Was Adam an historical figure?

[astein]

Very good analysis.

"Science" is a term for those wanting to steal credit for what already is.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Science" is a term for those wanting to steal credit for what already is.

Part of "Science" is science fiction or speculation. The wandering and fiction creating part of the mind of man is part of the definition of science.

As a result, some of the fictional delusion of man is ingrained in "Science". Anything science postulates that cannot be tested, is a candidate for the fantasy side of science. Most of history is in that category so that where the biggest tales are spun about "reality".
The older, the wilder the tale.

 

[Assyrian]

And yet, if creation was a miracle, I would expect it to contradict science. Science can't account for miraculous creative events, and therefore needs extra time (a great deal of time) to explain away the existence of things via natural processes.

If the earth was 6,000 years old and the rocks all tested 6,000 years old, then science wouldn't be able to account for the miracle, it wouldn't be able to explain what happened. You are right science needed the extra time to explain how the earth was formed, and there is simply no reason for a miraculous creation to provide the evidence for this great age. On the other hand, when you have the right explanation, the facts fit beautifully into place.

The historical account of the Resurrection would also contradict science in that people don't resurrect after 3 days. All the miracle accounts in the gospels and Acts would also have issues with science.

How can science say what God can or cannot do? It has not examined God's power or tested his limitations in controlled experiments.

When you have situations where a miracles has taken place, science will be wildly off it its presuppositions and in some cases could be rendered almost useless. What you're describing is almost a science religion, where it is transformed into a super epistemology where it has no limitations at all.

'Presuppositions'? 'Science religion'? 'No limitations'? Of course science has limitations. If there is no natural explanation for what happened then all science will be able to say about it is 'we don't know'. It won't be able to tell that 'we don't know' from 'we don't know' when there isn't enough information yet or science isn't advanced enough yet. What science can to is confirm the people claim was healed of blindness can now see. It could also look a person supposedly cured of cancer and show that they still have growing and malignant tumours. Science could not have explained the origin of the heavens and the earth if they had been created 6000 years ago. However it can tell you how old the rocks that make up the earth are, and they are much older than 6,000 years old.

Christians once believed the sun went round the earth....

But to be more precise, scientists once believed the sun traveled around the earth. Some christians followed them, some didn't.

Perhaps if you could name the Christians who disagreed with geocentrism. The Christian geocentrists weren't following the scientists, everybody could see for themselves that the sun seemed to go around the earth. But I was talking about the problem Christian geocentrists had when science showed them the earth went round the sun and the problem that gave them with their interpretation of the bible.

Actually Joshua's description of sun stopping was perfectly fine even for modern understandings of cosmology. All descriptions of movement must have points of reference. Even modern scientists would describe the sun as stoping had this happened today. And they would be correct in doing so.

Modern cosmology tells us it is the gravitational attraction of the sun that pulls the earth in orbit around it. The earth does not have the gravity to pull the sun around it once a day, the two are not equivalent they are nowhere near equivalent. There are massive differences in the forces and accelerations involved. It is not correct to say that the sun stopping is the same as the earth ceasing to rotate.

I'm sure there were still scientists believed the same things then. It takes time for paradigm shifts to take place. The point is, christians love to be on the side of the science of their day. You're a good example of that.

Sure scientists took their time to accept geocentrism but they were a lot quicker to follow the scientific evidence than much of the church. Being on the side of science is simple means you love the truth. There were Christians who rejected science before heliocentrism, but they weren't closer to the truth, they were further away. Cosmas Indicopleustes rejected the cosmology of the day, but wasn't a heliocentrist as a result, he was a flat earther and he thought the sun after travelling across the sky and setting, skirted around behind the mountains to get to the place it rises.

The question is, was the church after Copernicus right to change their interpretation of the geocentric passages? Or should they have stuck to their geocentrist interpreations and their literal interpretation of Joshua commanding the sun to stop?

It could be, or perhaps somewhere more distant. Heaven is always described as physical, and there's no doubt in my mind that even the heaven of heavens is physical and located somewhere in deep space. Why not? There's certainly enough room. And when Jesus was finished here on earth, he went up into the sky. Had he dematerialized I'd have a different view.

What you don't see in scripture are depictions of heaven being some kind of extra dimensional incorporeal place. It's always physical, and now that we know just how big the cosmos is, it makes perfect sense. Keep in mind, whatever heaven is, scriptures says it cannot contain God. So a physical realm would be just as good as a spiritual one, as neither would be big enough to contain God.

BTW, if you look at the tabernacle—a model of heaven on earth—you have 3 compartments. The outer court encompasses the inner rooms. If the heaven of heavens was physically in the cosmos somewhere, it would very closely resemble the tabernacle model—the outer-court being the vast cosmos.

What ever your materialistic view of heaven is, the issue is that it would have had to be shared by pre-Copernican geocentrists and they would have had to consider the heaven of heavens firmly attached to the rotating starry heavens and God strapped into his throne in the heaven of heavens before they might end up finding you idea a problem.

 

[Calminian]

If the earth was 6,000 years old and the rocks all tested 6,000 years old, then science wouldn't be able to account for the miracle,.....

No, it doesn't work like that. It be nice if it did, for then science would have a wider range of applications. It would be like saying that if scientists tested the wine Jesus created, and determined the fermentation level was only a few minutes old, they couldn't discount the miracle. But if that were the case, not miracle would be required! Yet if the fermentation levels were showing this wine to be 5 years old, and yet eyewitnesses claimed it was only minutes old, now you have a miracle.

If the creation account in Genesis is true, I would expect all kinds of scientific gages to be off. For who knows how many supernatural interventions took place that week? You have the stretching out of space on day 2, the formation of the land and sea on day 3. Then you have the curse it which apparently everything was jumbled up again by God. I actually don't think scientific theories (in the purist sense, assuming uniformity of the scientific laws) will ever be able to tell us anything about the miracle of origins.

 

[Assyrian]

Do I take it from your not answering my question on geocentrism, that you think the church back then was wrong to change its interpretation when science showed them their geocentric interpretations were wrong?

Or do you know geocentrism is wrong, but realise that your approach to science and your literal interpretation of Genesis would not have allowed you to change your interpretation of Joshua if you had been geocentrist back then?

No, it doesn't work like that. It be nice if it did, for then science would have a wider range of applications. It would be like saying that if scientists tested the wine Jesus created, and determined the fermentation level was only a few minutes old, they couldn't discount the miracle. But if that were the case, not miracle would be required! Yet if the fermentation levels were showing this wine to be 5 years old, and yet eyewitnesses claimed it was only minutes old, now you have a miracle.

Yes, the best wines were old ones, so for Jesus to create the 'best wine' at the wedding, it needed to have the characteristics of vintage Roman wines. But would a wine expert have been able to identify the vineyard grape and year of the wine Jesus created? Or would the wine have had a mixture of characteristics from the best wines, the fermentation level of a five year old Opimian vintage from Mount Massicus in 121 BC with the Manganese content of a Pompean 78AD, the tannins of a 10 year old oak barrel matured wine from Lusitania and yet the Iron and Magnesium content of a seven year old matured in a Cretan amphora? If the wine was an incomprehensible jumble of different characteristics then it wouldn't be equivalent to of the coherent picture we see from geology and evolution. On the other hand if Jesus had replicated the famous Opimian vintage, we have to ask why God created the world in six days replicating a 4.54 billion year old planet complete with replicated evolution of life?

If the creation account in Genesis is true, I would expect all kinds of scientific gages to be off. For who knows how many supernatural interventions took place that week? You have the stretching out of space on day 2, the formation of the land and sea on day 3. Then you have the curse it which apparently everything was jumbled up again by God. I actually don't think scientific theories (in the purist sense, assuming uniformity of the scientific laws) will ever be able to tell us anything about the miracle of origins.

If the Creationist interpretation of Genesis were true, I would also expect all the scientific gauges to be off. It would be a complete jumble. What I would not expect is for the jumble of measurements to form a beautiful picture of multi billion year gradual geology and evolution.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The original male human is a part of the legends, traditions, and histories of almost all peoples though they know of him by different names. Our word Adam can mean man but also red clay, other names indicate other meanings. Interestingly, Molecular genetics has indicated a "Mitochondrial Eve", it appears that this fairly new science has indicated that all humans alive on earth today all came from a single HUMAN mother. The genetic link for the male does not appear until between 3,000 to 30,000 years later (according to their reckoning) which makes sense if their was a Noahic male person which would be the connective link to all males (who himself would have come from the original male).

So I say, yes...there must have been an Adam type person whether or not science can ever discover him. Remember, just because there is no extant evidence does not mean something never happened or did not exist...it just means we have no evidence at this time.

In His love

Paul

The Book of Genesis is the only reliable record of the existence of Adam and Eve. They had to be historical people, because the events around the perfect creation and the Fall are crucial in our believing the Gospel. Without Adam and Eve, the serpent and the Fall, we could not have a Gospel, and therefore we cannot have salvation, and everything we are has no meaning at all.

The Book of Genesis was written as an historical record involving real people. This is the only way we can make any real sense of the Gospel. Jesus spoke of Adam as a real person. Paul spoke of Eve as a real person, existing in real time and in a real place.

They are part of the genealogy of Christ, and that is a strong proof of the historical reality of Adam.

 

[Coelo]

The Book of Genesis was written as an historical record involving real people.

Yes, but can you really grasp the concept of them living almost 1,000 years?

 

[ChetSinger]

Yes, but can you really grasp the concept of them living almost 1,000 years?

I accept it. Why do we age? We're still figuring it out. At some point in young adulthood our cells stop replacing themselves. Why do they do that, and what would our lifespans be if they didn't?

One of the results of the flood was a human genetic bottleneck. All of male humanity was filtered through one man, Noah. All humanity would henceforth carry whatever genetic flaws he did. Is it a coincidence that lifespans began decreasing in his son's generation?

 

[Cyara]

I accept it. Why do we age? We're still figuring it out. At some point in young adulthood our cells stop replacing themselves. Why do they do that, and what would our lifespans be if they didn't?

One of the results of the flood was a human genetic bottleneck. All of male humanity was filtered through one man, Noah. All humanity would henceforth carry whatever genetic flaws he did. Is it a coincidence that lifespans began decreasing in his son's generation?

Isn't that the simple explanation of "evolution"? the idea that genetic modifications(flaws or otherwise) are passed onto descendants?

 

[ChetSinger]

Isn't that the simple explanation of "evolution"? the idea that genetic modifications(flaws or otherwise) are passed onto descendants?

Hello and welcome to CF!

The word "evolution" has multiple definitions. Here are two of them:

1. Genetic changes occur over time due to natural selection and mutation.
2. Life began on earth naturalistically long ago and has progressed naturalistically ever since.

The first is an observation of the present. The second is a claim of past events. I agree with the first, but not with the second.

I've repeatedly heard atheists conflate those two very different definitions, saying things like this: "We know evolution (definition #2) is true because we see it (definition #1) happening right now".

 

[Nick316]

Hello and welcome to CF!

The word "evolution" has multiple definitions. Here are two of them:

1. Genetic changes occur over time due to natural selection and mutation.
2. Life began on earth naturalistically long ago and has progressed naturalistically ever since.

The first is an observation of the present. The second is a claim of past events. I agree with the first, but not with the second.

I've repeatedly heard atheists conflate those two very different definitions, saying things like this: "We know evolution (definition #2) is true because we see it (definition #1) happening right now".

Honestly, there are about 6 definitions.

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

Microevolution shouldn't really be called "evolution", because the mutations cause a loss of genetic material. Nearly all mutations are harmful.

 

[Calminian]

Yes, but can you really grasp the concept of them living almost 1,000 years?

This book may contain the answers you're looking for on that.

Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man

Now I can't say dogmatically this should be accepted, but Jack Cuozzo makes the case that Neanderthal Man was our ancestor, and was very superior to modern humans in every way, including much longer lifespans. They had a bigger brain cases as well. We not only find their bones burred with modern human bones (proving the cohabited), but also find them near great megalith structures. Would that indicate them as their mysterious brilliant the builders?

According to the theory, neanderthal man develops this odd cranial attributes not from birth, but as a result of living very long ages (young neanderthals don't exhibit these features). IOW, if we lived longer we'd develop them too.

If the book of Genesis is true, Shem, Ham and Japheth and their early descendants lived among their later descendants and outlived quite a few of their generations. As the entire human race was bottlenecked through Noah (as Chet mentioned), could these very old men and women (who still had some of those long-life postdiluvian genes) have developed some distinctive appearances as the the centuries went by? Could they have not only been genetically superior, but better educated, having longer lives to accumulate extraordinary amounts of knowledge?

Yeah, at first, it sounds about out there, but is it not more plausible than all these ancient astronaut theories that abound?

 

[SkyWriting]

This book may contain the answers you're looking for on that.

Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man

Now I can't say dogmatically this should be accepted, but Jack Cuozzo makes the case that Neanderthal Man was our ancestor, and was very superior to modern humans in every way, including much longer lifespans. They had a bigger brain cases as well. We not only find their bones burred with modern human bones (proving the cohabited), but also find them near great megalith structures. Would that indicate them as their mysterious brilliant the builders?

According to the theory, neanderthal man develops this odd cranial attributes not from birth, but as a result of living very long ages (young neanderthals don't exhibit these features). IOW, if we lived longer we'd develop them too.

If the book of Genesis is true, Shem, Ham and Japheth and their early descendants lived among their later descendants and outlived quite a few of their generations. As the entire human race was bottlenecked through Noah (as Chet mentioned), could these very old men and women (who still had some of those long-life postdiluvian genes) have developed some distinctive appearances as the the centuries went by? Could they have not only been genetically superior, but better educated, having longer lives to accumulate extraordinary amounts of knowledge? Yeah, at first, it sounds about out there, but is it not more plausible than all these ancient astronaut theories that abound?

I've read articles stating that there is no definitive reason for end-of-life deterioration. It just is.

 

[Cyara]

I have a small question:
If Adam was the historical first human, and if he only had 3 sons (Cain Abel and Seth), with who did his sons marry and have children with?

If we have to take Genesis literally, the only female human around, was Eve. And that would mean incest, so i cannot believe they would do that, as it is against Gods Laws.

 

[ChetSinger]

I have a small question:
If Adam was the historical first human, and if he only had 3 sons (Cain Abel and Seth), with who did his sons marry and have children with?

If we have to take Genesis literally, the only female human around, was Eve. And that would mean incest, so i cannot believe they would do that, as it is against Gods Laws.

Adam and Eve had both sons and daughters, probably across a span of centuries. So the sons would've likely married sisters or nieces:

The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, rand he died. - Genesis 5

 

[SkyWriting]

I have a small question:
If Adam was the historical first human, and if he only had 3 sons (Cain Abel and Seth), with who did his sons marry and have children with?

If we have to take Genesis literally, the only female human around, was Eve. And that would mean incest, so i cannot believe they would do that, as it is against Gods Laws.

I'm not sure which laws you are referring to. Could you point them out?

If we assume that the account is true and Adam walked with God in
the Garden, then Adam was in the presence of God. Everything in
Gods presence is perfect.

This would say that Adam's genes were perfect and without flaws.
And the only reason that we don't have children with close kin, other
than YUK! is becasue of flaws in our DNA matching the flaws of our
kin folks. Adam and Eve and their kids should have little to none DNA flaws.

 

[Cyara]

I'm not sure which laws you are referring to. Could you point them out?

Levithicus:
18 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.
6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”

If we assume that the account is true and Adam walked with God in
the Garden, then Adam was in the presence of God. Everything in
Gods presence is perfect.

This would say that Adam's genes were perfect and without flaws.
And the only reason that we don't have children with close kin, other
than YUK! is becasue of flaws in our DNA matching the flaws of our
kin folks. Adam and Eve and their kids should have little to none DNA flaws.

300 years ago, nobody even knew what DNA is. and yet, incest is banned for more then thousands of years. so it has nothing do with DNA, incest is just plain wrong.

I don't believe Adam or Eve would do such crimes against nature and God.

 

[Papias]

cyara wrote:

I don't believe Adam or Eve would do such crimes against nature and God.

This problem (and all others) is solved by Adam as a transitional ape. This is in post #3 on this thread (copied below). Feel free to check it out.

in Christ's name

-Papias

***************

I voted yes, there was a historical Adam, a real person who was both the first human and the ancestor of all humans alive today.

This can be completely consistent with common descent, the evolution of humans from earlier apes, and all the scientific evidence.

After all, in any gradual transformation, there has to be a point that is called "first". If the room is heated from cold to warm, one can take one second and call that the first time the room was warm. In the same way, as earlier apes evolved into humans, at some point, an ape can be called the first human, and God can give him a soul. This is a common Catholic view.

As families spread, this ape/human would naturally be the ancestor of everyone alive today. That's the same reason why any one person alive a few thousand years ago is likely the ancestor of everyone alive today, if they had a few kids that survived.

Papias
*******************

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I have a small question:
If Adam was the historical first human, and if he only had 3 sons (Cain Abel and Seth), with who did his sons marry and have children with?

If we have to take Genesis literally, the only female human around, was Eve. And that would mean incest, so i cannot believe they would do that, as it is against Gods Laws.

The problem is with many commentators is that they treat the geneologies as being strictly chronological. A careful reading of the geneologies shows that there are periods where there is no actual chronological order. The thing about Jewish geneologies is that the principal people are mentioned and then they are the ancestors of whole groups of people. In some cases, there are whole generations left out where there is a jump from one person to another. If we maintained a strict chronological order of the geneology, then we would have Methuselah living 17 years after the great Flood, which is an impossibility. So, given that, it is quite possible for Adams three sons to have married women who were not close relatives. We do not know how long it took for Cain and Seth to get around to getting married, and in the hundreds of years since Seth was born, Adam and Eve had more children and there could have been many generations before Cain and Seth did get married.

Also, unless there was an actual Adam and Eve, there could be no Christianity, because Christianity depends on Genesis to be an accurate historical record of events in real time. Note that the history, being accurate, is not exhaustive.

Adam and Eve would have to have been real people because without them there would have been no Fall, and therefore no basis for Jesus coming to die on the Cross for mankind. Man would have been always the same as he is now. This would imply that man has always had an evil side to his nature. So, if God created man that way, He would have been an evil God because He created a being disposed to evil.

But this is not what the Bible says. It says that God created real people called Adam and Eve, and they were created perfect and evil-free. The evil came into them when they rebelled against God's direct command.

Both Jesus and Paul treated Adam and Eve as real historical people, so to say there were not is to say that Jesus and Paul were in error, and the Bible is not a true record of events.

But if we will not believe that the Bible is an accurate historical record of events, we have nothing else, no meaning, or purpose, no Christianity, no hope of mankind ever being any different than what he is right now.

 

[Assyrian]

The problem is with many commentators is that they treat the geneologies as being strictly chronological. A careful reading of the geneologies shows that there are periods where there is no actual chronological order. The thing about Jewish geneologies is that the principal people are mentioned and then they are the ancestors of whole groups of people. In some cases, there are whole generations left out where there is a jump from one person to another. If we maintained a strict chronological order of the geneology, then we would have Methuselah living 17 years after the great Flood, which is an impossibility. So, given that, it is quite possible for Adams three sons to have married women who were not close relatives. We do not know how long it took for Cain and Seth to get around to getting married, and in the hundreds of years since Seth was born, Adam and Eve had more children and there could have been many generations before Cain and Seth did get married.

Also, unless there was an actual Adam and Eve, there could be no Christianity, because Christianity depends on Genesis to be an accurate historical record of events in real time. Note that the history, being accurate, is not exhaustive.

Adam and Eve would have to have been real people because without them there would have been no Fall, and therefore no basis for Jesus coming to die on the Cross for mankind. Man would have been always the same as he is now. This would imply that man has always had an evil side to his nature. So, if God created man that way, He would have been an evil God because He created a being disposed to evil.But this is not what the Bible says. It says that God created real people called Adam and Eve, and they were created perfect and evil-free. The evil came into them when they rebelled against God's direct command.

If you think God created them perfect, then how did they fall? Look at the description of Eve being led into sin by her desires, Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. That sounds very like James' description of how desire and sin works in us James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Whether there was an Adam and Eve or not, Jesus still would have come to die for our sins.

Both Jesus and Paul treated Adam and Eve as real historical people, so to say there were not is to say that Jesus and Paul were in error, and the Bible is not a true record of events.

Where did Jesus and Paul treat Adam and Eve as real historical people? Jesus used the Genesis account to teach a lesson in marriage and divorce, not to teach history, while Paul tells us he interpreted Adam as a figurative picture of Christ, Adam was a figure of the one who was to come Rom 5:14. Now it is quite possible Jesus and Paul thought the Genesis account of Adam and Eve was historical too, but these interpretations, the way they treated Adam and Eve, are not literal historical interpretations.

But if we will not believe that the Bible is an accurate historical record of events, we have nothing else, no meaning, or purpose, no Christianity, no hope of mankind ever being any different than what he is right now.

Surely our faith is in Jesus Christ and in his death and resurrection, not in the historicity or otherwise of Adam and Eve. And if Adam and Eve turn out to have been a parable describing God created us and how we all sin and fall short of his glory, how is that a problem for followers of Jesus who loved to use parables himself?