Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

That is true unless special creation was involved.

I didn't yet say you were wrong.You first. Why are the issues which make Joseph's ancestory irrelevant if Mary was a virgin ?

Not completely.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I gave you my main reasons why I went from skepticism concerning the history of the Old Testament to believing it.You do not want to accept my main reasons. What can I do about that ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't think you understand what faith really is. I think you think faith is gritting your teeth, clinching your fists, squint your eyes and like the lion in The Wizard of Oz, saying " I DO believe!! I DO believe!! I DO, I DO, I DO believe !!" I think you maybe view my faith in God's word as sheer strenuos will power.When you come up with something so unquestionably making it too unlikely that there could be a first human being, I'll let you know.You have some theories. You tendered some. And I responded that its not enough for me to move to a position that Jesus was deluded or lied. No. I didn't watch your link. But it seems that some people always want the theist to do all the heavy lifting on burden of proof as if you made no claims.Consider that you also made claims.I think man is unique. Man alone has a sense toward reaching out to God. If someone could show me that any animal has this sense of the divine as to search or reach out to God, I might consider human beings not unique on earth in that regard.I don't think any animal has a human spirit that longs for God.
( I do not mean a human soul. I mean a human spirit. There's a difference).I doubt that this characteristic of man gradually faded into being as he transitioned from some OTHER animal. You go ahead and believe that if you think you have evidence.A first man with a spiritual capacity makes a lot of sense to me.
And as I said many times, if it is good enough for Jesus Christ, I will believe it.I do not think my salvation depends upon this. But it makes the Bible make more sense.You don't care about that maybe. But I care about that a lot. For the big questions of life I rely on the Bible.I think what you want is evidence which excludes anything written in the bible.If I was a biologist, and if I could afford to pursue scientific areas of interest I would look into something more sudden to explain where new species came from. That's what I would research - maybe something more like what Gould called Puntuated Equilibrium.I once read something about a theory of cataclysmic earth events which may have caused sudden changes in the gamuts. I think an all-encompassing gradualism as a theory will soon be replaced. Nice. They asked Betrand Russell how life looked to him after his son had died.
I heard he said "Pretty dark."Maybe he would have not found life to eventually be so dark had he dropped his Atheism for trusting in the Son of God as I have learned to do. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I believe that there are occasions when scientists can correct something that a Christian believes in error.What is your FACT that you think I am suppressing ? It isn't that you know for FACT that Adam never was the first man, I think.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

1.) Men are born out of wombs2.) Adam (if he existed) was a man.3.) Therefore Adam (if he existed) was born out of a womb ?Is that your line of reasoning ?Well, I don't agree that the first man could not be an exception if it serve the Creator's purpose to make Adam another way.This should not be hard for a Being whose know-how is 1,000 octillion trillion times greater than all the accumulated scientific knowledge on earth since man existed.Eve was named "the mother of all living." That must be your first human womb.Do you consider it a small thing that Jesus Christ seems to have regarded Genesis as history ?

I've consider that. And that is always a consideration as I progress through the years studying the Bible.But some things are repeated from more than one angle. This repetition tends to suggest that I didn't get His teaching wrong on the matter.

Taq,Thanks to your post I have been enjoying reading up on Bertrand Russell, an interesting man. Really.Like Einstien he was very intellectually gifted, even brilliant.I wonder why neither men could remain faithful to their wives.I found these view from Russell -

quote:

---

Sexuality

​

Bertrand’s views on sexuality were pretty ahead of the times. He said that sex between couples was not immoral if they loved each other and were unmarried. He advocated ‘trial marriages’ or ‘companionate marriages’ wherein a couple could have sex without being liable to remain married in the long run or with the purpose to bear children. He even advocated open sex education and access to contraception. Interestingly, he said that a couple should not go for a divorce if they had children, in order to lend the kids a normal ‘family’ life.

---

You may find it not important but integrity, self sacrifice are attributes I count as going towards a man's believability.You see many smart people have an unfortunate trait that they care too much for themselves. When I compare some of these smart people with Jesus Christ His faithfulness in a factor which influences me that He is righteous, straight, trustworthy, to be relied upon as well as heady.Jesus was a man who cared NOTHING for Himself. He wanted everything for His Father and for those whom He loved. This has weight with me as I consider the words from His mouth.I admire Albert Einstein for his brains. I admire Betrand Russell the atheist philosopher too for his great intellect. But Jesus Christ carries a moral approvedness with me that these men simply do not have.And that moral approvedness as opposed to lack of self control and unfaithfulness, influences me that what He taught is true. This includes His words concerning the Old Testament history as He read in Genesis.

Did you regard that as an ad hom ? It is not. It is a statement that to some degree they fall short of the moral perfection of Jesus.We all do.This kind of unfaithfulness exposes that they were not selfless in their service to human beings. To some degree they were out for their own skin.In contrast Jesus wanted nothing for Himself. He wanted everything for the Father whom He served - and that to the point of a cruel crucifixion. This, to me, speaks of His integrity. This was a perfect Man.I regard His perfection as evidence of His truthfulness in teaching and reliability.Notice also that Jesus said that the Scripture (the Old Testament at that time) could not be broken - (John 10:35) . Wouldn't that suggest to you that He regarded Genesis as truthful history ? I agree. But then again I do not regard the clergy / laity system as scriptural. The whole clerical hierarchical system of Reverends, Pastors, Fathers, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and Popes in the sense that you probably are thinking, is not something I think is of God at all.But as a leader among God's flock or one sort or another, I agree that awful examples have occured. The case of King David and his affair with Bathsheba is recorded in the Bible with complete candidness.If you thought I was excusing these leaders who should know better, as not manifesting moral weakness whereas Einstein and Russell were you are mistaken. The relevance to the topic is the high moral character of Jesus Christ contributing to the trustworthiness of His teachings, as more so than the lower moral failures of other men - ANY other men.We're talking about contributing factors to why I regard the Genesis account of Adam as trustworthy.

You set forth an interesting person - Bertrand Russell, as someone whose view on reality was to be taken seriously.I gave reasons why Jesus Christ I am more impressed with and take more seriously.Of course as with all sinners, Christ loved Einstein and Russell and died for them also.The selfless service of Jesus in His faithfulness , and that even toward His enemies, causes me to regard all the words that proceeded from His mouth to be worthy of trust.But these two brilliant men Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, while quite intelligent, manifest also a sad degree of instability. Neither could even remain faithful to the wives of their youth. A saint is simply one set apart unto God. A murder can be a saint. That is a saint who is undergoing redemption through Christ.You know how you irk that I would learn something about science ? Sometime I also wish some of you critics would learn something about the New Testament.Saint verses Murderer shows a religious yet unbiblical assumption about the meaning of the word "saint."Now to the ad-hom. In the area of the real big questions of life, the moral perfection of Jesus counts a great deal for me.I am not saying either Einstein or Russell had no good contributions to human life or our understanding of things. I don't think they are in the same class with Jesus Christ.And when it comes to the origins of humanity and root causes of man's estrangement from God, I trust Jesus' teaching more than what Bertrand Russell would say about it. The person is relevant. We are talking about truthfulness, reliability, trustworthiness. We are talking about whether one is out to save his own skin or he is faithful in serving others even at the expense of his own well being.The integrity of Jesus Christ is to me beyond question. And this goes to my tendency to believe His words when He speaks on how He viewed Genesis.Einstein was very brilliant a thinker. But Einstein also indicated that a certain prejudice he had concerning what he wanted to believe about the cosmos, led to the biggest blunder of his life.Can you find me a similar confession in the life of Jesus Christ ?
This goes to His commitment to truth at the expense of personal preference.
What a man! So you think some Galilean fishermen conspired to concoct a character and put words into his mouth ?I don't have enough faith to believe a conspiracy theory like that.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Could you quote me where I denied the basic known biological observation of people being born from human wombs ?Above what I said was the God could have created the first man another way from the typical way. You almost agree but cut your agreement short by saying - The phrase "another way" is absent from the sentence. Should I take this to mean that you feel God COULD NOT have created the FIRST man without the aid of a human womb ?He created the universe from absolutely nothing. I believe He could also create the first man WITHOUT a prior human womb. I do not deny that men are generally born from female wombs.The Creator God whom Paul said - " ... who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being" (Rom. 4:17) could make the very first man without the aid of a woman's womb.Jesus took fishes and loaves and multiplied them way beyond the initial amount in order to feed a large multitude. The people saw the miracle and sought to make Jesus a king on the spot.As it met His need to demonstrate something or teach a point the Son of God did the miraculous. I already addressed instances when Jesus definitely taught both characters from the Old Testament stories would appear along with people in His immediate audience.Suggesting that He was mixing up the fictional with the historical doesn't make sense. He was combining the historical past persons with historical contemporary persons.If I said you and Luke Skywalker will appear together in court next month you would not take me seriously. Why do you make a restiction of "the synoptic gospels" ? That's arbitrary.Jesus refers to the murder of Cain in John chapter 8. He refers to the divine institution of marriage, linking it with both Genesis chapter 1's account of creation of man AND Genesis 2's account of the same matter.By repetition He gives double testimony to the veracity of Genesis in His eyes. I don't agree. I think the weight of the attitude of the reply is that what a historical Moses said was on the same level of realism as the weight of what God did in the creation and marriage of Adam and his wife.The flow of history from what God did in the creation and marriage of Adam and his wife is on the same level as the flow of history from what Moses had commanded them at Mount Sinai. I understand your forcing an analogy. But I don't think it is realistic.
Plausible maybe, but highly unlikely. I don't need any at the moment. What I presented is sufficient to make my case.You are saying the fictional murder of a fictional Cain is being compared to the actual plot to murder an actual Jesus of Nazareth. I think you are simply reading your own view into the passage.Where do you draw the line between fable and history ? Jesus said that Abraham SAW Christ's day and rejoiced. "Your father Abraham exulted that he would see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced." (John 8:56) Unquestionably Jesus was referring to a actual and real person and not a fictional person who "saw" Christ's day and rejoiced. The book of First Chronicles traces the genealogy from Adam down to Abraham (1 Chron. 1-27) .Jesus also said that in the millennial kingdom there would be the Genesis persons - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but some of his contemporary audience would be left without only to SEE (Luke 13:28) them enjoying there. Matthew 8:11,12a - "But I say to you that many will come from the east and the west and will recline at table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens, But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness." What force would this have if He regarded these people from Genesis as mythical ?Jesus also said the Pharisees would be responsible for the blood of the prophets and men of God down from Abel in the book of Genesis to Zechariah .Arguments about who was meant by Zechariah aside for the moment. The point is that He would not be warning the Pharisees about judgment concerning the mistreatment of a fictional person. That is unless He was clearly speaking parabolically. This seems not the case here:

quote:

---

"Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city,

​

So that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel (Genesis chapter 4) to the blood of Zachariah, son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

​

Truly I say to you, All these things shall come upon this generation." (Matt. 23:34-36)

---

It's unrealistic to assume Jesus was mixing mythology with history here. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's right.My point is on Jesus teaching about Genesis and His approvedness of moral character giving more credence to His teaching. Paul pioneered into living with Christ and through Christ. He blazed a trail of experience for the Christian church to learn from.Yes, Paul's integrity is quite high also like that of the Lord for whom he totally consecrated his life.The Second Letter to the Corinthians is really a kind of Pauline autobiography. Study there his methods. "But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every conscience of men before God." ( 2 Cor. 4:2) It is one thing to proclaim one's own honesty. Anyone can do that. It is another thing to write a letter REMINDING the recipients of what kind of high character they remember him to have behaved by. This he did on behalf of himself and his co-workers in the Thessalonian letters.So Christ I regard highly as the Son of God. Paul as used by God to author some 13 books of the New Testament's 27 books, I also regard as approved of God for the task.

If I meant that I thoughly digested it in all its detail I would not have said that I took a "quick look." A "quick look" means a rather casual cursory browse through.But I do see now that there is a difference between Tethys and Tethys Ocean.
Point taken.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You prefer comforting lies like "there is no God."And you prefer other comforting lies like "In saying that there is no God, I make no claim so the burden of proof rests solely on theists."That is why many new atheists have sought to redefine "Atheism" to mean simply a lack of belief in God or gods.You know? Like the shrub outside my door also lacks a belief in God or gods. It too must be an atheist. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.