Evidence for God from Science

Can someone please read this article and tell me if #3 Adam our representative has any biblical merit? Please tell me what you think one way or the other. Is it possible biblically, or not possible biblically. It is very interesting, and I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks http://home.comcast.net/~whatrymes/a1.html

All these can only be and ever will be theories. At least in this life time.

One thing that always troubles me is how dating is thrown around as a fact. I am not saying that science is trying to deceive us with dating methods. Not at all. I just do not like how faith in these methods is pitched as science itself.

In the end it really doesn't matter how many scientists agree on this or that. Opinion polls are not science. Yet they are represented as such. One day we may look back at our digging around in the dust of the earth and laugh at the conclusions we have made.

RickD wrote:Can someone please read this article and tell me if #3 Adam our representative has any biblical merit? Please tell me what you think one way or the other. Is it possible biblically, or not possible biblically. It is very interesting, and I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks http://home.comcast.net/~whatrymes/a1.html

Rick, what are you after? I found it difficult reading the link as it was a bit foggy; not sure if this is your end or mine. But, from what I could ascertain, I will say that it is certainly biblically possible for Adam to come after a prior creation. Early Genesis actually supports this view in many areas. But, as I say, due to the poor quality of the link, could you please clarify what you're after...?

Peace

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Can someone please read this article and tell me if #3 Adam our representative has any biblical merit? Please tell me what you think one way or the other. Is it possible biblically, or not possible biblically. It is very interesting, and I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks http://home.comcast.net/~whatrymes/a1.html

Rick, what are you after? I found it difficult reading the link as it was a bit foggy; not sure if this is your end or mine. But, from what I could ascertain, I will say that it is certainly biblically possible for Adam to come after a prior creation. Early Genesis actually supports this view in many areas. But, as I say, due to the poor quality of the link, could you please clarify what you're after...?

Peace

Danny, just asking for biblical evidence one way or the other about how the author says that one possibility is that Adam was created by God and placed in the garden, and there were already people living on the earth. I never heard that theory before. I always assumed through tradition, and what I was taught that Adam was the first human. Thats All.

RickD wrote:Danny, just asking for biblical evidence one way or the other about how the author says that one possibility is that Adam was created by God and placed in the garden, and there were already people living on the earth. I never heard that theory before. I always assumed through tradition, and what I was taught that Adam was the first human. Thats All.

Okay Rick, gotcha. I've been involved in a couple of debates on here about this very issue. I have always interpreted the early Genesis account to include an already existent creation at the time of Adam's arrival. One example: the narrative of Cain presupposes the existence of human beings. God put his stamp on Cain when he was cast out to ensure that he would not suffer at the hands of an already existent civilisation. Now this "civilisation" might well have been, in fact, very UNcivilised, but the text certainly presupposes an existent people. Now, I won't delude you with other examples just yet; this is not an issue of salvation and thus is not very large on my radar, so I'll await your lead to see where you wish to go with this and give you my opinion as and when...

DannyM wrote: Now, I won't delude you with other examples just yet . . .

Delude or deluge?

cslewislover wrote:

DannyM wrote: Now, I won't delude you with other examples just yet . . .

Delude or deluge?

Deluge, bombard, overwhelm...Sorry, rookie error.

Danny, I'm just searching for the truth, and looking for a biblical basis for any reasoning you have. I don't mind if you deluge me with what you know. I also don't believe this has any salvation relevence, as long as One can make a biblical case. So, hit me with all ya got. I see a lot of these issues brought forth between YEC and OEC as very important. While I don't believe they have any bearing on the salvation of born-again believers, I think they may have a bearing on the salvation, or openness to the Gospel by the unsaved. Thanks

You might find this thread interesting.

Jac3510 wrote:You might find this thread interesting.

Very good debate. Points made by all answered my question. Thanks

Rick,

The narrative of Cain and Abel suggests strongly that this is the prototypical clash of siblings. We have Cain, the firstborn, not only of his family, but also he is the first human being to be born of a woman. Cain is clearly his mother's pride and joy. Abel's arrival, at least textually, is hardly acknowledged, or indeed celebrated. Now, it would be a stretch to cite parental favouritism, but birth order will suffice. We see Cain the firstborn, the apple of his parents' eye, glorified at birth. Then we see the arrival of “his brother, Abel,” who seems to be somewhat of an afterthought. Cain, all of a sudden, is not the sole beneficiary of his parents' love. Then we have the age-old tension between the pastoral and agricultural ways of life. In these ancient tales, just as in the story of Cain and Abel, the deity prefers the shepherd to the farmer; God neither commands nor requests these sacrifices, but nevertheless has chosen. Cain is aggrieved; he is bitter — this young upstart has really taken a liberty too far...

Now, if we believe there was a whole siblinghood born in between Cain and Abel, then how do we account for this classic, prototypical tale of sibling rivalry? The story suggests in such an emotional, beautiful and harsh manner that Abel was indeed the second son, second born to Cain. We have all the hallmarks here of the classical jealous rivalry of a firstborn son and his next born brother. Nothing in this story even remotely suggests that there could be a whole siblinghood slotted in between this classic, prototypical clash of the two brothers. Our theology must fit with the scripture and where it leads, not the other way around. The scripture is very clear in early Genesis: there was indeed a coexistent creation of peoples outside of the Garden.

So, if you acknowledge, as I do, that there in no way can be an existent siblinghood, of which there is no mention, no hint, no allusion, not a scintilla of even a remote suggestion, then Cain's fear of, and God's acknowledgement and deterrence of, reprisals is clearly from an existent people. Cain's fears lead him to slightly exaggerate the potential for punishment. He thinks that he is banished from the whole earth and that he will be out of sight of divine protection, exposed to predators not totally unlike him. Cain feels utterly bereft at the thought of being a wanderer. The mark of Cain — not a sign of murderous guilt — is, in fact, meant to protect Cain in the wilderness. Cain clearly fears reprisals from uncivilised men.

Hence we have our coexisting peoples outside of the Garden. I will no doubt have Romans 5 thrown at me to counter the point, but I'm afraid this does nothing to negate the presupposition of the Genesis account. Any normal, adequate reading of early Genesis tells us what we need to know. I'll be back with point number 2 very soon, Rick, and sorry for the delay so far.

Peace brother.

.
.
I just had a thought. I'm not sure if it is an original thought or not. I'm sure someone has thought of it, but not to my knowledge.

Here's the scenario:

- God creates or sets creation in motion. (I lean to the OEC and the big bang theory)
- Adam IS the first human created and Eve the first Woman and through them all humanity is decended.
- Adam and Eve do exactly as God endorses they do, procreate.
- They have many offspring, all of which are inconseqential to the story of Salvation. All have either kept their eyes on God to sustain their life or have chosen to rebel. If they are rebels and sin, they are thrown out of the Garden of eden. Those that have remained true remain with God. I'm speaking of Adam's offspring.

This can explain the people outside the Garden. They are humans that have sinned, and are simply living until they die...as is the wages of sin.

Where our story begins then is when Adam and Eve choose to sin. Up to this point all their children were perfect and not tainted with sin, yet able to choose between good and evil. So even though some of the children chose sin, the "factory", if you will, was still producing perfect and untainted offspring. The moment the "factory" sinned, the product is tainted and now ALL of humanity, the offspring of the Adam, is tainted as sinful.

Just thinking outloud.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:.
.
I just had a thought. I'm not sure if it is an original thought or not. I'm sure someone has thought of it, but not to my knowledge.

Here's the scenario:

- God creates or sets creation in motion. (I lean to the OEC and the big bang theory)
- Adam IS the first human created and Eve the first Woman and through them all humanity is decended.
- Adam and Eve do exactly as God endorses they do, procreate.
- They have many offspring, all of which are inconseqential to the story of Salvation. All have either kept their eyes on God to sustain their life or have chosen to rebel. If they are rebels and sin, they are thrown out of the Garden of eden. Those that have remained true remain with God. I'm speaking of Adam's offspring.

This can explain the people outside the Garden. They are humans that have sinned, and are simply living until they die...as is the wages of sin.

Where our story begins then is when Adam and Eve choose to sin. Up to this point all their children were perfect and not tainted with sin, yet able to choose between good and evil. So even though some of the children chose sin, the "factory", if you will, was still producing perfect and untainted offspring. The moment the "factory" sinned, the product is tainted and now ALL of humanity, the offspring of the Adam, is tainted as sinful.

Just thinking outloud.
.
.

The problem with this (as is with Danny's scenario) is that it allows for the existence of people who are not fallen. If Adam and Eve had children before the fall then those children (and all of their descendants) are not affected by the fall. But I would agree with your scenario if Adam and Eve had these children after the fall (which would make it the same as the classical view).

Byblos wrote:The problem with this (as is with Danny's scenario) is that it allows for the existence of people who are not fallen. If Adam and Eve had children before the fall then those children (and all of their descendants) are not affected by the fall.

Would it be wrong to clarify within this scenario that these "people who are not fallen" are simply like the angels? I mean, beings exist that are not fallen, would it be so far-fetched to think there might also be created humans in an unfallen state?

Byblos wrote:But I would agree with your scenario if Adam and Eve had these children after the fall (which would make it the same as the classical view).

I suppose. One must ask then if Cain was the first murderer or if it was simply one of many of these situations that was used as the focal point for the example of right worship vs. wrong worship. Were there other murders between brothers that could have been retold in the Genesis account?

Again, I'm just thinking out loud.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:The problem with this (as is with Danny's scenario) is that it allows for the existence of people who are not fallen. If Adam and Eve had children before the fall then those children (and all of their descendants) are not affected by the fall.

Would it be wrong to clarify within this scenario that these "people who are not fallen" are simply like the angels? I mean, beings exist that are not fallen, would it be so far-fetched to think there might also be created humans in an unfallen state?

You can classify them as 'like angels' if you wish but they are still not subject to the fall and they are still human, capable of reproducing and creating descendants who themselves are 'like angels' and not fallen. All of a sudden we have an entire race of unfallens who require no savior.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:But I would agree with your scenario if Adam and Eve had these children after the fall (which would make it the same as the classical view).

I suppose. One must ask then if Cain was the first murderer or if it was simply one of many of these situations that was used as the focal point for the example of right worship vs. wrong worship. Were there other murders between brothers that could have been retold in the Genesis account?

Again, I'm just thinking out loud.
.
.

One of many? Maybe, I don't know. But it certainly was the first. Scripture does not mention any other murder prior to that.