Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote: If you were sent to the land of Nod for fear of reprisals from your siblings for killing your brother, would you need a mark on your forehead for them to be able to regognise you? Surely not? Your brothers and sisters know you because...well...they are your brothers and sisters. God would simply say: "You will not take vengence upon your brother Cain, anyone of you who does this will suffer vengence seven times over." Why does Cain need a mark on his head to be regognised by his "siblings"?

Yes, the above is the dilemma I was referring to. It's a little like me arranging to meet my sister at Waterloo Station, London, and saying, "I'll be the man standing under the big clock wearing a black Boss suit with a Yellow Rose in the left breast pocket." This would simply never happen; it would never *need* to happen.

God bless

What does recognizing a family member have to do with the discussion? Cain asks for protection from reprisals, not that people will recognize him. Indeed, it's most likely the recognition that he fears, hence the mark. I believe the difficulty lies with this statement, "God would simply say: 'You will not take vengence upon your brother Cain, anyone of you who does this will suffer vengence seven times over.' " Of course that is an option that God has, but that is not what he does and regardless of what you think the best solution to Cain's request would have been, you are not God. Thus, if the foundation of your premise of another race of humans is contingent upon God's decision to mark Cain as opposed to issuing some type of verbal decree, then I would say that you are making use of your God given right to be wrong.

The bible doesn't really say allot about this but it does give some indications.There is no record on how old Adam and Eve where when they had both children and there is no indication on how old they where when the killing took place.It does indicate that Cain slept with his wife when he went to Nod. This then indicates that Adam and Eve had other children before this incident and some must have been of an teenage or older age - since it is stated that Cain slept with his wife and had Enoch (4:17), so clearly she was of bearing age.

Adam lived till he was 930 yrs old,so a calculated guess is that in his life time he had more children and that they also had more children. The error ( as i would suggest ) is that a population of this time would have been great, but this is would not be the case.When for example, it is said that Cain built a city,it would not have been a city as we know of it in size and certainly not as populated as what we know today. In history even as close as the 17th century,the populations where not that great.
In Europe, England was 4.2 million, Scotland and Ireland where 1 million, with France being the largest of Europe at 20 million.When you consider that there are only 13 million Jewry today, this gives an indication of how the Mediterranean area developed.

In Jewish belief, Cain had one wife and Able had 2. It is also believed that each had a family lineage and the fear Cain had was that since he had killed the patriach of this house hold, he was in fear of being killed by Ables siblings.It is also interesting that Josephus wrote in "Antiquaties of the Jews", chapter 2 (59) he called those that Cain feared as wild beasts.

The idea of marrying or even having relations with family or close family is evident throughout history,even upto and including the 19th century. Till the 17th century and if you look at the 12th century in particular marrying your own family members would keep a true and closer tie of loyalty and ensure the lineage stayed true to the cause.

warhoop wrote:

DannyM wrote: If you were sent to the land of Nod for fear of reprisals from your siblings for killing your brother, would you need a mark on your forehead for them to be able to regognise you? Surely not? Your brothers and sisters know you because...well...they are your brothers and sisters. God would simply say: "You will not take vengence upon your brother Cain, anyone of you who does this will suffer vengence seven times over." Why does Cain need a mark on his head to be regognised by his "siblings"?

Yes, the above is the dilemma I was referring to. It's a little like me arranging to meet my sister at Waterloo Station, London, and saying, "I'll be the man standing under the big clock wearing a black Boss suit with a Yellow Rose in the left breast pocket." This would simply never happen; it would never *need* to happen.

God bless

What does recognizing a family member have to do with the discussion? Cain asks for protection from reprisals, not that people will recognize him. Indeed, it's most likely the recognition that he fears, hence the mark. I believe the difficulty lies with this statement, "God would simply say: 'You will not take vengence upon your brother Cain, anyone of you who does this will suffer vengence seven times over.' " Of course that is an option that God has, but that is not what he does and regardless of what you think the best solution to Cain's request would have been, you are not God. Thus, if the foundation of your premise of another race of humans is contingent upon God's decision to mark Cain as opposed to issuing some type of verbal decree, then I would say that you are making use of your God given right to be wrong.

The meaning of the mark is clearly to warn people not to take vengence on Cain. And when did I even suggest what God "should" have said? I am simply that, if Cain really did fear rerprisals from thewse phantom siblings, then God would probably - in the case of *probabilities* have conversed with these "siblings" in a way in which h clearly conversed with Abel and Cain.

You are trying to wriggle free from the dilemma, and I will not allow this to happen; you need to answer my question, which still has gone unanswered.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Why should we believe that God talked to everyone? Are we to assume that every single person born, God would appear to them at a certain age and say, "Oh, yeah, and don't kill Cain"? For someone who likes to complain about "assuming" siblings, you sure do make a lot of assumptions yourself? Yet for some reason, your assumptions aren't really assumptions. Special pleading is a wonderful thing..

How ridiculous! According to you, the only existent people were Cain, Eve, Adam, and other siblings. If God conversed with Cain, Eve, and Adam, then why not with these other "siblings"? Why would God need to warn, by wayof a mark on Cain's forehead, non-existent, future peoples about Cain when they wouldn't have been alive to even know about Cain murdering his brother, let alone hear about it? This is a non-argument, even by *your* standards on this topic.

Jac3510 wrote:I already answered this. The reason for the mark was to confirm what God said to Cain to everyone else, whether alive at that moment or alive in the future. It's nothing the Israelites to which Moses wrote would not have related to. Remember circumcision? What was the purpose? It was a visible sign of a specific covenant between them and God. It set them apart. In the same way, the mark set Cain apart. It's perfectly contextual...

A repeat of your non-argument. my question to you, which you *have not* answered, was: why would any "siblings" need cain to be marked in order to recognise him? And remember, initially you never mentioned that this in order for future peoples to be warned; you initially invented about 50 siblings from whom cain feared reprisals. So let's stick to the initial point of argument, and not try to expand your remit due to your inability to answer a question.

Jac3510 wrote:Again, circular for the same reason as above. What EVIDENCE do you have that siblings are not what is presupposed? What evidence do you have that another race of people is what IS presupposed?.

Genesis.

Jac3510 wrote:Circular argument?.

In which case so is *your* argument; yet another redundant point.

Jac3510 wrote:Evidence??.

Genesis.

Jac3510 wrote:Circular argument

Sigh. See previous response to this non-point.

Jac3510 wrote:I ran the numbers on what a potential population would be. I don't know how many there were. I said there could have been hundreds and I proved it was possible. The ASSUMPTION is on your part:

Wrong again. You clearly estimated a number of these inserted siblings in order to sustain your belief. Classic cognitive bias, here, and a trap into which one should resist from falling.

Jac3510 wrote:1. That Adam and Eve didn't procreate in the same way we do now (evidence?):

I never asserted this; I merely summised. You are the one making unfounded assertions, so let's flip the "evidence" question over to you, shall we?

Jac3510 wrote:2. That there was, instead, a preexisting people (evidence?):

Genesis 1:26 Genesis 4:14 Genesis 4:15 Genesis 4:17 .

Jac3510 wrote:Your special pleading and circular arguments tell me a lot about your ability to reason properly, Danny. Just saying "clearly" a lot doesn't prove your point. You've provided no evidence. Do you not realize that offering a possible reading is not the same thing as offering evidence for that reading??):

I probably shouls have said, "clearly to the rational mind".

Jac3510 wrote:The evidence for my position is as follows:

1. Nowhere in the Bible is any other race of humans mentioned;??):

And the same can be said four your invention of siblings; though the presupposition *for me* clearly points to another people.

Jac3510 wrote:2. Genesis 1-2 never states that two classes of humans were created, one spiritual and one non-spiritual, but only that mankind was made in God's image;;??):

And the flip side is also true.

Jac3510 wrote:3. The murder happened when Adam was around 130 years old. There is no reason in the text to suppose that humans did not procreate normally (against this, God tells them expressly to be fruitful and multiply, implying that procreation would have been normal, if not particularly easy!), that is, as they do today. In fact, there is nothing anywhere in the entire Bible that suggests the methods of procreation have changed. Thus, it is highly likely that a large number of people would have been born to Adam and his children and grand children;;??):

Sigh. Another invention! Just because seth is a replacement does not mean Abel died immediately before this replacement. Since when does a replacement have to come immediately?

Jac3510 wrote:4. The text nowhere says that Seth was the third son, only that he was the replacement for Abel. It is an ASSUMPTION to say that he was the THIRD son. The text simply does not say that, so there is no warrant for making that claim;;??):

It is not an assumtion at all!! the assumtion is that he *was not* the third son, as there is *no hint* that he is not.

Jac3510 wrote:5. Cain was worried that other people would kill him--the word "kill" (Heb. harag) is used only of one man killing another, as in homicide. Animals don't harag. People do, which means Cain was afraid of other people--spiritual people. That could only be from his father's family;;??):

Absolute invented nonsense!

Jac3510 wrote:6. The mark on Cain presumes that the people would not kill Cain due to their recognition of a divine threat, which presupposes their ability to understand the divine, which presupposes their own spirituality. Thus, again, we see the people that Cain feared had to be from his father's family.;;??):

Again, complete nonsense. How desperate you seem to squeeze something into your world view. The mark presumes nothing spiritual at all; it clearly provides a warning. It could be spiritual or non-spiritual. You know nothing either way.

Jac3510 wrote:7. The people to whom Moses wrote were very familiar with revenge killing. Likewise, Cain was afraid of revenge killing, not general murder. The only people who could avenge Abel were his family. People outside of Abel's family (immediate or extended) would in no way by taking "revenge." Heck, if there was an entirely different species of people (some non-spiritual humans, whatever that would mean), there would be no more need to take revenge than we take revenge on a lion who kills a zebra..;;??):

Sigh. How do you know that in general killers were not frowned upon and themselves in danger of reprisals simoly for being killers? Please tell me how you know this?

Jac3510 wrote:8. The text itself DOES presuppose siblings, because Cain took HIS WIFE (4:17), which could not have come from a non-spiritual race of humans (that would imply that Cain's children were a mix of spiritual and non-spiritual; again, the Bible knows nothing of this). Thus, Cain's wife had to be from Adam's family, which proves Adam had other children. If he had girls, why not other boys as well? Or who is to say that the women might not have tried to kill him?..;;??):

Why not? And again, how do you know they are non-spiritual? "Spiritual and non-spiritual"? This is becoming more bizarre by the moment!

Jac3510 wrote:In light of all this, we have overwhelming reason to believe that Cain was afraid of his own siblings. You are inventing an entirely different race of people that the Bible knows nothing about. I mean, CLEARLY, that's the case.
So, would you care to provide any evidence for your claim?

In light of all this, you have precisely nothing. Any rational and logical mind, in my view, cannot fail to be completely exasperated by your posts; I know I am. It is you who is doing all the assuming, coming out with wild "evidence" which has not enhanced your case one iota.

I have provided the evidence and logic. I really am getting tired of this non-debate. So, unless you have something new and logical, please can we wrap it up and agree to differ?

God bless

why would any "siblings" need cain to be marked in order to recognise him?

Why would God not appear to everyone today? I already gave the reason: the mark was proof that God had spoke to Cain on this, just as He gave miracles to confirm His words in times future.

As far as your treatment of the evidence I put forward, I'll only respond to one, especially in light of your last sentence. The linguistic comments on harag that you wrote of as "invented" show, again, your underappreciation of exegesis and linguistics more generally. Here is a word study from the TWOT for your reference, since you seem to think the comment was "invented."

http://www.anywhereenterprises.com:80/1 ... ApQZOAAERZ

Feel free to look that over or not. In any case, I think it is a good idea to stop since you are going to simply degenerate this into personal attacks. You should perhaps consider the fact, however, that if your view is so obvious to the "rational" person, that you have effectively considered all of Christendom to be irrational. In this respect, you are rather like the teenagers I used to come across when I was a youth minister who questioned the Bible--they would ask some silly question like, "You Christians are so stupid. Doesn't the Bible say the earth was flat?!? HUR HUR HUR!!!"

Usually, I would respond by looking at them and saying, "Do you really think you have just pointed out something that NO ONE HAS EVER THOUGHT OF? Do you think you are THAT smart and everyone else that has lived before you is THAT dumb? Please."

In this regard, you've done the same thing. We have consistently shown how your views are simply wrong, and your reply is to say we aren't rational and that your view is, and against our evidence, you simply say "Nonsense!" No, I think we should stop here. You've shown no ability to engage in real dialogue with the text, so how could I expect you to dialogue with anyone else here on this? Add to that this idea that you've gotten that it's SO OBVIOUS that you are right against all Christian (and Jewish) exegetes in the past, and forgive me if I'm hardly impressed.

So it seems we have found at least one aspect of agreement. We can most certainly agree to disagree.

God bless

DannyM wrote:
The meaning of the mark is clearly to warn people not to take vengence on Cain. And when did I even suggest what God "should" have said? I am simply that, if Cain really did fear rerprisals from thewse phantom siblings, then God would probably - in the case of *probabilities* have conversed with these "siblings" in a way in which h clearly conversed with Abel and Cain.

You are trying to wriggle free from the dilemma, and I will not allow this to happen; you need to answer my question, which still has gone unanswered.

God bless

OK, if I understand you correctly, your contention is that because God put a mark on Cain as opposed to issuing a verbal decree to the people that Cain feared, those people must therefore not be siblings of Cain. If this is accurate, then not only is it a non sequitur, but it also creates contradictions throughout the rest of scripture. And, if I may, your mistake lies in the assumption of knowing how God would have resolved or responded to a given situation which is, to be honest, arrogant. If I misunderstand your position, then please forgive me but know that the bulk of your comments and responses make this to be the case.

warhoop wrote:OK, if I understand you correctly, your contention is that because God put a mark on Cain as opposed to issuing a verbal decree to the people that Cain feared, those people must therefore not be siblings of Cain. If this is accurate, then not only is it a non sequitur, but it also creates contradictions throughout the rest of scripture. And, if I may, your mistake lies in the assumption of knowing how God would have resolved or responded to a given situation which is, to be honest, arrogant. If I misunderstand your position, then please forgive me but know that the bulk of your comments and responses make this to be the case.

You are inverting the question to present yourself with an apparent non-sequitur. First of all, i asked you a simple question: if Cain feared reprisals from his siblings, then why would he bneed to be "marked" for his siblings to recognise him and know not to kill him?" This question still hangs in the air, unanswered, totally avoided, only counter-questions and assertions offered in its place.

Second, and for the secont time, I AM NOT assuming what God would or should say; I have asked Why didn't he just converse with the other siblings, like he did with Abel and Cain, to warn them not to take vengence upon Cain? This is neither an assumption nor arrogance. So I fear you misunderstand me, but if I, in turn, have seemed arrogant or to be making wild assumptions, then I apologise and assure you this was never my intention.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:As far as your treatment of the evidence I put forward, I'll only respond to one, especially in light of your last sentence. The linguistic comments on harag that you wrote of as "invented" show, again, your underappreciation of exegesis and linguistics more generally. Here is a word study from the TWOT for your reference, since you seem to think the comment was "invented."

I wasn't saying Nonsense to your linguistic definition, and I probably should have thanked you for that piece of information that I did not previously know, but I was rushed and not as methodical as I would like to have been. I was saying Nonsense to the part about the only spiritual people being and that only these spiritual people would have known what the mark meant. You, to me, are stretching scripture to compensate for an unavoidable dillema. By trying to "talk down" to me you won't make me disappear or feel inferior to you - on the contrary.

Jac3510 wrote:Feel free to look that over or not. In any case, I think it is a good idea to stop since you are going to simply degenerate this into personal attacks. You should perhaps consider the fact, however, that if your view is so obvious to the "rational" person, that you have effectively considered all of Christendom to be irrational. In this respect, you are rather like the teenagers I used to come across when I was a youth minister who questioned the Bible--they would ask some silly question like, "You Christians are so stupid. Doesn't the Bible say the earth was flat?!? HUR HUR HUR!!!"."

Personal attacks? As opposed to what? What you are doing here? Explain to me how you think you are being rational when you interpret a text to accomodate your belief? Tell me what's rational about GUESSING that Eve and adam probably had about 50 children at the time of Abel's death? I have not labelled the whole of Christendom irrational at all! That's your view, and it is distorted; explain how? Then we start to try to belittle me by talk of teemagers - very classy! I hope you told this ill-informed teenagers that the church by and large did not think the earth was flat and that this is a myth perpetuated by atheists and scientists over the years that has become established as though it were fact? I hope you had explained that all educated people of the time knew that the earth was round? And that the "confrontation" between the church and Columbus is all a complete fabrication and total fiction? I am not perpetuating myth or going against any doctrinal orthodoxy; and i suggest you tell me where I am if you want to claim I am "going against Christendom"...

Jac3510 wrote:Usually, I would respond by looking at them and saying, "Do you really think you have just pointed out something that NO ONE HAS EVER THOUGHT OF? Do you think you are THAT smart and everyone else that has lived before you is THAT dumb? Please."

So why have you seemingly not learned to answer this simple question that you have had put to you soooo many times?

Jac3510 wrote:In this regard, you've done the same thing. We have consistently shown how your views are simply wrong, and your reply is to say we aren't rational and that your view is, and against our evidence, you simply say "Nonsense!" No, I think we should stop here. You've shown no ability to engage in real dialogue with the text, so how could I expect you to dialogue with anyone else here on this? Add to that this idea that you've gotten that it's SO OBVIOUS that you are right against all Christian (and Jewish) exegetes in the past, and forgive me if I'm hardly impressed.

"You" have shown me no such thing, my friend. You obviously THINK you have, but I'm afraid you haven't. I know fine well how to engage in dialogue, and you are showing a loss of patience, shall we say, or a loss of calmness, by all these accusations you are slinging my way. All i ever asked was for the question to be answered. Perhaps you have answered it, but in my view not adequately. That's MY VIEW. Again, you talk of me going against "all Christian exegetes" - very grand, Jac, I must say, but also very wrong. Tell me, indeed show me, where ALL Christians ALWAYS down the years have believed that everyone came from Adam? Saying something often enough, as you have pointed out, does not make it true; it may make some people believe it is true, but it doesn't make it true.

I fear the problem may be this: your whole world view appears to hang on the assumption that we all came from Adam. My world view, on the other hand, doesn't hold this at all; it is irrelevent to my perfectly orthodox Christian world view. But my view of creation has room for change; it doesn't REST on my view that there was a coexistent creation alongside Eve and Adam and the two boys; I'd be overwhelmed and very happy if we found unequivocal truth that we had all come from Adam; your world view appears to utterly DEPEND on this being true. I actually hope it is, for the sake of yours and others' belief that this is the case. For me, and countless others whom I have corresponded with both sides of the Atlantic, it is not a view which affects Christian orthodoxy.

God bless

DannyM wrote:For me, and countless others whom I have corresponded with both sides of the Atlantic, it is not a view which affects Christian orthodoxy.

Danny,

It most certainly is a view that runs counter to Christian orthodoxy, which is based on the understanding that ALL humans are descendants of Adam and Eve and, by extension, ALL are fallen. If there were a race that is not from that lineage, the implications are profound. 1) They are not fallen, and most importantly 2) They are not in need of a savior, rendering Christ's sacrifice superfluous. That is, I'm afraid, the inescapable conclusion of such a position. Just some food for thought.

Byblos wrote:Danny,
It most certainly is a view that runs counter to Christian orthodoxy, which is based on the understanding that ALL humans are descendants of Adam and Eve and, by extension, ALL are fallen. If there were a race that is not from that lineage, the implications are profound. 1) They are not fallen, and most importantly 2) They are not in need of a savior, rendering Christ's sacrifice superfluous. That is, I'm afraid, the inescapable conclusion of such a position. Just some food for thought.

Byblos,

I disagree. Why are they not fallen? The potential for sin entered the world because of Adam (which was all part of God's plan) but that doesn't mean that this doesn't affect a coexistent people. A coexistent people can quite easily become a spiritual people. Romans 5:18 "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

And why are you saying that anyone not from Adam's line are not in need of Christ? Do you think Christ would agree that there is a man who is not worthy of his love?

Where does this "orthodoxy" come from, Byblos? Can you point me to your earliest source who says this? Christian orthodoxy was primarily established at Nicaea in the early fourth century in the form of the Nicene Creed. This was to counter Arianism and other forms of Decetism. Only at around the time of Augustine in the early fifth century did we really start to see Genesis and other scripture being interpreted literally. Orthodoxy does not dictate that Adam was the chronological first man and that his line is the only line.

Long time no "see" by the way - hope you're double well.

God bless

DannyM wrote:
Byblos,

I disagree. Why are they not fallen? The potential for sin entered the world because of Adam (which was all part of God's plan) but that doesn't mean that this doesn't affect a coexistent people. A coexistent people can quite easily become a spiritual people. Romans 5:18 "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

They are not fallen precisely because they were never condemned. As you rightly quote Romans 5:18, condemnation came into the world through one trespass and one man. How does this condemnation carry over to all men of all ages? Through the lineage of this one man. Anyone who is not a direct descendant of this one man is not subject to condemnation, why should they be? By virtue of what? They were created in the image of God, they are not descendants of Adam who brought condemnation into the world, therefore they are not fallen.

DannyM wrote:And why are you saying that anyone not from Adam's line are not in need of Christ? Do you think Christ would agree that there is a man who is not worthy of his love?

Of course I would agree but the point is not who is worthy of Christ's love, it's who unequivocally needs him to be the propitiation of their sins. Folks not from Adam's lineage may or may not need it. They can, after all, live perfectly pious lives considering they were never tainted by Adam's condemnation (never born with a sinful nature).

DannyM wrote:Where does this "orthodoxy" come from, Byblos? Can you point me to your earliest source who says this?

Ah but I could. I'm afraid, though, this will lead us into a whole 'nother topic (where invariably these types of discussions lead, i.e. to authority).

DannyM wrote:Christian orthodoxy was primarily established at Nicaea in the early fourth century in the form of the Nicene Creed. This was to counter Arianism and other forms of Decetism. Only at around the time of Augustine in the early fifth century did we really start to see Genesis and other scripture being interpreted literally. Orthodoxy does not dictate that Adam was the chronological first man and that his line is the only line.

Orthodoxy was primarily and absolutely established when Christ established His church; the very same scripture you quote attests to that. I will leave it at that (for now).

DannyM wrote:Long time no "see" by the way - hope you're double well.

God bless

Oh I'm always around, you know that . Always a pleasure, Danny.

Byblos wrote:They are not fallen precisely because they were never condemned. As you rightly quote Romans 5:18, condemnation came into the world through one trespass and one man. How does this condemnation carry over to all men of all ages? Through the lineage of this one man. Anyone who is not a direct descendant of this one man is not subject to condemnation, why should they be? By virtue of what? They were created in the image of God, they are not descendants of Adam who brought condemnation into the world, therefore they are not fallen.

Byblos, just stick with me and imagine there's a coexistent creation - are you saying that they would not be subject to sin and God's judgement?

Byblos wrote:Of course I would agree but the point is not who is worthy of Christ's love, it's who unequivocally needs him to be the propitiation of their sins. Folks not from Adam's lineage may or may not need it. They can, after all, live perfectly pious lives considering they were never tainted by Adam's condemnation (never born with a sinful nature).

Again, this makes no sense to me, as everyone is subject to sin life and sin and death.

Byblos wrote:Ah but I could. I'm afraid, though, this will lead us into a whole 'nother topic (where invariably these types of discussions lead, i.e. to authority).

But wouldn't that topic be a great debate? We could really get our teeth into orthodoxy and what it really means.

Byblos wrote:rthodoxy was primarily and absolutely established when Christ established His church; the very same scripture you quote attests to that. I will leave it at that (for now).

No, Byblos, it wasn't until after the Nicene Creed was produced - 367 CE - that Athanasius, who subdues Arius, demanded the strict terms for the canon of scripture. This was the first time we really had our 27 book officially recognised; until then we were being bombarded with gnostic nonsense. So the Nicene Creed and Athanasius were responsible for original, official orthodoxy.

Dan

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:They are not fallen precisely because they were never condemned. As you rightly quote Romans 5:18, condemnation came into the world through one trespass and one man. How does this condemnation carry over to all men of all ages? Through the lineage of this one man. Anyone who is not a direct descendant of this one man is not subject to condemnation, why should they be? By virtue of what? They were created in the image of God, they are not descendants of Adam who brought condemnation into the world, therefore they are not fallen.

Byblos, just stick with me and imagine there's a coexistent creation - are you saying that they would not be subject to sin and God's judgement?

Correct, they would not be subject to sin because they are not the descendants of the first sinner. There's no mechanism by which sin can propagate to them since they are not from Adam's lineage. This is fully supported by scripture by the way:

Genesis 2:7 wrote:And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I know you will argue that this says 'man', not 'a man' or even 'Adam' but contrast that with Genesis 3:20:

Genesis 3:20 wrote:And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was [to be] the mother of all living.

This makes it absolutely clear that 'man' in Gen.2:7 is referring to Adam specifically as the father of all living, just as Eve is the mother.

The clincher, however, is here:

Acts 17:26 wrote:From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

One man, one blood, one lineage. Now you look at Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, and 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 in a totally different light. Note:

1 Corinthians 15:45-47 wrote:And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit… The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

The theme is consistent, Adam is the first man, no mention of any other adams.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:Of course I would agree but the point is not who is worthy of Christ's love, it's who unequivocally needs him to be the propitiation of their sins. Folks not from Adam's lineage may or may not need it. They can, after all, live perfectly pious lives considering they were never tainted by Adam's condemnation (never born with a sinful nature).

Again, this makes no sense to me, as everyone is subject to sin life and sin and death.

Not unless they are from the same adamic bloodline. Scripture is clear on that.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:Ah but I could. I'm afraid, though, this will lead us into a whole 'nother topic (where invariably these types of discussions lead, i.e. to authority).

But wouldn't that topic be a great debate? We could really get our teeth into orthodoxy and what it really means.

Yes it would, in a different thread perhaps.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:rthodoxy was primarily and absolutely established when Christ established His church; the very same scripture you quote attests to that. I will leave it at that (for now).

No, Byblos, it wasn't until after the Nicene Creed was produced - 367 CE - that Athanasius, who subdues Arius, demanded the strict terms for the canon of scripture. This was the first time we really had our 27 book officially recognised; until then we were being bombarded with gnostic nonsense. So the Nicene Creed and Athanasius were responsible for original, official orthodoxy.

That's when it was formalized, not established. And who do you think made official those 27 books, and by what authority? I think we should wait until that other thread to explore it in more detail.

Byblos wrote:Correct, they would not be subject to sin because they are not the descendants of the first sinner. There's no mechanism by which sin can propagate to them since they are not from Adam's lineage.].

So this people could live a life of sin and debauchery and God woul just ignore this? Now this makes no sense at all, Byblos. God was constantly judging and punishing "other nations" in the OT.

Byblos wrote:This is fully supported by scripture by the way:

Genesis 2:7 wrote:And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. I know you will argue that this says 'man', not 'a man' or even 'Adam' but contrast that with Genesis 3:20:

Genesis 3:20 wrote:And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was [to be] the mother of all living.

I'm sure you'll understand that I've had this particular ding-dong for some time on here now, Byblos my friend, and i don't want to get too bogged down with this again. But to repeat, Adam the man is not explicitly mentioned until Genesis 4, and the above really doesn't, in my view, support what you are claiming.

Byblos wrote:The clincher, however, is here:

Acts 17:26 wrote:From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

This is interesting. Why have I not come across this verse explicitly enough to remember this. The other verses I have disputed before and are non-conclusive, but I'm going to have to go now and get on the doughnut and meditate. Sorry.

God bless

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:Correct, they would not be subject to sin because they are not the descendants of the first sinner. There's no mechanism by which sin can propagate to them since they are not from Adam's lineage.

So this people could live a life of sin and debauchery and God woul just ignore this? Now this makes no sense at all, Byblos. God was constantly judging and punishing "other nations" in the OT.

I did not say that at all. All I said is that since they are not born to a fallen nature (because they are not from Adam's lineage) it's quite possible their inherent nature allows them not to sin and therefore not be in need for a savior. But if there exists such a people, indeed if only one person, then Christ's sacrifice is no longer needed. One can learn from such people how to save one's self.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:This is fully supported by scripture by the way:

Genesis 2:7 wrote:And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I know you will argue that this says 'man', not 'a man' or even 'Adam' but contrast that with Genesis 3:20:

Genesis 3:20 wrote:And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was [to be] the mother of all living.

I'm sure you'll understand that I've had this particular ding-dong for some time on here now, Byblos my friend, and i don't want to get too bogged down with this again. But to repeat, Adam the man is not explicitly mentioned until Genesis 4, and the above really doesn't, in my view, support what you are claiming.

Not sure exactly what you mean by 'Adam the man is not explicitly mentioned until Genesis 4'. Genesis 3:20 begs to differ with you. Here it is from different versions:

NIV wrote:Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

NASB wrote:Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

KJV wrote:And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

ASV wrote:And the man called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Where it says 'the man' instead of 'Adam', to whom do you think the reference is if not to Adam? Considering they mention his wife Eve, being the mother of all living. So no, I don't know what you mean that 'Adam the man' is not mentioned until Gen 4. Please elaborate.

Besides which, it really is irrelevant to the discussion. The mere fact that Eve is proclaimed to be the mother of all living should end it right there. How could there possibly be other non-adamic races when Eve is said to be the mother of all? That, my friend, is what makes no sense whatever, unless of course you want to argue that Eve bore children from other than Adam.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:The clincher, however, is here:

Acts 17:26 wrote:From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

This is interesting. Why have I not come across this verse explicitly enough to remember this. The other verses I have disputed before and are non-conclusive, but I'm going to have to go now and get on the doughnut and meditate. Sorry.

God bless

No need to be sorry Danny. We can all use some meditation.

And just so we're not bogged downed by versions, here again are the different translations of Acts 17:26 :

NIV wrote:From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

NASB wrote:and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation.

KJV wrote:And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

ASV wrote:and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation;

Note the KJV goes even further: 'one blood'.