Adam has to be real.

[abelcainsbrother]

First off let me say that this not be a reason to divide us as Christians.

Amen!

But I'm trying to understand how you claim 2nd Peter 3:5 is reffering to Genesis 1,then in 2nd Peter 3:6 claim these waters that flooded the heavens(cosmos)and the earth and that the earth was formed out of changes to Noah's flood somehow in verse 6. It might be hard for you to imagine the heavens(cosmos) and the earth was flooded that you seem to think is creating new doctrine.But it clearly tells us that the waters the EARTH was formed out of caused the WORLD at that time to be destroyed,and we know from the word heavens this is referring to the cosmos but also the EARTH.

Let's start by clarifying which Greek word refers to which English word in 2 Peter 3:5-6.

In 2 Peter 3:5
Greek ouranos = English heavens
Greek ge = English earth
In 2 Peter 3:6
Greek kosmos = English world

Neither myself or 2 Peter 3 is claiming that the heavens were flooded.
2 Peter 3:5 tells us 2 things
- By the word of the Lord the heavens (Greek ouranos) existed
- By the word of the Lord the earth (Greek ge) was formed out of water (Peter is referring to Genesis 1:9 here)

2 Peter 3:6 tells us that
- The 'world (Greek kosmos) at that time' was destroyed, being flooded by water (Peter is referring to Genesis 6-9 here and the known world at the time of Noah refers to the land of Mesopotamia)

And yet the earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 that you think is creating new doctrine? In Genesis 1:2 the earth is covered with waters,then on day 2 God divides the waters and we see the earth is formed out of these waters. So I don't see how you can claim this is creating new doctrine.

The world is covered with water in Genesis 1:2. I think we both agree with that.

The 'new doctrine' I was referring to was the assertion that Peter was referring to a flood other than Noah's Flood in 2 Peter 3:6.
Peter is referring to the flood that is mentioned by the OT Scriptures in Genesis and in the teachings of Jesus.

This world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,so I don't understand why you claim it was

"The world at that time" (ie the land of Mesopotamia) was destroyed by Noah's Flood in Genesis 6-9.

It seems to me that because you can't conceive of a flood of the universe and you think there is no evidence then it is creating doctrine,but Peter used the word cosmos for a reason when the word heavens is used,and the heavens existed long ago and the earth also.

Peter doesn't claim that the heavens (ouranos) were flooded.
The reason I don't think the universe was flooded is because Scripture never claims it was.

Peter used the work kosmos because that is the Greek word for world.
And Peter qualified his use of the word world/cosmos with the phrase "at that time" to indicate that the world that he was talking about was the known world at the time of Noah, which we know today as the land of Mesopotamia.

This means there was a former heavens and earth that perished with water but the present heavens and earth will be destroyed by fire and since the heavens and earth were not effected in Niah's flood I don't see how you cannot see it is talking about a former heavens and earth and world that perished in water.

In 2 Peter 3:3-9 Peter is talking about the same thing that Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:37-39.
Genesis never says anything about the heavens and earth perishing in water.
Jesus never says anything about the heavens and earth perishing in water.
And nowhere in 2 Peter 3 does Peter claim that the heavens and earth perished by water.

The thing that was destroyed by water in 2 Peter 3:6 was the known world at the time of Noah.

In Christ

I think you are overlooking several things 2nd Peter 3:3-9 reveals. First you are overlooking this "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”
You want to believe all continues just as it was from the beginning over billions of years.
Next "For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

For those who teach all continues as it was from the beginning of creation - Genesis 1:1 -For when they maintain this,it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, this happened in Genesis 1, but it is also explaining why those who believe all things have continued since the beginning of the creation are wrong and then starts stating why it has'nt continued from the beginning of the creation by saying "through which the world at that time "at that time" is a look back,was destroyed,being flooded with water. It is explaining why it escapes the notice of those who claim "For ever since the fathers fell asleep,all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation and why they are wrong.

In other words since we know all things have not continued on since the beginning of the creation we have a break or a gap of time when it has not continued on since the beginning of the creation.And since it mentions the earth being formed out of water through which the former world perished the only other flood we can find is Genesis 1:2 which you acknowledge the earth has water on it,yet reject a flood? So we know based on Genesis 1:2 inwhich we have water on it and the fact the earth was formed out of water there was a world before it that was destroyed.

There is no other alternative to go by in the bible.We only have Genesis 1 when the earth is formed out of water by flood waters or Noah's flood but I've already explained why Noah's flood won't work.

This means you are overlooking an event that prevented all things continuing on just as it was from the beginning of the creation. There was an event that prevented this from continuing on that has been overlooked and this is Peter's whole point.Yet you keep making this apply to Noah's flood eventhough this world continued on,unlike when the former earth and world were destroyed. It matters not what translation we use 2nd Peter 3:3-9 is still pointing us to Genesis 1 and not Noah's flood or both.

[DBowling]

And since it mentions the earth being formed out of water through which the former world perished the only other flood we can find is Genesis 1:2 which you acknowledge the earth has water on it,yet reject a flood?

There is no flood mentioned in Genesis 1:2. There is no world that was destroyed by a flood mentioned in Genesis 1:2. It's just not there in Scripture.
According to Scripture the earth was formed out of the waters after Genesis 1:2.
According to Scripture all plant life was created after Genesis 1:2
According to Scripture all animal life was created after Genesis 1:2
According to Scripture humans were created after Genesis 1:2.

There is no destruction of the world by a flood mentioned anywhere in Genesis 1:2. That assertion is an extraScriptural presupposition that has been invented to support a tradition.

So we know based on Genesis 1:2 in which we have water on it and the fact the earth was formed out of water there was a world before it that was destroyed.

We do know based on Genesis 1:2 (and Genesis 1:9) that the earth was formed out of water.
We do not know from Genesis 1:2 (or anywhere else in Scripture) that there was a world before Genesis 1:2 that was destroyed. That is an extraScriptural presupposition.

It matters not what translation we use 2nd Peter 3:3-9 is still pointing us to Genesis 1 and not Noah's flood or both.

There is one and only one flood that destroyed "the world at that time" mentioned in Genesis. That is Noah's Flood described in Genesis 6-9. That is the flood that Peter is referring to in 2 Peter 3:6.

In Christ

[DBowling]

Hmmmm, did adam have a belly button?

Well... according to the attached video, the reason Mr. Lunt did not have a belly button was because he was a gourd.
And since a gourd is technically a fruit then Mr. Lunt would not be expected to have a belly button.

Now the Biblical Adam was a human and not a gourd, and there is no scientific evidence to support the premise that humans evolved from gourds.

Therefore, as a human with no genetic relationship to Mr. Lunt (or any gourd for that matter), I would be inclined to believe that Adam (like all non-gourd humans) did in fact have a belly button.

[Nessa]

Hmmmm, did adam have a belly button?

Well... according to the attached video, the reason Mr. Lunt did not have a belly button was because he was a gourd.
And since a gourd is technically a fruit then Mr. Lunt would not be expected to have a belly button.

Now the Biblical Adam was a human and not a gourd, and there is no scientific evidence to support the premise that humans evolved from gourds.

Therefore, as a human with no genetic relationship to Mr. Lunt (or any gourd for that matter), I would be inclined to believe that Adam (like all non-gourd humans) did in fact have a belly button.

So did God give him one for decoration?

[DBowling]

So did God give him one for decoration?

Well... the OP did ask...

How do theistic evolution people try and get around stuff like Adam?

So I'll bite...

The famous belly button question comes down to this...
When Scripture says that God formed Adam from dust in Genesis 2:7, does that in and of itself mean that Adam did not have a physical mother?

According to Psalm 103:14 I and every other person are also formed from dust.

for he knows how we are formed,
he remembers that we are dust.

Since I, like Adam, am formed from dust. And since I can personally testify that I do have both a mother and a belly button. Then I can safely say that being formed from dust in and of itself does not preclude a person from having a physical mother and a belly button.

So what does it mean to be formed from dust?
According to Scripture being formed from dust is a reference to our physical mortality.
This is clearly spelled out in 1 Corinthians 15:47-48 where our dusty/earthy/mortal bodies are equated with Adam's dusty/earthy/mortal body.

I believe Genesis 2:7 is telling us that God made Adam with a dusty/earthy/mortal body. And there is nothing in the text of Genesis 2:7 that prevents Adam from having either a physical mother or a belly button.

In Christ

[RickD]

Reread Genesis 2.

Adam was formed from the dust, then God breathed into his nostrils.
Then God placed the man in the garden.

Sounds like Adam was a special creation.

Whether or not one believes in evolution, it seems that Adam was a special creation.

[DBowling]

Reread Genesis 2.

Adam was formed from the dust, then God breathed into his nostrils.
Then God placed the man in the garden.

Sounds like Adam was a special creation.

Whether or not one believes in evolution, it seems that Adam was a special creation.

Let me reiterate that I am not a Theistic Evolutionist.
And I do believe that the creation of mankind in Genesis 1:26-27 was a special creative act by God.

Regarding Adam in particular...
As I point out in my post above I believe that being formed from dust is a reference to Adam's mortality, not to his material creation.
Adam was formed from dust, but Scripture says that I am formed from dust as well.
So being formed from dust is something that I and the rest of humanity share with Adam.

Yes... Genesis 2 tells us that Adam was made by God for a very unique and special purpose. But according to Scripture being formed from dust is not something that is special or unique to Adam.

Scripture tells us that we are all formed from dust. Scripture also tells us that we are knit together in our mother's womb by God.
Both of those principles are true for us, and I see nothing in Genesis 2:7 that prevents both of those Scriptural principles from being true for Adam as well.

In Christ

[PaulSacramento]

The creation events in Genesis 1 and 2 are distinct.
I know many don't want them to be, that they view 2 as a "subsection" of 1 BUT if you simply take them as they were written what we have is a general creation of all life on Earth and a special creation on Earth in a specific place:
The Garden in Eden.

Now I doubt very much that the writers of either Genesis 1 or 2 wanted to make a scientific statement pro or con evolution or anything other than stating this:

Humans came to being as part of the natural process of life on earth BUT they are unique for they are in the image of God ( the reflect what God is) - Genesis 1.
In a specific place on Earth, two humans were came to be and were given a special relationship with God and each other.
Genesis 2.

The fall, of course, is another story.

But if we simply read what is written in genesis 1 and 2 without reading any predisposed theology into it, what we read is what is there.

[RickD]

My point is that whether or not Adam was the first man who ever lived doesn't matter in this context.

Genesis 2 says that Adam was specially created for a purpose. God created him, breathed life into his nostrils, and placed him in the garden.

I can't see how that leaves open the possibility that Adam was born of a woman, raised to adulthood, then placed in the garden.

The text just doesn't say that.

[DBowling]

My point is that whether or not Adam was the first man who ever lived doesn't matter in this context.

Genesis 2 says that Adam was specially created for a purpose. God created him, breathed life into his nostrils, and placed him in the garden.

I can't see how that leaves open the possibility that Adam was born of a woman, raised to adulthood, then placed in the garden.

The text just doesn't say that.

I don't see any inherent logical or Scriptural contradiction between the following two statements.

Adam was specially created for a purpose. God created him, breathed life into his nostrils, and placed him in the garden.

Adam was born of a woman, raised to adulthood, then placed in the garden.

Both statements are consistent with the key Scriptural elements of Genesis 2.

The primary question at hand is whether or not God used the Psalm 139:13 process when he created Adam.
Scripture does not state that he did not use that process, so the Psalm 139:13 process is my default starting position unless Scripture explicitly states otherwise.

In Christ

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
The primary question at hand is whether or not God used the Psalm 139:13 process when he created Adam.
Scripture does not state that he did not use that process, so the Psalm 139:13 process is my default starting position unless Scripture explicitly states otherwise

Huh?

You're reading psalm 139:13 into the verse in Genesis?

One describes God forming man from dust. The other describes Him forming David's inward parts, and forming him in the womb.

Two different Hebrew words. Two different processes.

You really want to read one verse into another, and call it a default starting position?

Seems like quite a stretch.

[PaulSacramento]

A person in the ANE reading Genesis 1 and 2 and reading psalm 139:13 would not see them being as inter-related.

It is clear that in Genesis 2, the writers is making a bold statement of creation, hence Adam is formed BY God from the earth and EVE is formed by God OF Adam.

Psalm 139:13 is a staement of God foreknowing David before he was even born.

[DBowling]

DBowling wrote:
The primary question at hand is whether or not God used the Psalm 139:13 process when he created Adam.
Scripture does not state that he did not use that process, so the Psalm 139:13 process is my default starting position unless Scripture explicitly states otherwise

One describes God forming man from dust. The other describes Him forming David's inward parts, and forming him in the womb.

Two different Hebrew words. Two different processes.

And as I pointed out above. According to Scripture God forming man from dust and God forming man in the womb are not contradictory or mutually exclusive concepts.

According to Psalm 103:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:47-48 all humans, including Adam and including all of us, are formed of dust.
According to Psalm 139:13 all humans are also knit together by God in their mother's womb.

So every one of us is an example of someone who has been formed by dust as well as being knit together by God in our mother's womb.


Therefore, according to Scripture you cannot make the assertion that being formed from dust excludes being knit together in your mother's womb.

You really want to read one verse into another, and call it a default starting position?

No, I read Psalm 139:13 for what it is... a description of how God has created all humans.
And based on Psalm 139:13 my 'starting position' is that all humans are and were knit together in their mother's womb unless Scripture explicitly states otherwise.

In Christ

[DBowling]

Psalm 139:13 is a staement of God foreknowing David before he was even born.

I think Psalm 139:13-14 goes beyond foreknowledge

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

This describes God actively involved in the creative process.

In Christ

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
And as I pointed out above. According to Scripture God forming man from dust and God forming man in the womb are not contradictory or mutually exclusive concepts.

Never said they were mutually exclusive. But you're making an assertion that God formed Adam in his mother's womb. There's no scriptural basis for that.

According to Psalm 103:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:47-48 all humans, including Adam and including all of us, are formed of dust.

Agree.

According to Psalm 139:13 all humans are also knit together by God in their mother's womb.

Where? That verse doesn't say "all" humans.
There's where you're reading something into the verse.

So every one of us is an example of someone who has been formed by dust as well as being knit together by God in our mother's womb.

I would agree, but you still don't get the second part from scripture. And both Adam and Eve are special exceptions.

Therefore, according to Scripture you cannot make the assertion that being formed from dust excludes being knit together in your mother's womb.

That may be the way God forms people. With two exceptions, mentioned in scripture. A&E.

No, I read Psalm 139:13 for what it is... a description of how God has created all humans.

Again. Reading something into the verse, that it does not say. The verse certainly doesn't say anything about "all" humans.

And based on Psalm 139:13 my 'starting position' is that all humans are and were knit together in their mother's womb unless Scripture explicitly states otherwise.

And that's where your assertion fails. You base your assertion that Adam was knit in a womb, from eisegesis of psalm 139:13.