Did All Humans Come From Adam & Eve?

[DBowling]

Moderator Comment: This thread was split into it's own topic from a previous thread:
Timeline for Noah's Flood, Genealogies, Etc.

On #2 though, I don't agree with a covenant people idea, nor do I see any need for it. It seems kind of plucked out from nowhere to me.

It's not plucked out of anywhere but Scripture.
The story of the OT is the story of God's relationship with his covenant people, and the person at the head of the genealogical line of God's covenant people is Adam. God made specific covenants with different people and their descendants along the line, but it all started with Adam (who Luke 3 refers to as "the son of God")

There's no way to make it fit that Adam and Eve were like singled out of humanity rather than being the first of God's human creation.

There are a number of hints in Genesis that indicate that the scope of humanity extended beyond Adam's descendents.
The famous question of "who was Cain's wife?" is one of a number of examples. And of course the much debated "sons of God" and "daughters of men".

So I think there are a number of Scriptural indicators that support the premise that Adam and Eve were not the first of God's human creation.

[Kurieuo]

The story of humanity, according to the Jewish Scriptures, is built upon all being tied to Adam and Eve, and the ramifications of the fall "falling" onto all humanity. This also extends into the NT where Paul argues for our justification via faith, as all are made sinners in Adam, so all are made righteous in Christ. (1 Cor 15:22; Romans 5:12-21)

Cain isn't really that much of an issue as to who he bred with. There "might" be indicators here and there of what you say, but really, there's no getting away from the language used of Adam and Eve's creation -- and the strong theological narrative that is built around such that continues into the New Testament.

Now, whether or not Scripture is true, is another thing. But, to lose Adam and Eve, I see one could lose "sin" and "death" and even the need for Christ as well. That is, according to the narrative we read in Scripture from Genesis to our needing the Messiah. Since no commandment was ever given to anyone except Adam and Eve, therefore no human outside of that can be found guilty of sin. (Romans 5:13; Romans 7:8-11)

The only covenant we see God made with Adam was broken, and consequences of which fell upon them and all humanity resulting in our separation from God. Since all are in Adam, being human, we all inherit a fallen nature. In Christ however, we can be restored. I don't mean to be rude, but I just don't see how all such narrative can be avoided in Scripture for any mere indicators seen.

Re: the "sons of God" passage, it is debated and does appear odd to many -- yet, if read in context of the previous chapters it best fits as a continuation from such transitioning into Noah and the flood story. It is odd, when chapter 6 is read in isolation from the previous. Nonetheless, two lines can be traced, one from Cain, and one from Seth. And it seems, if we accept chatper 6 is a continuation, that Sethites allowed Cainites to come back to the land from which their forefather was expelled, intermarry and the like, leading to a corruption of all humanity.

Lamech, of Cain's lineage, even previously boasts of his killings and challenges God's punishment:

• "Lamech said to his wives: ‘Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold"

Indeed, such is no doubt a prelude into God's complete judgement upon a world full of Lamechs. "Seventy-sevenfold" no doubt represent complete punishment if not annihilation, and what we see unfold is God destroys such an evil and corrupt world with a flood.

In any case, I agree you're right in one respect. There does appear to be two different lineages, but they are clearly traced back to Seth and Cain, who were both sons of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters however (Genesis 5:4), but those are the two traced since they feed into the upcoming flood story.

So then, one can read into Scripture what isn't there, and try interject ideas into "grey areas" -- I don't see such as grey areas though. Scripture doesn't ever tell about there existing humans before or outside of Adam and Eve, and if anything the whole consistent message taught from Genesis through to the Messiah's coming, hinges upon such as I see.

[DBowling]

The story of humanity, according to the Jewish Scriptures, is built upon all being tied to Adam and Eve, and the ramifications of the fall "falling" onto all humanity. This also extends into the NT where Paul argues for our justification via faith, as all are made sinners in Adam, so all are made righteous in Christ. (1 Cor 15:22; Romans 5:12-21)

That is a correct statement...
...but...
Scripture does not claim that the link to Adam and Eve is via procreation.

Augustine is a great Christian Father and a brilliant mind, but I do not equate the authority of Augustine's teaching with the authority of Scripture itself.

Scripture doesn't ever tell about there existing humans before or outside of Adam and Eve, and if anything the whole consistent message taught from Genesis through to the Messiah's coming, hinges upon such as I see.

Again I believe that Scripture provides multiple indicators of humans outside the line of Adam and Eve (there are more than those I mentioned above off the top of my head)

The reason that Scripture focuses on the line of Adam and Eve is pretty straightforward.
The story of the OT is the story of God's covenant people, and that story begins with Adam and Eve, the first two humans to have relationship with the One True God.
The narrative moves from the descendants of Adam to the descendants of Noah to the descendants of Abraham and finally to the descendants of Jacob. Moving on to the NT, the Biblical narrative moves to God reaching out to draw all humanity into his covenant people through the work of Jesus Christ who represents the climax of God's covenant line which began with Adam.

The fact that Scripture focuses on the God's covenant people beginning with Adam does not mean that humanity did not exist outside the line of Adam. It just means that the focus of the Scriptural narrative is God's work through his covenant people.

Scripture nowhere claims that Adam and Eve were the first humans, therefore asserting that they were is by definition an extrascriptural supposition. That doesn't mean the supposition is necessarily wrong. It just means that the basis of the supposition is something other than what Scripture explicitly states.

[PaulSacramento]

The Genesis lineages are that of the Jewish people, not of all the inhabitants of the Earth.
As for people existing outside of Adam and Eve and their children:
There is no indication that Cain married his sister, it simply states:

16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.

17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and

There was a land where he settled called Nod, it was there before he got there because the bible does NOT say He named it or made it, that is another city: Enoch, after his son.

The sequence also implies that Cain knew his wife after he settled in Nod, perhaps even that he met her there.

Also the warning that people would Kill Cain, which is strange if the only people were his family then why say "people" when he should have said "my family".

14 Behold, (L)you have driven me today away from the ground, and (M)from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, (N)and whoever finds me will kill me.”

[Philip]

K: The story of humanity, according to the Jewish Scriptures, is built upon all being tied to Adam and Eve, and the ramifications of the fall "falling" onto all humanity. This also extends into the NT where Paul argues for our justification via faith, as all are made sinners in Adam, so all are made righteous in Christ. (1 Cor 15:22; Romans 5:12-21)

I wonder: It's not that all men haven't always sinned - IF others existed before Adam and Eve - they surely sinned as well. Did their conscience not accuse them as well? And Paul well references that those who did not have God's laws are still guilty - and that Adam and Eve's sin was applied to all humanity - all humanity being inclusively of what population? In Paul's day, and those of Adam's line, and specifically all living after the flood (IF it killed ALL of humanity), then Paul would have been specifically addressing ONLY those who came through Adam's line, continued only by those on the Ark, and all humanity springing from Noah's family, for which all humanity Paul was specifically referencing WOULD be impacted by Adam's sin. Again, that 's not to say that any potential pre-Adamic people didn't sin - they surely did. But is Paul referencing only those for whom their sin nature (that would drive their inevitability to sin) was inherited through Adam and his Fall, and that have a line from the world's new beginning, post the flood?

K: Since no commandment was ever given to anyone except Adam and Eve, therefore no human outside of that can be found guilty of sin.

Doesn't Paul reference the fact that the pagans heart's and consciences accuse them? And He's referencing people long before, who never received the messages of God's prophets or His laws - indicating they were STILL guilty - due to what they DID know. Certainly, Adam's sin would be specifically applied to all humanity living after the flood - IF the rest of humanity perished in the flood. If you say that people couldn't be held accountable to God for their sins because they have not been made aware of His words and commandments - well, why do missions? Are pagan people in remote parts of the world, never having heard any of the Bible or the Gospel - are they saved through ignorance? Are they not sinners because they haven't heard God's messages? Sure they are sinners - that's what Paul also says.

[PaulSacramento]

The sin of Adam,transmitted to all, was death ( all are mortal).
This brings up an interesting thing, the conditional immortality of Adam.
Adam was only immortal ( and Eve too), when they were in the Garden in Eden.
The moment they were thrown out they were mortal and would die.
We do NOT know how long they were in the garden after being created by God BUT the story of their lineage starts with Cain and Abel ( and all their children after).

Makes one wonder if the story is one of an offering of immortality for all IF Adam and Eve would have been righteous under God.
I mean, He made them and put them in the perfect situation in which righteousness was possible:
Made directly by God.
No needs or wants.
Direct access and communication with God.

In short, they had no possible reason to "fall" BUT they did and if they could do that then humanity had no chance, I mean how could they? they weren't in conditions even close to what Adam and Eve had and they STILL fell !

As such, the reconciliation, the union of God and His creation would have to be BY God's direct intervention via Christ and not based on anything humans could do.

[abelcainsbrother]

The bible gives us many reasons to believe there was life before the six days of Genesis however after the six days the bible takes us all back to Adam and Eve from Genesis to Revelation.It was even by Adam and Eve's sin that we are all sinners now.We are born into it and there is nothing we can do about it to correct it and so God did by sending his son into the world to save us.Now it is possible that God created a man and a woman for different races in Genesis 1:26-27 and then later Adam and Eve for the jewish race,but if that were true?We are still born into sin because of Adam and Eve's sin and not the other people's sin.However we still have reasons to believe that there was life before the six days.This is why it is important to notice in the six days that God made life AFTER ITS KIND or AFTER THEIR KIND,plus words like replenish instead of fill,plus knowing the difference between the words created and made.There are reasons to believe there had been life before the six days and that it had all perished too.

[Philip]

Paul: The sin of Adam,transmitted to all, was death ( all are mortal).

We didn't inherit Adam's SIN, but his sin nature - so what is THAT? It means an inherited nature that will result in a natural desire of all humans from Adam's line to desire to sin, and that at some point, when they are still small children, they will begin to do so. Death is the WAGES of that sin. We are not guilty of Adam's or anyone else's sin - only of our own.

[Philip]

Another interesting thing is, WHY is something a sin?

I say there are several reasons. One is, God's character is holy and any actions that would violate His character and sensibilities are sin. But He also arbitrarily sets up certain commands, the violation of which God considers sin. But He may later withdraw that command - so that it is not sin. So, God may change His instructions, but violating them during a period one is under them, is sin. The Jewish ceremonial laws come to mind. They weren't for all people for all time - but were for a specific people, for a particular time. What God once deemed unclean was later removed. Did not Noah's post-ark grandchildren marry each other? Obviously so - who else? What other prospects - well, excepting any additional children he might have had. Why would God not have considered such incest? Or rather, why did He eventually consider it so? I'd say, He protected people, once the practice became genetically dangerous, by declaring it sinful. Also, likely, by instilling a natural revulsion to the practice. But, as always, God and His directives are always the measure. And He never gives directives that are morally wrong. He would never command murder, rape, etc.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Nah, civilizations, or at least farming, which is a catalyst of most civilizations, go back at least 23000 years- http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/sci ... 03052.html interesting that this was in Galilee. Unless the flood flowed in such a way it preserved this site perfectly, then the flood would be before or at 23000 years ago.

[Kurieuo]

Nah, civilizations, or at least farming, which is a catalyst of most civilizations, go back at least 23000 years- http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/sci ... 03052.html interesting that this was in Galilee. Unless the flood flowed in such a way it preserved this site perfectly, then the flood would be before or at 23000 years ago.

Certainly interesting, and while C14 dates are often accepted at face value, before revising what is historically better known with more quantitative dates, I'd like to know more about their dating techniques. All I can find is this:

• It is the carbon-14 dating of the charred grains and plant remains that led to the date of around 23,000 years.
  (http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/1.772111)

The Sea of Galilee actually isn't a sea, but rather a fresh water lake. So, I'd interested in details as to the exact specimens tested and individual results thereof, whether they tried factoring in corrections such as a freshwater reservior effect (FRE) (research about it online, or see http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php ... g-problems and https://link.springer.com/article/10.11 ... -7445-1-24 for more)

[Kurieuo]

Scripture doesn't ever tell about there existing humans before or outside of Adam and Eve, and if anything the whole consistent message taught from Genesis through to the Messiah's coming, hinges upon such as I see.

Again I believe that Scripture provides multiple indicators of humans outside the line of Adam and Eve (there are more than those I mentioned above off the top of my head)

The reason that Scripture focuses on the line of Adam and Eve is pretty straightforward.

To be clear, Scripture doesn't simply focus on the line of Adam and Eve, but rather Adam and Eve are the only ones ever mentioned. To say Scripture only focus upon the line of Adam and Eve, sets up the presupposition that there are "other lines" Scripture mentioned when in fact there are none.

The story of the OT is the story of God's covenant people, and that story begins with Adam and Eve, the first two humans to have relationship with the One True God.
The narrative moves from the descendants of Adam to the descendants of Noah to the descendants of Abraham and finally to the descendants of Jacob. Moving on to the NT, the Biblical narrative moves to God reaching out to draw all humanity into his covenant people through the work of Jesus Christ who represents the climax of God's covenant line which began with Adam.

The fact that Scripture focuses on the God's covenant people beginning with Adam does not mean that humanity did not exist outside the line of Adam. It just means that the focus of the Scriptural narrative is God's work through his covenant people.

Rather than Scripture, I'm open to truths reveals in the natural worlds as well. Each are truth, it's just that Scripture has higher spiritual significance, nonetheless truth is truth and no truth can be higher than another truth.

I think your more persuasive claims, aren't to be found in what Scripture is silent on, which I really don't think it is. But rather, in drawing from scientific knowledge.

Scripture nowhere claims that Adam and Eve were the first humans, therefore asserting that they were is by definition an extrascriptural supposition. That doesn't mean the supposition is necessarily wrong. It just means that the basis of the supposition is something other than what Scripture explicitly states.

Contrary to this, the whole of theme found in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation is centred upon God's relationship to humanity. I really don't think this position you're advocating came about via Scripture alone, as no one reading Scripture would be lead to such a position, in fact quite the opposite.

So again, I think your more powerful reasons lay outside of Scripture. In which case, you'd be better off presenting your extra-Biblical (scientific) reasons, and different Christian responses to such -- at least before any revision of popular and traditional understanding of Scriptural truths happen.

[DBowling]

To be clear, Scripture doesn't simply focus on the line of Adam and Eve, but rather Adam and Eve are the only ones ever mentioned. To say Scripture only focus upon the line of Adam and Eve, sets up the presupposition that there are "other lines" Scripture mentioned when in fact there are none.

As myself and others have already pointed out in this thread, Scripture provides multiple indicators of lines of humanity outside of Adam.

Example 1:
The chronological relationship of the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:26-27 to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 is the first Scriptural indicator. Read chronologically, humanity is created in Genesis 1:26-27 some time before the story of Adam and Eve takes place in Genesis 2-3. The narrative context of the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:26-27 is very different from the narrative context of Genesis 2-3, so there is no reason based on the text itself to presume that Genesis 2-3 is a recapitulation of the story of Genesis 1:26-27. However, the presumption that Adam and Eve are the genetic progenitors of all humans leads to the traditional premise that Genesis 2-3 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1:26-27.
The chronological narrative of Genesis 1-3 without this presumption clearly states that humanity was created before the events of Genesis 2-3 take place and therefore Adam and Eve cannot be the genetic progenitors of all humanity.

Example 2:
The story of Cain also provides multiple indicators of the existence of humanity outside the line of Adam.
In Genesis 4:14 when Cain is banished from the land he is concerned that as he wanders the earth, whoever finds him will kill him. Taken at face value this indicates that there are people who are not living in "the land" who Cain will encounter as he wonders the earth. The only progeny of Adam and Eve mentioned at this point in the narrative are Cain and Able, and yet Scripture explicitly states that there are people who are not living in "the land" where Adam and Eve live.

In Genesis 4:16 after being banished from the Lord's presence Cain then moves to the land of Nod where he finds a wife and establishes a family. Cain's wife is another person mentioned in Scripture who is not identified as a descendent of Adam and Eve.

Then in Genesis 4:17 Cain builds a city. Building a city implies that there is a population where Cain is living to inhabit the city. Again another Scriptural indication that Cain encountered human population groups who were not descendents of Adam and Eve as he travelled to locations that were not part of the land where Adam and Eve dwelled.

So in the Genesis 1-4 narrative we have multiple indicators in Scripture itself that humanity existed before and outside the line of Adam and Eve.

I think your more persuasive claims, aren't to be found in what Scripture is silent on, which I really don't think it is. But rather, in drawing from scientific knowledge.

I don't think it's an either/or situation.
I think Special Revelation and General Revelation both provide truth. And I do not think that one source of truth will contradict other sources of truth.
As I show above I don't think Scripture is silent on the existence of humanity outside the line of Adam and Eve.
I think Scripture and Science agree on the existence of humanity outside the line of Adam and Eve.
However, in this case I do think there is a conflict between Science and the "tradition" that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all humanity.
But I think it is important to note that the conflict here is not between Science and Scripture. The real conflict is between Science and Tradition.

Scripture nowhere claims that Adam and Eve were the first humans, therefore asserting that they were is by definition an extrascriptural supposition. That doesn't mean the supposition is necessarily wrong. It just means that the basis of the supposition is something other than what Scripture explicitly states.

Contrary to this, the whole of theme found in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation is centred upon God's relationship to humanity. I really don't think this position you're advocating came about via Scripture alone, as no one reading Scripture would be lead to such a position.

I think Michael Heiser has an adequate rebuttal to that assertion.
Taking Genesis 1-3 at Face Value: Is it Compatable with Recent Genome Research?
http://drmsh.com/genesis-13-face-compat ... -research/

In Christ

[Kurieuo]

To be clear, Scripture doesn't simply focus on the line of Adam and Eve, but rather Adam and Eve are the only ones ever mentioned. To say Scripture only focus upon the line of Adam and Eve, sets up the presupposition that there are "other lines" Scripture mentioned when in fact there are none.

As myself and others have already pointed out in this thread, Scripture provides multiple indicators of lines of humanity outside of Adam.

Example 1:
The chronological relationship of the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:26-27 to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 is the first Scriptural indicator. Read chronologically, humanity is created in Genesis 1:26-27 some time before the story of Adam and Eve takes place in Genesis 2-3. The narrative context of the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:26-27 is very different from the narrative context of Genesis 2-3, so there is no reason based on the text itself to presume that Genesis 2-3 is a recapitulation of the story of Genesis 1:26-27. However, the presumption that Adam and Eve are the genetic progenitors of all humans leads to the traditional premise that Genesis 2-3 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1:26-27.
The chronological narrative of Genesis 1-3 without this presumption clearly states that humanity was created before the events of Genesis 2-3 take place and therefore Adam and Eve cannot be the genetic progenitors of all humanity.

You'll have to further explain, as I'm unclear on your points being made. That is, how such (Genesis 1:26-27 related to Genesis 2-3, different narrative [though I'd say same narrative, different focus]) indicates a lineage outside of Adam and Eve. Furthermore, other interpretations, for example RTB's popular Day-Age interpretation (which I thought you once were, unless I'm confusing you with others), do not say Genesis 2 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1. To also make an observation of my own, I see no real "human narrative" in Genesis 1, rather the creation of humans are an end part to a fuller creation narrative identifying Israel's God as the Lord and creator of everything. Genesis 2, at about Gen 2:5, then begins to set the scene as the focus "zooms in" on God's relationship with the man and women.

Further, the Hebrew word for man, is "adam", the Hebrew word for woman is "adamah". Adamah is also translatable as "earth" or "ground". In Genesis 1, God makes man and woman, the root meaning of which ties in with "red" (i.e., soil) and the "ground". Genesis 2, I see does extend the creation narrative, focusing upon God with his final creation of this "formed of the earth" man (adam) and woman (adamah).

Language-wise, if we look at the mere Hebrew terms even, there is just little to no movement to say "man" and "woman" exist who didn't come from Adam and Eve as told in Genesis. Anyone who carries the title "man" (adam) or "woman" (adamah), must terminologically be derived from Adam.

So the only way there could exist a different "lineage" is if such were not "adam" or "adamah" i.e., human beings. The obviously implication here being all adam and adamah are from Adam and Eve. Don't you see, the very nature of the Hebrew language, doesn't allow for any "man" to have arisen except that he be from Adam.

So then, if there exist different "lineages" as you say, then such lineages are not human, like Adam and Eve were human. Rather, they are some other animal species, hominids? I don't know, it's not my theory. But the one thing that can't be said of Scripture, is that they're of the same species, merely different lineages. Hebrew terms don't allow us to call someone adam (man) and adamah (woman) unless, and only unless, they fall under Adam and Eve.

Example 2:
The story of Cain also provides multiple indicators of the existence of humanity outside the line of Adam.
In Genesis 4:14 when Cain is banished from the land he is concerned that as he wanders the earth, whoever finds him will kill him. Taken at face value this indicates that there are people who are not living in "the land" who Cain will encounter as he wonders the earth. The only progeny of Adam and Eve mentioned at this point in the narrative are Cain and Able, and yet Scripture explicitly states that there are people who are not living in "the land" where Adam and Eve live.

Of course, humans exist outside of the lineage being traced through Genesis chapter 4 (Cain's) & chapter 5 (Seth's), but this doesn't mean these other lineages were not of Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve are said to have had other sons and daughters in addition to the three mentioned: Cain, Abel and Seth. In Genesis 4:25, Seth is said to be a replacement for Abel, but this doesn't mean they hadn't had many other sons and daughters before then in fulfilment of God's command to be fruitful and increase (Gen 1:28).

We read in Genesis 5 the recorded age of Adam and Eve when they had Seth:

• 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
  
  6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.

Many times the men are said to be over 100 years before begetting a son, but I sincerely doubt they didn't have any children before such an age. It's just that Noah's ancestral line is being followed. So then, we only have three children referenced, but if we assume the Bible's human ages, and say on average Adam and Eve had 3 children every 10 years, I don't think that's a stretch at all given they have not much else to do, then Seth could have been child number 39.

Presuming Cain killed Abel just before this, then by this time there could have easily been 200,000 people already roaming the Earth. And that's a conservative estimate based upon women ages 16 and up. I did up an Excel spreadsheet, and didn't even get to the fourth generation before realising the population of humanity could have been very high by the time Cain killed Abel. One can assume far lesser numbers than 3 every 10 years, like 1 child every 10 years (especially with a divine imperative to multiply and fill the Earth), and they don't have the same contraceptives and distractions with education and the like getting in the way. Note too, that women are generally more than men, and some men were taking more than one women. If we split sexes 50/50 however, it really doesn't take long for humans to multiply.

So then, by the time Cain killed Abel, he had a wife and presumably even his own family. They moved, built a new city, which was named after his son Enoch. I really don't see the issue. The main issue isn't with where did Cain find a wife, for there would have literally been 1000s to choose from (you do that math!), and there could have even been 10s of thousands if he did take a new wife. Further, depending upon how quickly people kept having sex and producing children, there could have potentially been hundreds of thousands of people spread out into other areas.

In Genesis 4:16 after being banished from the Lord's presence Cain then moves to the land of Nod where he finds a wife and establishes a family. Cain's wife is another person mentioned in Scripture who is not identified as a descendent of Adam and Eve.

Then in Genesis 4:17 Cain builds a city. Building a city implies that there is a population where Cain is living to inhabit the city. Again another Scriptural indication that Cain encountered human population groups who were not descendents of Adam and Eve as he travelled to locations that were not part of the land where Adam and Eve dwelled.

Here you're actually incorrect, and it is obvious (no insult intended) you are working with a current narrative that has claimed your interest and these verses are being made to fit in without really paying much attention to what is actually being said.

Re-read Genesis 4, Scripture doesn't say Cain found a wife in the land of Nod, rather it simply says "Cain knew his wife" and they conceived Enoch. Cain called the name of the city he founded in the land of Nod after his son Enoch. The city came after his son was born, Cain already had a family. And no doubt Enoch wasn't the first, but rather likely the one born around this time. Cain may have had many others of his descendants follow him out from Adam, which could have easily numbered in the thousands.

So in the Genesis 1-4 narrative we have multiple indicators in Scripture itself that humanity existed before and outside the line of Adam and Eve.

If you say so, I still don't see it and strongly disagree.

I think your more persuasive claims, aren't to be found in what Scripture is silent on, which I really don't think it is. But rather, in drawing from scientific knowledge.

I don't think it's an either/or situation.
I think Special Revelation and General Revelation both provide truth. And I do not think that one source of truth will contradict other sources of truth.
As I show above I don't think Scripture is silent on the existence of humanity outside the line of Adam and Eve.
I think Scripture and Science agree on the existence of humanity outside the line of Adam and Eve.
However, in this case I do think there is a conflict between Science and the "tradition" that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all humanity.
But I think it is important to note that the conflict here is not between Science and Scripture. The real conflict is between Science and Tradition.

Like I said, truth is truth, so I'm happy for scientific evidence to be presented. Again, and sorry to say, but I don't see Scripture in any other way other than supporting all coming from Adam and Eve.

Scripture nowhere claims that Adam and Eve were the first humans, therefore asserting that they were is by definition an extrascriptural supposition. That doesn't mean the supposition is necessarily wrong. It just means that the basis of the supposition is something other than what Scripture explicitly states.

Contrary to this, the whole of theme found in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation is centred upon God's relationship to humanity. I really don't think this position you're advocating came about via Scripture alone, as no one reading Scripture would be lead to such a position.

I think Michael Heiser has an adequate rebuttal to that assertion.
Taking Genesis 1-3 at Face Value: Is it Compatable with Recent Genome Research?
http://drmsh.com/genesis-13-face-compat ... -research/

I'll take a read, it'd be much better reading the source of your information than second hand. So if Heiser is one, I'll examine his claims with an open mind.

[DBowling]

To be clear, Scripture doesn't simply focus on the line of Adam and Eve, but rather Adam and Eve are the only ones ever mentioned. To say Scripture only focus upon the line of Adam and Eve, sets up the presupposition that there are "other lines" Scripture mentioned when in fact there are none.

As myself and others have already pointed out in this thread, Scripture provides multiple indicators of lines of humanity outside of Adam.

Example 1:
The chronological relationship of the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:26-27 to the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2-3 is the first Scriptural indicator. Read chronologically, humanity is created in Genesis 1:26-27 some time before the story of Adam and Eve takes place in Genesis 2-3. The narrative context of the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:26-27 is very different from the narrative context of Genesis 2-3, so there is no reason based on the text itself to presume that Genesis 2-3 is a recapitulation of the story of Genesis 1:26-27. However, the presumption that Adam and Eve are the genetic progenitors of all humans leads to the traditional premise that Genesis 2-3 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1:26-27.
The chronological narrative of Genesis 1-3 without this presumption clearly states that humanity was created before the events of Genesis 2-3 take place and therefore Adam and Eve cannot be the genetic progenitors of all humanity.

You'll have to explain, as I don't see it.

Simple sequence of events...
Based on the sequence of events described in Genesis 1-3
- Mankind is created by God in Genesis 1:26-27
- The story of Adam and Eve takes place in Genesis 2-3
Therefore if mankind is created sequentially before Adam and Eve then by definition Adam and Eve cannot be the genetic progenitors of all mankind.

The traditional rebuttal to this argument is that Genesis 2-3 is a recapitulation of Genesis 1:26-27. However that rebuttal is a presumption that is placed upon the text based on the assumption that Adam and Eve were the first humans and is not found within the text itself.

Hebrew terms don't allow us to call someone adam (man) and adamah (woman) unless, and only unless, they fall under Adam and Eve.

I think you have things reversed, Adam and Eve are called adam and adamah because they are representatives of mankind ( adam)

Example 2:
The story of Cain also provides multiple indicators of the existence of humanity outside the line of Adam.
In Genesis 4:14 when Cain is banished from the land he is concerned that as he wanders the earth, whoever finds him will kill him. Taken at face value this indicates that there are people who are not living in "the land" who Cain will encounter as he wonders the earth. The only progeny of Adam and Eve mentioned at this point in the narrative are Cain and Able, and yet Scripture explicitly states that there are people who are not living in "the land" where Adam and Eve live.

Of course, humans exist outside of the lineage being traced through Genesis chapter 4 (Cain's) & chapter 5 (Seth's), but this doesn't mean these other lineages were not of Adam and Eve.

But the presumption that these other people that Cain encountered after he left the land of his family were descendants of Adam and Eve is just that, a presumption. Scripture nowhere states that these people that Cain encountered were descendents of Adam and Eve. The only two descendants of Adam and Eve mentioned at this point in the narrative are Cain and Abel, so the strong implication is that the people Cain is referring to here are not part of his family. In fact Cain encountered these other people in geographical locations that were separate from the geographical location that Adam and Eve were living in.

So then, by the time Cain killed Abel, he had a wife and presumably even his own family.

That is a presumption that you are imposing on the text. It is not what the text says.
Here is the text

16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.
17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

The text does not mention Cain's wife until after he he was banished from the land of his family and had relocated to the land of Nod.
Verse 16 does not say that Cain and his family went out of the Lord's presence. It is an extrascriptural presumption upon the text to assert that Cain had a wife before he relocated to Nod. The implication of the text is that there was a human population already established in Nod (hence a name for the region), and Cain took a wife from that preexisting human population.

Scripture nowhere claims that Adam and Eve were the first humans, therefore asserting that they were is by definition an extrascriptural supposition. That doesn't mean the supposition is necessarily wrong. It just means that the basis of the supposition is something other than what Scripture explicitly states.

Contrary to this, the whole of theme found in Scripture from Genesis to Revelation is centred upon God's relationship to humanity. I really don't think this position you're advocating came about via Scripture alone, as no one reading Scripture would be lead to such a position.

I think Michael Heiser has an adequate rebuttal to that assertion.
Taking Genesis 1-3 at Face Value: Is it Compatable with Recent Genome Research?
http://drmsh.com/genesis-13-face-compat ... -research/

I'll take a read, it'd be much better reading the source of your information than second hand. So if Heiser is one, I'll examine his claims with an open mind.

Here's another corroborating source
The Lost World of Adam and Eve by John Walton
Here is a link to a Youtube Video where John Walton discusses his book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fn1ESgtNi4

I'm not going to defend everything that Walton says in his book or video, but he does an excellent job talking about the textual sequential relationship between Genesi 1:26-27 and Genesis 2-3.