[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Barbarian]

Barbarian explains:
Adam was a real person, as was Eve. Is it your argument that allegories can't be done with real people?

Creationist KNOW Adam was a real person.

You seemed surprised when I reminded you. I'm glad you admit that he was, but it would be even better if you dropped your man-made doctrine and also admitted how He did it.

The bible says sin and death came through that one man....

It's true. You just don't understand what the "death" was. God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. But Adam lived on physically for many years thereafter. If God always tells the truth, then the death He was speaking of, was not a physical death.

you disagree with your evo-models.

I disagree with you naive misconceptions of what evolution is.

when you create Adam through evolution

Barbarian observes:
Not me. God. And only his body. His soul was directly given by God. Stop telling Him what to do.

 

[Corn Pop]

If a human cannot produce life with other animals even they all have a common ancestor says science, how did a evolved Adam just happen to be chilling out in Africa and within 900 years of evolution just happen to meet a perfectly evolved Eve and reproduce?

 

[Barbarian]

If a human cannot produce life with other animals even they all have a common ancestor says science, how did a evolved Adam just happen to be chilling out in Africa and within 900 years of evolution just happen to meet a perfectly evolved Eve and reproduce?

Speciation isn't magic. It's normally a gradual process, as one population diverges more and more from others. What made Adam and Eve unique (as God points out) is that they received an immortal soul from Him directly.

What species of human they were, really isn't important. What matters is that they are the common ancestors of all humans living today.

 

[Cygnus]

Speciation isn't magic. It's normally a gradual process, as one population diverges more and more from others. What made Adam and Eve unique (as God points out) is that they received an immortal soul from Him directly.

What species of human they were, really isn't important. What matters is that they are the common ancestors of all humans living today.

Where does the bible say they received an immortal soul from God directly? It appears to me you made this up...and stuffed it into your theology.

The problem for your theology is...Adam would have had a brother, sister, cousin, certainly mom and dad who would not have received this "soul". Unless you want to change the bible to also include them.....
What do you do with those "people"? They would have been just as evolved as Adam. Your so-called divergence would have been ZERO. Certainly your "science" would still have some of them around to this day and NOT have the common ancestor being Adam and Eves progeny.
When your theo-evoism theology is dissected..it flops.

 

[Corn Pop]

Who gave birth to Adam through evolution?. A walking fish?

 

[Cygnus]

Who gave birth to Adam through evolution?. A walking fish?

They kinda forget about the part where their bible says God formed Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib.....(just for the record the NT even reinforces it)....But, heck, lets line out those portions of the bible.

 

[Corn Pop]

I think there maybe a difference between 'life' and the 'breath of life'. If there was living things before Adam they didnt have the breath of life, they just had life, micro organisms or other species.

 

[Barbarian]

Where does the bible say they received an immortal soul from God directly?

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

It appears to me you made this up...and stuffed it into your theology.

Man's body came from the Earth, like those of other animals. But God directly gave man life and an immoral soul.

The problem for your theology is...Adam would have had a brother, sister, cousin, certainly mom and dad who would not have received this "soul".

Maybe siblings. Parents, yes.

What do you do with those "people"? They would have been just as evolved as Adam.

As you just learned, how evolved they were, is not the issue. It's whether or not God gave them an immortal soul.

Your so-called divergence would have been ZERO.

Yes. We don't know, of course, which species of human it was, or how long ago, exactly. Why would it matter? There was considerable divergence after that. Even within H. sapiens, there have been three major lines of human descent. What is objectionable to you about God doing it this way?

Certainly your "science" would still have some of them around to this day

If you think so, you don't know much about science. As Everette Dirksen observed people are down on things they aren't up on. That's a fixable issue, if you're willing to learn.

 

[Cygnus]

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

Slime? Far cry from dust. Did you get that from the NET? New Evo Translation?
When God breathed into Adam nostrils (no Eve yet) Adam began to live...He became a living soul....not received a soul.
In fact Genesis translates "soul" as being, person, creature.,,,as in He became a living, person, creature, being... Check it out if you like.

Man's body came from the Earth, like those of other animals. But God directly gave man life and an immoral soul.

It is true Adam wasn't created ex-nihlo.

Adam came from the "dust"...not an ape like creature. The bible doesn't say Adam was created from the primates.



Maybe siblings. Parents, yes.

This question still hasn't ben answered by you...I understand why, you have no answer.



As you just learned, how evolved they were, is not the issue. It's whether or not God gave them an immortal soul.

If your (unbiblical) theology is correct It still doesn't explain the other people who were alive. Adam would have lived and died...standing next to people who didn't have a "soul". In fact you would have had a whole world of people not in Adam progeny who would have been alive. This seems to be a direct contradiction to what Paul said....Sin and death spread to all people because of Adam. The bible teaches every human alive was a descendent of Adam. Your NET translation disagrees.



Yes. We don't know, of course, which species of human it was, or how long ago, exactly. Why would it matter? There was considerable divergence after that. Even within H. sapiens, there have been three major lines of human descent. What is objectionable to you about God doing it this way?

Where does the bible say that was Gods way? Do you have a chapter and verse from your NET translation that makes this claim?



If you think so, you don't know much about science. As Everette Dirksen observed people are down on things they aren't up on. That's a fixable issue, if you're willing to learn.

Please tell me why I would want to believe a false theology? I don't filter the bible through mans fallible science as you do.

 

[Corn Pop]

Adam was made from the slime of the earth. I never heard that one before.

 

[Cygnus]

Adam was made from the slime of the earth. I never heard that one before.

There are many things in the bible you need to change in order to make it conform to Theo-Evo concepts.

 

[Barbarian]

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

Older source than that or the KJV. The translation from the Vulgate use the term "limo" for "awphar." It seems that in Greco-Roman times, the word meant "potter's clay", in a wet state, suitable for forming things. Hence that instead of "pulvo." Later, "slime" came to have a modern, an somewhat offensive connotation, and so "dust" was often substituted.

When God breathed into Adam nostrils (no Eve yet) Adam began to live...He became a living soul....not received a soul.

As you now seem to realize, the soul was a gift from God given directly, not through the agency of nature, as his body was given.

Barbarian, regarding the question of Adam's relatives:
Maybe siblings. Parents, yes.

This question still hasn't ben answered by you...

You got a direct answer, but it wasn't the one you were hoping for, so you pretended that I didn't answer. I understand why, you have no answer.

As you just learned, how evolved they were, is not the issue. It's whether or not God gave them an immortal soul.

If your (unbiblical) theology is correct It still doesn't explain the other people who were alive.

If you thought about it, you'd realize there's nothing in that at all that contradicts the Bible. In fact, Cain left and built a city elsewhere. Would have had to be lots of people there, so it's not surprising that there were other people, who were not of Adam's line.

Adam would have lived and died...standing next to people who didn't have a "soul". In fact you would have had a whole world of people not in Adam progeny who would have been alive.

Yes. Notice the Bible alludes to this, above.

This seems to be a direct contradiction to what Paul said....Sin and death spread to all people because of Adam.

Don't see that. Do you have a verse that includes all humans? Or did you just infer this idea?

Yes. We don't know, of course, which species of human it was, or how long ago, exactly. Why would it matter? There was considerable divergence after that. Even within H. sapiens, there have been three major lines of human descent. What is objectionable to you about God doing it this way?

Where does the bible say that was Gods way?

Do you not accept God's word? Not everything that is true of God is in the Bible. The Bible says this explicitly:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Do you have a chapter and verse from your NET translation that makes this claim?

Actually, that was from the King James Version. Perhaps reading the Bible occasionally, would be a good idea for you.

Certainly your "science" would still have some of them around to this day

Barbarian observes:
If you think so, you don't know much about science. As Everette Dirksen observed people are down on things they aren't up on. That's a fixable issue, if you're willing to learn. Set aside your pride and man-made doctrines, and learn about it?

Please tell me why I would want to believe a false theology?

Mostly, your pride, I think. Be humble enough to let God do it His way. Instead of filtering God's word through your own desires, just take it as it is.

 

[Cygnus]

This seems to be a direct contradiction to what Paul said....Sin and death spread to all people because of Adam.

Don't see that. Do you have a verse that includes all humans? Or did you just infer this idea?

Yes. We don't know, of course, which species of human it was, or how long ago, exactly. Why would it matter? There was considerable divergence after that. Even within H. sapiens, there have been three major lines of human descent. What is objectionable to you about God doing it this way?

Romans 5:12 makes it pretty clear ALL HUMANS were effected....Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned,

Of course you'll neeed to re-write that verse to force it to agree with the Theo-Evo sects.

To answer the seconf part....What is objectionable to me about God doing it this way? The answer is pretty clear. God through the description in Genesis and other books of the bible indicate He didn't use the process of evolutionism.

 

[Barbarian]

Romans 5:12 makes it pretty clear ALL HUMANS were effected....Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned,

All nicely compatible with what we know of evolution. As you know, it isn't compatible with what many creationists think evolution is. But that doesn't affect anything in reality.

Of course you'll neeed to re-write that verse to force it to agree with the Theo-Evo sects.

See above. You've let your imagination get away with you, again.

To answer the seconf part....What is objectionable to me about God doing it this way? The answer is pretty clear.

It is to everyone. You prefer your new doctrine to His word.

 

[GodsGrace]

Barbarian,

The following reminded me of clay or mud back when I had done a study on the names of Adam and Eve:
You said:
Older source than that or the KJV. The translation from the Vulgate use the term "limo" for "awphar." It seems that in Greco-Roman times, the word meant "potter's clay", in a wet state, suitable for forming things. Hence that instead of "pulvo." Later, "slime" came to have a modern, an somewhat offensive connotation, and so "dust" was often substituted.

I checked with Professor Google and here's what I found:
Perhaps by coincidence and perhaps not, this root-cluster contains roots that all seem to have to do with stillness or productivity, with a clear nod to the color red.

Red is the color of dawn and is also the first color a human baby learns to see. It seems plausible that to the Hebrews the color red signified the rudiments or principal beginnings of civilization, which of course is a mere manifestation of the beginning of a wisdom tradition, or as we would call it today, the preservation of information (in a cultural expression). That would link the beginning of wisdom to typical red items such as wine (Noah's vineyard: Genesis 9:20) and blood (hence the covenant of blood: Exodus 24:8), and since the art of understanding is metaphorized in a standing on dry land (Noah again), a partial understanding would be similar to mud and mire (in which Noah's dove couldn't find a foothold; Genesis 8:9).

A strikingly similar relationship between tranquility, muddy substances and the color red is demonstrated by the root-group חמר (hamar; see the name Homer), and perhaps even by the root group יון (ywn; see the name Javan, which is the Biblical word for Greece).

Mud IS associated with the name of Adam.

Just an aside. If you're reading the Vulgate in English you're two languages away from the original and you know what that means. You should look into getting the Ignatius Study Bible, just out. It's the best.
(I don't have one but I know).

BTW, Young's Literal Translation has dust, and a Catholic Good News Bible has soil. All my other bibles have dust.

Wondering

 

[Barbarian]

Interesting, given that red ocher was an important substance to prehistoric humans, who used it a lot, including for annointing bodies before burial. Never thought about that before, but it sounds as though a little research is called for. Philology is often a key to understanding the past. Fossils of ancient thought in words.

Mud IS associated with the name of Adam.

And "human" and "humus" are cognates. Definitely worth checking out.

 

[Cygnus]

All nicely compatible with what we know of evolution. As you know, it isn't compatible with what many creationists think evolution is. But that doesn't affect anything in reality.



See above. You've let your imagination get away with you, again.



It is to everyone. You prefer your new doctrine to His word.

Sheeze Barbarian...you say an awful lot of nothing.

Perhaps someday you'll explain how it is "All nicely compatible with what we know of evolution."

 

[Barbarian]

As you learned, the only difficulties are with your misconceptions about evolutionary theory. So far, no one's actually found a contradiction between evolutionary theory and His word. If you differ, give us something the theory predicts and show how it's incompatible.

Maybe the best thing for you to do, is tell us your understanding of evolutionary theory. Start with Darwin's key points, and then tell us how the genetics produced the Modern Synthesis. Tell us about it.

 

[Cygnus]

As you learned, the only difficulties are with your misconceptions about evolutionary theory. So far, no one's actually found a contradiction between evolutionary theory and His word. If you differ, give us something the theory predicts and show how it's incompatible.

Maybe the best thing for you to do, is tell us your understanding of evolutionary theory. Start with Darwin's key points, and then tell us how the genetics produced the Modern Synthesis. Tell us about it.

I already have..through ONE man. Evolutionism according to thoe that believe in evolutionism...doesn't work that way.

 

[Barbarian]

Just making sure. As I noted before, people who don't like evolutionary theory, generally have no idea what it is. But you probably should find out about Darwin's points. It's not very technical at all. And it could save some embarrassment in the future.