Did All Humans Come From Adam & Eve?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9701
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 594 times
Been liked: 617 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#16

Post by Kurieuo » Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:20 am

DBowling wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
DBowling wrote:Example 1:
The chronological relationship of the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:26-27 to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 is the first Scriptural indicator. Read chronologically, humanity is created in Genesis 1:26-27 some time before the story of Adam and Eve takes place in Genesis 2-3. The narrative context of the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:26-27 is very different from the narrative context of Genesis 2-3, so there is no reason based on the text itself to presume that Genesis 2-3 is a recapitulation of the story of Genesis 1:26-27. However, the presumption that Adam and Eve are the genetic progenitors of all humans leads to the traditional premise that Genesis 2-3 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1:26-27.
The chronological narrative of Genesis 1-3 without this presumption clearly states that humanity was created before the events of Genesis 2-3 take place and therefore Adam and Eve cannot be the genetic progenitors of all humanity.
You'll have to explain, as I don't see it.
Simple sequence of events...
Based on the sequence of events described in Genesis 1-3
- Mankind is created by God in Genesis 1:26-27
- The story of Adam and Eve takes place in Genesis 2-3
Therefore if mankind is created sequentially before Adam and Eve then by definition Adam and Eve cannot be the genetic progenitors of all mankind.

The traditional rebuttal to this argument is that Genesis 2-3 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1:26-27. However that rebuttal is a presumption that is placed upon the text based on the assumption that Adam and Eve were the first humans and is not found within the text itself.
I sill don't see it, but will also listen to your Watson.

Just wanted to note, I did revise my post to smooth out some words. Also, in relation to the above, I extended my words: "You'll have to explain, as I don't see it. with the following:
Kurieuo wrote:You'll have to further explain, as I'm unclear on your points being made. That is, how such (Genesis 1:26-27 related to Genesis 2-3, different narrative [though I'd say same narrative, different focus]) indicates a lineage outside of Adam and Eve. Furthermore, other interpretations, for example RTB's popular Day-Age interpretation (which I thought you once were, unless I'm confusing you with others), do not say Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1. To also make an observation of my own, I see no real "human narrative" in Genesis 1, rather the creation of humans are an end part to a fuller creation narrative identifying Israel's God as the Lord and creator of everything. Genesis 2, at about Gen 2:5, then begins to set the scene as the focus "zooms in" on God's relationship with the man and women.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1103
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#17

Post by DBowling » Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:00 am

Kurieuo wrote:You'll have to further explain, as I'm unclear on your points being made. That is, how such (Genesis 1:26-27 related to Genesis 2-3, different narrative [though I'd say same narrative, different focus]) indicates a lineage outside of Adam and Eve.
Sure... And for this we go back again to sequence of events
I think its pretty clear that Genesis 1:26-27 refers to the creation of mankind - Let's say somewhere around 200,000 years ago in Africa.
Then if we look at Scripture (and Mesopotamian history) we can place the historical Adam in Mesopotamia somewhere around 5,500 BC. (Remember Cain's city?... the dates for the earliest known Mesopotamian cities are significant in identifying approximate dates for when Cain would have built his city... and BTW those dates are consistent with the Scriptural genealogical dates.)

So if the Genesis 1:26-27 creation of mankind (200,000 years ago)
sequentially took place some time before the appearance of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 (5,500 BC)
Then by definition there were other lines of humanity present on earth at the time of Adam and Eve.

Which would explain the presence of other human populations outside the land where Adam and Eve lived that Cain encountered when he was banished.
Furthermore, other interpretations, for example RTB's popular Day-Age interpretation (which I thought you once were, unless I'm confusing you with others), do not say Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1.
I do buy into the RTB Day-Age theory regarding the six days in Genesis 1.
However, I have departed from RTB regarding anthropology in general. And ironically, my dates for the historical Adam and the Flood allign somewhat with the Young-Earth dates (although I don't think Young-earthers would appreciate my views on the scope of the Flood and the relationship of Adam and Eve to the rest of humanity.) That is why I refer to myself as "Old Earth, Young Adam"
But I do embrace the general RTB Day-Age model for the six creation days in Genesis 1.

In Christ

Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 7083
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: 300 times
Been liked: 548 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#18

Post by Philip » Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:08 am

First thing, we can never assume that just because Scripture doesn't reference something, that it didn't happen or exist. And the very moment we say this is impossible - that unmentioned things don't exist / didn't happen, that would mean that we should totally discount powerful scientific evidences, merely because Scripture doesn't mention or flesh out certain things. You can't have it both ways.
K: Adam and Eve are said to have had other sons and daughters in addition to the three mentioned: Cain, Abel and Seth. In Genesis 4:25, Seth is said to be a replacement for Abel, but this doesn't mean they hadn't had many other sons and daughters before then in fulfilment of God's command to be fruitful and increase (Gen 1:28).

K: Many times the men are said to be over 100 years before begetting a son, but I sincerely doubt they didn't have any children before such an age. It's just that Noah's ancestral line is being followed.
Which also may be the case for humanity, as per the Genesis texts, what is being followed is God's line, from Adam, continued anew thought Noah. Has DB said, that ARE some hints that there could have been other humanity. But this is not the focus. A strict reading of the text does not mandate that Genesis 2-3 is taking up where Genesis 1 left off. Note the separation of where the Garden was - in the East, somewhere in Eden - this is a new focus, location and scene - events beginning to play out in the Garden. Adam is created, not in the Garden, but is placed in it. Just as a movie pans a vast overhead shot of a city, with the next scene taking place in a specific house within that city, the text makes that entirely possible.

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

This clearly addresses mankind, and is not only a directive to Adam and Eve. So, if the line of previously created humanity had done so, the earth would have been massively populated long before Adam. Now, enter evidences of populations of ancient man - found far out of Mesopotamia, and far older than traditional projected dates for Adam - based upon even skipping large gaps in the Scriptural genealogies. Either those dates of these many places are unbelievably inaccurate, OR Adam and Eve existed FAR earlier than supposed.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1103
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#19

Post by DBowling » Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:54 am

Philip wrote: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

This clearly addresses mankind, and is not only a directive to Adam and Eve. So, if the line of previously created humanity had done so, the earth would have been massively populated long before Adam.
That is precisely what I believe happened. I believe that mankind had in fact populated the planet over ten thousand years before the time of Adam and Eve.

(ie God's task to mankind in Genesis 1:28 to "fill the earth" was completed before the events of Genesis 2-3 took place.)
Now, enter evidences of populations of ancient man - found far out of Mesopotamia, and far older than traditional projected dates for Adam - based upon even skipping large gaps in the Scriptural genealogies. Either those dates of these many places are unbelievably inaccurate, OR Adam and Eve existed FAR earlier than supposed.
or...
there is a significant chronological gap between Genesis 1:26-27 and the time of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 during which mankind carries out God's directive in Genesis 1:28 to "fill the earth".

Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 7083
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: 300 times
Been liked: 548 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#20

Post by Philip » Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:06 am

DB: or... there is a significant chronological gap between Genesis 1:26-27 and the time of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 during which mankind carries out God's directive in Genesis 1:28 to "fill the earth".
Same thing - but, yes. It is a very fascinating thing to ponder. I do believe that various hominids were high-functioning primates that weren't actually men. That shouldn't be surprising. There are very human-like qualities of existing primates.

But this is the point where I believe many go off the path of truth. And that is, they have a fixed belief about the creation of man and his origins. BTW, I don't believe any potential earlier man (before Adam) evolved - as I most definitely believe in progressive creationism, with a fixed range of what could "evolve" within a specie (as in, cats can't eventually produce dogs, given enough time, etc.). The big mistake is, to become convinced that we have glued together the scientific evidences so accurately that we discount that Scripture, as written, can't be true. That's a huge and dangerous mistake. But many doing so point to a literal reading of the Creation account readings to dismiss that the text could possibly be true - so, they have more faith in the accuracy of what can be scientifically understood, than they do that God gave His word, protected it (and would find it important enough to do so AND had the capability of doing so), and that Christ confirmed it as His word.

The assumption is often that scientific evidence contradicts the Scriptures. I have just come to a place in knowing the ramifications for questioning whether the Scripture - particularly the New Testament affirmations of the OT and the words of the Apostles and Jesus - are very dangerous. And so, I don't need to know exactly HOW the text is true, to believe it is. Thing is, if we read the text wrong, that false interpretation can easily contradict what we accurately know scientifically. Get the science wrong, it can certainly give us false impressions as to the truth of the text. Get them both wrong, and all manner of misleading conclusions can be drawn.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9701
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 594 times
Been liked: 617 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#21

Post by Kurieuo » Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:49 pm

Philip wrote:First thing, we can never assume that just because Scripture doesn't reference something, that it didn't happen or exist. And the very moment we say this is impossible - that unmentioned things don't exist / didn't happen, that would mean that we should totally discount powerful scientific evidences, merely because Scripture doesn't mention or flesh out certain things. You can't have it both ways.
Now, I never said we should discount beliefs as untrue if Scripture doesn't reference it. Rather, I've argued Scripture doesn't support such ideas (modern human lineages existing outside of Adam and Eve). Such an idea isn't going to be gotten to by "interpreting" Scripture alone. Indeed the opposite will be reached, which is why many have believed Adam and Eve to be the first parents of humanity, until I guess now in relatively recent times. Hebrew language, very much has it all man (adam) and women (adamah) being of Adam.

A peripheral reading of Biologos articles, it seems they also understand there are ramifications to sin and salvation. Something they discuss a little on their site, which was raised in a book, Surprised by Scripture by NT Wright. Now as I see matters, it is better to posit something like Biologos does, that we had anatomically similar humans prior to Adam and Eve, and God took Adam and Eve took and imparted His image into them which represents some kind of higher sentience. This at least still fits the overarching consistent narrative that runs through all books of the Bible, the story of how humanity fell, and kept falling, turning against Him, but God was able to nonetheless reconcile humanity to Himself. At least with this, the complete human story can still be told in Scripture, of humanity's fall, our broken nature, which is then able to finally be reinstated with Christ.

I so strongly disagree with the idea that when Scripture is silent, should we be entitled to read whatever ideas and opinions we like. Really? I think not. Perhaps you didn't think fully through your statement. I know you reject Gap Theory, but that would be back in the running along with a host of other doctrines that have no sound basis is Scripture which could be allowable. But, Gap theology has better allusions, even with all the eisegesis it too performs.

There are boundaries in Scripture when it comes to "interpreting" and methods that can be employed. Being methodological in interpreting, using hermeneutics, helps to ensure there is some objectivity rather than it being made into a dog's breakfast. With such, we then have some interpretations more greatly supported, and others that have quite weak support. It's why we can say with some surety JWs are wrong in regards to spiritual matters regarding Trinitarian doctrine and Jesus' nature. I'm saying what DB is advocating, Scripture is silent on, and if anything, any allusions are simply being seen due to a lens that is coloured with acceptance of certain extra-biblical ideas. Flat earth finds better support in Scripture so far as I currently see, than all humanity not being descended from an Adam and Eve.

To read into Scripture and apply ideas into it where there is silence is called exegesis, which isn't an interpretation of Scripture at all. It doesn't mean what is being read into, isn't true in and of itself, it just means that such isn't supported in the text of Scripture. Further, no science has been discussed at all really here so no need to discount "powerful scientific evidence" -- this issue has been solely with what Scripture says and I dare say many non-Christians would readily be surprised to learn that Scripture actually doesn't say Adam and Eve were the first humans.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 351 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#22

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Fri Apr 14, 2017 1:50 pm

Somewhere I think in Romans Paul says out of one blood all humanity came. So somehow all humans came from Adam and Eve, not of separate branches unless you include possibly the nephilim or antichrist/false prophet.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1103
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#23

Post by DBowling » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:22 pm

Kurieuo wrote:I'm saying what DB is advocating, Scripture is silent on, and if anything, any allusions are simply being seen due to a lens that is coloured with acceptance of certain extra-biblical ideas.
The ironic thing is your assertion that Cain was married prior to being banished is precisely the kind of eisegesis (I believe that was what you meant to accuse me of) that you claimed I was employing. Your assertion is neither directly stated or implied by the text, and yet you accuse me of misunderstanding the text because I reject the extrascriptural presupposition that you are imposing on the text.

I think corroboration by John Walton and Michael Heiser is evidence enough that (whether you agree with it or not) my position is grounded in legitimate Scriptural exegesis.

In Christ
Last edited by DBowling on Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1103
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#24

Post by DBowling » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:35 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Somewhere I think in Romans Paul says out of one blood all humanity came.
I can't think of anywhere that Paul says that. Can you please give me a reference?

I personally have no problem with the premise that there is a mitochondrial 'Eve' and Y Chromosome 'Adam' which all humanity can tie their genetic origins back to.
However, I believe Mitochondrial 'Eve' and Y Chromosome 'Adam' lived in Africa some 150,000 to 200,000 years ago while the historical Scriptural Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia somewhere between 6,000 and 5,000 BC.

In Christ

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4540
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 159 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#25

Post by abelcainsbrother » Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:39 pm

I know many will disagree but I still say the Gap Theory is the better interpretation that allows man-like creatures before Adam and Eve but does not go against the rest of scripture.You see I think you have problems scripturally if you have man-like creatures before Sdam and eve and despite what you say you ate being influenced by evolution.I'm not I have a pre-Adamite race of beings in the former world that have nothing to do with this world at all.And it is a prediction that confirms this biblical interpretation whivch is supposed to be important to science. If the Gap Theory interpretation is correct, there were man-like creatures who lived in the former wotrld that Lucifer ruled over until he rebelled ahgainst God but since that former world perished completely we can have man-like creatures before Adam and Eve and not go against the rest of scripture.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4540
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 159 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#26

Post by abelcainsbrother » Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:39 pm

I know many will disagree but I still say the Gap Theory is the better interpretation that allows man-like creatures before Adam and Eve but does not go against the rest of scripture.You see I think you have problems scripturally if you have man-like creatures before Adam and Eve and despite what you say you are being influenced by evolution.I'm not and I have a pre-Adamite race of beings in the former world that have nothing to do with this world at all.And it is a prediction that confirms this biblical interpretation which is supposed to be important to science,this is one reason this interpretation became so popular in the church in the 1800's as science made discoveries of an old earth and fossils that confirmed it.It remained very popular too up until about the 1970's. I still say it is just as true now as it was back then,but because evolution became so popular and has influenced science so much people are influenced by it. If the Gap Theory interpretation is correct, there were man-like creatures who lived in the former world that Lucifer ruled over until he rebelled against God but since that former world perished completely we can have man-like creatures before Adam and Eve and not go against the rest of scripture.

And based on other scripture that shows the limited amount of life Satan can produce like when Moses was dealing with Pharoah it is possible that in Lucifer's rebellion God allowed Satan to make a fool of himself by allowing him to try to create his own life but he failed and could only create certian kinds of life unlike God and Lucifer was made to look like a fool before all of the angels when God restored the heavens and earth in the six days and made this world we live in now. Satan learned how to produce certian kinds of life somehow but he is limited.Remember he produced a serpent too when Moses threw his rod down and it became a Serpent too,but he was limited to only cold blooded creatures.He learned it somehow.Remember he wanted to be the most high even over God and he very well could have tried to be,but failed.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9701
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 594 times
Been liked: 617 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#27

Post by Kurieuo » Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:31 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Somewhere I think in Romans Paul says out of one blood all humanity came. So somehow all humans came from Adam and Eve, not of separate branches unless you include possibly the nephilim or antichrist/false prophet.
Yes, I mentioned them earlier: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p222936

1 Cor 15:22 and Rom 5:12-21
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9701
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 594 times
Been liked: 617 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#28

Post by Kurieuo » Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:07 pm

DBowling wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:I'm saying what DB is advocating, Scripture is silent on, and if anything, any allusions are simply being seen due to a lens that is coloured with acceptance of certain extra-biblical ideas.
The ironic thing is your assertion that Cain was married prior to being banished is precisely the kind of eisegesis (I believe that was what you meant to accuse me of) that you claimed I was employing. Your assertion is neither directly stated or implied by the text, and yet you accuse me of misunderstanding the text because I reject the extrascriptural presupposition that you are imposing on the text.

I think corroboration by John Walton and Michael Heiser is evidence enough that (whether you agree with it or not) my position is grounded in legitimate Scriptural exegesis.

In Christ
Not quite, because I doubt he waited 120 years or whatever it was to take a wife. If you read me carefully though, I still leave open that he found a wife in the area of Nod. There's just no numbers issue surrounding human populations if one does the math working off 130 years, which is when Seth was born as a replacement for Abel. So the issue being perceived as an indicator of other human lineages aside from Adam and Eve really isn't an indicator at all.

That said, even if I were more adamant here that Cain already had a wife, such an interpretation doesn't have to upturn a main narrative carried through Scripture, that the Bible isn't really an accounting of human origins, of our relationship to all righteous God and how He would redeem humanity from their sin. Rather, according to you, it is simply to do with Israelites, the rest of humanity who aren't in Adam, therefore can't be in Christ because they contextually fall outside this Adamic covenant you're identifying. God really only cares about restoring descendants of Adam - adam and adamah.

This doesn't mean what you and your sources say about there being lineages before and aside from Adam and Eve isn't true, it's just means treating Scripture, whether it's wrong or right here, honestly and letting it speak rather than grasping to wedge massive ideas into seeming cracks.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 7083
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: 300 times
Been liked: 548 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#29

Post by Philip » Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:28 pm

K: I so strongly disagree with the idea that when Scripture is silent, should we be entitled to read whatever ideas and opinions we like. Really? I think not. Perhaps you didn't think fully through your statement
No, Scott, you're over-thinking my meaning. Of course you can't just invent things that Scripture doesn't allow for, or that it contradicts. And arguments from silence are very speculative - UNLESS there is other, non-Scriptural evidence (gathered by science, etc.) that opens a door of possibility. Heiser is constantly harps on the meanings of the texts, words, context, and the meanings of ancient languages, particularly early Hebrew, later Hebrew and Greek, and others. These are his specialty. He believes MAYBE the text supports pre-Adamic people, but not necessarily. But a plain reading doesn't absolutely mean Genesis 2 and 3 necessarily pick up right where Genesis 1 leaves off - that's reading such a meaning per tradition. Just like the issues around the meaning of the word "day" as a literal 24-hour one. But he emphasizes it creates key questions and lacks certainty.
These users liked this post by Philip:
Kurieuo (Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:25 pm)

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1103
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 97 times

Re: Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

#30

Post by DBowling » Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:41 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Somewhere I think in Romans Paul says out of one blood all humanity came. So somehow all humans came from Adam and Eve, not of separate branches unless you include possibly the nephilim or antichrist/false prophet.
Yes, I mentioned them earlier: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p222936

1 Cor 15:22 and Rom 5:12-21
The problem is...
Neither of those passages says anything close to "out of one blood all humanity came". And neither of those passages claim that all humans came from Adam and Eve.

Those assertions are just not in the Scriptural text.

In Christ

Post Reply