How many consider Adam our father?

[Wrangler]

Just read 2 Chronicles 34:3, where King Yoshiyahu sought after the God of David his father. In fact, David was an ancient ancestor by then. USE OF LANGUAGE. How far do we take this? And why not Abraham?

 

[RedFan]

Do you mean "father" or do you mean "ancestor?" If Adam was a real rather than a metaphorical person then he was my ancestor. But I prefer to confine "father" to a single generation, at least when discussing human beings rather than the deity. Any other use of "father" is idiomatic at best.

 

[Adrift]

I consider Adam to be an ancestor. I consider my father, the husband of my mother, to be my father.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Just read 2 Chronicles 34:3, where King Yoshiyahu sought after the God of David his father. In fact, David was an ancient ancestor by then. USE OF LANGUAGE. How far do we take this? And why not Abraham?

It might be like a current American president, who happens to be descended from George Washington, calling upon the tradition of his forefather to advance his political/spiritual cause.

"Father," in this sense, could refer either to a prominent member of the ethnicity or to an ancient relative. Judah, in its unique ethnic tradition, utilized a family lineage for its kings, modeled after the call and style of King David. So Joshua was both related to King David, and carrying out the typological reign of King David.

 

[Bob]

Just as there had to be a first dachshund, a first siamese cat, . . ., there had to be a first man and a first woman, the ancestors of all humans.

(Did Homer write the Iliad? Well, if not him, than perhaps another person with the same name.)

 

[Wrangler]

But I prefer to confine "father" to a single generation, at least when discussing human beings

Me also but there is the Bible verse that shows the culture of those who wrote it.

 

[RedFan]

Just as there had to be a first dachshund, a first siamese cat, . . ., there had to be a first man and a first woman, the ancestors of all humans.

Even if we evolved from apes, there was a first instance of sufficient similarity with us to qualify as man rather than ape (although I'd be hard-pressed to draw that line with total accuracy). But it is theoretically possible that parallel evolutions stemming from different ape lineages resulted in two or more early humans without a common human parent.

By the way, the age-old question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is easy to answer. It's the egg. 100% of the genetic information marking the very first chicken was present in the egg when it hatched, while the mother of that egg (and/or her mate) yielded some mutation that distinguished her from her progeny in a relevant way for purposes of whatever definitional line you care to draw.

 

[Bob]

Even if we evolved from apes, there was a first instance of sufficient similarity with us to qualify as man rather than ape (although I'd be hard-pressed to draw that line with total accuracy). But it is theoretically possible that parallel evolutions stemming from different ape lineages resulted in two or more early humans without a common human parent.

By the way, the age-old question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is easy to answer. It's the egg. 100% of the genetic information marking the very first chicken was present in the egg when it hatched, while the mother of that egg (and/or her mate) yielded some mutation that distinguished her from her progeny in a relevant way for purposes of whatever definitional line you care to draw.

According to anthropologists (not necessarily shared by devotees of this forum), modern Homo Sapiens (us) evolved from physical Homo Sapiens (not yet spiritually touched by God), who evolved from Homo Erectus, who evolved from Homo Habilis, . . . . In any event, I believe God is intimately involved in evolution.

Re your “the egg came first,” I concur (although I never thought of it that way).

Thanks for engaging.

 

[Stumpmaster]

Even if we evolved from apes, there was a first instance of sufficient similarity with us to qualify as man rather than ape (although I'd be hard-pressed to draw that line with total accuracy). But it is theoretically possible that parallel evolutions stemming from different ape lineages resulted in two or more early humans without a common human parent.

By the way, the age-old question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is easy to answer. It's the egg. 100% of the genetic information marking the very first chicken was present in the egg when it hatched, while the mother of that egg (and/or her mate) yielded some mutation that distinguished her from her progeny in a relevant way for purposes of whatever definitional line you care to draw.

The theology of the Bible teaches the first death occurred after Adam sinned, no macro-evolution involved.

 

[RedFan]

The theology of the Bible teaches the first death occurred after Adam sinned, no macro-evolution involved.

My suggestion, rather, is that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve's creation is metaphorical, and that humans evolved from lower primates over an extended period of time. The scientific evidence of this seems compelling to me. It doesn't rule out a creation role for God.

 

[Stumpmaster]

My suggestion, rather, is that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve's creation is metaphorical, and that humans evolved from lower primates over an extended period of time. The scientific evidence of this seems compelling to me. It doesn't rule out a creation role for God.

Theistic Evolution is contrary to Biblical Theology.

 

[RedFan]

Theistic Evolution is contrary to Biblical Theology.

Not if the Genesis creation story is a metaphor.