• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

"From the Beginning it was not so"

S

Shadowjak's Dancer

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
I recently read a post about "Adam, Eve, and Suzie"...

It made me think of a few comments on this particular topic. Let's think practically for a moment, I mean why not Adam, Eve, and Suzie? Well, if the Almighty got too carried away, Adam might better have been know by his nickname, "Adam the Ribless". :lol:

It also made me think of the so-called "Law" of first mention, where the first instance in the Bible is the example to be followed... let's have a look at this idea:

If I believe that I am called to walk in the faith and promises of Abraham, does that mean I need to hike up a mountain with my firstborn, tie him to a stone altar, and hope the Almighty provides a ram? ( you know, to show my faith )
If I get called to preach repentance to a wicked city, must I set sail aboard the S.S. Minnow, and just before the storm takes it, have the crew pitch me overboard, so I can emulate a great prophet? ( Besides, Gilligan would drive me insane... I'd rather take my chances with the fish )
If I'm convinced that I really, really am the last "good guy" on earth, should I build a boat in my front yard ( even though I technically know that although the Almighty did destroy the world once with water in the beginning, He's not going to do it again ), and smuggle exotic animals out of the zoo in the middle of the night... all because I am the one who is okay... that's right, it's everyone else who has gone crazy...

I'm sure some of you could come up with some good examples of the fun way the "Law" of first mention could be applied... but on the note of the Rainbow: is it proof that things don't always happen exactly the same way? Wait a minute, could I be implying that the Almighty didn't do the exact same thing in the lives of everybody in the Bible? If He had, it would be like reading the same story over and over again... or just one story with a whole lot of "insert name here" blank spaces. We would all be kings of Israel ( except the women, apart from during the Athaliah cycle ), we would all have the strength of Sampson, the thorn of Paul, and they'd still be manufacturing crucifixion stakes to put us all to death... although, it would be kinda fun to split the red sea, see the looks on the atheist's faces, and laugh and laugh and laugh :lol:
 
First and foremost, we'd all be naked. No one, trust me, NONE of you want to see ME do that. Besides, "Baby, it's cold outside."

I don't think any of us would have navels.

We'd all be betrothed to our wives from before they were conceived. In fact all of our marriages would be arranged.

We'd all marry the most genetically similar person on the planet (Eve doesn't just share DNA with Adam, there's not a speck of it in her that didn't come from Adam).

We'd all be gardeners.

We'd all name our wives. Now that I could live with and it could get interesting.

We'd all "Fall in Love at First Sight."

That's just a SHORT list built around Adam. We're not even talking other precedents, such as at the first hint of rain we'd build a boat.
 
The law of first mention doesn't work. Everything changed after the fall and the world was not the same. In the beginning, we didn't have to work to survive. We didn't eat meat. We didn't wear clothes. It makes much more sense to use the last mentioned law because that is the one with all the updates and changes in it. After Christ "fulfilled" the law, he made it harder. If we go with first mention, then we can hate as long as we don't murder. We can lust after others as long as we don't act on that lust. We can covet other's stuff as long as we don't steal and so on and so on.

Just my two cents worth. I am not a theologian, but this makes sense to me.

SweetLissa
 
sweetlissa said:
If we go with first mention, then we can hate as long as we don't murder. We can lust after others as long as we don't act on that lust. We can covet other's stuff as long as we don't steal and so on and so on. SweetLissa
Click to expand...

I understand your position as it relates to poly, but in reality, we are commanded in the Law not to covet (which would include lusting) and we are commanded in the Law to love our neighbors as ourselves. Christ came to fulfill (fill up the meaning) of the Law. I don't know that He made it harder, just that He made it clearer.

I'm not a theologian, either, so I may be all wrong, too!

Katie
 
Katie is correct, Christ did not make the law harder, only clarified it.

The 10th commandment says not to covet thy neighbours wife, ie if you look upon her with lust in your heart you're sinning - which is exactly what Christ said. He was just explaining the existing law.

So we don't go by the last mentioned law, or the first mentioned law. We go by the words of the entire Bible, which doesn't contradict itself.
 
jacobhaivri said:
I recently read a post about "Adam, Eve, and Suzie"...

It made me think of a few comments on this particular topic. Let's think practically for a moment, I mean why not Adam, Eve, and Suzie? Well, if the Almighty got too carried away, Adam might better have been know by his nickname, "Adam the Ribless". :
Click to expand...

I am tempted to say that there were only so many mouths Adam could supply for. More women would naturally mean a faster population growth rate, and consequently more food would be necessary. In the garden of eden, this wouldn't have been a problem however, so the argument is rather null. There is however the possibility of an argument in the natural tendency for humans to segregate themselves by bloodline (similar to the division experienced between the son's of Jacob). Humanity as it is, can record it's history all the way back to a single mother. We may be divided into various races, but we are essentially all brothers. If God had created multiple women for Adam, humanity would then not only be divided along lines of race, but along lines of "species" (for lack of a better term) with descendants from Mother A constantly warring with the descendents of Mother B, C, D, & E. As we can clearly see however, the world already has enough problems to deal with without throwing in this wrench. The act might also have been symbolic in viewing the whole humanity ( as a bride of christ) through the person of one woman. That's all I can think of. Personally, I subscribe a theory that lies somewhere between a symbolic gesture from god and a practical "let's not start off by debating whose Mother was the most loved" position.
 
I'm going to say my theory why not more than one woman was created. I think it was because God knew we were going to sin. Think about it. If there were more than one woman and only Adam and Eve sinned than there theoretically could have been a woman who was still sinless.
When people give me that argument I let them know it is a logical fallacy. If people want to act like we're in the garden of Eden they would have to never sin, never have children and never wear clothes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top