Hey Josh, that was actually Jogh Lee Page's comment and not mine. And I think you got it wrong- had they not sinned it might have been that giving birth would have been a pleasant and fun filled event and not so painful, but we would be born not the less

Oh really? Where exactly do you go off on making this assumption? God made one human. It wasnt so good. So he made a second human, and it was good. Why would he start making more? What are families beside worshiping the great lord of adam and eve, he who damns any who stand in his way???

I suppose I can see you using the same logic that use to beleive in your god to believe this, because its what you wish were true. However, there is no evidencve within what you claim to be an explanation of your god, that implies birth would be given later on.

YoYou know, I dont know why I am even bothering.

I don't know where you want to go with this.

I can tell you this much - by the response, your tone in wich it is given...I can see you have some issues bothering you and at this moment, I am a good prospect to go for.

Sorry if I sound I little rude (don't mean bad) but your showing silliness..young mind. And besides that you got it wrong again Josh.

It was after man AND woman was made that God said it is all good.

I don't know what logic I use you are referring to, that we would have been born non the less? That maybe woman wouldn't have had such pain in giving birth? The Bible teaches because of sin the woman has pain in giving birth, so yes it might be logical to think it might have been pleasant and fun filled.

I definitely don't see what you want me to comment on regarding me having evidence for my God..but you misunderstood or misread what I said. I never said birth would be given later on, I don't even know what you mean here, but I did say giving birth would have happened...with or without pain. Take it easy Josh, I am not your enemy

Birth was an outcome of sinning. God made the man and women, and said it was good. If it was good as is, why start making more people via birth? The idea was that they would live happily in eden.

@Aces_Lucky

I thought I had responded to this post, but when reading other comments, realized there was nothing from me after your post. Sorry about that - clearly i am delusional
If they did in fact hear from the Holy Spirit, then obviously there was a communication failure. But communication is a two-way street. If you tell me something, and then I misquote you - is that your fault or my fault?
You're conflating "bold claims" with end-of-the-world predictions.

@Josh, you wrote:
From Genesis 1:
What about that is hard to understand? Or do you think they were going to reproduce asexually by some non-birth method?

( Jeremy you jumped me, I just finished this on my BB )Hi Josh, am I reading you correct, have you been under the impression that Adam and Eve were suppose to be the only two people ever to be whom God wanted? Did you mean to say that because of sin the result was birth to the human race, were more then Adam and Eve started? I don't think this is the case- In Genesis 1:27 God created man, in Gen. 1:28 said be fruitful and multiply and Gen. 1:31 God said everything was good. In Genesis 2 the story is told a little differently but here it goes- Genesis 2:21,22 it tells how the woman was created, Gen. 2:24 says " therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh."--- then again after that being said, they sin. The pain in giving birth was a result or consequence of Eve's disobedience and the act of giving birth was there all along. I think this is more correct what the Bible teaches as to how you understand it.

You are both right. I must be working myself to hard. Forgive me.



and jeremy...eve was made kinda asexually.

@Josh

Very true!

Josh you better not leave buddy, I like you here so no goodbyes