Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

I reiterate, that you are simply mistaken. These books and articles were not religiously motivated at all. And I don't say the books were not interesting. They were just enthusiastic for the then current gradualism paradigm.As I recall now one that I loved concerned water raining on a hot earth for millions of years and eventually electrical strikes into water produced the first living things.I may not say it was related as known history. But it certainly was communicated as the most prevalent up to date theory at the time. I think you're wrong. I think that this is a most exciting time for the Bible believer to be alive in terms of the confirmation of an Creator behind the fine tuning of the cosmos for life. But I am going to try to stay with the subject.And this is the Bible Study room. For you to come over here and complain that I am cramming something down your throat is as silly as me hanging around Fenway Park in Boston complaining that people are trying to cram baseball down my throat.There is no cage door fella. You want to be let "out" the cage to believe your theory, the door is open. I'm mostly explaining here why I don't think humanity faded into existence in so gradual a way that a New Testament teaching of a first man cannot be true. The original creation of the universe is completely beyond our ability to do science upon. In that sense Creation Science probably can only demonstrate the problems with some purely naturalistic explanations of things.The creation of the universe though, current science suggests that all of nature came into being with time and energy and matter at event billions of years ago. I think that has to be described as a "supernatural" event if all of time, matter, energy, space only existed AFTER the event.Is there true "Creation Science"? That is arguable I think. But there are lots of flavors of creationism, and most of the ones I am familiar with teaching problems with other people's theories.I tend to take their views on a case by case basis. And I recognize some crack pot ideas are out there. I do not dismiss all creationists ideas based on a few more vocal ones which I can't bring myself to consider seriously. And from that start we now look around and see the result in the incredibly diverse biosphere ? I don't have enough faith to believe that these kinds of lucky accidents explain everything I see as life around me on this planet. Do you think that THINKING and CONSCIOUSNESS also are the result of these chemical accidents ? I mean the result was a human mind which can conceptualize its own coming into existence in some way ? No I like science as much as the next person. Science doesn't say anything. Scientists say things. And as far as I can see a total gradualism of purely naturalistic evolution to explain life is too much to ask be to accept.And isn't it the case that eventually we all have to put our TRUST in SOMEONE ? I mean, you trust someone about them telling you of all these billions of petri dishes.Isn't it the case that in the last analysis you have to TRUST someone ?
Did you work out your self Newton's laws of gravitation ? Or did you just review them ? Did you work out yourself the structure of the DNA molecule? Or did just review what others told you and lean on trusting them ?For the real important matters of life in this world I trust in God.
I find Jesus Christ believable. I trust His word more than many other people though they be rather intelligent.I explained that Christ seemed to me to take Genesis seriously as history. So I decided that if it was good enough for Him it must be reliable.However He did not wait for me disbelieve in a gradualism of evolution before He came into my life. That is for certain. In that regard Jesus met me just at where I was at the time. "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) Why do you think I am missing the true beauty of the universe ?I know why I am here. And I know what the universe is here.
I understand something of the eternal purpose of God.
That is plenty of beauty of the creation.Why are you here in the universe ? Do you have something better than my Father and His life and nature making me one of His sons ?What do you offer me that is more beautiful than eternal life through Jesus Christ and the complete uniting of God in man in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21,22) ?Don't you know that all things were created through Him and for Him ?

quote:

---

" For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons into glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings

​

For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of One, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brothers." (Hebrews 2:10,11)

---

The Christian's Elder Brother is leading many sons into the glorious expression of the Divine Being for the enjoyment of God and His creation for eternity. That is very beautiful. And this marvelous One Jesus Christ is not ashamed to call those who believe into Him - "brothers" .Creation is for His eternal kingdom - "To the increase of His government and to His peace there is no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it in justice and righteousness from now to eternity." (See Isaiah 9:7) While Christ's life, as the Second Man and Head of a new divine born humanity, is growing in us, we await the liberation of creation according to the maturity of the sons of God.

quote:

---

"For the anxious watching of the creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation itself will also be freed from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (Romans 8:19,20)

---

Jesus has implanted His life into the Christian's innermost being. He is growing and the manifestation of the matured sons of God will also be the release of the creation from corruption and vanity.Through man's fall away from God creation became damaged. With the salvation of man in the manifestation of the sons of God it will be restored. Creation eagerly awaits this manifestation of God's life incorporated into man's natural life.This is what I am living for and hastening to come by turning over my whole being to this eternal life in the Spirit of Christ within us.Why you are here in this universe and what is your destiny ? What is the beauty you say I am missing ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I will remember to distinguish your answer from that of AzPaul3, who I didn't hear from yet.But my realization it totally different from yours. If man was not important God would not have made man in the image of God and according to His own likeness in Genesis 1:26,27. And if man was not important God would not have committed to man dominion.These two little words "image" and "dominion" speak volumes about the eternal purpose of the Creator.

quote:

---

"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." (Gen. 1:26)

​

This description is not exhaustive but only representative and poetic. God created man to express the invisible uncreated Divine Life in His image. And God created man to reign over His creation as deputy authority - image and dominion. That is priesthood and kingship.

​

Besides God became a man - in the incarnation of Christ. He did not become a turnip or a bush buck. Nor did He become a gerbil or a whale. God became a man -(John 1:1,14) .

---

These Tethys you speak of are probably related to the Nephilim of Genesis chapter 6. The fallen angels of Satan sought to derange the human race to thwart God's eternal purpose through deep occult activity.The Bible doesn't tell us too much about this. But it does say something about the "fallen ones" who are identified with the mighty men or renown of ancient mythology -

quote:

---

Genesis 6:1-4 - "And when men began to multiply on the surface of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took wives for themselves from all whom they chose.

​

And Jehovah God said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever, for he indeed is flesh; so his days will be one hundred twenty years.

​

The Nephilim [or giants] were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they gave birth to children to them;

​

these were the mighty men who were of old the men of renown."

---

Many believe that these "mighty men ... men of renown" are real beings upon which much ancient Roman and Greek mythology is based. For sure in the Old Testament the "sons of God" refers to angelic beings which would include good ones and bad ones who followed Satan.The flood of Noah, seems to have been concerned with this plan of Satan to derange the human race, as we consider the whole context of the verses Genesis 6:1-4 and the following judgments on Noah's world. This sounds a bit like "Misery loves company."You'll just have to speak for yourself there. Embrace your own sense of futility and even despair if you wish. But a much more realistic assessment of the purpose of humanity comes out of the mouth of the Lord Jesus in His mighty prayer to His Father before His redemptive death and resurrection -

quote:

---

"And I do not ask concerning these [12 disciples] only, but concerning those who believe into Me through their word, That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me.

​

And the glory which You have given to Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have loved them even as You have loved Me.

​

Father, concerning that which You have given Me, I desire that they also may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory, which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:20-24)

---

What a tremendous purpose of God - that we may be built into this oneness with other believers and with the Triune God. And the end of this process is far surpassing anything dreamed by evolution. It is culminated into the perfecting of the New Jerusalem - the eternal mingling of God and man - united in living union.Then we will be with Christ where He is in the full expression of God living from within and being expressed out through humanity.How can any mythological Tethys compare with the mass production of Christ in billions of believers into the glorious city of God - the New Jerusalem - the capital of the new heaven and new earth? (see Revelation 21 and 22). Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I will have to consider your chart with some more time.But in this study of the Bible I think your gradualism must be in error though impressively represented by a chart.I know that First Corinthians 15:45 has to be true which says - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit." If this Jesus Christ, this "last Adam" had not become a divine life imparting Spirit I could not know Him. I know that I have received Him and know Him. Millions can testify that though they cannot see Jesus, they have received Jesus. He could only be dispensed into us for our enjoyment as the "life giving Spirit" .But Paul calls this One "the last Adam" . Apparently Paul means "the second man":

quote:

---

So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul"; the last Adam became a life giving Spirit.

​

But the spiritual is not first but the soulish, then the spiritual.

​

The first man is out of the earth, earthly; the second man is out of heaven. (1 Cor. 15:45-47)

---

Now there have been millions upon millions of men on earth. But singles out two individuals, Adam and Jesus Christ. And Paul refers to them as the first man and the second man.Could there be other men BEFORE the "first man". I don't think that is a proper understanding. The first man and the second man refer to two heads of two humanities. The first man is the first man created - Adam according to Genesis 1 and 2 and chapter 5. The second man is the conclusion of the first race and the Head of the second race - the last Adam.And He definitely has initiated a new humanity which contains Himself as a divine "life giving Spirit". God in Jesus Christ has gone through human living, death, resurrection and transfigured into a form in which He may be dispensed into man's innermost being. "He who is JOINED to the Lord is one spirit" ( 1 Cor. 6:17) .So the second man and the first man must refer to Jesus the resurrected Son of God and Adam the first man created who brought death into the world. The question remains whether one believes this or not. I do.I cannot deny that Christ has come into my human spirit as a life giving and life imparting Holy Spirit.Then Paul speaks of the future saying that the saved bear the aspects of both the first man and the second man, which is quite logical -

quote:

---

"The first man is out of the earth, earthly; the second man is out of heaven." (v.47)

​

"And even as we have borne the image of the earthly, we will also bear the image of the heavenly." (v.49)

---

This is God's revelation. I am enthusiastic to see what scientist can discover and what facts or theories they can chart out on histograms and bar charts. But I believe God's revelation in the New Testament is what I will live by and believe.Look, even if you find a Lucy like skeleton, how do you know that individual had any children at all. Really no fossil indicates that it was a parent of another creature.And why be so clear in your classification of non-human life only to insist on obscurity when it comes to humans ?

I already considered that.But Jesus apparently took the Old Testament when it was history AS history. My evidence for this includes Him warning that certain judged people would stand in the last judgment with people in His immediate audience. For example - Matthew 12:41 - "Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here." Why would Jesus warn His contemporary audience that fictitious people would stand with real people in the last judgment ? He must have regarded the Ninevite men as just as authentic as His immediate audience. Matthew 11:23 - "And you, Capernaum, who have been exalted to heaven, to hades you will be brought down. For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until today.

​

But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in that day of judgment than for you." Why would Jesus mix up fictitious people of a myth exhorting that His audience would stand in the same judgment of God along with them ? This proves that He regarded Genesis 18,19 as history - " ... Sodom, it would have remained until today." As you can see in the above samples Jesus was not speaking in these instances in parables, though in other places He did.In these places the audience is being told that men of past stories will appear along side of those present in the judgment of God. Doesn't match the particulars. Tyre and Sidon in the Old Testament will appear along with His contemporary audience in the day of God's judgment - "But I say to you, It will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you." (Matt. 11:22) Fish, not whale. And God "appointed" or "prepared" this fish (Jonah 1:17) - "And Jehovah PREPARED a great fish to swallow Jonah up, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish for three days and three nights." Loving Jesus Christ and living in oneness with Him was the best possible human life I could have lived.Its a win win situation, I feel. Exactly where in your post did you prove that there was no first man named Adam ?And by the way, I would like to recommend a rather long but exceedingly interesting video by a Catholic Scientist which I watched the other day. Scientific Evidence for God's Existence by Robert J. Spitzer, Phd.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkjhxzqr-5kI don't do too many Catholic teachings, but this man I found very engaging. Check it out and tell me what you think. But not unless you watch at least a good half hour. Maybe he died and was brought back to life. It simply says he was in the fish. And it was an appointed or PREPARED fish - particularly prepared for the task.That is all the time I have now. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

There is no science theory that compels me to have to acknowledge that the revelatory communication that Adam lived and is our ancestor is not true.If you hold to common descent you have a adam of sorts. So I believe in a common descent from a man Adam as the revelation of the Bible informs the world.I think I am reasonable able to discriminate when I am thinking scientifically and when I am thinking in terms of what God's revelation has told us.I do have some doubts about people given to scientism as opposed to science. Scientism holds that truth cannot be known except through the scientific method. And that borders on a secular religion.Now I already said somewhere that the integrity of Jesus Christ is to me beyond question. If a Adam was good for Jesus, it is good enough for me. If science theories seem to agree, that's nice. If they do not, that's okay too.I expect science theories to evolve and change and come and go. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My word will not pass away." says the Son of God.And please do not try to impress me that scientists do not have things they prefer to believe, things they want to be true, agendas, need for popularity and acceptance and respectability and funding.Some overcome their biases based on metaphysical preferences. I dare say some do not. The white coated purely objective scientist is largely wishful thinking. Not totally so, but more so than a lot of you skeptic types would like to admit.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

No. That kind of precision is not needed in this case.You can believe whatever you like. As I explained a number of times that I came to the Bible with a large skeptical filter. Slowly I adopted that attitude that the character of Jesus was too pure for me to doubt. What He took seriously in the Old Testament I decided I should believe.But here are some other reasons why I regard Adam as history.1.) Luke traces a geneology from Jesus back to Adam. And the human race commences with the man Adam. The geneology (Luke 3:23-38) concludes with these words - "The son of Cainan,
the son of Shem,
the son of Noah,
the son of Lamech,
the son of Methusaleh,
the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared,
the son of Maleleel,
the son of Cainan,
the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth,
the son of Adam,
the son of God." a.) I recognize that there could possibly be skips in biblical geneologies of this type. But I do not believe there could be fictitious insertions or additions.b.) I don't use the information to try to date the age of the universe.b.) As you can see each man's father is another man except for the case of the termination of the list. Adam is the first man created directly by God.2.) The Apostle Paul says that death reigned from Adam to Moses: "But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of Him [Christ] who was to come." I regard BOTH Moses and Adam as historical figures. I don't think Paul means a span of time between a mythical fictional character and a historical character but TWO historical characters.3.) Paul teaches the parallel between two historical characters also when he compares Adam and Christ - "For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22) Whether one believes it or not, to Paul the death of all humans because of Adam is contrasted to the resurrection of all people through the command of Jesus Christ: "Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming in which all in the tombs will hear His voice and will come forth: those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have practiced evil, to the resurrection of judgment." (John 5:29) 4.) The patriarch Enoch, is said by Jude, to be the seventh generation from Adam - "And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied also of these, saying ... etc. " (John 14) I don't believe Jude counts seven from a mythical person to a real one.I know that I am the second make child born from my mother and father.
Well I don't really KNOW it. But I trust my parents that they would not be deceived or lie concerning the matter.If I worked at it I could always concoct a rationale that there could possibly be an alternative. But I trust them on it that I have no other older brother than the one I have known for many years.If you think the Bible is not to be trusted that Adam was the first man and that the gradualism makes it impossible to pinpoint who was, you go ahead and run with that.I am going to run with Adam and Eve as the first human parents. Adam called his wife Eve "because she was the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20) Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

One of my evidences would include the journalistic attitude of the writer Luke.Notice that Luke says that he "investigated all things" (Luke 1:3) . And the Jews kept meticulous geneologies. Luke investigated the things to put them in an "orderly fashion".A sample of Luke's investigative historical research can be found in chapter three -

quote:

---

"Now in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Ceasar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetratch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetratch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness." (Luke 3:1-2)

---

Many persons written about by Luke in his gospel and in the book of Acts have outside extra biblical historical confirmation. To name a few Quirinius (Luke 2:2) by Josephus, Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:6-12) by inscription, Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37) by Josephus, Felix (Acts Acts 23:24-25:14) by Tacitus and Josephus, Agrippa I (Acts:12:1-24) by Philo and Josephus, Herod Antipas (Luke 3:1; 23:7-12) by Josephus, Erastus (Acts 19:22) by inscription, Herod the Great (Luke 1:5) by Tacitus and Josephus, and many others.I think Luke's information matches that of the Old Testament. But I will not at this time re-visit that review.Luke wrote his gospel when there were other accounts of many (even eyewitnesses to Jesus ) of the same matters in existence - "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matter ... even those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us." (Luke 1:2) It appears that Luke sifted through carefully the matters under his investigation and did not just automatically accept everything he heard to compose his gospel.He wrote his gospel to one Theophilus - "So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:4) I take him as a careful researcher aside from being directed by the Holy Spirit to pass on the oracles of God. My fears of misinformation are largely put at ease.If I work at it hard I could of course come up with at least an alternative theory about errors in the Gospel of Luke. And your ability to endlessly question would not surprise me at all. I could do the same thing with reasonable imagination - But WHAT IF this or that is the case ? ?So you do not have to come back and say in essence "But you have not yet forced me to believe the Gospel of Luke." Or "But you have not yet forced me to believe that Adam was the first man."I don't claim to be able to force you. I present my reasons for trust in the account.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The differences between Matthew's geneology from Abraham down TO Jesus and Luke's FROM Jesus back up to Adam is simple to explain.Considerations to Joseph's (the legal father) ancestral line and Mary's (the virgin mother's) ancestral line account for the discrepencies.The few difficulties have been resolved to my satisfaction by scholars.

Oh so you re-ask the question.Why not cut to the chase and present your proof that Adam the first man never existed? That is proof with mathematical precision.I freely admit that the Bible is a book to nourish faith and belief. I gave you some reasons I believe - Luke's rigorous investigatory skills.But you can end the whole thread now by just presenting your scientific proof that a first man Adam never lived.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Interesting video for scientists despairing at that futility of the universe -Lawrenec Krauss expresses this pessimism well in his book to which the following lecture is a reply by a Creationist astronomer. Why The Universe Is the Way It Is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hRfZ_q8ckgAstrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross from (Reasons to Believe) Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's right. I have been through a number of iterations with you. All these exchanges contained a general skeptical flavor that I really should believe something else from what I am taught to believe in the Bible concerning the first man Adam.The general flavor of your participation seems to me to be that because of science research not available to any of the writers of the Scriptures a concept of a first man should be discarded.You say you are not interested in my belief. You seem to be interested in my changing my belief to believe something else though. Rather than continue reading your general "Hath God Said ... ?" to doubt statements in the Bible, show me your unquestionable scientific proof a first man Adam never lived. I don't claim scientific proof that he did. I explained why I trust in Scriptures that I'm on the right track to believe he did.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

erased.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

'I took a quick look over on Wikopedia to see an article about what he was talking about before I posted.The matter of Genesis 6 and the Nephilim I have held in my concepts for many years. Probably, I first got convinced of this matter of ancient heroes (like Apollo, Zues, Kronos, Hercules, etc.) in mythology having some basis is SOMETHING that happened in the deep occult realms of early civilizations, in the mid 70s.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If belief has nothing to do with it then why are you trying to persuade me to come over and believe like you, that no Adam ever lived?In some many eloquent words you admitted probably, you cannot prove no Adam ever lived.Did I ever claim I had scientific proof that he did?I have just gone back through every post I wrote on this discussion to see where I used the words either "prove" or "proof".I asked myself, "Where did I tell everyone that I was here to give proof for the first man Adam which is undeniably scientifically assured ?" (Whew! Am I wordy.)I used these words in the following posts:
#30 - concerning whether something proved that Paul was ignorant or appealing to common myths.#32 - where I said something didn't prove that Adam never lived.#38 - where I asked whether something proved Adam never lived.#57 - where I said something a poster wrote proves that dogs are not more intelligent than humans.#98 - where I stated that something didn't prove no first man existed.#106 - where I asked if something proved that Adam never lived.#118 - where I used the phrase "asked for proof".#123 - where I asked for "your proof"I see no post in which I promised to prove Adam was the first man.
And I gave my reasons why I came to believe Adam was the first man.Anyone is welcomed to say they don't believe it for this histogram or chart reason or some other. But if you continue to insist that I also should not believe it, I ask you for your sure knowledge that if has to be not believed.Neither one of us has absolutely undeniable proof for our beliefs. And if not on this discussion on some recent one I said we all eventually will put our trust in SOMEONE.I think I'll place my trust in Jesus who appears to have regarded Genesis as history. You don't have to. I don't agree there is no evidence. I agree there is no sure proof yet. Maybe there never will be either way. Do not now nor ever have in this discussion claimed I can prove "the first man Adam". You have some of my reasons for trusting Christ on early Genesis.You may have some of my reasons why the New Testament is weakened (in some aspects) if we surmise that "the first man Adam" is purely fictional. And the Old Testament too for that matter kinds of loses its seamless historical flow in Genesis, if Adam is regarded as non-historical.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Explain why.