Adam’s rib

Bible Studies
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 629 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#61

Post by Kurieuo » Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:42 pm

DBowling wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:36 pm
Kurieuo wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:59 pm
I've not mentioned "genetic progenitor", although I can see why you jump to such being the case since many might take that view by all being in Adam, yet then none who are in Christ are genetically related to Him. So, I see it as irrelevant.
Amen...
That is one of the key points that I am trying to communicate.
Note, that condemnation is had for all men due to Adam's sin. This isn't just speaking of a physical death consequent (which we all inevitably will suffer). Rather condemnation is had from God's judgement of sin, which we believe and hope in Christ's promise that we will pass from such due to His act. Again, just like animals aren't condemned, neither would non-Adamic men be. Rather, it are those of Adam (whoever I'd say the "Adamic covenant" covers that you believe was had between God), who are condemned in Adam.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I believe the death that passed to all men in the day that Adam sinned and as a result of Adam's sin was a death that was immediate and unique to mankind... ie spiritual death.

I disagree with your assertion regarding non-Adamic men though...
All of mankind (whether descended from Adam or not) are image bearers of God.
All of mankind (whether descended from Adam or not) were affected by Adam's sin.
Animals are not condemned because they are not part of mankind.
Note, according to Paul, we are also made sinners by one man's disobedience v.19 (NOT, merely a lesser doctrine of something like: "all people have sinned, inherit a sinful nature, or will go onto sin, and so in this way are affected by Adam's sin." Rather, God sees us all collectively as sinners due to Adam's sin. This is something non-Adamic people couldn't participate in, no more than say a monkey, dolphin or some other animal.
This bears repeating...
All of mankind are sinners due to Adam's sin.
According to Romans 5:12 sin and death spread to all mankind.
As you mention above, this is true whether they are genetically related to Adam or not.

Non-Adamic people would also participate in Adam's sin due to the simple Scriptural fact that as a result of the Fall, sin and death spread to all mankind.
Monkeys and dolphins and other animals do not participate in Adam's sin because they are not part of mankind.
To use Philip's earlier words, I dunno DB. ;)

It feels to me like the pre-Adamic race position skips in and out as desired when something applies to "hominid-humans as a whole" or simply humans descended from Adam (or within an "Adamic covenant").

Truly, this position seems more of a stretch to me than The Gap. Perhaps it's just a fad in time, we'll see I suppose in the next 20-30 years where such thoughts go. Nonetheless, you are enamoured by it, and so I try to respect that. I'd be interested to hear your response on the following questions:

1) Would you say Moses was aware to humans existing who didn't come from Adam?

2) How are all races of mankind sinners due to Adam's sin?

3) It only makes sense to me to say we're under Adam, as Adam was the head of humanity that proceeded. If you're choosing a higher-level consciousness as the defining trait of one being "in Adam", then what is we found creatures elsewhere on Earth/aliens in the universe who are just as conscious, understanding concepts such as right and wrong, like us humans? According to your same logic, would such too in Adam and so able to inherit Christ's promise?

4) Finally, add into the equation that our level of consciousness didn't appear on the scene fully until, according to what is historically accepted, around 11-15k years ago (e.g., agriculture and burst of fuller human expression), that means the "humans" prior were rather primitive and while perhaps more expressive here and there than many other species.

So then, in scientific terms, are you saying that Cain could have bred with a less intelligent species within the homo genus, or sub-species of homo sapiens (e.g., homo sapiens neanderthalensis). Or, as we to understand pre-Adamic races as being same (i.e., homo sapiens sapiens) as us today?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1406
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 148 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#62

Post by DBowling » Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:22 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:42 pm
It feels to me like the pre-Adamic race position skips in and out as desired when something applies to "hominid-humans as a whole" or simply humans descended from Adam (or within an "Adamic covenant").
I can only speak to the position I am leaning towards and working through.

I think my position is pretty simple...
a. All mankind are descended from the image bearers that God created in Genesis 1:26-27.
I believe that genetics and anthropology limits the biblical definition of 'mankind' to biologically modern humans... species homo sapiens sapiens.

b. The descendants of Adam are God's chosen people through which God chose to reveal himself to all mankind and establish relationship with all mankind.
1) Would you say Moses was aware to humans existing who didn't come from Adam?
I believe the story of Cain indicates that Moses was aware at some level of the existence of humans who were not descendants of Adam and Eve.

I believe that Moses' primary interest was in the line of Adam from whom God's covenant people Israel descended.
2) How are all races of mankind sinners due to Adam's sin?
Romans 5:12 tells us
"12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"
Here Paul tells us that when Adam sinned, sin and death spread to all mankind... not just the descendants of one particular person.
3) It only makes sense to me to say we're under Adam, as Adam was the head of humanity that proceeded. If you're choosing a higher-level consciousness as the defining trait of one being "in Adam"
I think God chose Adam as a representative for all mankind (thus the name 'adam').
I do believe that Adam was the first person to have personal relationship with God. And as such was the first person to have 'spiritual life' which I defined earlier as the spirit of man in communion with the Spirit of God.
then what is we found creatures elsewhere on Earth/aliens in the universe who are just as conscious, understanding concepts such as right and wrong, like us humans? According to your same logic, would such too in Adam and so able to inherit Christ's promise?
I don't think so...
Adam was a representative of mankind who God created in his image, so Adam would not represent any creature or being who is not part of mankind.
4) Finally, add into the equation that our level of consciousness didn't appear on the scene fully until, according to what is historically accepted, around 11-15k years ago (e.g., agriculture and burst of fuller human expression), that means the "humans" prior were rather primitive and while perhaps more expressive here and there than many other species.

So then, in scientific terms, are you saying that Cain could have bred with a less intelligent species within the homo genus, or sub-species of homo sapiens (e.g., homo sapiens neanderthalensis). Or, as we to understand pre-Adamic races as being same (i.e., homo sapiens sapiens) as us today?
No...
Genesis 4, 5, and 11 place both Adam and Cain in Neolithic Mesopotamia sometime around 5000-6000 BC. At that time, all the other hominid species other than humans (species homo sapiens sapiens) were extinct.
And as I mention above, I believe that the image bearers who God created in Genesis 1:26-27 were species homo sapiens sapiens.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8199
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 381 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#63

Post by Philip » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:55 am

Clearly, if there were pre-Adamites, they would not have been mere non-human hominids.

Again, I believe very strongly that there are two very important revelations of testimony from God - that of Scripture and that of the Creation itself (and it's study that brings knowledge per it's testimony). And so we have a glaring problem of the geologic and anthropologic records showing civilizations far older than the supposed estimated times for Adam and the flood. Not to mention, these records revealing far older humanity, and of modern humans, have been found FAR outside of the ancient Mesopotamian region. So, either the dating of these finding are massively and collectively wrong, or the estimates for the time of Adam are far too recent, OR there were humans that existed prior to Adam's time. Is there some other option or hybrid theory?

What is the difference in saying Adam's sin spread to all people and asserting that we inherited ADAM'S sin? Or that we merely inherited Adam's sin NATURE? (I had thought DB accepted Mike Heiser's contentions of Romans 5:12?).
DB: All of mankind are sinners due to Adam's sin.
Note, Romans: 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

This is saying that spiritual death spread to all men because ALL (men) sinned - and not merely because of Adam's sin?

Also, the introductory words to Romans 5:12 - "just as" - can it not be read as meaning "in the very same MANNER as how Adam began to sin, that ALL likewise (in the same manner) began to sin? WHOSE sin is being applied to them? "ALL" (who sinned).

Romans 5:13: "... those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

In what way were the sins of others unlike the sin of Adam?

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1406
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 148 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#64

Post by DBowling » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:37 am

Philip wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:55 am
What is the difference in saying Adam's sin spread to all people and asserting that we inherited ADAM'S sin? Or that we merely inherited Adam's sin NATURE? (I had thought DB accepted Mike Heiser's contentions of Romans 5:12?).
Regarding Romans 5:12, I think 'spread' is more Scripturally accurate because 'spread' does not imply a mechanism.
The word inherit can potentially (but not necessarily) imply the mechanism of reproduction/procreation.

I would agree with Heiser that all of mankind shares Adam's sin nature, and like Heiser I do not believe that we are guilty of Adam's sin.

I believe that we are guilty of our own sin, and we sin because we share Adam's sin nature.
Romans 5:13: "... those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

In what way were the sins of others unlike the sin of Adam?
I think Scripture does distinguish between...
Sin due to ignorance
and
Sin due to disobedience/rebellion

And I believe that Adam was the first person to rebel against the revealed will of God.

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 366 times
Been liked: 25 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#65

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:37 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:22 pm
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:30 pm
Well why would God do that then?
Also, where does the early people who lived for a million years like H. erectus fit in? We see they died beforehand, how are they sinners if they lived eons before Adam*?
*most here think Adam was round few hundred thousand years ago sooo
What I highlighted in your words isn't true as far as I understand others' positions here. I certainly don't believe such.
Oh. It seems that way anyhow.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21080
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 193 times
Been liked: 1048 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#66

Post by RickD » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:59 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Truly, this position seems more of a stretch to me than The Gap.
K,

I really can't compare the two. If I can be blunt, I think the Gap Theory has no scientific evidence behind it. And the Gap Theory basically butchers scripture.

It may be my bias because I'm a progressive creationist, but I don't see that with DBowling's beliefs.

The more he explains it, the more I actually see what he's saying.

And while some have said that his pre-adamite beliefs imply racism, I just don't see the connection.

Whether we believe in pre-adamite humans or not, I think we all agree that there are those in the lineage of Christ, and those outside of it.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8199
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 381 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#67

Post by Philip » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:49 pm

To begin with, either the suggested dates for human settlements FAR outside of ancient Mesopotamia are wrong or the approximate date for Adam is. Or both are about right. ANY other option?

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 629 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#68

Post by Kurieuo » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:56 pm

Philip wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:49 pm
To begin with, either the suggested dates for human settlements FAR outside of ancient Mesopotamia are wrong or the approximate date for Adam is. Or both are about right. ANY other option?
ANY other option? Of course. Assume that gaps exist in the genealogies. There are also 10,000 YECs, and while DBowling has categorically decided for himself that humanity arose 6000 years ago, there is nonetheless as I see matter definitely credence here to accept gaps and extending the time back well before 6000 years.

I once accepted RTB's old position (40-50k years ago humanity arose), although today I think such was rather naive and trusting of me. While more recent would be better, I see it as reasonable, to think that 15-20k is close enough for human origins (especially is we more graciously allow for error margins in interpreting Scripture, geneologies, etc and error margins in scientific dates and our current knowledge of influential factors, etc).

AND to be clear, by human I mean the equivilent to us in both physiology, spirituality and intelligence.

So then, I see no need to revise and upset a whole lot of other links doctrines to do with convenants/promises, sin and death, our anthropology in light of Adam and Christ, and surely various other matters. The more one must reinterpret, and make things re-cohere, the more that it seems one is being motivated by some external reasons (not applicable to Scripture) which keeps them going as they cross an otherwise seemingly hard to fit passage.

This "upsetting other doctrines" was also a weakness if you will with Day-Age PC (and any other non-YEC interpretation). It was, for example, the main reason Jac went back to YEC. The doctrines being upset were seen as much too strong to be dropped (death through sin), and so such for Jac meant he must accept a young earth interpretation as the most plain and proper interpretation. And, there is a point there. Scripture presents a close bilateral relationship between sin and death -- which is one reason I delved into the topic deeply elsewhere in a manner I felt left no stone unturned.

In any case, yes, I do see other options than a pre-Adamic race.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 629 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#69

Post by Kurieuo » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:39 pm

RickD wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:59 pm
Kurieuo wrote:
Truly, this position seems more of a stretch to me than The Gap.
K,

I really can't compare the two. If I can be blunt, I think the Gap Theory has no scientific evidence behind it. And the Gap Theory basically butchers scripture.
What scientific evidence supports a pre-Adamic race that doesn't also fit in with the standard Day-Age Progressive Creation position? It is good to test and hold onto the good. Criticism and attack is good, especially when we can often get so excited and carried away with new ideas that we're unable to be properly skeptical of them.
RickD wrote:It may be my bias because I'm a progressive creationist, but I don't see that with DBowling's beliefs.
I'm unsure of your point? I'm a progressive creationist too. This isn't anything to do with progressive creation. Unless, you are saying you're more willing to listen to new ideas because you were once YEC and crossed that barrier to OEC? Listen, but also question and critique. Don't just be open or go by your feelings.

Any position ought to be heavily critiqued, especially something like a pre-Adamic race which would require re-interpreting not just Scripture, but doctrines that hinge upon humanity being headed by Adam and Eve. Even Heiser realises enouogh to know as to carefully word his espousal of the Genesis account in light of a pre-Adamic race as only a "suggested" reading. Heiser's espousal of sin and death for example, stands in contraction with his suggested pre-Adamic race understanding of Genesis.

It's not a matter of being open to / or feeling a position is might be acceptable, but rather making it cohere with everything else. The Gap Theory falls apart because it butchers Scripture, well, more reads into Scripture. Yet, pre-Adamic race idea falls apart (for me) unless it can glue together all other doctrines lost. But now, it is a highly suspicious piece of theology for that very reason. Not simply because it goes against traditional understandings, but that it must sift through all other doctrines to make them re-cohere.
RickD wrote:The more he explains it, the more I actually see what he's saying.

And while some have said that his pre-adamite beliefs imply racism, I just don't see the connection.
There are different versions of pre-Adamic race. DBowlings, now his clarification has sunk in with me, that he doesn't believe other "human-hominids" are apart of the pre-Adamic races represented by Adam, seems to be a rather mild. Whether or not DB can adequately explain just how then, non-Adamic people can partake in Adam's covenent (or any covenant), that is something that requires further reasoning for.
RickD wrote:Whether we believe in pre-adamite humans or not, I think we all agree that there are those in the lineage of Christ, and those outside of it.
Care must be taken with language used. Unless you have some verse in mind that isn't coming into my mind right now, noone is actually in "Christ's lineage". I feel this is just confusing "in Adam" with being a descendant thereof, and re-applying such thoughts in a wrong way to Christ.

Both DBowling and myself agree however that being "in Adam" doesn't need to be a descendant lineage thing, but could be an association in some other way. In the manner one is "in Adam" one can similarly be "in Christ", and this doesn't necessitate being a "descendant".

The main theological question, is whether someone outside of God's covenant made with a group, can just generally fall under such a covenant that they have no relation to, or which doesn't generally fall upon them. I see this nowhere in Israel's theology that convenants can generally apply to those outside of them. One can certainly "be grafted" into Israel under certain special circumstances, and thereby inherit God's covenant via Abraham, Israel, Moses, but no covenant ever just grows to include those outside of it in generally. A main reason perhaps why Jews don't care about prothletising to those outside of their own people, God's covenant doesn't apply to anyone else except them.

This is the main problem I see with any view that says Adam was the head of humanity, or "Adam" represents a nation of people or something such, where other people exist outside of Adam and Eve. For those outside the covenant, can't then be inheritors of a new. And therefore, it remains we have some today who might be of pure "pre-Adamic" lineage (like aliens from another planet) who just can't generally fall under God convenants, and as such can't partake of Christ's promise.

Is that making any sense? So then, a main stickler that needs to be unpacked, is where and how these pre-Adamic people fall under/get represented by Adam and Eve. If they're not apart of the Adamic covenant to begin with, then they can't be inheritors of any new covenant. As for Gentiles (who weren't apart of the covenant God made with Israel), we find Israel's very own prophets prophecying of a new covenant containing people who aren't just circumcised in the flesh but of the heart. It is explicit, and Paul's whole ministry surrounded reasoning such and how the new covenant is open to all.

On the other hand, how those outside of Adam and Eve are appropriated into convenants and promises (i.e., grafted in) is something that seems to me implicitly assumed in Pre-Adamic theology with some rather subjective license and liberty. It is done so in reinterpreting problematic verses, like in Corinthians and Romans 5 and some passages Phil presented to DB a few posts back.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8199
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 381 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#70

Post by Philip » Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:29 pm

K, how could sin have existed in the world before Adam sinned?

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 629 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#71

Post by Kurieuo » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:49 pm

Philip wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:29 pm
K, how could sin have existed in the world before Adam sinned?
Where does it say sin existed in the world before Adam and Eve?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1406
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 148 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#72

Post by DBowling » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:52 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:56 pm
Philip wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:49 pm
To begin with, either the suggested dates for human settlements FAR outside of ancient Mesopotamia are wrong or the approximate date for Adam is. Or both are about right. ANY other option?
ANY other option? Of course. Assume that gaps exist in the genealogies. There are also 10,000 YECs, and while DBowling has categorically decided for himself that humanity arose 6000 years ago, there is nonetheless as I see matter definitely credence here to accept gaps and extending the time back well before 6000 years.
DBowling hasn't categorically decided anything.
DBowling is working through the implications of what the Scriptural text actually says.
And DBowling is not willing to 'assume' genealogical gaps that are not allowed by the Scriptural narrative.

The problem with making an assumption about genealogical gaps is that in the specific cases of the Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 genealogies, Scripture does not support that assumption.

Let's just take Genesis 5:3-7 as an example.
3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh. 7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.
This short passage lists the genealogy from Adam to Enosh:
Adam to Seth...
...and then Seth to Enosh.

Genesis 5 tells us
How old Adam was when he became the father of Seth
How long Adam lived after he became the father of Seth
How old Seth was when he became the father of Enosh
How long Seth lived after he became the father Enosh.

Do you believe the narrative formula used in Genesis 5 allows for any possible genealogical gaps between Adam and Enosh?
If so...
Do you believe a possible gap exists between Adam and Seth?
Do you believe a possible gap exists between Seth and Enosh?

This same narrative formula is used throughout Genesis 5 to describe the genealogical record from Adam to Noah.
Please show from the text how the narrative formula used in Genesis 5 allows for the 'assumption' of inserting gaps anywhere in the genealogical record from Adam to Noah.

If you want to impose extraScriptural 'assumptions' upon the Scriptural text then you need to demonstrate at the very least how the Scriptural text allows for those extraScriptural assumptions.
So then, I see no need to revise and upset a whole lot of other links doctrines to do with convenants/promises, sin and death, our anthropology in light of Adam and Christ, and surely various other matters.
You have yet to demonstrate any Scriptural doctrines, covenants, or promises that are upset or need to be revised by my position.
But that is why I am opening my thoughts to public scrutiny here.
I want to make sure that any position that I embrace is in fact consistent with the larger Scriptural context.
So I do embrace continued scrutiny and discussion from brothers and sisters in Christ on this topic.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9921
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 629 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#73

Post by Kurieuo » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:58 pm

DBowling wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:52 pm
Kurieuo wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:56 pm
Philip wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:49 pm
To begin with, either the suggested dates for human settlements FAR outside of ancient Mesopotamia are wrong or the approximate date for Adam is. Or both are about right. ANY other option?
ANY other option? Of course. Assume that gaps exist in the genealogies. There are also 10,000 YECs, and while DBowling has categorically decided for himself that humanity arose 6000 years ago, there is nonetheless as I see matter definitely credence here to accept gaps and extending the time back well before 6000 years.
DBowling hasn't categorically decided anything.
DBowling is working through the implications of what the Scriptural text actually says.
And DBowling is not willing to 'assume' genealogical gaps that are not allowed by the Scriptural narrative.

The problem with making an assumption about genealogical gaps is that in the specific cases of the Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 genealogies, Scripture does not support that assumption.

Let's just take Genesis 5:3-7 as an example.
3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh. 7 Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.
This short passage lists the genealogy from Adam to Enosh:
Adam to Seth...
...and then Seth to Enosh.

Genesis 5 tells us
How old Adam was when he became the father of Seth
How long Adam lived after he became the father of Seth
How old Seth was when he became the father of Enosh
How long Seth lived after he became the father Enosh.

Do you believe the narrative formula used in Genesis 5 allows for any possible genealogical gaps between Adam and Enosh?
If so...
Do you believe a possible gap exists between Adam and Seth?
Do you believe a possible gap exists between Seth and Enosh?

This same narrative formula is used throughout Genesis 5 to describe the genealogical record from Adam to Noah.
Please show from the text how the narrative formula used in Genesis 5 allows for the 'assumption' of inserting gaps anywhere in the genealogical record from Adam to Noah.

If you want to impose extraScriptural 'assumptions' upon the Scriptural text then you need to demonstrate at the very least how the Scriptural text allows for those extraScriptural assumptions.
You seem quite decided, and have said numerous times, that Scripture can't sustain geneologies being pushed earlier than 6000 years ago. You also here again reason for such. As for other things, sure your not categorically decided, but you seem quite decided when it comes to Adam and Eve's existence.

Look, I have no quibble there, with whether you don't believe there is any room or not for geneologies. Fact is, many of us come from a Day-Age background, and are aware of the discussion and arguments surrounding such. Many of us do believe there is room and I don't want to get into the arguments for/against this particular point.

Phil asked what other possibility there is, and I just pointed to what came to mind given our common background with creation beliefs.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1406
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 148 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#74

Post by DBowling » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:10 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:39 pm
This is the main problem I see with any view that says Adam was the head of humanity, or "Adam" represents a nation of people or something such, where other people exist outside of Adam and Eve. For those outside the covenant, can't then be inheritors of a new.
I don't believe that any person exists outside of the 'Adamic covenant'.
As I mentioned earlier I believe that God chose Adam as a representative for all mankind. Scripture tells us that all of mankind is "in Adam".
Adam's name is even the same as the Hebrew word for mankind ('adam').

So I'm not sure where you're coming up with this premise of people existing outside of Adam and Eve.

It might help if you would list specific Scriptural references to describe your understanding of the 'Adamic covenant'. Because right now I don't see anything in my position that would in any way imply that anyone exists outside the Adamic covenant.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1406
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 148 times

Re: Adam’s rib

#75

Post by DBowling » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:26 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:58 pm
Look, I have no quibble there, with whether you don't believe there is any room or not for geneologies. Fact is, many of us come from a Day-Age background, and are aware of the discussion and arguments surrounding such. Many of us do believe there is room and I don't want to get into the arguments for/against this particular point.
Here's what I'm getting at...
You dismiss my position with the following assertion...
So then, I see no need to revise and upset a whole lot of other links doctrines to do with convenants/promises, sin and death, our anthropology in light of Adam and Christ, and surely various other matters.
Not only do I do nothing of the sort, but your position requires you to impose extraScriptural 'assumptions' on the text of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11.

If you are going to make those kinds of assertions about my position, then I think it very reasonable for you to defend the extraScriptural assumptions that you are making regarding the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies... especially since those assumed gaps or lack thereof are key components to your position and mine as well.

Post Reply