Adam and Eve

[UsagiTsukino]

IS Adam and Eve modern humans are no humans before Adam and Eve

[Gman]

IS Adam and Eve modern humans are no humans before Adam and Eve

The Bible doesn't exactly address this. It is possible that Adam and Eve were the first beings in the Garden of Eden while others were also created throughout the earth. It's not exactly clear, but we do know that Adam and Eve's actions brought sin and spiritual death to the world. Jerusalem being the center of the earth of creation for mankind and all nations..

[Jac3510]

IS Adam and Eve modern humans are no humans before Adam and Eve

Contra G, the Bible does address this directly. There were no other modern humans before Adam and none created alongside of Adam--not, anyway, if we are to take the text at face value and if it is real history (which we should do).

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Gen. 2:18)
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth (Acts 17:26)

[PerciFlage]

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (<a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Gen. 2.18" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Gen.%202.18">Gen. 2:18</a>)
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth (<a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Acts 17.26" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Acts%2017.26">Acts 17:26</a>)

Based on your reading, is it not possible that Adam was alone in the Garden, but not in the whole world, and that even though there may have been other humans elsewhere, Adam's genes and those of his offspring managed to get into all nations (c.f. how Ghenkis Khan's genes are believed to be present in a very large proportion of peoples throughout Europe and Asia)?

[Jac3510]

No.

Khan's genes may be presentin a very large propotion of people throughout Eurpose, but he is not present in all peoples throughout Asia. Paul says that all nations (not mostly all) were made from one man.

Paul's argument is doubly important, for even those who reject the inspiration of the text should be able to see the historical value of Paul's statement. If nothing else, it bears witness to the way a first century highly educated Jew read the text. You can't read Paul and think that he could have seen entire populations of non-Adamic humans. And it's easy to see why. A straightforward reading of the text does not say "there were no other people," but it's the clear implication. It's the story of how everything came to be, including humanity.

So, again, the answer is no, such a reading is not possible. And whenever people suggest it--and some do, because there are Christians who are desparate to reconcile Scripture with science, so they just read their science into Scripture--I just roll my eyes at the silliness of the claim.

[RickD]

IS Adam and Eve modern humans are no humans before Adam and Eve

Usagi,

There is a wide range of beliefs among believers on this subject. Some Christians believe Adam and Eve were the first historical humans. Other Christians believe Adam was the first of a specific race of humans. In other words, among Christians, you're not going to get the same answer to your question. It depends on who you ask.

[Jac3510]

IS Adam and Eve modern humans are no humans before Adam and Eve

Usagi,

There is a wide range of beliefs among believers on this subject. Some Christians believe Adam and Eve were the first historical humans. Other Christians believe Adam was the first of a specific race of humans. In other words, among Christians, you're not going to get the same answer to your question. It depends on who you ask.

There are also Christians who believe in evolution, Christians who believe that God wants them to be filthy rich, Christians who believe that the Bible is not the Word of God, Christians who believe that there are other ways to heaven other than Jesus, Christians who believe that the Kingdom of God is already here right now, Christians who believe that we are still under the Law, Christians who believe taht we ought not receive medical help, and on and on.

The question is not, "Are there Christians that hold this view?" The question is, "On what basis do we affirm or deny that this position is biblically warranted?"

Those Christians who believe that there were other humans don't get their views from Scripture. They are wrong, and they attempt to find space for their preexisting beliefs in the little cracks of Scriptural ambiguity they think they find.

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
There are also Christians who believe in evolution, Christians who believe that God wants them to be filthy rich, Christians who believe that the Bible is not the Word of God, Christians who believe that there are other ways to heaven other than Jesus, Christians who believe that the Kingdom of God is already here right now, Christians who believe that we are still under the Law, Christians who believe taht we ought not receive medical help, and on and on.

The question is not, "Are there Christians that hold this view?" The question is, "On what basis do we affirm or deny that this position is biblically warranted?"

Jac, you do realize which forum this question was posted in, don't you?

God and Science
Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.

So, UsagiTsukino probably wanted perspectives from believers who try to reconcile science and scripture. And from what you said here:

Jac wrote:
Now, I could go on, but it doesn't matter, because I emphasize: I am not a scientist (in the modern, restricted sense of the word). I can say that what I've seen in those areas has been presented in such a way that I find it persuasive, but I am not the least bit qualified to argue on these matters. My training is in language, theology, history, and philosophy. I do consider myself qualified to disagree with experts in those fields.

So can I reconcile the Bible with science? Again, no. Nor do I try. It isn't my field...

maybe you are not the person the OP intended this question for.

Those Christians who believe that there were other humans don't get their views from Scripture. They are wrong, and they attempt to find space for their preexisting beliefs in the little cracks of Scriptural ambiguity they think they find.

While I agree with you that Adam was the first human, I could show you plenty of Theistic Evolutionists that have no problem with believing in pre-existing humans, that didn't come from Adam and Eve. And since this is a non-salvation issue, they are free to reconcile their Theistic Evolution beliefs with scripture. And of course, you are free to call them "wrong". But again, you are addressing the question in the "God and Science" forum. So, falling back on "So can I reconcile the Bible with science? Again, no. Nor do I try. It isn't my field", really won't give you much of an argument in this forum.

[Jac3510]

I expect better from you, Rick. The question was whether there were other people before ADAM. Pray tell, where do we get our information about ADAM? The question is a theological one. Science has nothing to say on the matter. Science can argue about the date of the first humans. It can tell us whether or not there was a single population or multiple populations. It can tell us where the first populations likely came from and migrated from. But the question of whether there were people before Adam is a biblical one which presupposes a biblical answer.

From a biblical perspective, there is absolutely no warrant to any claim that there were human beings before Adam. Biblically speaking, Adam was the first human being, the human being from which all other human beings came. Ask scientists when the first humans arose. Ask them where they came from. But don't tell me that the question of humans before the first human is a scientific question, and don't tell me that because I'm not a historical anthropologist that I don't have a place in answering a biblical question with a biblical answer.

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
I expect better from you, Rick.

And there's your first mistake. You'd be better off not expecting a whole lot from me, that way you won't be so disappointed when my answers fail to impress you.

The question was whether there were other people before ADAM. Pray tell, where do we get our information about ADAM? The question is a theological one. Science has nothing to say on the matter.

No, the exact question was:

IS Adam and Eve modern humans are no humans before Adam and Eve

See what I underlined? This also brings other things into consideration. If pre-existing hominids were modern humans. If Adam was the first homo sapien sapien. These are scientific questions.

Science can argue about the date of the first humans. It can tell us whether or not there was a single population or multiple populations. It can tell us where the first populations likely came from and migrated from. But the question of whether there were people before Adam is a biblical one which presupposes a biblical answer.

Again, going off of the OP where Usagi specifically mentioned "modern humans", science, specifically anthropology, does have a place in the discussion.

From a biblical perspective, there is absolutely no warrant to any claim that there were human beings before Adam. Biblically speaking, Adam was the first human being, the human being from which all other human beings came.

Jac, while I agree with your belief that Adam was the first human being, I disagree that "there is absolutely no warrant to any claim that there were human beings before Adam". Some believe there is a reason to claim Adam wasn't the first created human being. See this link for an example of an explanation.

If there was "no warrant", then all would agree that there were no humans before Adam. And since all don't agree, then there's your warrant.

[Gman]

The question was whether there were other people before ADAM.

Ah.. Not exactly. G-d certainly could have created other people "after" Adam in the garden in other locations too. We simply don't know and the Bible is not clear on it. Either way, it doesn't interfere with Genesis 2:18 or Acts 17:26 etc.. Adam and Eve's sin still effects them all.

[Jac3510]

Rick, I realize that "modern human" introduces a scientific aspect. But the "before Adam" part limits this to a biblical question. As far as the Bible is concerned, Adam was the first human and the father of all humans. Science cannot say anything to contradict that, anymore than it could say anything to contradict creation ex nihilo.

As to warrant, the fact that people disagree doesn't mean that there is warrant. There are people who think that Jesus is not God and that salvation is by works. That doesn't grant a person warrant to make that claim.

G, Acts 17:26 certainly does interfere with the idea of people being made after Adam. Whether or not Adam's sin effected other created humans, it remains true that Paul says that God made from one man every nation. That means that all nations--ALL nations--trace their ancestry back to Adam. Obviously, there are Christians who deny that biblical fact, but there are Christians who deny every biblical fact out there. The question, as I said to Rick, is whether or not they have warrant to deny that. In this case, they do not. The text is clear.

There were no modern humans before Adam. He was the first and is the father of all modern humans, so the Bible says.

[Gman]

G, Acts 17:26 certainly does interfere with the idea of people being made after Adam. Whether or not Adam's sin effected other created humans, it remains true that Paul says that God made from one man every nation. That means that all nations--ALL nations--trace their ancestry back to Adam. Obviously, there are Christians who deny that biblical fact, but there are Christians who deny every biblical fact out there. The question, as I said to Rick, is whether or not they have warrant to deny that. In this case, they do not. The text is clear.

There were no modern humans before Adam. He was the first and is the father of all modern humans, so the Bible says.

Not so fast.. Look how the KJV or YLT put's it. And still you could have Adam as the first being created with the others following in his bloodline. Adam being the prototype or model for the rest of mankind. On top of that, the rest of the verse talks about that he hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. So he is clearly setting boundaries for the rest of the nations. Notice the verse doesn't say bound, but bound(s) plural.

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; - KJV

Acts 17:26 26 He made also of one blood every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth -- having ordained times before appointed, and the bounds of their dwellings --YLT

Again, you could be right too. The point however is saying that these verses you share dip it into undisputed theological concrete. Sorry but it doesn't.

[PerciFlage]

As far as the Bible is concerned, Adam was the first human and the father of all humans. Science cannot say anything to contradict that

Science could say that the concept of a first human is meaningless, that although every living person can trace their ancestry back through one or more lineages to a most recent common ancestor, that that ancestor was not necessarily human itself, and that there are multiple different individuals - both male and female - who are common ancestors of everyone alive today.

[Jac3510]

G,

"One blood" doesn't change the strength of the argument. The only way for people to be in Adam's bloodline is to be his descendants. If there were multiple "first" modern humans, then there would not be ONE blood from which all nations came.

The plurality of 'bounds' has no bearing on the discussion either. So different nations have different boundaries. So what? So God foreordained their boundaries? So what? The fact is, they all came from the same blood, from one blood. To say that there were non-Adamic humans is to deny what Paul says here.

It's very plain. There is no more getting around this than there is getting around creation ex nihilo. The case is open and shut. Sorry, but it is.

Perci,

Then science is saying there is no Adam. In that case, the whole question is a moot point. There were no modern humans before Adam because there was no Adam. This is what I told Rick. The question is NOT a science question, but a biblical question. It presumes the historicity of the Genesis narrative. If that narrative is false, then the question is just meaningless.