Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:08 pm 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

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:35 pm 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.

DB wrote:

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).

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:54 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:35 pm 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.

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?

DB wrote:

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?

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:43 pm Thoughts on Genesis 3:20? "The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:54 am 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?

UsagiTsukino wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:21 pm 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.

Philip wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:08 am 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!