Adam

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

No.

OK, then how do you explain the skipped people? Are both the geneologies of 1 Cr and Mt literally true?

Do you admit that Matthew and Luke do not contradict one another but are two separate lineages, one for Mary and the other for Joseph?

No, because you are yet again directly contradicting what the Bible explicitly says. Mark, do you agree that both Mt and Lk explicitly say that their respective geneologies are those of Joseph? Or do you prefer to ignore what the Bible says?

P.S. The poll results are interesting, one man would seem to be the consensus.

Woo Hoo! My theistic evolution position has the most support!!

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

OK, then how do you explain the skipped people? Are both the geneologies of 1 Cr and Mt literally true?

Yes

No, because you are yet again directly contradicting what the Bible explicitly says. Mark, do you agree that both Mt and Lk explicitly say that their respective geneologies are those of Joseph? Or do you prefer to ignore what the Bible says?

Do you even own a Bible? They are both the genealogies of Christ:

• This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah (Matthew 1:1)
• Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...(Luke 3:23)

When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons, Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side)...Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient. Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23​

Are you going to ignore what Paul says the way you ignore what Moses says?

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).

 

[bdfoster]

Yes, I agree that certainly through selection and even through luck, many alleles can persist or even by present in nearly everyone, even from a single ancestor thousands of years ago. This is, in fact, exactly the case with many beneficial mutations, which had to first mutate in one ancestor, and now all humans have.




I think they are saying that their genetic test shows that 8% have that genetic marker, showing that 8% definitely are descendants of khan. I don't think that they are saying that there are exactly 8%. Hence, I'm not saying they are wrong.

Of course, as gluadys pointed out, a descendant may be missing that marker, simply by chance, so the actual % of descendants can be much higher.



No, it wouldn't. Even if everyone is a descendant, only a few may have the marker looked at. For instance, consider the whole Y chromosome. That'll ony be in people who are pure male line descendants. Even a single female in the line, anywhere in the 800 years since Khan, means that the y present is from some other male (the mate of that female). So a MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMFMMMMMMMMMMM line has lost Khan's Y, and if Khan's Y is what you are looking at, there is no evidence that person is Khan's descendant, even though he is.

Hence, if you had 1 million actual, recorded descendants of khan, only a tiny, tiny percentage would have his Y. The same applie to any genetic marker (remember, one only get's 50% of a given parent's genome)So their study is fine.

Based on the math (800/25=32 generations, 2^32=4 billion), it seems very likely that most people in Asia (especially in the middle of the mainland) are descendants of Khan. I'd guess there are still a few people in remote areas that are not.

In fact, remembering that Khan set up sons and grandsons ruling areas in Easter Europe in the mid 1200's, it seems that a good chunk of (and perhaps most) Europeans are descendants of Khan. There is a decent chance that you, Gluadys, willtor, and I are descendants of Khan. That's more likely if you Czeck or Serbian ancestry, less likely if your ancestry is pure Brit. My ancestry is mostly German, so it seems like I've got a good chance of being a descendant of Khan.


Papias "give me back my horses!"

I apologize for not keeping up with this thread. It's amazing how much time I don't have. And I certainly don't have time to defend a paper I didn't write I agree the authors were not saying that 92% of the population are not Kahn descendants. Agreed, they were saying that at least 8% are. But I don't know if they would agree that all of Asia is descended from Kahn. That woud seem to trivialize their study.

At this point I think the most important issue is the nature of humanity, the "image of God". There is much debate over what the image of God is. Some say the ability for rational thought, some say creativity, and those are probably all necessary. But If the image of God is an inheritable piece of DNA, then the image of God is just another observable, measurable physical characteristic of an organism. It might as well be the human form.

I didn't vote in the poll because I beieve Adam could have been a single man or a representative of all humanity. The important thing is not his biological primacy but his spiritual primacy. He was the first animal to be morally accountable.

 

[shernren]

Do you even own a Bible? They are both the genealogies of Christ:

• This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah (Matthew 1:1)
• Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...(Luke 3:23)

When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons, Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side)...Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient. Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23​

Are you going to ignore what Paul says the way you ignore what Moses says?

Wooo, out come the ad hominems.

I can't speak for Papias, but I own a Bible, and in my Bible Matthew and Luke's genealogies both claim to be genealogies of Joseph:

... and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. (Matt 1:15-16, ESV)

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, ... (Luke 3:23-24, ESV)

So what was Joseph's father's name? Was it Jacob, Heli, or Jacob Heli (Jingleheimer Schmidt)?

 

[shernren]

Just read through CARM's reply:

Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.
​

Iisn't it interesting and wonderful what they do? They basically say that "Joseph was the son of Heli" actually means "Mary is the daughter of Heli". They claim that this reflected the cultural practice of the time (without any evidence) and that the early church understood this (without any documentation), both entirely extrabiblical and unsupported conjectures. And you think TEs are the ones who take liberty with the Word of God!

 

[Papias]

Well it looks like I'm still waiting for Mark to explain how Mt and 1 Cr give geneologies that contradict each other, yet Mark says they are "both literally true"- since now it has been two posts that he's refused to answer that. Mark, by saying they are both literally true, you are making the Bible unreliable. I'll repost this on this thread until Mark explains how two contradictory geneologies can be both literally true. My guess is that he'll start changing the words in the Bible, as he did in the Luke/Mt geneology case. Mark, care to explain the geneologies in Mt and 1 Cr are both literally true, given that they contradict each other?

Do you even own a Bible? They are both the genealogies of Christ:

• This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah (Matthew 1:1)
• Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli...(Luke 3:23)

Mark, do you even open your Bible? You can see that they both explicitly say they are geneologies of Joseph, and I already asked you for where in the Bible it says one is from Mary. If you can't bring yourself to open your own Bible, then Shernren has been kind enough to post the relevant verses.

If you prefer to rely on the traditions of men to the word of the Bible, then I'm looking forward to your joining me in the Catholic Church. We've got plenty of other traditions too that might enjoy. Let me tell you about Mary.......

On an aside, yes, I have a number of both Catholic and Protestant Bibles, in addition to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and plenty of Christian literature (the DSS of course are not Christian).

Are you going to ignore what Paul says the way you ignore what Moses says?

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).

Mark, I agree with all that. You do understand that the position of the church that contains most Christians is a theistic evolution understanding of Adam as a literal, single, individual, right?

Papias

Brent wrote:

I agree the authors were not saying that 92% of the population are not Kahn descendants. Agreed, they were saying that at least 8% are. But I don't know if they would agree that all of Asia is descended from Kahn. That woud seem to trivialize their study.

Seems like we pretty much agree. I'm sure there are pockets of people in Asia who are still not Khan descendants, but even if there aren't, I don't think it trivializes their study. The point of their study was that for these people, they can PROVE that they are Khan descendants.

 

[SkyWriting]

Was Adam one man? A chosen group of people? Or all of humanity.

When Man evolved from lower beings, He eventually was given a spirit by God, this new creation was Adam, the Bible declares that although he was first formed out of dust, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul capable of communion with God. So who was this Adam?

He was the first man. No direct relation to any other species. He was an archtype of Jesus, the second Adam. Note that any formalized listing of the scientific method rues out it's use for proving any historical events.
Offering insights, but no unbeatable conclusions.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Take a look at Luke's genealogy or Paul's discussion of Adam in Romans 5. I won't vote in the poll but he was 'one man', Paul, Luke and Moses are clear enough on that point.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Very true