how creation and evolution can work together seamlessly

drich0150 said:

Great! Now tell me how your statement here is any different than what I said in the OP.

Click to expand...

Well, wasn't your position that the events of Genesis 2 occurred within the 6 days of creation?

drich0150 said:

your summary:



So nothing you said here would indicate that gen 2 could not take place in the 6 days of creation

I agree Adam and Eve are never mentioned in gen 1.
I understand that most people believe that "Day 6 man kind" is in reference to Adam and Eve, I do not believe this is correct.
I agree that Mankind of day 6 refers to the whole of humanity not Adam and Eve who where a separate creation..

So where is Adam and Eve? they are in the garden after having been created by God as recorded in Gen 2 starting at verse 4 which describes day 3 creation.

So A&E are day three the first of all of God creations and Everyone else comes in day 6.

So where are Adam and Eve in your version of creation?

Click to expand...

Well I would say that they're not mentioned because they weren't created yet. Especially not on day three, let alone day six.

That's probably the key difference.

drich0150 said:

your summary:



So nothing you said here would indicate that gen 2 could not take place in the 6 days of creation

I agree Adam and Eve are never mentioned in gen 1.
I understand that most people believe that "Day 6 man kind" is in reference to Adam and Eve, I do not believe this is correct.
I agree that Mankind of day 6 refers to the whole of humanity not Adam and Eve who where a separate creation..

So where is Adam and Eve? they are in the garden after having been created by God as recorded in Gen 2 starting at verse 4 which describes day 3 creation.

So A&E are day three the first of all of God creations and Everyone else comes in day 6.

So where are Adam and Eve in your version of creation?

Click to expand...

Also, I'm not saying that your interpretation of Genesis 2 occuring during the 6-days is invalid. Nothing wrong with that. There are multiple ways that people interpret chapter 2 as occuring inside the 6 days.

I think of Adam and Eve as being in a separate narrative. Maybe as part of humanity on day 6, but I prefer to think of them as sequentially just coming after chapter 1 is over, as in, temporally later in the broader story.

drich0150 said:

Is there anything in the oral tradition or in the Bible that would lead you to believe this?

Click to expand...

I don't see there being a case in oral tradition that suggests that they were intended to be interpreted in the 6 days. Maybe during day 6 among a broader humanity. But they just aren't mentioned. Even during the creation of humanity on day 6, it doesn't say that God made Adam. I think that chapter 2 may have different origins than chapter 1, and that they may have been later interpreted as a single coherent narrative, but that originally these may have been separate stories, not initially linked to one another at all.

Genesis 1 itself does not explicitly say that Adam was created on Day 6 or on day 3, and Genesis 2 may originally have been a separate creation tradition that was later linked with Genesis 1.

drich0150 said:

your argument creates several inconsistencies in the text. I have a few question for you to answer based on these inconsistencies.

Click to expand...

My biblical position creates no inconsistencies in the text.

drich0150 said:

1. why does genesis 2 verse 4 and 5 say that Adam was formed of the dust of the ground "before plants because it had not rained yet" if we are on day 6?? Again plants where a day three creation, man was day 6, and gen 2:4-5 identifies a time before plants. This inconsistency Alone destroys your argument that Adam was created day 5.

Click to expand...

Here's what the bible says...

5 Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted, for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

The bible is speaking of a period of time during the creation week. What is said above can represent any day from 1-to lets say day 3 1/2 as vegetation seems to have been created in the second half of day 3....see verse 11.

At the time prior to day 3 1/2 there was no:
Shrubs.
Plants if the fields that sprouted.
No rain.
No man to cultivate.

This portion of Gen 2 is simply a transitional section getting to the creation of Adam and Eve on day 6. Genesis finishes the transition with "7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust"...then explains what happened on day 6 with more details than presented in Chapter 1 of Genesis.

Where are these inconsistencies you speak of?

drich0150 said:

2. gen 2 says Adam and Eve lived together in the garden and did not see each other as being naked. and Gen 3 records that they did not have any children till after the fall/exile from the garden. So then how is it that God expected them to go fourth and multiply? How could they conquer the world and subdue it if it where only the two of them and they where stuck in a garden? How could they fill the earth with other people if they did not even see each other as being naked/couldn't have children?

Click to expand...

Lets answer your questions....
1. Adam and Eve lived together in the garden and did not see each other as being naked.
You seemed to have assigned reading between the lines context to what the following means..."and they knew that they were naked".
What does "they knew that they were naked" mean? Please provide a biblical verse or two to support your meaning to show you're simply not reading between the lines an inserting your personal view.

2. Gen 3 records that they did not have any children till after the fall/exile from the garden.
That is true.

3. So then how is it that God expected them to go fourth and multiply?
I'm puzzled, why would God not expect them to go forth and have children?

4. How could they conquer the world and subdue it if it where only the two of them and they where stuck in a garden?
If Adam and Eve didn't fall...where does the bible say they would have been stuck in the garden? Let me ask you, who said they would have been stuck in the garden?

5 How could they fill the earth with other people if they did not even see each other as being naked/couldn't have children?
That goes back to question 1....What does "they knew that they were naked" mean?
Keep in mind Genesis 2:25 which is pre fall tells us that Adam and Eve "25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and they were not ashamed." Are you still going to say they didn't see themselves naked?

i would think you would have read the entire account prior to saying I'm presenting "inconsistencies". Yes?

drich0150 said:

3.Why does gen 1 only refer to God's human creation as man or mankind but never Adam? Why does Gen 2 only refer to Adam by His name and never man or man kind?

Click to expand...

Why would that matter in the argument?
As people have told you Gen 1 is an overview of the 7 day creation and chapter two is a more detailed account of day 6.

drich0150 said:

The only way to reconcile these points is to accept that Adam was a day 3 creation and placed in the garden and Man Kind was a day 6 creation. While Adam and Eve remained childless in the garden. Day 6 man kind was commissioned to be fruitful and multiply/conquoring this world. Till the fall. Then upon the exile Adam and Eve had children. Who married the descendants of day 6 mankind.

Click to expand...

I've shown you where I have no inconsistencies with a day 6 creation of Adam and why the bible doesn't say Adam wasn't created on day 6.

But a question for you....if there was a population around besides Adam and Eve...why is Eve said to be the mother of all? Unknowingly you created an inconsistency with the faulty interpretation you've presented.
Secondly....If the others of the population that was not of the prodigy of Adam...did they fall with Adam? If they did or didn't where does the bible speak of this?

-57 said:

My biblical position creates no inconsistencies in the text.


Here's what the bible says...

5 Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted, for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

The bible is speaking of a period of time during the creation week. What is said above can represent any day from 1-to lets say day 3 1/2 as vegetation seems to have been created in the second half of day 3....see verse 11.

At the time prior to day 3 1/2 there was no:
Shrubs.
Plants if the fields that sprouted.
No rain.
No man to cultivate.

This portion of Gen 2 is simply a transitional section getting to the creation of Adam and Eve on day 6. Genesis finishes the transition with "7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust"...then explains what happened on day 6 with more details than presented in Chapter 1 of Genesis.

Where are these inconsistencies you speak of?

Lets answer your questions....
1. Adam and Eve lived together in the garden and did not see each other as being naked.
You seemed to have assigned reading between the lines context to what the following means..."and they knew that they were naked".
What does "they knew that they were naked" mean? Please provide a biblical verse or two to support your meaning to show you're simply not reading between the lines an inserting your personal view.

2. Gen 3 records that they did not have any children till after the fall/exile from the garden.
That is true.

3. So then how is it that God expected them to go fourth and multiply?
I'm puzzled, why would God not expect them to go forth and have children?

4. How could they conquer the world and subdue it if it where only the two of them and they where stuck in a garden?
If Adam and Eve didn't fall...where does the bible say they would have been stuck in the garden? Let me ask you, who said they would have been stuck in the garden?

5 How could they fill the earth with other people if they did not even see each other as being naked/couldn't have children?
That goes back to question 1....What does "they knew that they were naked" mean?
Keep in mind Genesis 2:25 which is pre fall tells us that Adam and Eve "25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and they were not ashamed." Are you still going to say they didn't see themselves naked?

i would think you would have read the entire account prior to saying I'm presenting "inconsistencies". Yes?


Why would that matter in the argument?
As people have told you Gen 1 is an overview of the 7 day creation and chapter two is a more detailed account of day 6.


I've shown you where I have no inconsistencies with a day 6 creation of Adam and why the bible doesn't say Adam wasn't created on day 6.

But a question for you....if there was a population around besides Adam and Eve...why is Eve said to be the mother of all? Unknowingly you created an inconsistency with the faulty interpretation you've presented.
Secondly....If the others of the population that was not of the prodigy of Adam...did they fall with Adam? If they did or didn't where does the bible speak of this?

Click to expand...

Eve is the mother of all, just as jabal and jubal are the fathers of all...who live in tents, play musical instruments and otherwise. Genesis itself uses "father of" and "mother of" language to identify a representative ancestor, founder, or source of a class of people. Therefore, "mother of all living" need not automatically be read as a statement of universal biological ancestry.

Jabal is called "the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock" (Gen. 4:20).

Jubal is called "the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe" (Gen. 4:21).

Tubal-cain is presented as the originator of metalworking (Gen. 4:22).

Virtually nobody understands those statements to mean that every shepherd, musician, or metalworker is literally biologically descended from those individuals. Rather, they are cultural founders or archetypes of these concepts.

That's the simple answer to that one.

Also, Romans 5 doesn't discuss biological ancestry either; it discusses the spread of sin and death. Adam's sin introduced death into the human world, and death spread to all. Paul's argument is about Adam's representative role and the universal consequences of sin, not about tracing everyone's DNA back to Adam.
nd yes, other people simply fell when Adam fell. Adam is "humanity" after all.

Romans 5:12 NRSV
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—

Death spread to all.

Romans 5 does not say that only Adam fell. It says that sin entered the world through one man, and that death spread to all. The emphasis is on the universal consequences of Adam's transgression, not on the biological mechanism by which every person becomes a sinner.

Nothing in the passage says that sin is transmitted through genetics or that only biological descendants of Adam can participate in the fallen human condition. Rather, sin entered the world through Adam, and its effects spread to all humanity.

Job 33:6 said:

Eve is the mother of all, just as jabal and jubal are the fathers of all...who live in tents, play musical instruments and otherwise. Genesis itself uses "father of" and "mother of" language to identify a representative ancestor, founder, or source of a class of people. Therefore, "mother of all living" need not automatically be read as a statement of universal biological ancestry.

Jabal is called "the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock" (Gen. 4:20).

Jubal is called "the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe" (Gen. 4:21).

Tubal-cain is presented as the originator of metalworking (Gen. 4:22).

Virtually nobody understands those statements to mean that every shepherd, musician, or metalworker is literally biologically descended from those individuals. Rather, they are cultural founders or archetypes of these concepts.

Click to expand...

Of course not...but the narrative is completely different then when Eve is said to be the mother of all. This speaks of biological descent.
With Eve we have the start of the human race. With Jubal it's a bit different. He was the progenitor of musicians...he had a role in the development of music and doesn't apply to biological descent.

Job 33:6 said:

That's the simple answer to that one.

Also, Romans 5 doesn't discuss biological ancestry either; it discusses the spread of sin and death. Adam's sin introduced death into the human world, and death spread to all. Paul's argument is about Adam's representative role and the universal consequences of sin, not about tracing everyone's DNA back to Adam.
nd yes, other people simply fell when Adam fell. Adam is "humanity" after all.

Click to expand...

Your claim is not all the people were related to Adam and Eve. You still need to show how they fell into sin due to Adam. How these other people simply fell into sin when Adam fell.

Job 33:6 said:

Romans 5:12 NRSV
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—

Death spread to all.

Click to expand...

There would have been many who avoided death...as they didn't sin. In fact this would have included all of this population you speak of whose generations never mingled with Adams generations.

Job 33:6 said:

Romans 5 does not say that only Adam fell. It says that sin entered the world through one man, and that death spread to all. The emphasis is on the universal consequences of Adam's transgression, not on the biological mechanism by which every person becomes a sinner.

Click to expand...

Romans 5 says only Adam and Eve fell. All of mankind who Eve was the mother of suffer the consequence of Adams sin.
This other population would not be part of the sin nature.

BTW....Just where did this population come from? Why doesn't the bible indicate its presence?

Job 33:6 said:

Nothing in the passage says that sin is transmitted through genetics or that only biological descendants of Adam can participate in the fallen human condition. Rather, sin entered the world through Adam, and its effects spread to all humanity.

Click to expand...

How so?

-57 said:

Of course not...but the narrative is completely different then when Eve is said to be the mother of all. This speaks of biological descent.
With Eve we have the start of the human race. With Jubal it's a bit different. He was the progenitor of musicians...he had a role in the development of music and doesn't apply to biological descent.

Click to expand...

But that's the very point under debate. The text says Eve is "the mother of all living," but it doesn't explicitly define whether that means biological ancestry, representative status, or something else.

Genesis itself uses familial language in broader ways. Jabal is called the father of those who dwell in tents, and Jubal the father of musicians, yet we don't take those as statements of universal biological descent. So simply calling Eve the "mother of all living" doesn't, by itself, settle the question.

-57 said:

Your claim is not all the people were related to Adam and Eve. You still need to show how they fell into sin due to Adam. How these other people simply fell into sin when Adam fell.

There would have been many who avoided death...as they didn't sin. In fact this would have included all of this population you speak of whose generations never mingled with Adams generations.

Click to expand...

According to Paul:
Romans 5:12 NRSV
[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—

Paul explicitly says that death spread to all. So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue when you suggest there would have been a population that escaped the effects of the fall.

It simply says that sin entered the world through one man, death came through sin, and death spread to all. The passage describes the universality of the fall, not a genealogical transmission model.

In fact, if your position is that Adam's descendants inherit the consequences of Adam's sin, then you already accept that Adam's act can affect people other than Adam himself. The question is not whether Adam's sin affects others, but by what means. Romans 5 says it spread to all humanity; it does not say that biological descent is the mechanism by which that occurred.

As for the suggestion that there would have been people who never died because they weren't descended from Adam, that conclusion is not stated in the text. Paul's argument is precisely the opposite: death spread to all.

Job 33:6 said:

But that's the very point under debate. The text says Eve is "the mother of all living," but it doesn't explicitly define whether that means biological ancestry, representative status, or something else.

Click to expand...

The natural reading in the correct context speaks of biological ancestry.
the very next chapter starts off with the first child of this process...1 And Adam had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain

Job 33:6 said:

Genesis itself uses familial language in broader ways. Jabal is called the father of those who dwell in tents, and Jubal the father of musicians, yet we don't take those as statements of universal biological descent. So simply calling Eve the "mother of all living" doesn't, by itself, settle the question.

Click to expand...

I don't think tents or musical instruments qualify as "living". Do you?

But you claim it is a familiar language....OK, then what is meant by being the "mother of all living"?

Job 33:6 said:

According to Paul:
Romans 5:12 NRSV
[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—

Click to expand...

OK....How would death spread to the other population?

Job 33:6 said:

Paul explicitly says that death spread to all. So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue when you suggest there would have been a population that escaped the effects of the fall.

Click to expand...

First off....there was no other population, let's keep that straight....but arguing against your point that there was another population...What of those from that so-called other population that were at a distance and isolated from Adam?

BTW.....Just where did that population come from?

Job 33:6 said:

It simply says that sin entered the world through one man, death came through sin, and death spread to all. The passage describes the universality of the fall, not a genealogical transmission model.

Click to expand...

Then how does the sin nature spread? Like a virus?

Our sin nature is derived from Adam and passed down through Adam’s image and likeness....that became fallen.

Job 33:6 said:

In fact, if your position is that Adam's descendants inherit the consequences of Adam's sin, then you already accept that Adam's act can affect people other than Adam himself.

Click to expand...

Yes I do...but it's genetic. There was some sort of genetic change that creates an intensified pain in childbirth.

Job 33:6 said:

The question is not whether Adam's sin affects others, but by what means. Romans 5 says it spread to all humanity; it does not say that biological descent is the mechanism by which that occurred.

Click to expand...

Psalms 51:5 also addresses the issue....Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
This indicates sin is spread via a biological route rather than like an airborne virus.

Job 33:6 said:

As for the suggestion that there would have been people who never died because they weren't descended from Adam, that conclusion is not stated in the text. Paul's argument is precisely the opposite: death spread to all.

Click to expand...

How did it spread to them?

-57 said:

The natural reading in the correct context speaks of biological ancestry.
the very next chapter starts off with the first child of this process...1 And Adam had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain

I don't think tents or musical instruments qualify as "living". Do you?

But you claim it is a familiar language....OK, then what is meant by being the "mother of all living"?

OK....How would death spread to the other population?

First off....there was no other population, let's keep that straight....but arguing against your point that there was another population...What of those from that so-called other population that were at a distance and isolated from Adam?

BTW.....Just where did that population come from?

Then how does the sin nature spread? Like a virus?

Our sin nature is derived from Adam and passed down through Adam’s image and likeness....that became fallen.

Yes I do...but it's genetic. There was some sort of genetic change that creates an intensified pain in childbirth.

Psalms 51:5 also addresses the issue....Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
This indicates sin is spread via a biological route rather than like an airborne virus.

How did it spread to them?

Click to expand...

I agree Genesis 4:1 describes Adam and Eve having children, but that still doesn’t settle what “mother of all living” means in Genesis 3:20.
The phrase itself is not defined in that verse as biological ancestry. It could be read that way, but it is not explicitly stated.

Also, Genesis 4:1 simply describes the first narrated child within the story; it does not make a universal claim about Eve being the biological source of every human being. That conclusion still has to be brought to the text rather than read directly out of it.

So the question isn’t whether Adam and Eve have children in the narrative, they clearly do, but whether “mother of all living” is functioning as a universal biological statement or a broader title within the text’s own usage of kinship language.

Also Psalm 51:5 is a poetic confession about being sinful from the beginning of life; it does not describe a biological mechanism for how sin is transmitted.

The text doesn’t describe sin as spreading through a biological or viral mechanism. It simply affirms that sin and death are universal in humanity, without explaining that process in physical terms.

Job 33:6 said:

I agree Genesis 4:1 describes Adam and Eve having children, but that still doesn’t settle what “mother of all living” means in Genesis 3:20.
The phrase itself is not defined in that verse as biological ancestry. It could be read that way, but it is not explicitly stated.

Click to expand...

That would be the normal reading of Genesis. Why should I go with a form of assumption and speculation you assume?
Nothing in the bible suggest otherwise. If you actually have biblical support....show it.

Job 33:6 said:

Also, Genesis 4:1 simply describes the first narrated child within the story; it does not make a universal claim about Eve being the biological source of every human being. That conclusion still has to be brought to the text rather than read directly out of it.

So the question isn’t whether Adam and Eve have children in the narrative, they clearly do, but whether “mother of all living” is functioning as a universal biological statement or a broader title within the text’s own usage of kinship language.

Click to expand...

We know mother of all living doesn't refer to squirrels or fish.....or do you think it does?

Job 33:6 said:

Also Psalm 51:5 is a poetic confession about being sinful from the beginning of life; it does not describe a biological mechanism for how sin is transmitted.

Click to expand...

The bible tells us through one man sin and death spread....
The question isn't how sin spread but how mans sin nature spread. The bible informs us it is through their progeny as Eve is the mother of all humanity.

Job 33:6 said:

The text doesn’t describe sin as spreading through a biological or viral mechanism. It simply affirms that sin and death are universal in humanity, without explaining that process in physical terms.

Click to expand...

Then how did the human sin nature spread?

-57 said:

That would be the normal reading of Genesis. Why should I go with a form of assumption and speculation you assume?
Nothing in the bible suggest otherwise. If you actually have biblical support....show it.

Click to expand...

I agree that biological ancestry is a common and reasonable interpretation of Genesis 3:20. My point is simply that the verse itself does not explicitly define the phrase that way. If we're arguing that the text requires that interpretation, then we need to show where the text actually says that rather than assuming it.

-57 said:

We know mother of all living doesn't refer to squirrels or fish.....or do you think it does?

The bible tells us through one man sin and death spread....
The question isn't how sin spread but how mans sin nature spread. The bible informs us it is through their progeny as Eve is the mother of all humanity.

Click to expand...

Romans 5 tells us that sin and death entered the world through Adam and spread to humanity. I agree with that. What I am questioning is whether Scripture explicitly explains the mechanism as biological inheritance. Genesis 3:20 calling Eve "the mother of all living" establishes her maternal relationship to humanity, but it does not by itself explain how a sin nature is transmitted. That's a theological conclusion being drawn from the text, not a statement the text itself makes.

The passages you've cited establish the reality of universal sin, but they do not say how that condition passes from one generation to the next. If Scripture makes that mechanism clear, I'd be interested in seeing the specific passage that explains it.

Job 33:6 said:

I agree that biological ancestry is a common and reasonable interpretation of Genesis 3:20. My point is simply that the verse itself does not explicitly define the phrase that way. If we're arguing that the text requires that interpretation, then we need to show where the text actually says that rather than assuming it.

Click to expand...

I would argue it does.

One thing I do know is you can't use scripture to argue that it doesn't.

In fact Acts 17:46 supports the verse with the following...And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Eve was the mother of all and Adam was the man from which the nations were created.
If there was a separate population those two verses would not be in the bible.

-57 said:

I would argue it does.

One thing I do know is you can't use scripture to argue that it doesn't.

In fact Acts 17:46 supports the verse with the following...And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Eve was the mother of all and Adam was the man from which the nations were created.
If there was a separate population those two verses would not be in the bible.

Click to expand...

It's also possible that Acts 17 is alluding to the post-Flood origin and dispersal of the nations described in Genesis 10 rather than making a statement about the mechanism of sin transmission. Paul is discussing the common origin of humanity and God's sovereignty over the rise and placement of nations. That fits quite naturally with the Table of Nations as well.

But Even if we grant that Acts 17 refers to Adam, the verse is still discussing the common origin of humanity, not the mechanism by which sin nature is transmitted. And if one reads the surrounding context, Paul's focus is on God determining the times and boundaries of nations, which could also evoke the Table of Nations after the Flood. Either way, the verse does not explain how a sin nature is inherited.