Evidence for God from Science

There is a massive problem with the belief that Adam and Even were the first of ALL humans - per the many dated sites that FAR pre-date a 6,000 B.C.-era Adam and Eve!

Note this outtake quote from this article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations): "Within Africa, Homo sapiens dispersed around the time of its speciation, roughly 300,000 years ago.[note 1][3] The recent African origin paradigm suggests that the anatomically modern humans outside of Africa descend from a population of Homo sapiens migrating from East Africa roughly 70–50,000 years ago and spreading along the southern coast of Asia and to Oceania by about 50,000 years ago. Modern humans spread across Europe about 40,000 years ago."

So, how can it be that the dating of migrations of anatomically modern humans (Homo Sapiens) would be 44,000 to 64,000 years older than Adam and Eve - at least IF they were the first humans? K, are you asserting that the dating methodologies are THAT inaccurate?

Seems to me that many are uncomfortable if the Bible doesn't state some key things in a way that we today would write it (with modern scientific understandings, etc.). Also, they tend to glue passages together per pre-conceived traditions.

are you asserting that the dating methodologies are THAT inaccurate?

Yes why not, scientists have dated a star older than the universe...

Thanks DB, I do understand where you're coming from.

Phil, I'm asserting given current information something has to give. I'm open to all possibilities, including (1) the beliefs of author (i.e., Moses) behind compiling Genesis just didn't know better. It seems the simplest solution. Yet, (2) I don't know that there isn't a valid system of theology with pre-Adamic populations, for I've not looked much into it.

Re: (1), while one might maintain the divine author knew, if there is no intended meaning in human author then the doctrine of inerrancy actually crumbles. Single meaning (between human and divine authors) is important, as it avoids the subjective slippery slope of Scripture being anything you or I want it mean, and maintains, "no, there is a fixed meaning to be found in what the author actually intended."

Re: (2), by "system of theology", I mean something that doesn't just deal with nibbly bits in Genesis to try and suggest an opening exists for pre-Adamic populations with the story Cain finding a wife, etc... but also deals with deeper soteriological and even Christological issues surrounding Christ, and does so in a thorough way that is convincing and successful. For example, there are many comparisons between Adam and Christ in Scripture, so much wrapped up in Adam and our inheriting his broken nature which Jesus makes whole.

One might maintain "spiritually" in Adam, but I don't personally find that convincing, because Scripture embraces so much more (imo). The other way is to say, all living today are in fact descended from Adam. Possibly, we would have intermixed so much, that indeed we'd all today be related to "Adam". It all requires a whole rethinking about everything. I'm sure I'll eventually more deeply delve into matters, but those two options above are what I see on the table.

Re: 40,000+ years ago, I don't care much if homo sapiens were anatomically human that far back.

Look at the behaviour of humans and their apparent levels of intelligence and the like. It's only the last, what, 15-20k that human populations appear to have made a giant leap forward in consciousness as reflected in archaeology.

So then, if one places Adam and Eve is the Neolithic period, then one still needs to pair them with human populations more immediately prior.

Kurieuo wrote:
Re: (1), while one might maintain the divine author knew, if there is no intended meaning in human author then the doctrine of inerrancy actually crumbles. Single meaning (between human and divine authors) is important, as it avoids the subjective slippery slope of Scripture being anything you or I want it mean, and maintains, "no, there is a fixed meaning to be found in what the author actually intended."

What if the intended meaning was the line from Adam to Christ? And pre-adamic humans weren't mentioned because they're not relevant to the story?

The bible is focused on one line of humanity, in one specific area of the globe, because that's the area, and the human lineage that Christ came from.

Pre-adamic humans would be neither here nor there, and wouldn't affect the inerrancy of scripture.

There is much that human Bible authors wrote that they didn't fully comprehend. They didn't really understand what the Messiah would be like or do - and they had many misconceptions until afterward. And inerrancy has ONLY to do with God - that is, with God controlling and shaping the parameters and details of what He wanted in Scripture. He's left some levels of mystery for us, and things that won't be clear until a proper time. But Moses not fully comprehending all God had Him write - inerrancy has to do with the One Who inspired him, not Moses Himself (nor with any Bible writer).

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:14 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Re: (1), while one might maintain the divine author knew, if there is no intended meaning in human author then the doctrine of inerrancy actually crumbles. Single meaning (between human and divine authors) is important, as it avoids the subjective slippery slope of Scripture being anything you or I want it mean, and maintains, "no, there is a fixed meaning to be found in what the author actually intended."

What if the intended meaning was the line from Adam to Christ? And pre-adamic humans weren't mentioned because they're not relevant to the story?

The bible is focused on one line of humanity, in one specific area of the globe, because that's the area, and the human lineage that Christ came from.

Pre-adamic humans would be neither here nor there, and wouldn't affect the inerrancy of scripture.

The question then becomes are all today, since Christ really, in Adam?

Second to that, it might be poses whether God didn't care about these people who were "neither here nor there", yet potentially had the same intelligence as lets say us Adamites?

I've heard Heiser say that pre-Adamic ideas extend back to the 17th century or thereabouts. When Europeans discovered more of the world, different looking people and primitive cultures. They interpreted such as otherly. I don't know the truth of the matter, but such way of looking at it feels naive in understanding.

Similarly, belief in a pre-Adamic populations, there is an uncomfortable racism of sorts, like supreme race, Aryanism even. I just don't like such even if we must go back to the time of Adam and Eve for it to be had.

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:00 pm There is much that human Bible authors wrote that they didn't fully comprehend. They didn't really understand what the Messiah would be like or do - and they had many misconceptions until afterward. And inerrancy has ONLY to do with God - that is, with God controlling and shaping the parameters and details of what He wanted in Scripture. He's left some levels of mystery for us, and things that won't be clear until a proper time. But Moses not fully comprehending all God had Him write - inerrancy has to do with the One Who inspired him, not Moses Himself (nor with any Bible writer).

Do you think it is relevant at all what the human author intended? Obviously there is a line. Surely you don't think divine authorship a little like a genie who twists a wish maker's words to grant a wish that actually wasn't asked for?

Did God allow Moses to write one thing with a particular understanding, believing Adam and Eve were the beginning of humanity, while actually intending something else entirely? No, what was intended by the human author matters. Prophets may not have had full insight into the prophetic nature of their words, but nonetheless the meaning of the words without the extended insight remains nonetheless true.

The Chicago Statement endorsed both human and divine authorship in its statement on biblical inerrancy. Human authorship is very important even to views like Walton's and Heiser's who emphasise Ancient Near East context and understanding. They want to get into the shoes of the author and original audience. Such is very essential to objectively grounding the meaning of Scripture, and being able to perform the Historical-Grammatical method.

Again, it's not that the author always knows the full implications... however let's just say, if Moses while compiling and writing understood Adam and Eve to be the first of humanity, then there's no room for an extended insight to be had really that God intended something else and let Moses believe a lie. Consider however something like David's prophecy in Psalm 22, which is true in an immediate way, yet an extended deeper and prophetic meaning becomes also evident retrospective to Jesus' crucifixion.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:45 am Again, it's not that the author always knows the full implications... however let's just say, if Moses while compiling and writing understood Adam and Eve to be the first of humanity, then there's no room for an extended insight to be had really that God intended something else and let Moses believe a lie. Consider however something like David's prophecy in Psalm 22, which is true in an immediate way, yet an extended deeper and prophetic meaning becomes also evident retrospective to Jesus' crucifixion.

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?

DB: 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?

Because one has to ask why the very same dating techniques reveal far greater ages than 6,000 BC, of human activities and settlements way beyond the area of Eden (modern day Iraq)? That makes very little sense of things that CAN be measured. So, explain how that could be, if ALL humanity is less than 10,000 years old? As dating techniques work the same everywhere measured.

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:40 am

DB: 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?

Because one has to ask why the very same dating techniques reveal far greater ages than 6,000 BC, of human activities and settlements way beyond the area of Eden (modern day Iraq)? That makes very little sense of things that CAN be measured. So, explain how that could be, if ALL humanity is less than 10,000 years old? As dating techniques work the same everywhere measured.

DBowling is saying that because of what Moses wrote, (Genesis 1-2 sequence, mark of Cain, Cain's wife, land of Nod, city of Enoch) Moses did believe that humans lived before Adam.

Rick: DBowling is saying that because of what Moses wrote, (Genesis 1-2 sequence, mark of Cain, Cain's wife, land of Nod, city of Enoch) Moses did believe that humans lived before Adam.

Yes, I get that. But most Christians that assert Adam and Eve to be the first human are ignorant of the likely date (Biblically suggested) for Adam, as well as the widely and far-older suggested dates for anatomically modern humans that have been traced far outside of Ancient Mesopotamia. This is another issue similar to those suggesting ancient starlight merely LOOKS billions of years old.

Notice that, upon God saying, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," there is no reference to Adam and Eve - people read that into the text. Also curious, if this is just Adam and Eve, that he would tell them to "have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And then say, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” That's a rather strange thing to say to just two humans. The next sequence, chapter two, is all about the "land" - Eden, where God planted the garden. At least at this point, gluing the creation of man to the creations of Adam and Eve has to be read into the text.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:48 am

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 12:45 am Again, it's not that the author always knows the full implications... however let's just say, if Moses while compiling and writing understood Adam and Eve to be the first of humanity, then there's no room for an extended insight to be had really that God intended something else and let Moses believe a lie. Consider however something like David's prophecy in Psalm 22, which is true in an immediate way, yet an extended deeper and prophetic meaning becomes also evident retrospective to Jesus' crucifixion.

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?

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. You (DB, Philip, RickD?), may be already decided, but whether pre-Adamic race holds up in Scripture, is something to be seen for me. I can't help but feel I'd likely be trying to fit a square pegs into round holes when trying to reconcile it here and there.

The other option, if one can't fit such in Scripture and re-interpret certain well-established doctrines, is (2) simply lax the rules of Biblical inerrancy to something more like inspiration. Actually, the more I think of it, I don't believe this is enough -- for what isn't just dealing with physical truths, but spiritual truths. There is more at play than trying to fit pre-Adamic ideas in with the historical narrative of Genesis 1-6 or so.

So it really falls back to the first. That is, new doctrines i.e., a systematic theology, needs to be developed. Until it is, it's hard to judge whether or Pre-Adamites is acceptable and can be paired with Christianity. I expect a systematic theology will develop more and more, and if there is already much, I'm ignorant to it (which is why I asked for some good books earlier).

Some comments...

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 11:40 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:48 am 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.

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).

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