Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:The problem with this (as is with Danny's scenario) is that it allows for the existence of people who are not fallen. If Adam and Eve had children before the fall then those children (and all of their descendants) are not affected by the fall.

Would it be wrong to clarify within this scenario that these "people who are not fallen" are simply like the angels? I mean, beings exist that are not fallen, would it be so far-fetched to think there might also be created humans in an unfallen state?

You can classify them as 'like angels' if you wish but they are still not subject to the fall and they are still human, capable of reproducing and creating descendants who themselves are 'like angels' and not fallen. All of a sudden we have an entire race of unfallens who require no savior.

Please elaborate because I think you're trying to say something here, but I'm missing it since to me there does exist at least one race that we're aware of that require no Savior. Help me understand why there being humans of this sort is an "all of a sudden..." moment.

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:But I would agree with your scenario if Adam and Eve had these children after the fall (which would make it the same as the classical view).

I suppose. One must ask then if Cain was the first murderer or if it was simply one of many of these situations that was used as the focal point for the example of right worship vs. wrong worship. Were there other murders between brothers that could have been retold in the Genesis account?

Again, I'm just thinking out loud.

One of many? Maybe, I don't know. But it certainly was the first. Scripture does not mention any other murder prior to that.

In continuation in this thought, would you say that there couldn't have been another since this is the only one Scripture speaks of? Not that God lies to us, but that the others didn't fit His point?
.
.

Please elaborate because I think you're trying to say something here, but I'm missing it since to me there does exist at least one race that we're aware of that require no Savior. Help me understand why there being humans of this sort is an "all of a sudden..." moment.

What do you mean by this? What are you saying this "one race" has to do with all people needing a savior. I'm interested.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:You can classify them as 'like angels' if you wish but they are still not subject to the fall and they are still human, capable of reproducing and creating descendants who themselves are 'like angels' and not fallen. All of a sudden we have an entire race of unfallens who require no savior.

Please elaborate because I think you're trying to say something here, but I'm missing it since to me there does exist at least one race that we're aware of that require no Savior. Help me understand why there being humans of this sort is an "all of a sudden..." moment.

Hmm, I didn't know you held to that view so I guess I will need you to elaborate on that first. Which race do you believe is not in need of a savior? If you're thinking of angels, I would say the plan of salvation was never offered to them. That's why Satan will never repent. And if there exists such a race (human that is), would you not see Christ's sacrifice as superfluous in that case? My view is that Adam was the original sinner and by descent, we are all sinners and in need of a savior.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:One of many? Maybe, I don't know. But it certainly was the first. Scripture does not mention any other murder prior to that.

In continuation in this thought, would you say that there couldn't have been another since this is the only one Scripture speaks of? Not that God lies to us, but that the others didn't fit His point?

No, what I can say is there could have been other murders but the text doesn't say. But if there were in fact others, Cain and Abel's would have been the first (or the only one in the absence of others).

Byblos wrote: The problem with this (as is with Danny's scenario) is that it allows for the existence of people who are not fallen. If Adam and Eve had children before the fall then those children (and all of their descendants) are not affected by the fall. But I would agree with your scenario if Adam and Eve had these children after the fall (which would make it the same as the classical view).

Byblos, I know we've been here before, but I still do not follow your thinking. How does an existent people at the time of the fall negate them becoming fallen? I'm not positing Eve and Adam having any other children, prior (or between) Cain and Abel, but I am certainly positing an existent creation, of whom Cain feared, met his wife and so on. I fail to see how Adam's fall would not affect everyone. I know Yahweh was a local, almost tribal God, but he was nonetheless the God of all creation. If God created the creation, then anything that happens within that creation, in this case the fall, affects the whole of creation. I see nothing to suggest otherwise...??

God bless

BavarianWheels wrote:.

- God creates or sets creation in motion. (I lean to the OEC and the big bang theory)
- Adam IS the first human created and Eve the first Woman and through them all humanity is decended.
- Adam and Eve do exactly as God endorses they do, procreate.
- They have many offspring, all of which are inconseqential to the story of Salvation. All have either kept their eyes on God to sustain their life or have chosen to rebel. If they are rebels and sin, they are thrown out of the Garden of eden. Those that have remained true remain with God. I'm speaking of Adam's offspring.

This can explain the people outside the Garden. They are humans that have sinned, and are simply living until they die...as is the wages of sin.

Where our story begins then is when Adam and Eve choose to sin. Up to this point all their children were perfect and not tainted with sin, yet able to choose between good and evil. So even though some of the children chose sin, the "factory", if you will, was still producing perfect and untainted offspring. The moment the "factory" sinned, the product is tainted and now ALL of humanity, the offspring of the Adam, is tainted as sinful.

Just thinking outloud.
.
.

Bav, let me get this right - are you saying that Eve and Adam had children beofre Cain/in-between Cain and Abel...?

DannyM wrote:Bav, let me get this right - are you saying that Eve and Adam had children beofre Cain/in-between Cain and Abel...?

Sure. The Scripture doesn't make the point that Cain was the very first child, nor is Abel the second to Cain. It is clear that Adam and Eve had other children, but not that ALL came after Cain.
If you have proof of this, share with me. Again, I'm just thinking out loud with this thought so I'm not trying to be dogmatic about it.
.
.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote: The problem with this (as is with Danny's scenario) is that it allows for the existence of people who are not fallen. If Adam and Eve had children before the fall then those children (and all of their descendants) are not affected by the fall. But I would agree with your scenario if Adam and Eve had these children after the fall (which would make it the same as the classical view).

Byblos, I know we've been here before, but I still do not follow your thinking. How does an existent people at the time of the fall negate them becoming fallen? I'm not positing Eve and Adam having any other children, prior (or between) Cain and Abel, but I am certainly positing an existent creation, of whom Cain feared, met his wife and so on. I fail to see how Adam's fall would not affect everyone. I know Yahweh was a local, almost tribal God, but he was nonetheless the God of all creation. If God created the creation, then anything that happens within that creation, in this case the fall, affects the whole of creation. I see nothing to suggest otherwise...??

God bless

In a word, heredity. If not, then by what means did sin propagate to people not from Adam's lineage? Why would Adam's fall affect those not related to him? Where is the fairness in that, to bare the consequence of mistakes of an unrelated race? Let me ask you this, if it were discovered that there is another planet somewhere out there with people exactly like us, would they also be subject to Adam's sin? According to your point of view they must be. What if that race is completely devoid of sin, incapable of committing it?

Byblos wrote: In a word, heredity. If not, then by what means did sin propagate to people not from Adam's lineage? Why would Adam's fall affect those not related to him? Where is the fairness in that, to bare the consequence of mistakes of an unrelated race? Let me ask you this, if it were discovered that there is another planet somewhere out there with people exactly like us, would they also be subject to Adam's sin? According to your point of view they must be. What if that race is completely devoid of sin, incapable of committing it?

You have just completely shot yourself in the foot. Where does "fair" come into it? Is it "fair" that we all bear the brunt for Adam's "sin"? What you are, I think, failing to realise is that we are imperfect, fallible beings right from the start. Adam's transgression was timely in that it showed us the way. The wisdom in the story of the fall must not be missed by us, Byblos. If you wish to bring up fairness then you need to double back on yourself quick time and reralise that, if you think it unfair for an additional race to be affected by the fall, then it is unfair for a child, grandchild, great-grandchild, great-great-grandchild, great-great-great-grandchild to have to burden Adam's disobedience. By separating this coexistent people from the Adamaic line, you are suggesting some exclusivity, and thus a fully local, fully tribal god, who cares not a jot for this existing people. The point is that EVERYONE is affected by Adam's transgression. There is nothing biblical, to my knowledge, that suggests otherwise.

God bless

BavarianWheels wrote:

DannyM wrote:Bav, let me get this right - are you saying that Eve and Adam had children beofre Cain/in-between Cain and Abel...?

Sure. The Scripture doesn't make the point that Cain was the very first child, nor is Abel the second to Cain. It is clear that Adam and Eve had other children, but not that ALL came after Cain.
If you have proof of this, share with me. Again, I'm just thinking out loud with this thought so I'm not trying to be dogmatic about it.
.
.

Bav,

Cool. For me the scripture is very clear: Cain is born to a joyous Eve. Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” This is very moving. It is also very obviously telling that Cain is the firstborn. If you wish to posit other children before Cain, then good luck, brother, you might be right. I for one cannot see this, and it is not good enough, for me, to say, well just because the bible doesn't tell us specifically that Cain is number1 child...The bible is telling us, by way of the fact that Cain is the first son mentioned, that Cain is indeed the first. But, if you think otherwise, I'd love to hear some more persuasive reasoning...

God bless

DannyM wrote:You have just completely shot yourself in the foot. Where does "fair" come into it? Is it "fair" that we all bear the brunt for Adam's "sin"? What you are, I think, failing to realise is that we are imperfect, fallible beings right from the start. Adam's transgression was timely in that it showed us the way. The wisdom in the story of the fall must not be missed by us, Byblos. If you wish to bring up fairness then you need to double back on yourself quick time and reralise that, if you think it unfair for an additional race to be affected by the fall, then it is unfair for a child, grandchild, great-grandchild, great-great-grandchild, great-great-great-grandchild to have to burden Adam's disobedience. By separating this coexistent people from the Adamaic line, you are suggesting some exclusivity, and thus a fully local, fully tribal god, who cares not a jot for this existing people. The point is that EVERYONE is affected by Adam's transgression. There is nothing biblical, to my knowledge, that suggests otherwise.

God bless

Nice speech Danny. But I was hoping for an answer for my questions.

DannyM wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

DannyM wrote:Bav, let me get this right - are you saying that Eve and Adam had children beofre Cain/in-between Cain and Abel...?

Sure. The Scripture doesn't make the point that Cain was the very first child, nor is Abel the second to Cain. It is clear that Adam and Eve had other children, but not that ALL came after Cain.
If you have proof of this, share with me. Again, I'm just thinking out loud with this thought so I'm not trying to be dogmatic about it.

Bav,

Cool. For me the scripture is very clear: Cain is born to a joyous Eve. Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” This is very moving. It is also very obviously telling that Cain is the firstborn. If you wish to posit other children before Cain, then good luck, brother, you might be right. I for one cannot see this, and it is not good enough, for me, to say, well just because the bible doesn't tell us specifically that Cain is number1 child...The bible is telling us, by way of the fact that Cain is the first son mentioned, that Cain is indeed the first. But, if you think otherwise, I'd love to hear some more persuasive reasoning...

God bless

Not necessarily some persuasive reasoning, just a couple of questions I'm wondering about.

If Cain was indeed THE first child, then who were the people that lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden? Were they all his younger brothers and sisters?
.
.

Why not? Can had to be over a hundred years old by the time he slew Abel. That's Adam and Eve to have had great grand kids. Plenty of time to move out.

Byblos wrote: Nice speech Danny. But I was hoping for an answer for my questions.

But Byblos, you have posed nothing for me to answer. You seem to be adjusting scripture to your preconceived theology; I am merely following the path of the scripture. You have no basis whatsoever for asserting that a coexistent people would not be affected by Adam's transgression; if God is the creator of the heavens and the earth, then every being falls under God's law. Until you can provide me with some scripture or reasoning for your contrary view then I really have nothing to answer.

God bless

BavarianWheels wrote: Not necessarily some persuasive reasoning, just a couple of questions I'm wondering about.

If Cain was indeed THE first child, then who were the people that lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden? Were they all his younger brothers and sisters?
.
.

I think it's more sensible to reason that this other, coexistent people had nothing to do with the Adamaic line. I was brought up to believe that we all came from Eve and Adam; this is simply an unscriptural assumption. Many people still hold on to this romantic notion. The whole narrative presupposes an existent society/peoples. The compiler/s did not think this serious enough an issue to clarify with an explanation; it simply wasn't that important. Nowhere does it state that Adam was the first created man.

1:27 And God created the human being (ha'adam) in his image (betsalmo), in the image of God (betselem 'elohim) he created him, male and female he created them.-
The hebrew word is 'adam, often translated as "man," to denote a member of the human species. Though the noun is male in gender, its meaning is sex neutral. The Hebrew word translated "image" is tselem

2:7 Then the Lord God formed (or fashioned: yatsar) man (or human being: 'adam) of the dust in the ground ('adamah) and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living creature.-
2:21-23 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man (or human being: 'adam), and he slept; and he took one of his ribs (tsela') and closed up the place instead with flesh. And the Lord God built the rib which he had taken from the man ('adam) into a woman ('ishah)...-
Yes, Eve and Adam are special, but they are not alone in the world; at some point, whether before, parrallel with, or after, there came another people. Cain did not sleep with a phantom sister; Cain did not fear phantom brothers. And this coexistent people HAD to have been affected by the fall, because to say otherwise is to completely undermine God's global authority.

God bless