Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote: 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.

Nothing from Paul that you quoted above would necessitate Adam being created first and solely. It's quite possible that there was an individual within a population - even within a long pre-existing population - of humans whose lineage leads to all people living today. That wouldn't clash with Paul's saying that "from one man He has made all the nations".

Jac3510 wrote: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.

I don't see it that way.. So no the case isn't shut, it's just the way you are interpreting it. In fact in Genesis 1:26 it clearly states that G-d is making "mankind" in His image.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Jac3510 wrote: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.
.

So if G-d set the nation(s) with different boundaries that proves that it just didn't start with one nation and that all those nations aren't of the same human bloodline. Again it isn't case closed, it's open to interpretation. The Bible really doesn't say either way.. That is the point I'm trying to make.

PerciFlage wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: 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.

Nothing from Paul that you quoted above would necessitate Adam being created first and solely. It's quite possible that there was an individual within a population - even within a long pre-existing population - of humans whose lineage leads to all people living today. That wouldn't clash with Paul's saying that "from one man He has made all the nations".

Yup.. Good point. But I think that Adam would still be the first modern human created and was set in the Garden of Eden with Eve.

PerciFlage wrote: Nothing from Paul that [Jac] quoted above would necessitate Adam being created first and solely. It's quite possible that there was an individual within a population - even within a long pre-existing population - of humans whose lineage leads to all people living today. That wouldn't clash with Paul's saying that "from one man He has made all the nations".

Yes, it would clash by virtue of Paul having written Romans 5:12-21. Here is type and antitype: the first Adam by whom we all fell, the second Adam by whom all who believe may be justified. There was not an original Adam plus a race of quasi-humans running around any more than there was an original Christ plus quasi-Christs running around. If it were so the Bible would have recorded it.

I'm left wondering why some Christians so strongly need to invent a race of beings who were not there.

FL

PerciFlage wrote:Nothing from Paul that you quoted above would necessitate Adam being created first and solely. It's quite possible that there was an individual within a population - even within a long pre-existing population - of humans whose lineage leads to all people living today. That wouldn't clash with Paul's saying that "from one man He has made all the nations".

No it's not. Gen. 2:18 precludes this, as does Rom. 5:12-21, as FL pointed out.

Gman wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: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.

I don't see it that way.. So no the case isn't shut, it's just the way you are interpreting it. In fact in <a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Genesis 1.26" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Genesis%201.26">Genesis 1:26</a> it clearly states that G-d is making "mankind" in His image.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Jac3510 wrote: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.
.

So if G-d set the nation(s) with different boundaries that proves that it just didn't start with one nation and that all those nations aren't of the same human bloodline. Again it isn't case closed, it's open to interpretation. The Bible really doesn't say either way.. That is the point I'm trying to make.

God made the different nations from one blood, G, that is, from one bloodline, which is one person. If there were multiple people at the beginning, there would be multiple bloodlines. You're just contradicting Paul. So the Bible DOES say either way. It says that Adam was the first person and that there were no others. ALL people came from him. ALL people, G. ALL.

As to your interpretation of Gen. 1:26, "mankind" is just man. The Hebrew is, וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַֽעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ, the bold, italicized, underlined word being adam. There's no room here to suggest that God makes all kinds of people in Gen. 1:26 and later makes Adam in Gen. 2. You're suggesting two different creation accounts, which is absurd, foolish, and just another example of how ridiculous people get when they want to read their theology into the text.

I really can't believe you are still allowed to be a moderator here.

Gman wrote:

PerciFlage wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: 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.

Nothing from Paul that you quoted above would necessitate Adam being created first and solely. It's quite possible that there was an individual within a population - even within a long pre-existing population - of humans whose lineage leads to all people living today. That wouldn't clash with Paul's saying that "from one man He has made all the nations".

Yup.. Good point. But I think that Adam would still be the first modern human created and was set in the Garden of Eden with Eve.

No, it's not a good point. It contradicts the text.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I'm left wondering why some Christians so strongly need to invent a race of beings who were not there.

FL

To find a place to fit their preexisting theology into the text. It's the same reason people foolishly tried to insist that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and insert billions of years between them. People will get very creative with a text when they are embarrassed by it. Ask the Greeks.

Jac3510 wrote: God made the different nations from one blood, G, that is, from one bloodline, which is one person. If there were multiple people at the beginning, there would be multiple bloodlines. You're just contradicting Paul. So the Bible DOES say either way. It says that Adam was the first person and that there were no others. ALL people came from him. ALL people, G. ALL.

As to your interpretation of Gen. 1:26, "mankind" is just man. The Hebrew is, וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַֽעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ, the bold, italicized, underlined word being adam. There's no room here to suggest that God makes all kinds of people in Gen. 1:26 and later makes Adam in Gen. 2. You're suggesting two different creation accounts, which is absurd, foolish, and just another example of how ridiculous people get when they want to read their theology into the text.

Sure it can.. Again, you have not shown that G-d didn't just stop with Adam. The text means "mankind", Adam can also mean mankind as well which why it was translated that way. So you think that everywhere in the Bible where is says "Adam" that is means the literal Adam in the garden? Lookup the Strongs #120 definition for Adam and see how many times it comes up for mankind if you don't believe me.

Jac3510 wrote:I really can't believe you are still allowed to be a moderator here.

LOL.. When all else fails attack my moderator status.

Jac wrote: No, it's not a good point. It contradicts the text.

The text does not say that Adam was limited to one man. It may have started with one man, but it doesn't have to be one man.

Gman wrote:Sure it can.. Again, you have not shown that G-d didn't just stop with Adam. The text means "mankind", Adam can also mean mankind as well which why it was translated that way. So you think that everywhere in the Bible where is says "Adam" that is means the literal Adam in the garden? Lookup the Strongs #120 definition for Adam and see how many times it comes up for mankind if you don't believe me.

I don't need to look up Strong's. In the first place, I know what the word means. In the second place, when I want to do a word study, I'll use real scholarly sources, thank you. I would suggest you do the same, and when you do, show relevance. That the word can mean "mankind" has no bearing on the argument.

Anyway, I did show that God stopped with Adam. Because you don't believe the plain words of Scripture says more about you than it does anything about me.

LOL.. When all else fails attack my moderator status.

I'm not attacking your moderator status. I'm attacking how you continuously embarrass that status. Comments like these are just one example.

The text does not say that Adam was limited to one man. It may have started with one man, but it doesn't have to be one man.

Anyone who came after Adam was in Adam's bloodline unless we are talking about special creations of other men. If there were special creations of other men, then they would not be of the same blood as required in Acts 17.

You're just wrong, G. I know you won't admit it. But you are. Plainly, totally, and finally so. Your denial of it carries no more weight than those who insist on other absurd "biblical" positions like the Gap-Theory or the the denial of creation ex nihilo. That people are ridiculous enough to make such claims says nothing about anything except their own ridiculousness.

Now, perhaps the Bible is wrong. Perhaps it's really just a myth, a legend. But what is not possible is that the account paints a picture of more than one "adams." That's just outside the bounds of legitimate readings of the story.

Jac wrote:
I really can't believe you are still allowed to be a moderator here.

Jac, that was a low blow, and a cheap shot. If you can't refrain from personal attacks then maybe you need to step out of the conversation.

RickD wrote:Jac, that was a low blow, and a cheap shot. If you can't refrain from personal attacks then maybe you need to step out of the conversation.

I'm out!

Jac3510 wrote: I don't need to look up Strong's. In the first place, I know what the word means. In the second place, when I want to do a word study, I'll use real scholarly sources, thank you. I would suggest you do the same, and when you do, show relevance. That the word can mean "mankind" has no bearing on the argument.

Oh.. Yes ,sorry, I forgot that your scholarly resources are above the Strong's. My bad..

Jac3510 wrote:Anyway, I did show that God stopped with Adam. Because you don't believe the plain words of Scripture says more about you than it does anything about me.

No and I'm sorry to say that it doesn't and that G-d created "mankind" on the six day as predicted in the Bible. As I've stated before, the Bible is NOT clear that it stopped with Adam. It just doesn't. Now Adam's sin started with Adam and it spread out to all mankind, and that Adam could have been the first in the "mankind" creation order, but not the only creation order. The Bible is silent on it.

Jac3510 wrote:I'm not attacking your moderator status. I'm attacking how you continuously embarrass that status. Comments like these are just one example.

Yes.. More ad hominem attacks. Sorry to see you go that way..

Jac3510 wrote:Anyone who came after Adam was in Adam's bloodline unless we are talking about special creations of other men. If there were special creations of other men, then they would not be of the same blood as required in Acts 17.

You're just wrong, G. I know you won't admit it. But you are. Plainly, totally, and finally so. Your denial of it carries no more weight than those who insist on other absurd "biblical" positions like the Gap-Theory or the the denial of creation ex nihilo. That people are ridiculous enough to make such claims says nothing about anything except their own ridiculousness.

Again.. You don't have the "final" word on scripture no more than anyone else here. You can think it all you want but that won't change it for someone else.

Jac3510 wrote:Now, perhaps the Bible is wrong. Perhaps it's really just a myth, a legend. But what is not possible is that the account paints a picture of more than one "adams." That's just outside the bounds of legitimate readings of the story.

The Bible isn't wrong.. It never really makes the claim for a "one" Adam. You can throw all the theology in the world at it if you want it doesn't change the fact.. Again, it's really silent on the issue...

It think I'll bow out here too..

Shalom all..

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:...I'm left wondering why some Christians so strongly need to invent a race of beings who were not there.

FL

hmmm they are called babies - FL

There's a whole lot procreation going on somewhere tonight...

Think of all the future generations being invented...




-
-
-

I understand (but don't agree) that some here believe that there may have been a line of evolved men that are separate from the line of Adam. And I'm sure that some here believe that some of the known hominids were are part of the evolved lineage for modern man, but supposed evidence for that is highly suspect: http://www.reasons.org/articles/human-h ... liffhanger

Philip wrote:I understand (but don't agree) that some here believe that there may have been a line of evolved men that are separate from the line of Adam. And I'm sure that some here believe that some of the known hominids were are part of the evolved lineage for modern man, but supposed evidence for that is highly suspect: http://www.reasons.org/articles/human-h ... liffhanger

Hmmm...the problem Christians who believe in evolution have to face is God's clear statement that He created plants and animals after their kind, Ge 1:12, 21, 24 ...and so on. You really have to stuff the biblical text with fanciful notions to get evolution out of it. My mother used to stuff a Thanksgiving turkey. We kids really loved the stuffing but we were not stilly enough to think that the stuffing was part of the turkey.

FL