Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 106 of 376 (709552)
10-28-2013 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by New Cat's Eye
10-28-2013 10:37 AM


Re: First man?
Took it seriously, sure. Thought that the events they described definitely happened in real life? Not so much.
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."
Jesus's audience would have been familiar with those stories. Jesus was found of using parables to make a point. I don't see that Jesus using the myths that people were familiar with as being an endorsement that those myths definitely happened for real.
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.
I could use the phrase: "just like Dark Vader was Luke Skywalkers father...." and that would not mean that I thought that story actually happened. It just means that I think you are familiar with story and it will make my point.
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)
You know, Jesus referenced Jonah being in the whale for 3 days, do you think that one really happened too? Come on now, a guy living in a whales belly for three days!? Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous?
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."
jaywill:
Reading how the Lord Jesus referred to these portions of Genesis and the story of the beginning of creation, I decided that if it was good enough for Jesus to teach from, then I should take the history seriously.
What if you're wrong?
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.
Is it really worth a public denial of some of the most basic know biology, because you think that you're correctly interpreting What Jesus must have thought?
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-5k
I 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.
Mmhmm, and some guy totally lived in a whale for three days
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-28-2013 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-28-2013 12:27 PM jaywill has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 107 of 376 (709561)
10-28-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by jaywill
10-27-2013 11:02 PM


Re: First man?
jaywill writes:
But you do not know for a scientific fact that there was not first human being.
It's as much a "scientific fact" as gravity or (micro)evolution; it's what all of the evidence points to. My point - again - which you keep ignoring, is that abiogenesis and (macro)evolution are scientific and "God did it" is not. You're welcome to throw science out the window if you want to. Just don't pretend that your non-science is science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jaywill, posted 10-27-2013 11:02 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 12:13 PM ringo has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 108 of 376 (709567)
10-28-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ringo
10-28-2013 11:55 AM


Re: First man?
It's as much a "scientific fact" as gravity or (micro)evolution; it's what all of the evidence points to. My point - again - which you keep ignoring, is that abiogenesis and (macro)evolution are scientific and "God did it" is not. You're welcome to throw science out the window if you want to. Just don't pretend that your non-science is science.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ringo, posted 10-28-2013 11:55 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 10-28-2013 12:29 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 10-28-2013 12:29 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 10-28-2013 12:34 PM jaywill has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 376 (709571)
10-28-2013 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by jaywill
10-28-2013 11:16 AM


Re: First man?
As you can see in the above samples Jesus was not speaking in these instances in parables, though in other places He did.
Right, sometimes he used parables and sometimes he didn't. Neneveh was a real place, the Garden of Eden was not.
As I said, referencing a place that is not real is not saying that you think it actually existed.
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.
I see. So you are willing to deny basic known biology to hold up your preferred version of reality.
The thing that I think is dangerous, is that you're putting all your chips on your own interpretation of the particulars. What if you're wrong and Jesus knew that the Garden of Eden was a myth but he was just using a story that his audience was familiar with? Is it really worth denying some very basic and known biology because you think that you're correct in interpreting Jesus as saying that the story actually did happen in real life?
Exactly where in your post did you prove that there was no first man named Adam ?
You've seen where babies come from with your own eyes: they are born out of wombs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 11:16 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 110 of 376 (709573)
10-28-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by jaywill
10-28-2013 12:13 PM


Re: First man?
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.
What scientific evidence compels you to think that it is true? What evidence, if found, would falsify your claims?
If you hold to common descent you have a adam of sorts.
You haven't thought this one through too well. Go back 3 generations in your own family. How many ancestors do you have? I have 8 great-grandparents 3 generations back. The farther I go back the MORE ancestors I have, not fewer. What I have is a past population that have all contributed to my genome, not a single person.
So I believe in a common descent from a man Adam as the revelation of the Bible informs the world.
Based on what evidence?
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.
And yet you claim that you "don't have enough faith" to accept abiogenesis. What did you mean by that? Are you saying that you need scientific evidence in order to accept something as true?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 12:13 PM jaywill has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 111 of 376 (709574)
10-28-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by jaywill
10-28-2013 12:13 PM


Re: First man?
jaywill writes:
There is no science theory that compels me to have to acknowledge....
That's right. Science doesn't even make much of an effort to convince jaywill.
jaywill writes:
If you hold to common descent you have a adam of sorts.
It's a bit hard to pinpoint him, though. Was he a hairy knuckle-dragger or a few CCs of pond scum?
jaywill writes:
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.
I'm the first one to agree that individual scientists are not perfect. I'm as skeptical about science as I am about anything else. Objectivity is not an individual endeavour; it requires peer review.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 12:13 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 112 of 376 (709576)
10-28-2013 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by jaywill
10-28-2013 8:01 AM


Re: First man?
I will have to consider your chart with some more time.
We can use numerous examples as analogies. For example, can you name the microsecond during your lifetime that you went from being a baby to being a toddler? Can you tell us, down to the hour, when people began speaking modern English? Can you tell us the microsecond each day when afternoon turns into evening?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 8:01 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 4:27 PM Taq has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 113 of 376 (709579)
10-28-2013 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by jaywill
10-28-2013 12:13 PM


Brief aside on science and scientists
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.
You are confusing two vastly different things: science and scientists.
Science doesn't accept something just because some scientist claims it. Remember back to cold fusion? The claim was made and several other laboratories immediately tried to replicate the results--they didn't just take someone's word for it.
There is quite a system of checks and balances in modern science. While some scientists can be fooled, or fool themselves, that doesn't last long as other scientists are always testing and attempting to falsify existing theories. There is no quicker way for a graduate student to become famous than overturning some long-held and cherished theory.
I expect science theories to evolve and change and come and go.
So do scientists. That's the way things work in science.
Note that this is the opposite of the way religion works.
In science if there is a disagreement scientists look to the evidence to see which side is more correct. Evidence trumps what "they want to be true, agendas, need for popularity and acceptance and respectability and funding."
In religion if there is a disagreement there is more likely to be a schism, leading to two different denominations or sects. Belief trumps evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 12:13 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 114 of 376 (709600)
10-28-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Taq
10-28-2013 12:31 PM


Re: First man?
We can use numerous examples as analogies. For example, can you name the microsecond during your lifetime that you went from being a baby to being a toddler? Can you tell us, down to the hour, when people began speaking modern English? Can you tell us the microsecond each day when afternoon turns into evening?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Taq, posted 10-28-2013 12:31 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Taq, posted 10-28-2013 4:30 PM jaywill has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 115 of 376 (709601)
10-28-2013 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by jaywill
10-28-2013 4:27 PM


Re: First man?
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 -
What evidence do you have that these geneologies are accurate? What evidence do you have for the accuracy of any statement about Adam in the Bible, Old or New Testament? I am not asking you for what you believe. I am asking for evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 4:27 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 10-28-2013 4:59 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 117 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 5:07 PM Taq has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 116 of 376 (709602)
10-28-2013 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Taq
10-28-2013 4:30 PM


Re: First man?
What's funny is that there is the genealogy of Jesus from Luke. Of course Matthew has a whole different genealogy.
Funny how that works.
And there is yet another option to be considered and that is that Jesus might have believed there was an Adam; after all we've learned a lot since Jesus time.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Taq, posted 10-28-2013 4:30 PM Taq has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 117 of 376 (709606)
10-28-2013 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Taq
10-28-2013 4:30 PM


Re: First man?
What evidence do you have that these geneologies are accurate? What evidence do you have for the accuracy of any statement about Adam in the Bible, Old or New Testament? I am not asking you for what you believe. I am asking for evidence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Taq, posted 10-28-2013 4:30 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 10-28-2013 5:10 PM jaywill has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 118 of 376 (709608)
10-28-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jaywill
10-28-2013 5:07 PM


Re: First man?
One of my evidences would include the journalistic attitude of the writer Luke.
Attitudes are not evidence.
A sample of Luke's investigative historical research can be found in chapter three -
What evidence do you have that his research was right?
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 am asking for evidence, not a reiteration of your beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 5:07 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 5:24 PM Taq has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 119 of 376 (709609)
10-28-2013 5:20 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 10-29-2013 11:50 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 120 of 376 (709610)
10-28-2013 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Taq
10-28-2013 5:10 PM


Re: First man?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 10-28-2013 5:10 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Coyote, posted 10-28-2013 8:29 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 10-29-2013 10:39 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2013 11:08 AM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024