Adam and Eve-> to creationists

[William_0]

So the Bible states that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings. So therefore, we're all descendants of Adam and Eve. And that means that the children of Adam and Eve had incestuous sexual encounters in order to procreate to continue the human race. Do you believe this if you read the Bible literally? Is this not contradictory to basic Biblical ethics?

I personally believe that "creation" is a myth, therefore resolving the above problem, but to literal creationists, how do you perceive this issue?

 

[addo]

There is something about incest in the two links below.

Where Did Cain Get His Wife?: What About Inbreeding?

Where did Cain get his wife? - ChristianAnswers.Net

So, incest would not be a problem since Adam and Eve and their close offspring would have no genetic defects or very few to be passed down to their children. This is quite simplified. Check the two sites above for more information. I lack the time now to explain it here.

 

[William_0]

There is something about incest in the two links below.

Where Did Cain Get His Wife?: What About Inbreeding?

Where did Cain get his wife? - ChristianAnswers.Net

So, incest would not be a problem since Adam and Eve and their close offspring would have no genetic defects or very few to be passed down to their children. This is quite simplified. Check the two sites above for more information. I lack the time now to explain it here.

That has nothing to do with its morality.

 

[Verticordious]

I don't know that I qualify as a creationist, but I can still answer your question.

During reproduction DNA from both parents is used, and if those parents are direct relatives the probability of them having a defect in both their DNA in the same place is much higher than if they were to reproduce with a random member of the population. This is why the Amish have significantly higher birth defect rates than the rest of the population, they only reproduce among themselves and the lack of genetic variation is catching up with them (Genetic Disorders Hit Amish Hard - 60 Minutes - CBS News).

The reason why incest is a sin is because there were millions, and now billions of other people to choose from as a spouse that would not cause an increased risk for birth defects. By reproducing with a random member of the population, birth defects risks are minimized and the integrity of DNA is preserved as much as possible. If everyone alive was a direct relative of yours however, as in the scenario you suggest, then reproducing with a direct relative would not be an increased risk of birth defects or a greater risk to DNA integrity because reproducing with someone who was not a direct relative would not be an option.

God's law are given for the purpose of teaching us how to best interact with other people and with the world around us. It is not mean to be a rigid standard that addresses every single situation that anyone could ever encounter. If it was, the Bible would be infinitely long and impossible to read. The law is simply a guideline to give us a general idea of how to behave and to teach us how to apply the concepts to unusual situations, such as the one you describe. Generally speaking, incest is wrong, but in unusual cases, such as if all people alive were direct relatives, it would not be wrong because the only other alternative would be extinction.

 

[addo]

That has nothing to do with its morality.

It is bad now because of the dangers it poses. It was not bad back then because the risks did not exist or were minimal.

 

[Cre Master]

That has nothing to do with its morality.

I think you may be confusing sin and morality. The first is the act of disobeying God the second is man made but extremely important if we want to be able to live together as a civilization.

For instance Abraham's killing Issac would have been against our morals but not a sin as it was commanded by God.

Likewise the actions of Lot. Leave aside for a moment the fact that if a father was to appear in our courts today claiming he was too drunk to know he was committing incest with his daughters he would have been locked away. Their desire to serve their father by ensuring his seed endured overrode the crime of incest.

 

[student ad x]

-MOD HAT ON-


Howdy folks, this thread has been moved from the Christian Scriptures forum to Origins Theology.
Carry on........

-MOD HAT OFF-
​

 

[Hentenza]

So the Bible states that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings. So therefore, we're all descendants of Adam and Eve. And that means that the children of Adam and Eve had incestuous sexual encounters in order to procreate to continue the human race. Do you believe this if you read the Bible literally? Is this not contradictory to basic Biblical ethics?

I personally believe that "creation" is a myth, therefore resolving the above problem, but to literal creationists, how do you perceive this issue?

I perceive it just fine. Not sure where the problem is other than you not believing in what your church calls the inerrant word of God. You are welcome to judge God any way you like but you'll get to face Him sooner rather than later so ask Him then.

 

[mark kennedy]

So the Bible states that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings. So therefore, we're all descendants of Adam and Eve. And that means that the children of Adam and Eve had incestuous sexual encounters in order to procreate to continue the human race. Do you believe this if you read the Bible literally? Is this not contradictory to basic Biblical ethics?

I personally believe that "creation" is a myth, therefore resolving the above problem, but to literal creationists, how do you perceive this issue?

Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Now I have a question for you, is this a myth or a literal historical fact?

Then Jesus led them to Bethany, and lifting his hands to heaven, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up to heaven (Luke 24:50-51)​

After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11)​

If it's a myth what are you doing here? If it's not then why would it be interpreted differently then the Genesis account of creation?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

According to Paul:

Mark, I've described on here how Adam being a real, single, literal, first human is fully consistent with humans evolving from ape-like ancestors. I'm sure you've read that many times. Do you agree that Adam being a single, literal, real, first human can be fully consistent with the evolution of humans from ape-like anscestors?

Because it means that Paul's statement is fully consistent with the details of the Adam and Eve story being myth.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

So the Bible states that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings. So therefore, we're all descendants of Adam and Eve. And that means that the children of Adam and Eve had incestuous sexual encounters in order to procreate to continue the human race. Do you believe this if you read the Bible literally? Is this not contradictory to basic Biblical ethics?

I personally believe that "creation" is a myth, therefore resolving the above problem, but to literal creationists, how do you perceive this issue?

Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).​

Where does Paul say we are all descended from Adam and Eve?

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark wrote:



Mark, I've described on here how Adam being a real, single, literal, first human is fully consistent with humans evolving from ape-like ancestors. I'm sure you've read that many times. Do you agree that Adam being a single, literal, real, first human can be fully consistent with the evolution of humans from ape-like anscestors?

No

Since you seem incapable of a sound Biblical exposition of the requisite perhaps you might be interested in reading someone who is:

There is no doubt then, that the New Testament treats Genesis 1-3 as real history. This is hermeneutically decisive for the church, because we acknowledge the inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Scripture. But there is more than the historicity of Genesis 1-3 at stake in the New Testament’s interpretation of these texts. The very structure of the covenant plan of redemption is found in Genesis 1-3. Bound up with the biblical revelation in the first chapters of Genesis are the New Testament’s teaching on the work of Christ as the eschatological Adam, and its implications for soteriology and the consummation, as well as ethical requirements for the institution of marriage and church order. History is not only born here but sovereignly determined by the prophetic Word of God. (pcahistory creation report)​

Do you realize that Genesis 1-3 are historical and that you can't reject Genesis 1-11 historically without destroying Christianity?

In Genesis 1-3 Moses wrote a faithful, pristine version of the actual facts of history. Genesis 1-11 can not be historically rejected without destroying Christianity. (pcahistory creation report)​

Because it means that Paul's statement is fully consistent with the details of the Adam and Eve story being myth.

Papias

Do you realize that 'God’s special creative act in Gen 2:7, is the pattern for God’s supernatural act of resurrection/transformation of the believer' or is that a myth as well?

 

[theFijian]

The reason why incest is a sin is because there were millions, and now billions of other people to choose from as a spouse that would not cause an increased risk for birth defects.

Really? Where do we get this from?

 

[Greg1234]

Mark wrote:



Mark, I've described on here how Adam being a real, single, literal, first human is fully consistent with humans evolving from ape-like ancestors. I'm sure you've read that many times. Do you agree that Adam being a single, literal, real, first human can be fully consistent with the evolution of humans from ape-like anscestors?

Because it means that Paul's statement is fully consistent with the details of the Adam and Eve story being myth.

Papias

You will attempt to get any interpretation which fits a Darwinian view. But first, you have to assume that the evidence is on your side, then imbue the paradigm. An interpretation of Genesis which remains on Creationism is consistent with the scientific findings of the day. And it is those who have their own interpretation of Darwinian literature, who need to find recluse in a far fetched, allegorical outlook consistent with the evidence indicating that man was created as man. To get you started, maybe what neo-Darwinian literature means by emerging from an ape like ancestor, is that modern humans are descended from the created man who may resemble beasts classified with humans under "ape".

The complexity of the intelligent design of man, the complexity of Creationism itself, the way a material man as a reflection of his image is conceptualized and built beginning with a mental form, would be regarded and implemented. The way his manner takes shape from a higher frequency of energy to the lower would also be added and overall, these are just a few of the factors which would dictate an interpretation of Genesis and the creation of man. Those who may hold that Adam was one man and those who may contrastingly hold that Adam represented an entire race may not even be at odds as Adam would be the representative, the leader of sorts, who through his actions and responsibilities as the designated leader among a people, brought the influence which "started the revolution". Similar to the way Jesus, one man, the leader defined by his state and responsibilities, began among a people, a "revolution".

The fact that an interpretation as Creationism remains consistent with the evidence being uncovered is an added bonus.

 

[mark kennedy]

Where does Paul say we are all descended from Adam and Eve?

Everywhere he mentions them:

The apostles likewise handle Genesis 1-3 as real history. Paul teaches that Adam was a historical person. It was his act of disobedience that brought the curse into the world. “…sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin…” (Rom 5:12-20). Paul refers to Adam’s eating from the forbidden tree (Gen 2:17) as a “trespass” (Rom 5:15). He goes on to spell out the principle of representative headship, on which the entire covenant theology of Scripture is based. Adam is the head of the race, whose sin is imputed to mankind, just as Jesus is the corresponding “one man” through whom grace and the gift of righteousness abound to the many (Rom 5:19). In each case the one acts representatively on behalf of his people. This is the foundation both of the sinful state of humanity and the imputation of Christ’s saving righteousness to believers. Paul makes the same kind of statement in 1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive.” He can refer with ease to the temptation of the Corinthian church as parallel to the temptation of Eve: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.” (2 Cor 11:3). (pcahistory creation report)

 

[Goinheix]

So the Bible states that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings. So therefore, we're all descendants of Adam and Eve. And that means that the children of Adam and Eve had incestuous sexual encounters in order to procreate to continue the human race. Do you believe this if you read the Bible literally? Is this not contradictory to basic Biblical ethics?

I personally believe that "creation" is a myth, therefore resolving the above problem, but to literal creationists, how do you perceive this issue?

Actually we are all descendants of Noah. Any how, the incest issue stands.

The way I understand Genesis 1, is that all humans were produced by the earth (v. 24-25). All animal (including the animal homo sapience) were created or produced in a process that took thousand or millions years. It was revealed in the sixth day of Moses in the Sinai Mountain. The same day, God revealed to Moses that He took one individual (homo sapience) and make him a spiritual being. That is Adam, the first human capable to interact with God, because both are (or have) spirit.

Adam was the first homo sapience to be a human. But the rest of the homo sapiences were not extinguished. Not until the flood. Them, Cain, when he was expulsed, he found a woman, and he builds a city. Do you see? Cain builds a city, for a lot of people. For the people he was afraid to be killing. Cain was not alone. Cain knew there were more people, the homo sapience.

Now, let see Noah. We are not only descendants of Noah. We are descendant of one of the three sons. Noah and his three sons were married. We descend of Noah and four women. Not of a single couple.

 

[Assyrian]

Everywhere he mentions them:

The apostles likewise handle Genesis 1-3 as real history. Paul teaches that Adam was a historical person. It was his act of disobedience that brought the curse into the world. “…sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin…” (Rom 5:12-20). Paul refers to Adam’s eating from the forbidden tree (Gen 2:17) as a “trespass” (Rom 5:15). He goes on to spell out the principle of representative headship, on which the entire covenant theology of Scripture is based. Adam is the head of the race, whose sin is imputed to mankind, just as Jesus is the corresponding “one man” through whom grace and the gift of righteousness abound to the many (Rom 5:19). In each case the one acts representatively on behalf of his people. This is the foundation both of the sinful state of humanity and the imputation of Christ’s saving righteousness to believers. Paul makes the same kind of statement in 1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive.” He can refer with ease to the temptation of the Corinthian church as parallel to the temptation of Eve: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.” (2 Cor 11:3). (pcahistory creation report)

So you cannot show where Paul says we are all descended from Adam and Eve. As usual Mark, when you cannot back you claim up with scripture, you quote some like minded commentary who agrees with you. In this case it is an American Presbyterian denomination's interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith's interpretation of Paul's interpretation of Genesis 1-3, when neither Paul nor Genesis 1-3 say the entire human race being descended from Adam and Eve.

Of course apart from being bound by the Westminster Confession of faith's interpretation of creation rather than examining scripture for themselves, the PCA's biggest mistake is thinking Paul 'likewise handle Genesis 1-3 as real history' when Paul himself tells us he saw Adam as a figure of Christ Rom 5:14. Paul in fact handled Genesis 1-3 as allegory.

Interestingly, while the PCA do think that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve, unlike you they do not claim that Paul taught it. Their understanding of the effect of Adam's sin and their interpretation of Paul's theology has nothing to do with Adam being forefather of the human race, but because he was covenantal head of the human race, which is completely consistent with Papias's point.

You rproblem is you assume Paul interpreted the passages he quote historically and while he never mentioned anything about the entire human race being descended from Adam and Eve, or suggested any passages in Genesis should be interpreted that way, because you interpret Genesis this way, you assume Paul must have too. In other words you are reading your own ideas into Paul rather than basing them on anything Paul says himself.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you cannot show where Paul says we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

You just reworded what Paul said and then pretended that Paul didn't say it.

As usual Mark, when you cannot back you claim up with scripture, you quote some like minded commentary who agrees with you. In this case it is an American Presbyterian denomination's interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith's interpretation of Paul's interpretation of Genesis 1-3, when neither Paul nor Genesis 1-3 say the entire human race being descended from Adam and Eve.

Every time the New Testament speaks of Genesis it speaks of it as historical. As usual, when the Scriptures don't say what you want them to mean you twist words around to make them fit your philosophy just as evolutionists twist the evidence to fit their philosophy:

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. II Peter 3:16​

Your using a rhetorical question instead of a sound hermeneutic...as usual.

Of course apart from being bound by the Westminster Confession of faith's interpretation of creation rather than examining scripture for themselves, the PCA's biggest mistake is thinking Paul 'likewise handle Genesis 1-3 as real history' when Paul himself tells us he saw Adam as a figure of Christ Rom 5:14. Paul in fact handled Genesis 1-3 as allegory.

No he is not, that is a typology. The literal Adam prefigures Christ:

• Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15),
• 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16),
• the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man
• (Rom. 5:17),
• 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18),
• 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).

• how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! (Rom 5:15)
• but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. (Rom 5:16)
• how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! (Rom 5:17)
• so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:19)
• so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 5:21)

What it means it that Adam was a type of Christ, it is not saying that Adam is a figure of speech. You are twisting Paul's words. This kind of typology is common in the New Testament.

tupoi

• 1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
• 1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
• 1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.

tupon

• John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
• John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
• Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.
• Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
• Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
• Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
• 2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
• Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
• Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.

tupoV

• Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
• 1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.

tupouV

• Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
• 1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.

Where is the word translated ever used as a figure of speech?

As usual you are twisting the Scriptures to mean things that are contrary to the intended meaning of the author. This is not how Biblical interpretation is done.

Interestingly, while the PCA do think that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve,unlike you they do not claim that Paul taught it. You are twisting their words just like you twisted Paul's

This is what they teach:

In 1 Corinthians 15:45-47, Paul goes further back than Gen 3 to the creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7. “So it is written: ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam, a life-giving Spirit…The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.” Clearly he takes Gen 2:7 as real history. In the flow of his argument, Paul anchors the believer’s hope in the bodily resurrection in the parallel between Adam and Christ. The creation of Adam as an earthly living being is a divine pattern for the recreative action of Christ, the last Adam, in the resurrection of redeemed humanity. The link is clear: creation, specifically God’s special creative act in Gen 2:7, is the pattern for God’s supernatural act of resurrection/transformation of the believer. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15:45c that Gen 2:7 itself prescribes the glorified/resurrection bodies of believers as the fruit of the work of Christ, the last Adam.​

Their understanding of the effect of Adam's sin and their interpretation of Paul's theology has nothing to do with Adam being forefather of the human race, but because he was covenantal head of the human race, which is completely consistent with Papias's point.

What can I say to that except yes it does, and no it's not.

You rproblem is you assume Paul interpreted the passages he quote historically and while he never mentioned anything about the entire human race being descended from Adam and Eve, or suggested any passages in Genesis should be interpreted that way, because you interpret Genesis this way, you assume Paul must have too. In other words you are reading your own ideas into Paul rather than basing them on anything Paul says himself.

No I'm not, Paul is clearly teaching a literal Adam. You take your own phrase and pretend that just because Paul doesn't say what you do word for word that he didn't teach the historicity of Genesis or a literal Adam.

You are not interpreting Genesis or Romans, you are twisting them to mean something that the authors never intended. Repeating the same error and supporting others who make the same error is no substitute for an honest exposition of the text.

The interpretation you are using did not exist before the advent of Darwinism. It only exists to accommodate Darwinian naturalistic assumptions not to understand what Paul says, in fact, you are twisting Paul's meaning around shamelessly.

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. II Peter 3:16​

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Goinheix]

In hermeneutic, a Word or a sentence must be interpreted in its plain meaning unless, and only unless, there is clear internal evidence that has other meaning. That is not the case of Adam. Even when Paul said that Adam is a figure of Christ, it does not mean that Adam was a fiction character. For example: husband and wife are figures of Christ and the Church. That does not mean that there is not real husbands and real wives.

Also, a parable using a character does not develop him with a long life history. He’s mention will be short and fully related to the parable. If Adam were fictional, there will be so many details from his beginning to his dead.

The danger on considering Adam a fictional character, is that very soon we will be disregarding every verse of the Bible that does not fit with what we prefer to believe. If we choose to discredit Adam, next are Abraham and Isaac. Remember that Isaac is also a figure of Christ. Moses follows, and Saul, David and so on.

Very soon we have that the important thing of Christ is not his historical reality, but the fact that I feel well, I have comfort, my life have changed for good. And if we don’t want to go that far, we have to stop right where must be stopped.

 

[DArceri]

So the Bible states that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings. So therefore, we're all descendants of Adam and Eve. And that means that the children of Adam and Eve had incestuous sexual encounters in order to procreate to continue the human race. Do you believe this if you read the Bible literally? Is this not contradictory to basic Biblical ethics?

I personally believe that "creation" is a myth, therefore resolving the above problem, but to literal creationists, how do you perceive this issue?

God is the author of human justice and thus defines what is morally right and wrong throughout the ages. We know through scripture that action x is only a moral action because God permits it. If God should choose to forbid action x, it would no longer be a moral action. There are several O.T. moral actions that were permitted by God, however, are no longer considered moral actions, ie. 'eye for an eye', genocide, polygomy.....That being said, in regards to procreation, can you show me a moral restriction placed on Adam and Eve and their offspring?? Didn't He bless them and command them to be fruitful and multiply?