Evidence for God from Science

a notion I'm cosidering is that were pre-Adamites, who later mixed with the Adamites (One Blood), thereby eliminating the idea that incest was necessary to propagate humanity. I believe what made Adam and Eve special was that from them came the line that Jesus came through (line, not race. A the the time of mankind's creation, we were all one race-African: see www.reasons.org
Adam and Eve brought sin into the human world. Before the pre-Adamites intermarried with the Adamites, how sin "spread" from Adam and Eve?

King777 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:49 am a notion I'm cosidering is that were pre-Adamites, who later mixed with the Adamites (One Blood), thereby eliminating the idea that incest was necessary to propagate humanity. I believe what made Adam and Eve special was that from them came the line that Jesus came through (line, not race. A the the time of mankind's creation, we were all one race-African: see www.reasons.org

This is pretty close to my current position.

I think that Adam and Eve are the first of God's covenant people... the first to have relationship with God, to be spiritually 'alive', to be 'sons of God'.
Scripture then tracks the history of God's people, beginning with Adam and continuing through Noah, Abraham, Isaac and then Jacob, who became the father of God's covenant people Israel.
Out of Israel came the ultimate culmination of the line of Adam, Jesus Christ (the Messiah) the Son of God who would defeat sin and death and save his people from their sin.

I agree with the premise that the genetic progenitors of all mankind who God created in his image in Genesis 1:26-27 were African.

Adam and Eve brought sin into the human world. Before the pre-Adamites intermarried with the Adamites, how sin "spread" from Adam and Eve?

Here's the deal.
We don't know how sin spread from Adam and Eve to all mankind.
Scripture just doesn't tell us.

Many assume (well... Augustine assumed, and many have pretty much followed Augustine) that sin spread to all mankind through procreation. But Scripture never makes that claim.

If sin spread from Adam to all mankind through some process other than procreation, then there is no conflict at all between the concept of pre-Adamites and Romans 5:12.

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:53 am

King777 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:30 am I was not speaking of Moses. I never knew he believed in pre-adamites. As a matter of fact, I belive The Original Hebrew Israelites were Black. I was referring to the pre-adamism doctrine popularized by Europeans in recent centuries, the bullcorn that says only whites come from Adam, i.e. the so-called "Christian Identity Movement" ( )

I fully agree with your disdain for that nonsense.

Up until now, I never knew Moses had ANY Pre-Adamite theory. Whre does this info come from, if you please.

I think I mentioned the Scriptural basis for a legitimate pre-Adamite theory.
Just read Genesis 1 and 2 as a sequential narrative and it becomes obvious.
Mankind is created in Genesis 1:26-27.
The Biblical Adam first appears in Genesis 2:7.

If mankind was created before the time of Adam, then by definition the people created in Genesis 1:26-27 were pre-Adamites.

DBowling,

Maybe you could elaborate on man being created in God's image in Genesis 1:27, and how your belief that Genesis 1 is talking about pre-Adamite humanity.

In other words, what is "God's image" referring to in regards to pre-Adamites? Were they spiritual? Did they know right from wrong, or did that happen with the fall of Adam?

Also, DB, I think you should take all of the mentions in Scripture that MIGHT tie Adam and Eve to all mankind - like the naming of Eve noted Genesis 3:20: "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." As this statement would SEEM to mean that Eve was the mother of ALL living at the time Adam named her.

Ooh - just noticed the straight sixes of my posts total.

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:29 am Also, DB, I think you should take all of the mentions in Scripture that MIGHT tie Adam and Eve to all mankind - like the naming of Eve noted Genesis 3:20: "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." As this statement would SEEM to mean that Eve was the mother of ALL living at the time Adam named her.

Ooh - just noticed the straight sixes of my posts total.

Hey Phil, just an idea, you can preserve it like that if you never post again.

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:29 am Also, DB, I think you should take all of the mentions in Scripture that MIGHT tie Adam and Eve to all mankind - like the naming of Eve noted Genesis 3:20: "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." As this statement would SEEM to mean that Eve was the mother of ALL living at the time Adam named her.

Ooh - just noticed the straight sixes of my posts total.

From what I understand, the Hebrew word chay, which is translated as living, can be figurative.

Byblos wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:38 am

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:29 am Also, DB, I think you should take all of the mentions in Scripture that MIGHT tie Adam and Eve to all mankind - like the naming of Eve noted Genesis 3:20: "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." As this statement would SEEM to mean that Eve was the mother of ALL living at the time Adam named her.

Ooh - just noticed the straight sixes of my posts total.

Hey Phil, just an idea, you can preserve it like that if you never post again.

Or, I can ban him.

Hey, it's nice to feel so loved around here.

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:29 am Also, DB, I think you should take all of the mentions in Scripture that MIGHT tie Adam and Eve to all mankind - like the naming of Eve noted Genesis 3:20: "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." As this statement would SEEM to mean that Eve was the mother of ALL living at the time Adam named her.

Let me quote from my post above...
"I think that Adam and Eve are the first of God's covenant people... the first to have relationship with God, to be spiritually 'alive', to be 'sons of God'.

I think Genesis 3:20 is indicating that Adam and Eve were the first people to be spiritually 'alive'.
There are a number of people on this planet who are physically alive but are not spiritually alive.
And as the first people who were spiritually alive through relationship with God, everyone else who has become 'alive' through relationship with God can be considered to be the spiritual descendants of Adam and Eve.
That's what I think Genesis 3:20 is saying.

Since there were a number of different life forms that existed on earth before the time of Adam and Eve, Eve's name cannot mean that she was the genetic progenitor of all physical life on the planet.

However, if Adam and Eve were the first two people to have relationship with God and were the genetic progenitors of God's covenant people (and ultimately Jesus), then it is very appropriate to refer to Eve as the mother of all who have spiritual life.

I wonder, for those who show a fondness for a pre-Adamic race, isn't racism to some degree justified? It seems it would be hard to reconcile promises of God, indeed Christ, with those who belong to a non-Adamic race that had no fall nor covenant with God.

Excluded from the story in the beginning of sin, why ought they make an entry in the end (i.e., to be save from their sinful nature in which they do not share)? Indeed, I see no reason why there couldn't be some non-Adamic living today, and to such, they they don't partake in the same heritage we (presumably) share in first Adam, nor the second/final Adam (who is Christ).

DB: I think Genesis 3:20 is indicating that Adam and Eve were the first people to be spiritually 'alive'.
There are a number of people on this planet who are physically alive but are not spiritually alive.
And as the first people who were spiritually alive through relationship with God, everyone else who has become 'alive' through relationship with God can be considered to be the spiritual descendants of Adam and Eve.
That's what I think Genesis 3:20 is saying.

DB: However, if Adam and Eve were the first two people to have relationship with God and were the genetic progenitors of God's covenant people (and ultimately Jesus), then it is very appropriate to refer to Eve as the mother of all who have spiritual life.

I'm open to that interpretation, DB. And of course it would solve a lot of problems per the geologic and anthropologic records. But one has to read that into the text to get there - doesn't mean it wouldn't be accurate, but the text doesn't make this clear.

DB: Since there were a number of different life forms that existed on earth before the time of Adam and Eve, Eve's name cannot mean that she was the genetic progenitor of all physical life on the planet.

Well, of course Eve couldn't be the mother of worms, toads, or monkeys - her offspring are obviously all human.

K: I wonder, for those who show a fondness for a pre-Adamic race, isn't racism to some degree justified? It seems it would be hard to reconcile promises of God, indeed Christ, with those who belong to a non-Adamic race that had no fall nor covenant with God.

It depends upon, per the context being speculated upon, what one considers "race." Animals are all a kind of lifeform. Progressive creationists don't believe in a molecule to man scenario - as they believe animals were made separately, with later forms being newly created as older forms were allowed to die out. Can God not have likewise created humans in which they are not necessarily connected genetically? And out of all those heathen nations, God first gave His promises to those from Adam to Abraham, and far more specifically from Abraham onward. What does that mean about those that came before Abraham? What promises did THEY have? And all future things noted prior to Abraham would apply to ADAM'S line. So, I'm not sure what racism this would be. How might God have dealt with a pre-Adamic humans? It is possible that they were all evil, and thus God knew this would be the case and He placed them in time and history before Adam? Remember, God wiped out all of the known world (I think, in the region) as they were all part of evil humanity. So, it's no stretch that God didn't make promises to pre-Adamic men because God saw them irredeemably evil.

K: Excluded from the story in the beginning of sin, why ought they make an entry in the end (i.e., to be save from their sinful nature in which they do not share)? Indeed, I see no reason why there couldn't be some non-Adamic living today, and to such, they they don't partake in the same heritage we (presumably) share in first Adam, nor the second/final Adam (who is Christ).

And so that's the next logical thing to ponder. If these pre-Adamic men were not wiped out in a regional flood of Noah, then one could reasonably speculate that their line still exists. Nor could we know at what point, post-flood, they intermingled genetically / married, etc. And if a pre-Adamic line survives, I don't see why they can't be grafted into the Church of all believers everywhere - as long as they have faith in Christ.

Crap - messed up my straight 6s!

OK, here's my race car to keep it up for posterity!

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:57 am I wonder, for those who show a fondness for a pre-Adamic race, isn't racism to some degree justified?

Short answer... no.
As I mentioned above genetics tells us that all humans (independent of race) are all descendants of common ancestors in Africa.
So there is no justification for racism of any sort.

It seems it would be hard to reconcile promises of God, indeed Christ, with those who belong to a non-Adamic race that had no fall nor covenant with God.

I disagree...
All people have sinned and are affected by the sin of Adam... regardless of their genetic ancestry.
And Christ died to save all people... regardless of their genetic ancestry.

There is no Scriptural correlation between a person's genetic relationship to Adam and either their participation in the consequences of Adam's sin or their participation in the results of Christ's death and resurrection.

RickD wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:26 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:53 am

King777 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:30 am I was not speaking of Moses. I never knew he believed in pre-adamites. As a matter of fact, I belive The Original Hebrew Israelites were Black. I was referring to the pre-adamism doctrine popularized by Europeans in recent centuries, the bullcorn that says only whites come from Adam, i.e. the so-called "Christian Identity Movement" ( )

I fully agree with your disdain for that nonsense.

Up until now, I never knew Moses had ANY Pre-Adamite theory. Whre does this info come from, if you please.

I think I mentioned the Scriptural basis for a legitimate pre-Adamite theory.
Just read Genesis 1 and 2 as a sequential narrative and it becomes obvious.
Mankind is created in Genesis 1:26-27.
The Biblical Adam first appears in Genesis 2:7.

If mankind was created before the time of Adam, then by definition the people created in Genesis 1:26-27 were pre-Adamites.

DBowling,

Maybe you could elaborate on man being created in God's image in Genesis 1:27, and how your belief that Genesis 1 is talking about pre-Adamite humanity.

In other words, what is "God's image" referring to in regards to pre-Adamites? Were they spiritual? Did they know right from wrong, or did that happen with the fall of Adam?

Bump, in case you missed this Mr.

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:53 amI think I mentioned the Scriptural basis for a legitimate pre-Adamite theory.
Just read Genesis 1 and 2 as a sequential narrative and it becomes obvious.
Mankind is created in Genesis 1:26-27.
The Biblical Adam first appears in Genesis 2:7.

If mankind was created before the time of Adam, then by definition the people created in Genesis 1:26-27 were pre-Adamites.

So in your opinion was mankind in Genesis 1:26-27 created as fallen beings and so sinful, or were they created as Adam and Eve were, without sin?