Sandy Pines
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Sandy Pines on Feb 6, 2010 12:30:33 GMT -8
Were Adam and Eve the only and first people that God made? Because the Bible seems to point that there were more then just Adam and Eve that were made as first humans.
But there are also verses that talk about Eve being the mother of all humans,
Genesis 3:20, "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living."
First God talks about man and women being created in his own image.
Genesis 1:26
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let hem rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
27. So God created man i his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
And then Adam and Eve lay with Eve, having two sons Cain and Abel.
G. 4:1, "Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man". 2. Later she gave birth to his brother Abel."
And then in Genesis 4:17 Cain lays with his Wife. Where did his wife come from? Was it a sister of his, since Eve is supposed to be the mother of all humans? Were there more humans then just Adam and Eve so it was possible for the sons of Adam and Eve to populate?
Genesis 4:17, "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch."
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2010 17:38:16 GMT -8
Some take the position that there were other humans created besides Adam and Eve in order to explain where Cain found a wife. They see a general creation of humans spoken of in Genesis 1 and a specific creation of Adam and Eve in Chapter 2.
I suppose they would explain that because Eve was Noah's ancestor, then she could still be considered the mother of all those alive today.
The main challenge to this view is how/why Adam and Eve's sin could have/ would have brought death to other non-related humans.
Others hold that due to long life spans of early humans (also a debatable point) Adam and Eve had many more children than just Cain, Abel, and Seth, for long periods of time and therefore Cain simply married a sister of his (perhaps separated by several decades). They would attempt to argue that incest wasn't genetically dangerous yet, with the human species being so new.
The main challenges to this are that a plain reading of the text seems to indicate that Cain and his wife were unrelated, and also some see the long life spans in Genesis as symbolic, citing similar literary devices in other ancient cultures.
On somewhat of a tangent, but related, the majority of scientists today hold that humanity came either from an original pair or a very small original group that was located in a single origin point.
|
|
Sandy Pines
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Sandy Pines on Feb 6, 2010 18:27:10 GMT -8
Thanks for the answer.
There's no biblical reference to this, but my theory is that maybe God created some separate humans after the fall of humanity, because if I'm not mistaken God commanded Adam and Eve to populate the earth after they fell into temptation and ate the fruit, so maybe God created some other humans to help them with this process.
That's a good point too.
Which is what you meant by Common Ancestors on my other thread?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 6, 2010 21:10:36 GMT -8
So, according to your possible theory, would God have created other humans with a sin nature or would He have also given them a chance like Adam and Eve's?
No. What I was referring to was the fact that animals show an amazing amount of similarity in their DNA, which implies they are related. Some animals appear to be more closely related than others; for instance, neanderthals were much more similar to modern humans than chimpanzees, but chimpanzees are more similar to us than jellyfish.
The similarities and apparent progression through time in the fossil record of new but similar species leads me to conclude that either God really liked reusing similar designs or, perhaps, when he created a new species he didn't create it out of nothing, but rather out of another animal* that already existed.
Lately I've been leaning more toward the second perspective.
*I think the reference to Adam and Eve being created out of the dust may be a symbolic way of saying we were created out of already existing material.
|
|
Sandy Pines
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Sandy Pines on Feb 7, 2010 11:37:57 GMT -8
That's true, it wouldn't of been fair if he did do that.
I'll edit this post later to leave a response, I'm running out of time to respond right now.
|
|
Sandy Pines
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Sandy Pines on Feb 7, 2010 14:22:25 GMT -8
So if man was made to be in God's image, why would He make materials before hand to evolve into His image? It would've made more sense to make us plain in His image instead of having steps of evolving material to form in His image.
I'm not disproving of Microevolution (Genetic evolution within a species)..because we see it happen today. But I don't agree with Macroevolution (Evolution of different species dating back to common ancestors) because we don't see other animals today populating with completely different animals or even similar but different animals making a new organism, so why would of it have happened in the past?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2010 14:40:25 GMT -8
Well, first I'd say that the text itself says that God made man out of the dust and didn't just make him "from scratch". Why would He make dust first and then turn it into a human?
Why would He evolve already existing species into other ones?
Well, since I believe the earth is as old as scientific consensus maintains, I would simply say, so that life doesn't die off due to envrionmental changes, some of which have been very dramatic in life's history.
As to what we see today, I believe that God is done with his creative work (as we are now in the 7th day) and therefor I'd predict that we won't see any new species/ macroevolution (from either direct creative acts or theistic evolution occuring)
|
|
Sandy Pines
Intermediate Member
Intermediate Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Sandy Pines on Feb 9, 2010 8:09:00 GMT -8
Ecclesiastes 3:20 states, "All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return."
So if this 'dust' is still being symbolic in this passage, it must be hinting that we will evolve again?
I think it'd be best to let this topic go as it isn't as important - the only thing that really matters is if we have asked for forgiveness of our Sins and put our faith in Jesus Christ.
Many believers have quarrelled over this topic, and for the sake of our friendship I'd say we should let it go for now. There have been many believers who even split churches over this debate.
As to the end, we should leave it at respecting our own opinions as this topic isn't nearly as important as saving someone from hell.
Best regards.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2010 8:38:51 GMT -8
In regard to the Ecclesiastes passage, it uses the word dust both in a symbolic and in a more literal way.
Obviously we don't come from dust literally, but we do more literally return to dust when we die, right?
No problem if you want to drop the topic. You're right that this is a secondary issue. I just think it's interesting to debate/ discuss but never at the cost of frustrating relationships.
|
|