the Ark authentically when Noah lived to be over 900 years old. It’s simple really. He built it when he was like 300. You see it makes perfect sense. Next question.
weirdly that might effectively be true, many other animals don’t really suffer from inbreeding, and there’s an hypothesis that humans are so vulnerable to it because a shiteload of us died all at once a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngest_Toba_eruption#Toba_catastrophe_theory
nice little dig at evolution calling mutations “mistakes”. as in, they happen but they can only be negative.
oh - and where’s that? the bit where multiple wives are ok (Solomon), or where multiple wives is commanded (Levrite marriage) or where slave girls are ok (“concubines” being the usual euphamism) or where polygamy is disallowed but only for church leaders (this seems like the worst one tbh, the very necessity of this rule means there were sufficient polygamous relationships in the early church that it even warrants a mention…)