Adam and Eve

[Kurieuo]

K, I'm going very largely upon the physical evidences, as science doesn't produce results differently, just because the locations are different. Now, we gotta be careful in what some will attribute to "man" - as in, are these anatomically modern men or not some high-functioning hominids / archaic humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans) they are often speaking of? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... nd_culture

Phil, if we take Neanderthals (40-50k BC), personally I just feel there is less of a problem here. On the other hand, if we're talking homo sapiens sapiens (i.e., anatomically modern humans i.e., look just like us), immediately preceding and co-existing with a literal Adam and Eve couple (as per Gen 2), then I feel there is a larger problem.

My focus is more with recent <20k human origins. While I'm familiar with certain developments, I've not ever really examined it closely. If agriculture happened in the Neolithic, well now we're going back 8,000-10,000 years. Yet, we have human activity (humans like us) happening before this with hunter gatherers, true burials, and early human tools and villages. (Epipalaeolithic).

So then, if I'm to ask who were these additional non-Adamic populations are littered around the place according to pre-Adamic beliefs, they're indeed humans like us, just very early stages and likely not as developed technologically (as many in the Neolithic came to be with agriculture and the like).

This poses several Scriptural issues for me that need a lot of working through. Perhaps that's an understatement.

[Kurieuo]

Some comments...

The question for me is...
If Moses believed that other humans existed prior to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1-2 sequence, mark of Cain, Cain's wife, land of Nod, city of Enoch) then why shouldn't we just accept what Moses believed regarding pre-Adamic humanity?

Yes, fact is we really don't know what Moses believed, and so can only go by the writing. For someone who accepts (1) Adam and Eve are placed in Neolithic period, and (2) humans existed (immediately) prior or co-existed -- there are really two options.

That is again either to (1) develop a new system of understanding everything especially doctrines of a soteriological and christological nature (e.g., how does one fit in original sin), and in a way that is convincing. Even if one takes a nuanced version of original sin, whether you're talking Augustine, Aquinas or whatever, it really is thick the belief that all are in Adam. Why is that? And can Pre-Adamic believers overcome these reasons successfully?

At the moment, I don't buy into the premise of 'pre-adamic believers'.
The primary reason is found in Genesis 3.

When Adam and Eve sinned, Genesis 3 tells us two significant things happened:
1. Genesis 3:7 (Gen 3:5) - "the eyes of both of them were opened"
2. Genesis 3:22 (Gen 3:5) - "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil"

This indicates that prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve did not "know good and evil". And it took an act of illumination of some sort (their eyes were opened) for Adam and Eve to be able to "know good and evil".

And of course Romans 5:12 tells us that sin entered the world of mankind through Adam, which is consistent with the Genesis 3 premise that prior to the Fall, mankind did not know good and evil.

With "pre-Adamic believers" I was more meaning in the above instance those who theologically believe in pre/co-existing humans to Adam and Eve.

Nonetheless interesting points made. Would you believe when Adam and Eve sinned that they inherited a greater consciousness (i.e., such as understanding morality) which would have distinguished them from other humans in existence?

One defining aspect of Jesus (who was also human and yet extra-Adamic if you will) was that He was such by incarnation and not via generation from Adam and Eve who fell.

I believe that Luke 3 makes a specific point that Jesus was the culmination of the line of the "sons of God" that began with the first "son of God", Adam (Luke 3:38).

Lineages were important to the identifying the Jewish Messiah, but interesting point nonetheless.

Are you then saying that Jesus inherited Adam's broken human nature? A push back would be Luke is via Mary's lineage in Luke 3:38. Yet, we understand Joseph was Jesus' legal father, and so the incarnation resolves the issue of Jesus inheriting a fallen human nature.

What do you believe here?

[DBowling]

Some comments...

The question for me is...
If Moses believed that other humans existed prior to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1-2 sequence, mark of Cain, Cain's wife, land of Nod, city of Enoch) then why shouldn't we just accept what Moses believed regarding pre-Adamic humanity?

Yes, fact is we really don't know what Moses believed, and so can only go by the writing. For someone who accepts (1) Adam and Eve are placed in Neolithic period, and (2) humans existed (immediately) prior or co-existed -- there are really two options.

That is again either to (1) develop a new system of understanding everything especially doctrines of a soteriological and christological nature (e.g., how does one fit in original sin), and in a way that is convincing. Even if one takes a nuanced version of original sin, whether you're talking Augustine, Aquinas or whatever, it really is thick the belief that all are in Adam. Why is that? And can Pre-Adamic believers overcome these reasons successfully?

At the moment, I don't buy into the premise of 'pre-adamic believers'.
The primary reason is found in Genesis 3.

When Adam and Eve sinned, Genesis 3 tells us two significant things happened:
1. Genesis 3:7 (Gen 3:5) - "the eyes of both of them were opened"
2. Genesis 3:22 (Gen 3:5) - "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil"

This indicates that prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve did not "know good and evil". And it took an act of illumination of some sort (their eyes were opened) for Adam and Eve to be able to "know good and evil".

And of course Romans 5:12 tells us that sin entered the world of mankind through Adam, which is consistent with the Genesis 3 premise that prior to the Fall, mankind did not know good and evil.

With "pre-Adamic believers" I was more meaning in the above instance those who theologically believe in pre/co-existing humans to Adam and Eve.

Nonetheless interesting points made. Would you believe when Adam and Eve sinned that they inherited a greater consciousness (i.e., such as understanding morality) which would have distinguished them from other humans in existence?

I think it would be similar to (but not identical to) development in humans today.
When an infant is born he is an image bearer of God, he has an eternal soul, but he does not have a relationship with God, and he does not "know good from evil".
At some point in time that infant will develop to a point spiritually (I did not say intellectually, but there is probably some relationship between the two) where that person "knows good from evil" and is able to have a personal relationship with God.

So I would probably link the "knowledge of good and evil" and "having the law written in their hearts" (Romans 2:15) with the ability to have a personal relationship with God.

One other related note...
I do not think it is mere coincidence that the cradle of human civilization (Neolithic Mesopotamia) occurs at the same place and time as the Biblical Adam and Eve.

One defining aspect of Jesus (who was also human and yet extra-Adamic if you will) was that He was such by incarnation and not via generation from Adam and Eve who fell.

I believe that Luke 3 makes a specific point that Jesus was the culmination of the line of the "sons of God" that began with the first "son of God", Adam (Luke 3:38).

Lineages were important to the identifying the Jewish Messiah, but interesting point nonetheless.

Are you then saying that Jesus inherited Adam's broken human nature? A push back would be Luke is via Mary's lineage in Luke 3:38. Yet, we understand Joseph was Jesus' legal father, and so the incarnation resolves the issue of Jesus inheriting a fallen human nature.

What do you believe here?

I believe that Jesus inherited his 'human' nature from his mother Mary who was a physical descendant of Adam and Eve.
I believe that Jesus' Spirit was of Divine origin. Thus he was fully man and fully God. Since Jesus' Spirit was Divine, it was untainted by sin. However, since Jesus was also fully human he still had to deal with frailties, suffering, and temptations that humans regularly face.

[Kurieuo]

Thoughts on Genesis 3:20? "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

[DBowling]

Thoughts on Genesis 3:20? "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

I think there are at least two ways in which the name that Adam gave his wife are relevant:
1. As the the first woman to have relationship with God, Eve could be considered to be the "mother" of everyone who has received spiritual life through relationship with God.
2. God said that Eve's seed would crush the serpent's head. And it would be a physical descendent of Eve (Jesus Christ) who would finally conquer sin and death and provide eternal life to mankind.

[Kurieuo]

Those two reasons could be wrapped up in one prophetic meaning. I agree such is a deeper theological insight to be had, especially in reflection after Jesus. You woukd deny a more immediately understood meaning, or that Israel would have believed, Eve was more simply the mother of all human life?

To extend an olive branch to the pre-Adam position, I was thinking perhaps of Heiser''s suggestion where Gen 1 refers to humans generally, but Gen 2 God is establishing a couple out of fuller humanity. Such that Eve is the mother of all living who would follow ie the sons of God via Adam.

Provided one accepts Heiser's suggestion. I think you know from past discussions what I'm referring to here?

[DBowling]

Those two reasons could be wrapped up in one prophetic meaning. I agree such is a deeper theological insight to be had, especially in reflection after Jesus. You woukd deny a more immediately understood meaning, or that Israel would have believed, Eve was more simply the mother of all human life?

From an OT Israelite perspective I think that Adam and Eve would be considered to be the first in the line of God's covenant people, the first "sons of God", the first to "become living souls" (Gen 2:7, 1 Cor 15:45) which began with Adam, continued through Noah, Abraham, and Isaac and eventually led to the sons of Jacob (Israel).

Note... Eve does not mean mother of all 'human' life.

[UsagiTsukino]

I get why some people think Adam and Eve were the first humans since we know God created them. One question reminds, since sin enter though them doesn't that mean all other humans around Adam and Eve were innocent or sinned has they did.

[DBowling]

One question reminds, since sin enter though them doesn't that mean all other humans around Adam and Eve were innocent or sinned has they did.

We are guilty of sin because we sin. That is what Paul tells us in Romans 5:12 and Romans 3:23.
An infant is incapable of "sinning" because they do not yet know good and evil.

The infant will eventually mature to a point where the come to "know good and evil".
At that point any time they know to do good and don't do it, they are guilty of sin (James 4:17).

Sin entered the world of mankind through Adam because his "eyes were opened" "to know good and evil" and he disobeyed God and sinned.
Anyone whose eyes are opened to know good and evil and disobeys God or the law written in their heart is guilty of sin.

Does that answer your question?

[Blessed]

I've just finished reading the forgotten books of Adam and Eve the first and second books of Adam and Eve and allot of the sections had me tearing up. I'm very happy to have read this. In the books God mentions to Adam and Eve 5,500 years as a timeline. The books also allude to Jesus Christ.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/index.htm

In the end almost all the children of Seth (Adam and Eve), with constant plotting from Satan and his hosts, succumbed to sin and mixed with the offspring of Cain, and this set the state leading up to the flood. The ending was really, really sad. There were only 3 righteous people left that walked with God out of who knows how many generations.

The Catholic church assembled scriptures into books which make up the Bible as we know it today. I have the feeling politics and bankers were involved in this process. Therefore I see no reason why the books they excluded - which included excluding the books of Enoch and Jasher - cannot also be considered.

I've been reading these books, not taking them as gospel but in consideration they are. If they are true it offers a whole new look into the world of Adam and Eve and everything they suffered upon leaving Eden. God helped them constantly during this process. It was an amazing read.

[Philip]

Blessed, right off the bat, you should realize these books are of unknown / unproven origin, perhaps by an unknown Egyptian author, and written so far after the events they supposedly record, that they were roughly written SIX THOUSAND YEARS afterward (or a few hundred years before the birth of Christ). None of those writings can be corroborated. They were NOT written by any of God's established prophets or any apostle or associate of one. So there is good reason it is not considered to be in the Canon of Scripture. To associate its contents with ANY truthful reality would be an enormous mistake!

Consider this outtake, from Questions.org:

"In summary, the two-part Book of Adam and Eve is a fictional account of Adam and Eve after the fall. It is filled with fantastical stories, such as how the earth trembled when the blood of Abel touched it; and how Cain was unable to bury Abel because the grave kept spitting out the body (Book I, chapter LXXIX); and how Adam and Eve kept the body of Abel in their cave for seven years (Book II, chapter I). The Book of Adam and Eve also contains blatant contradictions of the Bible, claiming that both Cain and Abel brought sacrifices of blood and grain (Book I, chapters LXXVII and LXXVIII). Genesis 4:3–4 states that Cain brought a bloodless offering of “some of the fruits of the soil” and Abel brought “fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.”

I'd file it right there with the Book of Mormon, the Quran, and the Da Vinci Code - all deceptive nonsense that contradicts the Bible!

[Blessed]

Blessed, right off the bat, you should realize these books are of unknown / unproven origin, perhaps by an unknown Egyptian author, and written so far after the events they supposedly record, that they were roughly written SIX THOUSAND YEARS afterward (or a few hundred years before the birth of Christ). None of those writings can be corroborated. They were NOT written by any of God's established prophets or any apostle or associate of one. So there is good reason it is not considered to be in the Canon of Scripture. To associate it's contents with ANY truthful reality would be an enormous mistake!

Consider this outtake, from Questions.org:

"In summary, the two-part Book of Adam and Eve is a fictional account of Adam and Eve after the fall. It is filled with fantastical stories, such as how the earth trembled when the blood of Abel touched it; and how Cain was unable to bury Abel because the grave kept spitting out the body (Book I, chapter LXXIX); and how Adam and Eve kept the body of Abel in their cave for seven years (Book II, chapter I). The Book of Adam and Eve also contains blatant contradictions of the Bible, claiming that both Cain and Abel brought sacrifices of blood and grain (Book I, chapters LXXVII and LXXVIII). Genesis 4:3–4 states that Cain brought a bloodless offering of “some of the fruits of the soil” and Abel brought “fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.”

I'd file it right there with the Book of Mormon, the Quran, and the Da Vinci Code - all deceptive nonsense that contradicts the Bible!

Thanks for spoiling my party. I thought I found something good.

I don't see any contradictions with what you qouted.

Yes they kept the body of Adam and Eve in the cave too. Have you ever read it?

The original transcript was in Egyptian found around the time of Christ. It could've been written by Joseph.

[Blessed]

Philip did you you delete my post on the other thread?

[Philip]

I've not deleted anything.

[UsagiTsukino]

what about prehistoric times. Wouldn't there be any murders or is it just to dumb to question certain things?