When Did Adam Live?

[DBowling]

I don't think anybody is asserting that there were other men and populations outside the flood zone.

Oh... Phillip's right on that one... that's exactly what I'm asserting.

Here's what I'm asserting/exploring in this thread:
Anthropology and history tell us that mankind had populated the planet by 20,000 BC.
The Biblical record indicates that Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia somewhere around 6,000 BC, which is over 10,000 years after mankind had populated the planet.
It is extraScriptural tradition and not Scripture itself that claims that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all humans.
Noah's Flood occurred somewhere around 3,000 BC, which is over 15,000 years after mankind had populated the planet.
The Biblical record and the historical record concur that the 'flood zone' (nice term ) was the land of Mesopotamia and not the whole globe.
The target of Noah's Flood were God's chosen people (the descendants of Adam) who had rebelled against God and the sinful culture that they had been corrupted by.
It is extraScriptural tradition and not Scripture itself that claims that all humanity was destroyed by the Flood.

There are a lot of different views being expressed by the posters in this thread, so I thought it would be helpful to summarize and clarify the perspective of the OP.

In Christ.

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
The Biblical record indicates that Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia somewhere around 6,000 BC, which is over 10,000 years after mankind had populated the planet.

That's not true. An interpretation of scripture, arrived at by a literal and concrete interpretation of genealogies, shows they lived around 6,000 BC.

It is extraScriptural tradition and not Scripture itself that claims that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all humans.

No it's not extra biblical. You took your interpretation of scripture, and your interpretation of the age of modern humans, and they don't match up. So, you then conclude that it's extra biblical.

Noah's Flood occurred somewhere around 3,000 BC, which is over 15,000 years after mankind had populated the planet.

Again, your belief based on an interpretation.

Some say Noah's flood occurred much earlier:

These three beliefs have led Ross to suggest that Noah’s flood transpired around 50,000 years ago. Assuming the flood did wipe out all of humanity and was geographically limited, then it had to have occurred prior to the spread of human migration into Europe, Asia, Australia, and North America. Ross’ lead article (“Research Studies Shed Light on the Garden and the Flood”) summarizes one researcher’s hypothesis that a recently discovered civilization lies in what is now the Persian Gulf. Ross sees this as possible evidence for his flood model.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/biblica ... lood-model

The target of Noah's Flood were God's chosen people (the descendants of Adam) who had rebelled against God and the sinful culture that they had been corrupted by.
It is extraScriptural tradition and not Scripture itself that claims that all humanity was destroyed by the Flood.

Again, your interpretation. The belief that all humanity lived in the region of he flood, therefore all was destroyed(except Noah and his family) is arrived at from scripture. It's not extra biblical.

[DBowling]

DBowling wrote:
The Biblical record indicates that Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia somewhere around 6,000 BC, which is over 10,000 years after mankind had populated the planet.

That's not true. An interpretation of scripture, arrived at by a literal and concrete interpretation of genealogies, shows they lived around 6,000 BC.

I would agree 100% with your statement above

It is extraScriptural tradition and not Scripture itself that claims that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all humans.

No it's not extra biblical. You took your interpretation of scripture, and your interpretation of the age of modern humans, and they don't match up. So, you then conclude that it's extra biblical.

I have yet to see any Scripture that states that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all humans. (I'm familiar with the usual suspects and I believe I have responded to them in this thread... I was raised and educated YEC before I realized that Scripture just doesn't make many of the claims that the YEC tradition does.)
If such a Scripture does not exist then by definition that tradition is extraScriptural.

It is fair to say that my position is also extraScriptural, because it is true that extraScriptural historical data does affect my interpretation.

Noah's Flood occurred somewhere around 3,000 BC, which is over 15,000 years after mankind had populated the planet.

Again, your belief based on an interpretation.

Some say Noah's flood occurred much earlier:

These three beliefs have led Ross to suggest that Noah’s flood transpired around 50,000 years ago. Assuming the flood did wipe out all of humanity and was geographically limited, then it had to have occurred prior to the spread of human migration into Europe, Asia, Australia, and North America. Ross’ lead article (“Research Studies Shed Light on the Garden and the Flood”) summarizes one researcher’s hypothesis that a recently discovered civilization lies in what is now the Persian Gulf. Ross sees this as possible evidence for his flood model.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/biblica ... lood-model

I love Hugh Ross!
... and I'm very familiar with his position, and his work has been key to much of my understanding of the Genesis Origins accounts. But in regards to the Flood his position doesn't line up with either the Biblical timeframe or the historical data. The flaws in Hugh Ross's position is actually what motivated me to pursue things further which eventually brought me to where I am now.

Here are some of the specific flaws in Hugh Ross's position regarding the Flood.
1. The margin of error between the Biblical timeframe of 3000 BC and Ross's timeframe of 50,000 BC is simply too great. Gaps in the genealogical record are not enough to legitimately account for a 1000% margin of error with the Biblical record.
2. The human behaviors described in Genesis 4 are Neolithic behaviors, and the Neolithic era in Mesopotamia began no earlier than 10,000 BC. So Hugh Ross's premise of a 50,000 BC flood takes place 40,000 years before the earliest point at which the events of Genesis 4 could have taken place. There is zero Biblical or historical evidence to support the premise that the events of Genesis 4 took place prior to 50,000 BC

Bottom line, Hugh Ross's 50,000 BC Flood comes into direct conflict with both the Biblical record and the scientific/historical record.

The target of Noah's Flood were God's chosen people (the descendants of Adam) who had rebelled against God and the sinful culture that they had been corrupted by.
It is extraScriptural tradition and not Scripture itself that claims that all humanity was destroyed by the Flood.

Again, your interpretation. The belief that all humanity lived in the region of he flood, therefore all was destroyed(except Noah and his family) is arrived at from scripture. It's not extra biblical.

Again It is fair to say that my position is extraScriptural, because yes I do incorporate both Biblical and historical data.
However that doesn't change the fact that Scripture nowhere claims that all humanity was destroyed by the Flood. That tradition is also extraScriptural.

In Christ

[melanie]

Actually it didn't need to be every animal on the land -- only a male and female of it's kind. And animals needed for sacrifice once they got resettled. And if they were young animals, they wouldn't take as much room as adults. And we really don't know what all kinds of animals were existing at that time. They were generally speaking --not specific. We DO know what kinds of things we have Now and Can trace back to a certain extent. And People have been doing in-breeding of livestock and dogs and cats and lots of things for a Long time. There are names used in the Old Testament that people Still don't know exactly what they were.

Since God saw fit to destroy All of mankind because of gregious sinfulness -- violence -- and Noah and his family were the Only people 'saved' in the ark because they were the Only righteous people Left who Were righteous. That sort of 'says it all'. All of mankind is sort of definite.

I used to think the same, that is was definite.
Thought so for years. I had been taught that since I was a small child.
Never questioned it, the bible was clear, the entire earth flooded.
It wasn't until I was reading some threads in this forum that I started questioning that reasoning. Not at first though, it was hard to get my head around a different understanding from the one I had been taught for so many years.
Being Australian and having Aboriginal friends and being quite interested in Aboriginal history and culture, I would in one breathe talk of the archeological findings and the historical proof the Koori's had inhabited Austraila for at least 40,000 years but up to and over 60,000. Then I would defend the notion that Noah's flood was global.
Something didn't add up.
but I still couldn't drop the belief that it was global because my lens of viewing scripture didn't allow me too. It was the elephant in the room of my contradictory ideas.
It wasn't until I realised that firstly not only was it okay to question the flood and whether it was global but kinda important to do so. When previously this would have left me spinning as to what that would mean for the truth in scripture. Which was also another preconvieved, taught concept I had. If you start questioning any aspect of scripture then you open the floodgates for scripture to be minimised or diminished.
I realised that perhaps it was never a case of scripture being wrong, but rather our understanding and translation.
The bible is inspired but that does not rule out errors in translation, interpretation and understanding.
The more I looked into it, the more I came to realise that there could quite possibly be gaps in our understanding due to translation.
The fact that Aboriginal, Chinese and Egyptian history that predates the flood has a continuous flow in its history, that has not been interrupted due to a global flood was the first thing that made me look into the language more.
Was I reading figurative language too literally made more problematic due to translation errors?
There are many examples in scripture where language is used that we know is figurative
In II Chronicles 36:23, Cyrus' empire is said to have encompassed "all the kingdoms of the earth." But it wasn't every Kingdom.
Luke 2:1 refers to a decree which went out to tax "the whole world." But this only refers to the territories that the Romans controlled.

It has been already looked into how the word 'erets' in Hebrew has several applications.
This is seen in scripture;
Isaiah 13:5, "...to destroy the whole land [erets]"

Jeremiah 4:27, "...The whole land [erets] shall be desolate"

Jeremiah 12:11, "...the whole land [erets] is made desolate"

Jeremiah 25:11, "And this whole land [erets] shall be a desolation"

Zephaniah 1:18, "...but the whole earth [erets] shall be devoured by the fire..."

Also in Genesis Cain says "behold , thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth [erets]
But we know that Cain wasn't driven off the earth but it was figurative for ground.

We have one hebrew word 'erets' that has several correct linguistic applications depending on the context.
It is possible that the translators misapplied the context. In no way rendering scripture inaccurate but the translation inaccurate. Not only is it possible but also probable when you bring to light the scientific and historical findings.

Probably complicated by the fact that oral tradition would have undoubtedly seemed to have portrayed a global flood, to Noah and his descendants without the knowledge of what occurred on a global scale. They would not have known what took place across the other side of the globe. To them it was all encompassing. It was the entirety of earth as they perceived it.

[RickD]

DBowling,

If Adam wasn't the first human as you say, and other humans lived in other parts of the globe, before Adam, how do you explain sin being the cause of mankind's death?

If others lived and presumably died before Adam was created, their death wasn't a result of original sin, right? So, why would others, outside the line of Adam, need a redeemer?

Romans 5:12-21
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for [h]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

15 But [j]the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression [k]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions [l]resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through one transgression [m]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [n]there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 [o]The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Philip]

Rick: If Adam wasn't the first human as you say, and other humans lived in other parts of the globe, before Adam, how do you explain sin being the cause of mankind's death?

If others lived and presumably died before Adam was created, their death wasn't a result of original sin, right? So, why would others, outside the line of Adam, need a redeemer?

And that was also my point about the extent of the flood. Yes, clearly, civilizations have spread far and wide WAY before 6,000 or whatever years ago, and considerably beyond Ancient Mesopotamia. But did and why would God have dealt with sinful man differently, as in ultimate consequences (death) and the need for a Savior? Surely, we're not saying that those outside a supposed flood zone were POSITIONALLY (before God) viewed in differently, were any more or less righteous than those in Adam's line? And, if such an unpunished (by the flood) people existed, as the lived elsewhere (outside the flood zone), then they would have eventually intermingled with Adam's/Noah's line, whereas all of how God has instructed humanity (in Scripture/about Christ) obviously applies to all.

I think a HUGE question in all of this is an assumption that any one of the various recorded epic floods were actually THE Mother of ALL Floods! As there is a good chance that this is not the case. Also, as many here have a personal openness to long periods of time between Scriptural reference points (of "Days," etc.), why not with the Biblical genealogies AS WRITTEN? Gaps likely exist as the entire POINT of the Genealogies is not to necessarily be exhaustive as to who begat whom, but to establish Adam's link with the Second Adam (Jesus!). So, if we approach those as we do other uncertainties in Genesis, this means that Hugh Ross' 50,000+ years are not out of the realm of possibility. Of course, much of what he goes by is the dating of when art, music and religious practices began across early humanity. Again, people assume far too much of unknowable/mysterious aspects of Scripture.

As for personal and collective misinterpretation - meaning, that we WELL know what was written, but have misunderstood it - certainly possible. As for what JESUS Scripturally validated (the ENTIRE OT!), has it somehow been epically been mistranslated? There is no compelling evidence for that. Has it not many irrelevant copyist errors in it that don't change our ability to understand the meaning? Of course - but we can still see the obvious intent due to textual criticism techniques and comparison of and astounding number of existing ancient manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls validate what Scriptures we KNOW for a fact that Jesus was referring to when HE validated ALL of The Law and The Prophets (see the ENTIRE OT Canon!). Ancient and later Hebrew and Aramaic all have rules of language. We have many areas to compare how they were used and applied by THOSE WRITING the documents. Yes, a better English word choice here or there can certainly change how we perceive a passage or Scriptural point. But, fortunately, the passages of issue have many other places to compare how such things would have been typically worded. God has provided a modern Scripture-reading audience the resources and methodology to have an extremely high confidence that what we hold is what He intended for us to be reading. Point is, we have to be very careful about dismissing points of Scripture we see as not correlating with other data or modern perceptions as being merely due to a TRANSLATION error.

[crochet1949]

A thought -- what about God's inspiration of a passage. The translation process from one language to another. Understanding that the translators get as close to the original meaning in Hebrew / Greek/ Aramaic as humanly possible.

Yes, the context of the passage -- how That passage fits with the rest of the message of the book -- the doctrinal teachings presented elsewhere.

Do scientific / historical 'findings' support or contradict Scripture.

No one was present at the beginning of time -- and yet Moses knew what to write / pass on to others. That's inspiration.

And it has been pointed out to me -- on another Forum a long time ago -- that most every culture has 'stories' about a great flood happening. These stories would have had to have come from Noah and his descendents. Because Noah and his family were told to be fruitful and multiply. And the Tower of Babel forced people to spread out geographically. But the idea is that if there Are stories from most cultures about a great flood -- evidentally it didn't happen Everywhere -- only various places or there wouldn't be any one surviving to tell about it.

But another more important thought -- our salvation -- the cross -- bodily resurrection of Christ. When people find reasons to question the authority / inerrancy in One area -- what happens when they decide that the virgin birth or the resurrection didn't Really happen. Or that Jesus wasn't really dead when taken down from the cross.

Everyone Does have their concept of what happened and how and when.

Melanie -- sounds like we grew up the same way.

[JLAfan2001]

I really don't understand why none of you can see the mental hoops you are jumping through to reconcile the bible and science/history. You guys keep debating adam & eve, garden of eden, local or global flood etc. and none of the points you have all come up with tie well together. Each point has an issue which then raises another issue and that leads to a problem. The answer to all this is the bible is WRONG. It needs to be left behind as myth and no longer taken as history of any kind. Population genetics, anthropology, geology, archaeology, history all show genesis as false. Please do yourselves a favor and just end it. Just do the honest thing and admit the bible was wrong. Then you can all get on living your lives instead of wrestling with these pointless questions.

[DBowling]

DBowling,

If Adam wasn't the first human as you say, and other humans lived in other parts of the globe, before Adam, how do you explain sin being the cause of mankind's death?

I would refer to exactly the same passage you do, Romans 5:12.

Again we need to differentiate between what Paul says and what he doesn't.
Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) says that

through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Note that Paul does not mention the transmission mechanism.
It was Augustine who promoted the human procreation model that most of us have grown up with.
Now Augustine is one of my personal heroes of the faith, but the Augustinian model for the transmission of original sin via procreation is not actually found in Scripture, so it falls under the category of extraScriptural tradition.

So based on Scripture I can confidently assert that
"through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"
But since Scripture is silent on the transmission mechanism for 'original sin' I can't speak to the 'how' or transmission mechanism with any confidence.
I'm still currently trying to work through that issue myself.

If others lived and presumably died before Adam was created, their death wasn't a result of original sin, right?

correct

So, why would others, outside the line of Adam, need a redeemer?

because all mankind has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God

In Christ

[Katabole]

A thought -- what about God's inspiration of a passage. The translation process from one language to another. Understanding that the translators get as close to the original meaning in Hebrew / Greek/ Aramaic as humanly possible.

If you read the books of Ezra and Nehemiah closely, the Israelite priesthood became corrupt with the return of Judah to Jerusalem to rebuild the city after a 70 year hiatus. The Levites, specifically the Levitical priests, were solely responsible for all priestly duties. Instead the Levites were still back in Persia and "Nethanims" or those given to service were performing the priestly duties, including responsibility for the keeping of the scrolls, containing the scrolls of the law and the scrolls of the prophets. So not only did Ezra demand that the Levites return to Jerusalem from exile to do their job but to prevent the scrolls from being altered and their message changed by the Nethanims, Ezra undertook a special job of creating what is known as the Masorah, a Hebrew word meaning "Fence". If there was an error in the copying process, then the mistake did not make it over the "fence" so to speak and was rejected.

All the oldest and best preserved Old Testament scrolls have a Masorah. (You won't find Masoretic writings on the Dead Sea scrolls and that is because the Dead Sea scrolls were not found in an ancient library and are themselves copies of previous scrolls). The Masorah itself is writing found on the top, bottom and between the columns of the scrolls of the Torah. The writings denote numerous things including, how many times a letter occurs in a scroll, how many time a specific word occurs in a scroll, if a specific word had more than one meaning, it gives attention to the the correct meaning, etc.
So when a scroll got old or was damaged and had to be replaced, then the priests would consult the Masorah so that when they made a copy of a new scroll, then they copied it verbatim, including the Masorah. That tradition has been passed down the generations in the Jewish culture. I believe Jesus even referred to the Masorah when He said that He didn't removes the smallest "Jot" from the law, in other words, Jesus didn't remove even the sound of the smallest letter (Jot), from the law (Matt 5:18). Back in the 19th century,Dr. Christian Ginsberg did an exhaustive work simply called, 'The Masorah', in which he travelled to universities, synagogues and museums and diligently compiled and cross referenced all of the known Biblical passages with Masoretic footnotes. Even he was astounded with the accuracy of the Israelite method of preserving the exact words of ancient manuscripts.

The Israelites were the only ancient culture to create this series of phonic footnotes and corrections with their manuscripts. So when I read a 1611 King James bible and it is transliterated 97.5% accurate from the oldest Jewish scrolls containing the same books as the KJV, with only spelling errors and copyist errors causing the margin of error, you can bet your money you are reading exactly what the ancients read and that in my opinion, is directly because of the diligent copying of the scrolls using the Masorah.

And it has been pointed out to me -- on another Forum a long time ago -- that most every culture has 'stories' about a great flood happening. These stories would have had to have come from Noah and his descendents. Because Noah and his family were told to be fruitful and multiply. And the Tower of Babel forced people to spread out geographically. But the idea is that if there Are stories from most cultures about a great flood -- evidentally it didn't happen Everywhere -- only various places or there wouldn't be any one surviving to tell about it.

The theologian E W Bullinger would agree with you. This is what he says in part, regarding the flood story in Gen 6:

"Moreover, we have in these mighty men, the "men of renown," the explanation of the origin of the Greek mythology. That mythology was no mere invention of the human brain, but it grew out of the traditions, and memories, and legends of the doings of that mighty race of beings; and was gradually evolved out of the "heroes" of Gen. 6:4. The fact that they were supernatural in their origin formed an easy step to their being regarded as the demi-gods of the Greeks.

Thus the Babylonian "Creation Tablets", the Egyptian "Book of the dead", the Greek mythology, and heathen Cosmogonies, which by some are set on an equality with Scripture, or by others adduced in support of it, are all the corruption and perversion of primitive truths, distorted in proportion as their origin was forgotten, and their memories faded away."

But another more important thought -- our salvation -- the cross -- bodily resurrection of Christ. When people find reasons to question the authority / inerrancy in One area -- what happens when they decide that the virgin birth or the resurrection didn't Really happen. Or that Jesus wasn't really dead when taken down from the cross.

Everyone Does have their concept of what happened and how and when.

Numerous books have been written on the "what if" scenarios, from D H Lawrence's book, 'The Man who Died' to Nikos Kazantzakis' 'The Last Temptation of Christ'. For me it's pretty easy. The world is divided into two groups: those who believe in, follow and worship Jesus Christ and those who will.

If the resurrection of Christ did not happen, then Christianity is a false belief system.

Since we as Christians believe the resurrection did indeed happen exactly as it is written, then Jesus is God and all other belief systems are false. There is no gray area there. I do not believe Christ wanted gray areas when it came to salvation through Him. God will not give His glory to another. Isaiah 42:8.


One in the Sun
words and music by Steve Gaines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP_40-4bAfQ

Somewhere the sun is shining
On some unhappy day
Somewhere there's people laughing
Think they've found the way

But it's not me
It's not me, no, no, now
It's not me, it's not me
It's not me, it's not me
I'm not the one

Well, sure I used to cry
But I used to laugh too
Had my ups as well as downs, you see
But I been down now for so long
I've forgotten all my dreams

Yeah, it must be me
Said, it must be me, you know now
It's not me, it's not me
It's not me, it's not me
I'm not the one in the sun

Since I became
I've wondered what I've become?
Lord, I know it can't be much longer
'Til I find my place in sun

Sometimes I wonder
Will I figure something out?
Will I find a reason good enough to live?
'Coz Lord, if it don't dawn on me pretty soon
I think something's gonna give!

Yeah, it might be me
Yeah, it just might be me, yeah
It's not me, no, it can't be
'Cause I'm not the one in the sun

No, I'm not the one
Yeah, I'm not the one
Well, I'm not the one
No, I'm not the one, yeah
Sorry to say, I'm not the one

[abelcainsbrother]

I really don't understand why none of you can see the mental hoops you are jumping through to reconcile the bible and science/history. You guys keep debating adam & eve, garden of eden, local or global flood etc. and none of the points you have all come up with tie well together. Each point has an issue which then raises another issue and that leads to a problem. The answer to all this is the bible is WRONG. It needs to be left behind as myth and no longer taken as history of any kind. Population genetics, anthropology, geology, archaeology, history all show genesis as false. Please do yourselves a favor and just end it. Just do the honest thing and admit the bible was wrong. Then you can all get on living your lives instead of wrestling with these pointless questions.

Even if you want to believe Genesis is wrong.Evolution is wrong also and yet you believe it by faith.You believe man over God which is quite dumb to do.Man has been wrong so many times in history about what he thought was true only to be shown wrong eventually and this applies to both believers and non-believers then over time God's word comes along and proves man wrong and his word true.Man cannot be trusted over God to tell the truth,man is sinful,prideful,lies and is led around and controlled and even corrupted by money so that it is dumb to believe anything man says is true over God and his word.You believe the historical account based on evolution but it cannot even be proven true and could be totally wrong.Yes,its a shocker but true.Science does not do proof yet you put your faith in what man says is true when he cannot prove it.

[crochet1949]

Jesus Christ has stated "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life -- no man comes to the Father but by Me."

The book of Revelation tells us that eventually Every one will acknowledge God and bow down to Him. Even those who don't believe He exists -- they will get a big surprise -- but - by the time they actually Do See Him -- it will be eternally too late to change their mind.

So the idea is -- to read God's Word and believe it as totally factual.

[abelcainsbrother]

I don't think anybody is asserting that there were other men and populations outside the flood zone.

Oh... Phillip's right on that one... that's exactly what I'm asserting.

Here's what I'm asserting/exploring in this thread:
Anthropology and history tell us that mankind had populated the planet by 20,000 BC.
The Biblical record indicates that Adam and Eve lived in Mesopotamia somewhere around 6,000 BC, which is over 10,000 years after mankind had populated the planet.
It is extraScriptural tradition and not Scripture itself that claims that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all humans.
Noah's Flood occurred somewhere around 3,000 BC, which is over 15,000 years after mankind had populated the planet.
The Biblical record and the historical record concur that the 'flood zone' (nice term ) was the land of Mesopotamia and not the whole globe.
The target of Noah's Flood were God's chosen people (the descendants of Adam) who had rebelled against God and the sinful culture that they had been corrupted by.
It is extraScriptural tradition and not Scripture itself that claims that all humanity was destroyed by the Flood.

There are a lot of different views being expressed by the posters in this thread, so I thought it would be helpful to summarize and clarify the perspective of the OP.

In Christ.

I interpret science different than you do and imo it makes the most sense.We must realize that science is secular and does not consider the bible in its discoveries,so alot oftimes we must read between the lines.But science detects things that seem like anomolies to them alot of times like bottlenecks of rise and fall of the human population.But see they are looking at everything as if all things have gone on ccontinually for billions of years,however just because the earth might be 4.5 billion years old does not mean all things have gone on continually.But if you acept it then try to blend it into the biblical text I think it causes problems with timing.However not if you believe there was a former world that had hominids in it that perished before God made this world.The hominids in the former world died when the former world perished until God created this world and Adam and Eve.Here is a link that I think shows the bottlenecks eventhough scientists are looking at it from a different perspective.Keep in mind Adam and Eve being created 6-10,000 years ago then comes Noah's flood and look at the dates by secular science.
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-decline-ma ... lture.html

[Kurieuo]

I really don't understand why none of you can see the mental hoops you are jumping through to reconcile the bible and science/history. You guys keep debating adam & eve, garden of eden, local or global flood etc. and none of the points you have all come up with tie well together. Each point has an issue which then raises another issue and that leads to a problem. The answer to all this is the bible is WRONG. It needs to be left behind as myth and no longer taken as history of any kind. Population genetics, anthropology, geology, archaeology, history all show genesis as false. Please do yourselves a favor and just end it. Just do the honest thing and admit the bible was wrong. Then you can all get on living your lives instead of wrestling with these pointless questions.

How can any of us, yourself included, change what we believe if we are determined products of our physical environment?
Unless of course, you believe something other in which case I'd love to hear your views here.

Otherwise, your call for people here to change rather than just accept people here are just determined to believe this or that...
such seems kind of meaningless and pointless.

[crochet1949]

We have the freedom of expression and belief. We also need to exercise courtesy as we practice those freedoms.