[Verginius Rufus]

The Biblical account has one pair of human beings, from whom all later humans descend, disobeying a commandment of God. What difference would it make if the original group was 100 human beings, who all disobeyed the commandment, and from whom all later humans were descended?

When Copernicus's theory of the solar system was published, many Christians rejected it as contrary to the Bible. Nowadays just about everyone accepts that Copernicus was right to say that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, despite some verses in the Bible that suggest otherwise.

Is the exact number of human beings who caused original sin any more essential than the names of the rivers in the Garden of Eden?

[kosciusko51]

... When Copernicus's theory of the solar system was published, many Christians rejected it as contrary to the Bible. ...

No, many of the Church leaders rejected it, as they had bought into earlier Greek ideas that had the Earth as the center of the universe.

The Bible does use figurative language, such as the sun rising and sun setting, but then again, so does my weatherman, but neither by necessity means that the earth does not move.

[UCANSEE2]

According to the Bible we humans are products of the incestuous relationship between Noah and his daughter(s).

[Jeff Chandler]

When Copernicus's theory of the solar system was published, many Christians rejected it as contrary to the Bible. Nowadays just about everyone accepts that Copernicus was right to say that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, despite some verses in the Bible that suggest otherwise.

There actually wasn't much religious objection to it. Staunch Christian resistance to cosmological theories has been greatly exaggerated in modern times.

[az wildkitten]

everyone but physicians, who believe the earth revolves around them. old nurses joke.

[redleghunter]

>>despite some verses in the Bible that suggest otherwise.<<

Which verses?

[redleghunter]

>>Is the exact number of human beings who caused original sin any more essential than the names of the rivers in the Garden of Eden?<<

Well St. Paul thought so:

Romans 5:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

[Resettozero]

Is the exact number of human beings who caused original sin any more essential than the names of the rivers in the Garden of Eden?

It all hinges on whether one believes Genesis or not. To a Christian, much depends on the validity of this part of the Holy Bible. And the Holy Spirit has confirmed that It is to be believed.

I choose to believe what God has said, as opposed to what man may conjecture about what God has said and done.

Now about those rivers...

Somehow, it is important that they were named. Still a mystery to me, other than it points to a particular area of the earth.

(IDK, but my lovely wife thinks it was where Jerusalem is now situated, or around Jerusalem or nearby.)