Did All Humans Come From Adam & Eve?

[DBowling]

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.

The question isn't whether Scripture is right or wrong.
IMHO there is no question... it is Right!

The question at hand is whether the long standing tradition that all humanity is genetically descended from Adam and Eve is truly based on Scripture or whether it is built upon presuppositions that people have imposed on Scripture.
I agree that we should let Scripture speak for itself, and as Walton and Heiser both point out, when you strip away the presuppositions that people have imposed on Scripture for centuries we discover that Scripture never makes the claim that all humans were genetically descended from Adam and Eve.
And Walton and Heiser also both point out that the story of Cain provides evidence (maybe not 100% definitive evidence, but evidence nonetheless) that after he was banished from the land of his family, Cain encountered populations of humanity that were not descendents of Adam and Eve.

Walton and Heiser are both accomplished scholars, and both have a passion for the Scriptural text and a desire to understand what the Scriptural text really claims. They may be right, they may be wrong in their interpretations (I happen to believe they are right on this particular topic). But it is simply non-credible to assert that Walton and Heiser are "grasping to wedge massive ideas into seeming cracks"

In Christ

[DBowling]

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.

Nonsense alert!
I never said anything of the sort.
That is a strawman of epic proportions there!
There was no need for you to post that untrue rubbish.

God has always cared about all of humanity. God's goal for his covenant people has always been to bring all of humanity into relationship with God.
God is interested in restoring relationship with all the descendants of mankind (adam). And God's covenant people play a significant role in spreading the message of God to all humanity.

In Christ

[Kurieuo]

I've read Heiser's article you linked to DB. Interesting he touches on different challenges I raised here. He does attempt to be thorough, reflecting upon what would be some problem passages by the Apostle Paul. Is it a viable interpretation of Gen 1-2?

If we take Genesis 1-2 alone, ignoring Scripture and theological ideas outside, then perhaps. I'll deliberate on it, when I'm not on my phone and have more time. There are certain issues though in some things said, which help him to persuade the reader. One should understand this rhetoric, the techniques he uses, to help convince readers. I'll summarise them in a later post, so that once removed we will have his "naked" interpretation, without playing upon some "traditional" interpretation in order to pump up his.

Interestingly, as a side, do those sympathetic to Heiser's Gen 1-2 interpretation, not also see Calvinist undertones (I'm not saying Heiser is Calvinist)? That there is an "elect" race of people, the Adamic race. Such, fits kind of hand in glove to help resolve a Calvinist puzzle of who God's elect are, those in Adam. One need not try justify Paul's words where he states all being in Christ like all in Adam as Heiser appears to, one can just opt to say those not of Adam fall outside of God's intention for relationship and redemption thereof, that such do not form God's elect, unlike Adam who was elected, and unto who's people the Messiah would be born. Jesus is the Kinsmen Redeemer, and His kinsmen would be those of Adam.

[Kurieuo]

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.

Nonsense alert!
I never said anything of the sort.
That is a strawman of epic proportions there!
There was no need for you to post that untrue rubbish.

God has always cared about all of humanity. God's goal for his covenant people has always been to bring all of humanity into relationship with God.
God is interested in restoring relationship with all the descendants of mankind (adam). And God's covenant people play a significant role in spreading the message of God to all humanity.

It may have been unclear, but this is the part I intended to be according to you: Rather, according to you, it is simply to do with Israelites. That is, God's relations to humanity are to do with an Adamic lineage which is of significance to Israel.

Most of the remainder were logical consequences as I see of such thought.

[DBowling]

It may have been unclear, but this is the part I intended to be according to you: Rather, according to you, it is simply to do with Israelites. That is, God's relations to humanity are to do with an Adamic lineage which is of significance to Israel.

I had planned to 'tone down' my response just a tad this morning, but I see you already responded to my post.

Anyway... instead of "God's relations to humanity are to do with an Adamic lineage", My position is more like God's relationship with all humanity (adam) is established though the Adamic lineage... Beginning with the historical Adam and finding its climax in Jesus Christ, the last Adam.

That there is an "elect" race of people, the Adamic race. Such, fits kind of hand in glove to help resolve a Calvinist puzzle of who God's elect are, those in Adam.

Here is my perspective. Beginning with Adam, God did choose a specific race of people through which he reached out to all humanity regardless of race.
But when I think of God's elect, I don't even think of race. I think of God's elect as those who have been saved by grace through faith regardless of race. Personal relationship with God is not (and never has been) a function of genetics. It has always been "by grace through faith".
And when a person is saved by grace through faith then that person is grafted into God's covenant people... again regardless of race.

In Christ

[Philip]

K: If we take Genesis 1-2 alone, ignoring Scripture and theological ideas outside, then perhaps. I'll deliberate on it, when I'm not on my phone and have more time. There are certain issues though in some things said, which help him to persuade the reader. One should understand this rhetoric, the techniques he uses, to help convince readers. I'll summarise them in a later post, so that once removed we will have his "naked" interpretation, without playing upon some "traditional" interpretation in order to pump up his.

Heiser is big on exposing tradition versus Scriptural text as it is written. And, he does not, as Jac asserted, just chase oddball interpretations and controversial positions - in fact, he is on a mission to expose such, and prolifically has. I have to admit, when I began to think about it, his idea about the pre-Adamic people sure would fit some missing parts of a strange puzzle. But it's good to see that we (DB, K and I) are all on the same page of believing Scripture is God's word. That's absolutely key.

K: Interestingly, as a side, do those sympathetic to Heiser's Gen 1-2 interpretation, not also see Calvinist undertones (I'm not saying Heiser is Calvinist)? That there is an "elect" race of people, the Adamic race. Such, fits kind of hand in glove to help resolve a Calvinist puzzle of who God's elect are, those in Adam. One need not try justify Paul's words where he states all being in Christ like all in Adam as Heiser appears to, one can just opt to say those not of Adam fall outside of God's intention for relationship and redemption thereof, that such do not form God's elect, unlike Adam who was elected, and unto who's people the Messiah would be born. Jesus is the Kinsmen Redeemer, and His kinsmen would be those of Adam.

God chose in conjunction with His will AND His perfect foreknowledge. One cannot separate the two. He chose those who would receive Him through faith, and rejected all those who would forever remain in their rebellion and rejection of Him. He chose those receptive. But those receptive STILL and FIRST needs God to open our eyes to the truth. But He give ALL a basic understanding of His existence (Romans), but limits further illumination when people resist even what He has ALREADY shown them. They know enough to have a willingness to listen and receive God's initial truths, but they resist it. His drawing isn't forced, and so it is ineffective to those without a willing heart - but only one enabled by His enlightening and wooing. All COULD received His enlightening, but resist it - many, permanently so. So, God comes first to willing hearts and minds that will receive what He wants to show all - but all aren't receptive - meaning, He would have to force them to be willing to listen and obey what He WANTS to first show them. Again, people sat at the feet of Jesus and saw all manner of miraculous signs, but they hated Him. Jesus, commenting upon how even some believers, before faith, needed to see far more than others, as without experiencing the miraculous, they wouldn't have. All that to say, people don't ultimately have a knowledge barrier, they have a heart and mind barrier that resists all God wants to show them. And He respects their free will.

[Philip]

Back to the potential pre-Adamic people. Undoubtedly they sinned.

Paul harks back to the very beginning in Romans 1:

"19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived[/u], ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

So, God made it CLEAR to people, "ever since the creation of the world" - which would include all people ever to live on earth, both before (If they existed) and after Adam. Paul says God made these things "PLAIN" to them. So, why is He upset with people without His word? Because He informed them, if on a basic level of Who He was and of His existence, and they wanted nothing to do with Him, didn't "honor Him or give thanks for His provisions," and the "exchanged" the His glory for idols of their own making.

So, for whatever the truth of is, in regards to pre-Adamic people, they clearly sinned. Perhaps, God's chosen line, starting with Adam, were given a specific test. Also, the Garden's construction - but mostly God's presence, His gift of the Tree of Life, protected against whatever was in the world outside it - including any potential hostile, dangerous peoples. Adam was given a kind of law - an instruction of what not to do, which was a test of obedience and who they desired be their Lord - themselves, or God. But all outside of the Garden would not have been receiving God's laws or instructions, as they were all people who would forever resist God. Let's not forget, that as God created men, He is the one that chose their time and boundaries. So, it is possible that He put a large population of UNBELIEVING, heathen, pre-Adamic people in places outside of the Garden. And thus there was no reason to further pursue these as God would have known that those pre-Adamic would only further reject Him and whatever He might show them. So, just because those in Adam's line received an inherited sin nature, doesn't mean that those outside didn't also have a sinful nature of their own selfish and evil desires.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

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?

Acts 17:26. The KJV puts it as one blood while most others will say one man.

[DBowling]

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?

Acts 17:26. The KJV puts it as one blood while most others will say one man.

John Walton has a good discussion of Acts 17:26 is his book "The Lost World of Adam and Eve"

Here's the text

26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

I had to work through the implications of what Paul says here before I could settle on my current position on anthropology and human origins.

Here are a couple of points that jumped out at me from this text.
1. Paul is not talking about human origins in this verse. He is talking about the origins of nations (ethnos), geopolitical national identities, not the origins of humanity (anthropon).
2. Paul does not specifically identify the "one" from who the nations/ethnos came. Paul does not refer to Adam at all in this verse. In fact both Walton and Heiser believe that Paul is most likely referring to Noah and the relationship of the sons of Noah to the 70 known nations listed by Moses in Genesis 10.

However, as I have mentioned above, I do believe that all humanity can trace their genetic lineage to the humans who were created in Genesis 1:26-27. And there is genetic evidence that all humans today are genetically descended from a Y chromosome 'Adam' and mitochondrial 'Eve' who lived in Africa some 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

In Christ

[thatkidakayoungguy]

However, as I have mentioned above, I do believe that all humanity can trace their genetic lineage to the humans who were created in Genesis 1:26-27. And there is genetic evidence that all humans today are genetically descended from a Y chromosome 'Adam' and mitochondrial 'Eve' who lived in Africa some 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

In Christ

What do you think about Neanderthals and other human (hominid) groups like Homo Erectus? They seem fully human, they have culture etc, but were around long before 200,000 years ago.

[DBowling]

However, as I have mentioned above, I do believe that all humanity can trace their genetic lineage to the humans who were created in Genesis 1:26-27. And there is genetic evidence that all humans today are genetically descended from a Y chromosome 'Adam' and mitochondrial 'Eve' who lived in Africa some 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

In Christ

What do you think about Neanderthals and other human (hominid) groups like Homo Erectus? They seem fully human, they have culture etc, but were around long before 200,000 years ago.

I personally don't consider either Neanderthals or Homo Erectus to be 'human' in the Scriptural sense. They are different hominid species from physically modern humans (species homo sapiens sapiens). There is some question concerning whether or not Neanderthals and physically modern humans ever interbred, but even if humans and Neanderthals occasionally interbred, for me that does not necessarily mean that Neanderthals fall under the Scriptural definition of humanity. Both genetics and archeology appear to point to the appearance of physically modern humans (species homo sapiens sapiens) in Africa somewhere around 150,000 to 200,000 years so that is where I'm currently inclined to place the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Idk Neanderthals and many of the other Homo hominids (except maybe the Flories Hobbit, Homo Naledi, and Homo Habilis) seem to be fully human like us, but that's my opinion.

[Kurieuo]

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.

DB, are sure you can see you're not letting science guide what you find acceptable?

For what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with such, except that we be unaware to our own prejudices. I think Heisler is also kidding himself (and others) in this regard, in relation to his claimed "naked" interpretation as though his carry no prejudice vis-a-vis what he likes to call "traditional" views. Sure sounds good to proclaim one is free of "traditional" influences and reading Scripture nakedly, free from inject science, letting it speak for itself, but in practice there's nothing naked about it or any other interpretation. This is a mistake YECs often make when they accuse others of not reading Scripture plainly.

I'll talk more perhaps on prejudices in a future post, as it's too detailed a critique here and it runs off into deeper issues to do with how we as people gain knowledge in general. I will leave two quotes here of historical Scottish judge Francis Jeffrey which strike me as true:

• "There is nothing respecting which a man may be so long unconscious as of the extent and strength of his prejudices … Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known."

Elsewhere he writes some other words of wisdom which we should all take to heart:

• "Beware prejudices. They are like rats, and men's minds are like traps; prejudices get in easily, but it is doubtful if they ever get out."

So then, with your belief that mankind arose 200,000 years ago, I do not believe Heiser would allow you this. In his paper on Genesis 1-3 aligning with modern genome science, he makes passing reference to his other thoughts on Romans 5:12. I've read over them also.

Heiser notes the following in his third part on Roman 5:12:

• 3. What passed to all of humanity as a result of Adam’s sin was mortality / death. That is what the text says. This means that humanity lost immortality. It also means, going back to the Genesis story, that humans were driven from the presence of God in an ideal “heaven meets earth” environment. They were on their own. Left to their own, as non-divine mortals, the result is that all humans, born from that point on, were born into those conditions. If they are allowed to live a normal life span, this means that all humans will sin and incur guilt before God. No human “cannot not sin.” Sin would be universal and inevitable for all humans who get to live some measure of a lifespan where they can choose to rebel against God (i.e., sin).

In his "Naked Bible" position, he believes that Original Sin passed on death and mortality to all of the human race. It seems apparent, that one can't reason Scripture supports anything other than death entering into humanity when Adam sinned.

What is the logical outworking of this thought when applied to possible human genealogies existing prior to Adam and Eve? That is, let's accept as a given there existed separate human lineages apart from Adam and Eve, like say the man and woman of Genesis 1 which Heiser reasons came prior to Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. When did they die? Heiser interprets Scripture as saying sin and death came to all humanity when Adam sinned.

So then, this means if humanity existed 200,000 years ago, they must have lived a very long time if Adam didn't exist and sin until around 5,500BC. Approximately 192,000 years. Now, I don't know about you, but scientifically speaking, accepting this seems like too much a stretch.

It seems then that Romans 5:12, as we take Heiser to understand it, works against how some interpret him on Genesis 1-2. That is, if one posits these human genealogies outside of Adam and Eve lived much earlier. Interestingly, I don't see Heiser ever say that such genealogies existed much, much, earlier on. So then, Heiser doesn't contradict himself necessarily in what I've read of him on this issue. God still could have created other human lineages aside from Adam and Eve (according to Heiser's views), but they must have been created also at around the same time (unless we are to believe individuals lived for over a 100,000 years). For, it wasn't until Adam sinned, that death came upon all humanity.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

The other idea takes the timespan and says there were either gaps in the biblical genealogies or the years were different, somehow making them live longer. I kinda lean to this as it seems more likely for Adam and Eve to have lived way back in the ice ages or older.

[DBowling]

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.

DB, are sure you can see you're not letting science guide what you find acceptable?

As I said earlier, I believe that both Special Revelation and natural revelation are truth. Therefore, I am inclined to accept an interpretation of Special Revelation that is consistent with natural revelation, and an interpretation of natural revelation that is consistent with Special Revelation.

It seems then that Romans 5:12, as we take Heiser to understand it, works against how some interpret him on Genesis 1-2. That is, if one posits these human genealogies outside of Adam and Eve lived much earlier. Interestingly, I don't see Heiser ever say that such genealogies existed much, much, earlier on. So then, Heiser doesn't contradict himself necessarily in what I've read of him on this issue. God still could have created other human lineages aside from Adam and Eve (according to Heiser's views), but they must have been created also at around the same time (unless we are to believe individuals lived for over a 100,000 years). For, it wasn't until Adam sinned, that death came upon all humanity.

The part of Heiser's argument that I embrace is the Scriptural basis for the existence of humanity before and separate from the lineage of Adam.

Here's my take on Romans 5:12.
One of the implications of the story of the Fall (at least from my perspective) is that prior to the Fall humanity did not know good and evil. According to Genesis 4, after Adam and Eve disobeyed God then their "eyes were opened" and they came to understand "good and evil".

So when Romans 5:12 says that by one man sin entered the world, my understanding is that the Fall didn't just affect Adam and Eve, it affected all humanity, so that the eyes of all humanity were opened and all humanity came to understand "good and evil". And thus through the disobedience of Adam, sin entered the world of humanity.

Regarding the death mentioned in Romans 5:12, I think we have discussed that before. I do not believe the death mentioned in Romans 5:12 is a reference to physical death. I believe it is a reference to spiritual death.
Without repeating too much of our previous discussions. The necessity for a tree of life in the garden of Eden is one of multiple indicators in Scripture that man prior to the Fall was physically mortal, and the tree of life in the garden was put there as an antidote to mankind's inherent mortality. So if mankind was mortal prior to the Fall then the death that passed to all men due to the Fall was not physical death.
Also, according to Romans 5:12 the death that resulted from the Fall specifically affected humanity. This is consistent with 'spiritual death' since humans are the only creatures on the planet who experience spiritual death, as opposed to physical death which affects all living things and is not unique to humanity.

So from my perspective
Prior to the Fall, mankind did not "know good and evil"
Adam and Eve were the first two humans to enter into personal relationship with the One True God.
When Adam and Eve sinned against God...
- their eyes were opened
- they came to know good and evil
- sin entered the world
- spiritual death spread to all men

Thus the need for a Savior to redeem fallen humanity.

In Christ