Adam and Eve

[BroRoyVa79]

Hmmm, first, overall if you don't believe Adam & Eve were real people then you have a theological problem with Romans 5:12-14 in which nearly all translations say sin came into the world through Adam (one man) who is called Adam in v14. I saw gordon777 rightfully mentioned 1 Corinthians 15:22 in defense of the Historical, and very real Adam & Eve.

Second, for_his_glory, but not necessarily at you, just I saw you post it as I was skim reading. I noticed in your first post in this topic you used what the KJV translates in Genesis as an argument for what seems like the Gap Theory. I don't know, but I usually hear that argument about "replenish" for the Gap Theory and sometimes the Pre-Adamite Theory as well. Both of which have issues. Translations like the English Standard Version, or if you're looking for a good internet Bible, you can check out the Net Bible and it allows you to click on words that were translated from Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.

The word translated "replenish" in the KJV is מָלָא or mālā' and simply means "to fill" and not "to refill" as if something was lost or how we tend to understand the meaning of replenish today for those of us who speak modern English.

You can also look up the word in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary which we were encouraged to do when I was a KJV Onlyist back in the day. It defines replenished as "fill; abundantly supplied" and once again not "to refill" as if something was lost.

Third, in relation to Cain being exiled from God and talking about other people in existence at that time, it seems some are trying to make an argument from silence. Biblical genealogies list individuals of importance and not every individual in a lineage or in existence. Cain & Abel being Adam & Eve's first two sons were of importance. Pay attention to the narrative when you read it. In Genesis 4 you go from Cain & Abel being born to them being adults because the two have their own "jobs" and responsibilities or at the very leas a significant amount of time has passed between verses 1-2 and verses 3 where the confrontation between Cain and God and by extension Cain and Abel occurs. The Bible doesn't tell us how much time actually passed, so given the Bible is only talking about these two individuals, it's often misconstrued that they were the only two children of Adam and Eve walking around at that time when the Bible does not specifically say that.

The earth became void and without form

This is another KJV slip up. Without getting into a whole lot of technical jargon. myself, on translations, the proper, or better translation is what the ESV and others similar to it does: " The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep" Indicating that when God started creation, this was the state of the Earth. It didn't happen after a destruction. Translators of the NetBible.org put this in their translation notes, emphasis mine:

[Quote="NetBible.org']The disjunctive clause (conjunction plus subject plus verb) at the beginning of v. 2 gives background information for the following narrative, explaining the state of things when “God said…” (v. 3). Verse one is a title to the chapter, v. 2 provides information about the state of things when God spoke, and v. 3 begins the narrative per se with the typical narrative construction (vav [ו] consecutive followed by the prefixed verbal form). (This literary structure is paralleled in the second portion of the book: Gen 2:4 provides the title or summary of what follows, 2:5-6 use disjunctive clause structures to give background information for the following narrative, and 2:7 begins the narrative with the vav consecutive attached to a prefixed verbal form.) Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.[/QUOTE]

Fourth, long ago I chose to believe God's words over man's often demonstrably confused musings over nature. Evolution has a ton of holes in it. Methods to date the Earth and by extension Universe have tons of holes in them. Thus, the secular scientific community automatically comes at all of this stuff with a naturalistic (atheistic) bias since Darwin. While there are Christians who believe in Evolution, I believe based on a consistent reading of the Bible with consistent theology that they are misguided.

 

[Cooper]

The first man in the Bible goes back to 4892 B.C. but regretfully there were people living long before the Biblical Adam.

4892 B.C.Adam & Eve (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:3)
4762 B.C. Seth born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:6) .
4657 B.C. Enosh born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:9) .
4567 B.C. Cainan (alt. Kenan) born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:12) .
4497 B.C. Mahalalel born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:15) .
4432 B.C. Jared born (D:Heb/70)(B:Heb/70 Genesis 5:18) .
4270 B.C. Enoch born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:21) .
4205 B.C. Methuselah born (D:Heb/70)(B:Heb/70 Genesis 5:25) .
4018 B.C. Lamech born (D:Heb)(B:Heb Genesis 5:28) .
3962 B.C. Adam dies. (Genesis 5:4) .
3905 B.C. Enoch is taken by God. (Genesis 5:22-23) .
3836 B.C. Noah born (D:Heb/70)(B:Heb/70/Sam Genesis 5:32) .
3334 B.C. Shem born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/70/Sam Genesis 5:10) .
3236 B.C. Methuselah dies (Genesis 5:26-27). Worldwide Flood begins (Genesis 7:6, 11). .
3235 B.C. Flood Ends. (Genesis 8:13-14) Post-Flood
3234 B.C. Arphaxad born (D:Heb/Sam) (B:70/Sam Genesis 11:12) .
3099 B.C. Cainan born (D:70)(B:70 Genesis 11:13 Septuagint only) - Luke 3:36 2
.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

The first man in the Bible goes back to 4892 B.C. but regretfully there were people living long before the Biblical Adam.

Based on man's faulty dating methods which are usually muddied by the general naturalistic bias when they interpret data. For example, they tend to date things with circular reasoning based on the layers they find it in. By that logic there's supposedly plenty of things that existed in deep antiquity.

While the general belief among Biblical Creationists is that the Earth is 6000ish years old, they allow for an additional 4ish thousand years and will push it to something like 10-11,000 years old. Robert Carter and Chris Hardy write for Creation.com the minimum and maximum age of the Earth allowed by using the genealogies of the Bible, etc. to give a rough age. They conclude, after examining the Masoretic Text and Septuagint and allow for variables of a long time in Babylon versus a short time in captivity which they conclude allows to push the date as far as 7,6800 years old and they reject Whitcomb and Morris' allowance for missing generations in the genealogies to allow for somewhere up to 10-11,000 years of age. (I'm not that rigid on it, but lean toward 6-7,000).

Side note: Man, after seeing that I messed up the quote above, I really wish there was an edit button, lol.

 

[Cooper]

Based on man's faulty dating methods which are usually muddied by the general naturalistic bias when they interpret data. For example, they tend to date things with circular reasoning based on the layers they find it in. By that logic there's supposedly plenty of things that existed in deep antiquity.

While the general belief among Biblical Creationists is that the Earth is 6000ish years old, they allow for an additional 4ish thousand years and will push it to something like 10-11,000 years old. Robert Carter and Chris Hardy write for Creation.com the minimum and maximum age of the Earth allowed by using the genealogies of the Bible, etc. to give a rough age. They conclude, after examining the Masoretic Text and Septuagint and allow for variables of a long time in Babylon versus a short time in captivity which they conclude allows to push the date as far as 7,6800 years old and they reject Whitcomb and Morris' allowance for missing generations in the genealogies to allow for somewhere up to 10-11,000 years of age. (I'm not that rigid on it, but lean toward 6-7,000).

Side note: Man, after seeing that I messed up the quote above, I really wish there was an edit button, lol.

The Bible is not a world encyclopedia, and we should not expect it to be:

"In the early years of human history, beginning with the earliest humans about two million years ago, every place in the world was in the Stone Age, and all the people in the world got their food by hunting and gathering. For a long time, there were probably only about 2000 people in the whole world. All of these people had black skin, to protect them from the sun. All of them lived in Africa, and they lived in trees or caves or temporary shelters. Almost as soon as there were people, about 1.9 million years ago, they began to make stone tools. A million years later, around 800,000 BC, people learned to use fire.

About 65,000 years ago, probably drawn by the changing climate at the end of an Ice Age, a few of these people left Africa. They probably traveled along the coast of the Arabian peninsula, down around the coast of India, and eventually in boats to Australia. These people also had black skin. These became known as the Aboroginies.

50,000 BC Cave dwellers left wild date seeds along with evidence of pine nuts, walnuts, acorns, chestnuts etc. in the Shanidar Cave located in Northern Iraq.

40,000 in East Asia wolves became the first dogs, the first tame animals.

35,000 BC Fruits, nuts, roots were being gathered for food. No cultivation.

29,000 BC Paleolithic people in Central Europe cook mammoth and other animals in cooking pits.

20,000 BC the first appearance of boats or rafts to reach North America and South America.

12,000 BC Einkorn may have been the first domesticated grain.

11,000 BC Figs trees may have been domesticated. Dried figs found in the lower Jordan Valley in Israel (2006) have been dated to about 11,400 BC. They are a variety that is sterile, so the people may have learned to cultivate new trees by planting shoots.

10,000 BC Goats were domesticated in the Near East by this time.

10,000 BC Crude forms of flatbread were being made.

10,000 BC Emmer emerged as the 2nd domesticated grain, in Egypt.

9,300 BC Evidence of systematic storage of wild grains discovered near the Dead Sea in Jordan. 1,000 to 2,000 years before cultivation of domesticated species.

9,000 BC Sheep were domesticated by this time.

8,000 BC Pigs were domesticated in China by this time.

7,000 BC Apples possibly cultivated in southwestern Asia.

6,700 BC Earliest evidence for domestication of corn (Found in Mexico, 2009)

6,500 BC Cattle were domesticated by this time.

6,000 BC Lima Beans were being cultivated in Peru.

6,000 BC Fava Beans were being used in the eastern Mediterranean region.

6,000 BC Chili peppers and squash were part of the Meso-American diet.

6,000 BC Citrus fruit ancestor (citron) were grown in India at this time."

 

[BroRoyVa79]

The Bible is not a world encyclopedia, and we should not expect it to be:

Genesis 1-10 is world history, although yes, it sets context for God choosing Abraham, but everything before that is dealing with stuff on a world scale. While the Bible is not a history book, or as you say, "world encyclopedia" per se, it includes history in it. To deny that is to deny a variety of important theological components to include the existence of Christ. I'm not saying you are, but denial of Genesis as history creates a slippery slope to problems with theology and the historical Christ.[/QUOTE]

"In the early years of human history, beginning with the earliest humans about two million years ago, every place in the world was in the Stone Age, and all the people in the world got their food by hunting and gathering. For a long time, there were probably only about 2000 people in the whole world. All of these people had black skin, to protect them from the sun. All of them lived in Africa, and they lived in trees or caves or temporary shelters. Almost as soon as there were people, about 1.9 million years ago, they began to make stone tools. A million years later, around 800,000 BC, people learned to use fire.

About 65,000 years ago, probably drawn by the changing climate at the end of an Ice Age, a few of these people left Africa. They probably traveled along the coast of the Arabian peninsula, down around the coast of India, and eventually in boats to Australia. These people also had black skin. These became known as the Aboroginies.

50,000 BC Cave dwellers left wild date seeds along with evidence of pine nuts, walnuts, acorns, chestnuts etc. in the Shanidar Cave located in Northern Iraq.

40,000 in East Asia wolves became the first dogs, the first tame animals.

35,000 BC Fruits, nuts, roots were being gathered for food. No cultivation.

29,000 BC Paleolithic people in Central Europe cook mammoth and other animals in cooking pits.

20,000 BC the first appearance of boats or rafts to reach North America and South America.

12,000 BC Einkorn may have been the first domesticated grain.

11,000 BC Figs trees may have been domesticated. Dried figs found in the lower Jordan Valley in Israel (2006) have been dated to about 11,400 BC. They are a variety that is sterile, so the people may have learned to cultivate new trees by planting shoots.

10,000 BC Goats were domesticated in the Near East by this time.

10,000 BC Crude forms of flatbread were being made.

10,000 BC Emmer emerged as the 2nd domesticated grain, in Egypt.

9,300 BC Evidence of systematic storage of wild grains discovered near the Dead Sea in Jordan. 1,000 to 2,000 years before cultivation of domesticated species.

9,000 BC Sheep were domesticated by this time.

8,000 BC Pigs were domesticated in China by this time.

7,000 BC Apples possibly cultivated in southwestern Asia.

6,700 BC Earliest evidence for domestication of corn (Found in Mexico, 2009)

6,500 BC Cattle were domesticated by this time.

6,000 BC Lima Beans were being cultivated in Peru.

6,000 BC Fava Beans were being used in the eastern Mediterranean region.

6,000 BC Chili peppers and squash were part of the Meso-American diet.

6,000 BC Citrus fruit ancestor (citron) were grown in India at this time."

All of these dates are from us, human beings, based on what we think we know of the world. I've already said that through my studies, I've seen that the dating methods of secular science are faulty. So, listing out what they say to me doesn't really prove your point. I don't believe them based on my understanding of their own naturalistic (atheistic) biases. They come at all of this research with the idea that there is no supernatural, there is no God, there is no relevance to the Bible whereas, the vast majority of the founders of modern science before them believed the Bible to be true.

You seem to trust in their interpretation of the data without question? Both sides are dealing with the same data. One interprets it through the Bible, which is what we're told to put our trust in, the other interprets the data through philosophical naturalism and materialism, which is anti-God and anti-Biblical.

 

[Gnostic]

Then, by definition, they cannot be Christians. Which fits since Gnosticism was long ago condemned as heresy.

Scholars disagree.

I quoted the Gnostic Jesus, but think as you will.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic]

Do we all not see the difference in all the different races we have on this earth now ? God had a specific race that Christ had to come through . That's why satan as the serpent went after the woman from which that seed would come .

Not to say that our Father couldn't, but I can't see how all races come from two people yet even without me seeing, I read in His Word male female created He them , be fruitful and multiply , He didn't tell Adam and Eve that , heck Adam didn't even have a Woman .

Even when we go to the flood ,our Father told Noah to take 2 of every FLESH , not just animals .Anyway that's how I see it , no arguments , just wanted a discussion .

Everybody ain't right , only Christ was perfect

He died.

Perfect Gods die.

Intelligent people recognize them for the lie they are.

Regards
DL

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Gnostic Jesus

No such Jesus existed and you're relying on a group of individuals who came after Christ's ministry on the Earth and claimed to know his true words versus the disciples who walked with Him and learned directly from Him and their disciples who learned directly from them.

The Gnostic writings are pseudepigrapha falsely attributed to people like Mary, Peter, etc. that were written far to late compared to the New Testament documents accepted into the canon or in this sense listed by the early Church as documents they knew were written down by the apostles, copied, and passed on. They teach contradictory theology to long understood theology in accepted scripture.

 

[Gnostic]

Hmmm, first, overall if you don't believe Adam & Eve were real people then you have a theological problem with Romans 5:12-14 in which nearly all translations say sin came into the world through Adam (one man)

Do you agree with Christians who sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God's plan?

Further, in Hebrew, adam, (lower case) --- as scriptures were supposed to be written, means tribe or society.

Look up ---- Created he them, man and woman, and called them adam.

The ancient Yahweh was an androgenous God.

Rib woman was invented to take Eve out of Adam.

Regards
DL
Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic]

No such Jesus existed and you're relying on a group of individuals who came after Christ's ministry on the Earth and claimed to know his true words versus the disciples who walked with Him and learned directly from Him and their disciples who learned directly from them.

The Gnostic writings are pseudepigrapha falsely attributed to people like Mary, Peter, etc. that were written far to late compared to the New Testament documents accepted into the canon or in this sense listed by the early Church as documents they knew were written down by the apostles, copied, and passed on. They teach contradictory theology to long understood theology in accepted scripture.

I agree that no Jesus likely existed.

You might have listened to the information I provided. That is what it says.

What was your point about the way the esoteric way to enlightenment that Gnostic Jesus taught.

Are you not your own best God?

Regards
DL

 

[jaybo]

The first man in the Bible goes back to 4892 B.C. but regretfully there were people living long before the Biblical Adam.

4892 B.C.Adam & Eve (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:3)
4762 B.C. Seth born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:6) .
4657 B.C. Enosh born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:9) .
4567 B.C. Cainan (alt. Kenan) born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:12) .
4497 B.C. Mahalalel born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:15) .
4432 B.C. Jared born (D:Heb/70)(B:Heb/70 Genesis 5:18) .
4270 B.C. Enoch born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/Sam Genesis 5:21) .
4205 B.C. Methuselah born (D:Heb/70)(B:Heb/70 Genesis 5:25) .
4018 B.C. Lamech born (D:Heb)(B:Heb Genesis 5:28) .
3962 B.C. Adam dies. (Genesis 5:4) .
3905 B.C. Enoch is taken by God. (Genesis 5:22-23) .
3836 B.C. Noah born (D:Heb/70)(B:Heb/70/Sam Genesis 5:32) .
3334 B.C. Shem born (D:Heb/70/Sam)(B:Heb/70/Sam Genesis 5:10) .
3236 B.C. Methuselah dies (Genesis 5:26-27). Worldwide Flood begins (Genesis 7:6, 11). .
3235 B.C. Flood Ends. (Genesis 8:13-14) Post-Flood
3234 B.C. Arphaxad born (D:Heb/Sam) (B:70/Sam Genesis 11:12) .
3099 B.C. Cainan born (D:70)(B:70 Genesis 11:13 Septuagint only) - Luke 3:36 2
.

Where do you get the date of 4892 BCE?

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Do you agree with Christians who sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God's plan?

If I understand what this means correctly then, no, and I've never heard of this.

Further, in Hebrew, adam, (lower case) --- as scriptures were supposed to be written, means tribe or society.

adam in Hebrew, lowercase, is אָדָם, 'āḏām, and it means man, mankind, human being, Adam, first man, or at times, a city in Jordan valley, population, red, or ruddy. All of which the translation of the word depends on the context of the text around it.

Look up ---- Created he them, man and woman, and called them adam.

Sure, because the context in the passage around Genesis 1:26 gives the meaning of "mankind" or "humanity" to the word and not The Adam. This doesn't change the fact God named the first man Adam in Genesis 2 given the context of Genesis 2. In which from Genesis 2-3, who we've come to know as Eve is actually in the Hebrew Hava or pronounced Chavah or Khaw-vah and it means the first woman, wife of Adam as well as Eve. None of this really matters as all names throughout history have a meaning behind them. For example, my name in French is commonly said to have originally meant "The King" in the mid 19th century. Does that suddenly mean it's not a proper name as well? No. Why do you try to use the same logic about Adam?

The ancient Yahweh was an androgenous God.

God, as in Yahweh, identifies Himself constantly in the masculine throughout the Old Testament.

Rib woman was invented to take Eve out of Adam.

God using Adam's rib to create Eve is not in anyway symbolic of God removing some type of androgyny from original man or mankind if that's what this is supposed to imply.

I agree that no Jesus likely existed.

As is your right to believe such. However, I have reasons for my belief that there is a Jesus. Personal experience being one. New Testament being another one of them, historical evidence of the New Testament being another, consistency between multiple books of the Bible and they all agree on the same overarching theme about God, Jesus, Salvation, Redemption, etc. etc. being another. Of all of the attacks on Christianity I haven't seen any evidence beyond rhetoric to suggest there isn't a God nor a Jesus.

You might have listened to the information I provided. That is what it says.

Not really sure what this means unless you submitted something somewhere on this thread in audio. Otherwise, no, I did a skim-read as I said earlier. Saw you mentioned Gnosticism earlier and another member reply to you, that's about it.

What was your point about the way the esoteric way to enlightenment that Gnostic Jesus taught.

Are you not your own best God?

Gnostic Jesus didn't teach anything and if you believe the Gnosticism I know, then one must ask where one gets their secret knowledge from outside of the pseudepigrapha. Especially given there's no historical support that the documents are anything other than the wild musings of some people who wrote with pseudonyms pretending to be Christians and Jewish believers as I said. If you don't believe in an actual Jesus, the Son of God, who stepped down from heaven, was crucified, and raised from the dead, then it's just another apotheosis of man, which has long been shown to be demonstrably false.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

Based on man's faulty dating methods which are usually muddied by the general naturalistic bias when they interpret data. For example, they tend to date things with circular reasoning based on the layers they find it in. By that logic there's supposedly plenty of things that existed in deep antiquity.

While the general belief among Biblical Creationists is that the Earth is 6000ish years old, they allow for an additional 4ish thousand years and will push it to something like 10-11,000 years old. Robert Carter and Chris Hardy write for Creation.com the minimum and maximum age of the Earth allowed by using the genealogies of the Bible, etc. to give a rough age. They conclude, after examining the Masoretic Text and Septuagint and allow for variables of a long time in Babylon versus a short time in captivity which they conclude allows to push the date as far as 7,6800 years old and they reject Whitcomb and Morris' allowance for missing generations in the genealogies to allow for somewhere up to 10-11,000 years of age. (I'm not that rigid on it, but lean toward 6-7,000).

Side note: Man, after seeing that I messed up the quote above, I really wish there was an edit button, lol.

Typo here, I meant 7,680.

 

[for_his_glory]

Second, @for_his_glory, but not necessarily at you, just I saw you post it as I was skim reading. I noticed in your first post in this topic you used what the KJV translates in Genesis as an argument for what seems like the Gap Theory. I don't know, but I usually hear that argument about "replenish" for the Gap Theory and sometimes the Pre-Adamite Theory as well. Both of which have issues. Translations like the English Standard Version, or if you're looking for a good internet Bible, you can check out the Net Bible and it allows you to click on words that were translated from Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic.

The word translated "replenish" in the KJV is מָלָא or mālā' and simply means "to fill" and not "to refill" as if something was lost or how we tend to understand the meaning of replenish today for those of us who speak modern English.

You can also look up the word in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary which we were encouraged to do when I was a KJV Onlyist back in the day. It defines replenished as "fill; abundantly supplied" and once again not "to refill" as if something was lost.

Third, in relation to Cain being exiled from God and talking about other people in existence at that time, it seems some are trying to make an argument from silence. Biblical genealogies list individuals of importance and not every individual in a lineage or in existence. Cain & Abel being Adam & Eve's first two sons were of importance. Pay attention to the narrative when you read it. In Genesis 4 you go from Cain & Abel being born to them being adults because the two have their own "jobs" and responsibilities or at the very leas a significant amount of time has passed between verses 1-2 and verses 3 where the confrontation between Cain and God and by extension Cain and Abel occurs. The Bible doesn't tell us how much time actually passed, so given the Bible is only talking about these two individuals, it's often misconstrued that they were the only two children of Adam and Eve walking around at that time when the Bible does not specifically say that.

I can only speculate about the age of the earth by questioning and pondering certain things. Carbon dating is inclusive as from the time of the flood beginning and ending with the waters receding made many measuring lines within the hills and valleys, kind of like the rings in trees as no one could count years from them. It would be to intricate.

We have the account of the writings of Moses in Genesis stating Adam and Eve were created after the earth was completed, God planting a garden and placing Adam and Eve within it. Theologians and scientist can not even agree with how old the earth is, so all we have is the Genesis account to go on.

I don't know if any of you have been to the Ark Encounter in Kentucky and if you have you have seen the various types of dinosaurs that were brought into the ark so that sort of takes away from the Prehistoric of million of years ago. Could there have been others before Adam, I highly doubt it, but only question it.

 

[Free]

Scholars disagree.

I quoted the Gnostic Jesus, but think as you will.

Regards
DL

Of course scholars disagree, that is often how they justify their existence and get grant money. The more spectacular and against orthodoxy, the better. There really is no legitimate disagreement on the matter. The terms Gnostic Jesus and Gnostic Christian are oxymorons. There is no Gnostic Jesus, so there can be no Gnostic Christian. There is the historical Jesus as taught in the four Gospels and the other 22 books of the NT, and no other. To not believe in Christ as revealed in the Bible, is, as he said, to not have the Father either. That is, there is no hope of salvation. To reject the Christ of the Bible is to reject everything.

To call oneself I Am, to be one's own god, is not only utterly foolish, given the Bible's depictions of man's heart and confirmed by simple observation of people, it is the very lie that was the cause of mankind's separation from God (Gen 3:5). It is the height of pride and rebellion against God; it is idolatry. It is to reject the very heart of the gospel, the whole reason for Jesus's coming to die. You cannot become one a "brethren of Jesus" in such a way; it actually does the exact opposite. He, himself, made that clear. There is only one way to become a brother of Christ, and that is to accept his historical, literal, physical death and resurrection, and place your faith in him for salvation (John 1:12; 3:14-18; 14:6; 20:31; Acts 4:12; 16:30-31; Rom 5:9-10; 10:9; etc.).

Of course, all of that means one must believe truth is objective and that the Bible alone is God's revelation to mankind. But, think as you will.

 

[for_his_glory]

Scripture doesn't speak about other children from Adam and Eve but putting 2 and 2 together, it is not difficult to suspect and/or believe there were others.

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

We know that Adam and Eve had more children other than Cain, Abel and Seth, how many more it is not known, but I could only imagine quite a few. Adam and Eve would have had many sons and daughters after Seth in order for them to take wives of them as the first generation grew into many generations. We see the Godly line of Seth in Genesis 5:4-32 with his first son Enos and Cain's ungodly line in Genesis 4:16-24 with his firstborn Enoch (not to be confused with the other Enoch in Seth's line who knew God).

So, in order for Adam and Eve's two sons, Cain and Seth, to have wives and children from them they would have to have married their sisters as the rest of the sisters and brothers would have married in order to plenish the population of the earth.

Here is an interesting note if you noticed that everyone living in the days of Noah, including any of his siblings that were alive, after his father Lamech died (not to be confused with Cains son Methusael being the father of another Lamech), had all fallen away from God as that would have been around ten generations with only Noah who was left and found favor in the Lord as all, including Noah's siblings if they were still alive. fell away from God. Gen 5:30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:

 

[for_his_glory]

Excuse me! What do you mean Scripture does not speak about other children from Adam and Eve? Have you read Genesis 5:4? https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-5/

If I could find the same Jewish source again, I could even tell you the sisters' names.
.

Aclima, Awan, Azura were the only names found for Adam's daughters from Jewish tradition.

The Jewish historian Josephus of the first century A.D. cites an “old tradition” that Adam and Eve had 56 children — 33 sons and 23 daughters.
(Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 2, Endnote 8.)

The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition was thirty-three sons, and twenty-three daughters.

I did an article on this years ago, but lost it when my old computer died and can't remember my source.

 

[Cooper]

Aclima, Awan, Azura were the only names found for Adam's daughters from Jewish tradition.

The Jewish historian Josephus of the first century A.D. cites an “old tradition” that Adam and Eve had 56 children — 33 sons and 23 daughters.
(Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 2, Paragraph 2, Endnote 8.)

The number of Adam's children, as says the old tradition was thirty-three sons, and twenty-three daughters.

I did an article on this years ago, but lost it when my old computer died and can't remember my source.

How about that! That is amazing, although when we consider Adams age, not really very surprising. I did see one commentator give five female names, but with all those children do we really want to know? I think the lesson to take away from this is to remember that not all knowledge is contained within the Bible, as it says somewhere, there are not enough books in the world to contain all of Christ's teachings. (from memory) May God bless our discussions.
.

 

[Cooper]

Where do you get the date of 4892 BCE?

From memory I probably got it from Ussher who worked it out from peoples ages. The big flaw is that there were other people who had set up ancient civilisations long before the Hebrews.

Ussher chronology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rember, Usshers dates do not take into account the first five days of creation.
.

 

[Cooper]

Genesis 1-10 is world history, although yes, it sets context for God choosing Abraham, but everything before that is dealing with stuff on a world scale. While the Bible is not a history book, or as you say, "world encyclopedia" per se, it includes history in it. To deny that is to deny a variety of important theological components to include the existence of Christ. I'm not saying you are, but denial of Genesis as history creates a slippery slope to problems with theology and the historical Christ.

All of these dates are from us, human beings, based on what we think we know of the world. I've already said that through my studies, I've seen that the dating methods of secular science are faulty. So, listing out what they say to me doesn't really prove your point. I don't believe them based on my understanding of their own naturalistic (atheistic) biases. They come at all of this research with the idea that there is no supernatural, there is no God, there is no relevance to the Bible whereas, the vast majority of the founders of modern science before them believed the Bible to be true.

You seem to trust in their interpretation of the data without question? Both sides are dealing with the same data. One interprets it through the Bible, which is what we're told to put our trust in, the other interprets the data through philosophical naturalism and materialism, which is anti-God and anti-Biblical.

Thank you for forming an opinion of me, a person you do not know. It does not bode well for any other conclusions you may arrive at.
.