Was Adam and Eve alone?
- Thread starter Purity
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What Ussher believed on how old the earth was has nothing to do with what I presented. If Sargon was Cain, then 204 is years was plenty of time to account for what you're thinking.Purity said:
Yes of course, IF, because neither you nor I lived back to that time. But such arguments like that are useless and just steer off the subject. Is that what you're trying to do?Purity said:
At the end of the 6th "creative" day, Jehovah God proceeded to "form the man out of the dust from the ground" so that he "came to be a living soul."(Gen 2:7) God later proceeded to make for him a "complement", a woman as his wife named Eve. Through Adam and Eve, came forth all mankind, and following their rebellion in the Garden of Eden, it says that "after this Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she had to become the mother of everyone living."(Gen 3:20)
The apostle Paul told the Athenians, that Jehovah "made out of one man all nations of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth."(Acts 17:26) Hence, everyone that has ever lived (it has been estimated that from 14 to 20 billion people have lived and died since Adam's creation over 6,000 years ago) or is living descended from Adam and Eve, our original parents.
In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns (genomes) around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” (January 11, 1988)
Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 concerning research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it.(also quoted by Nicholas Nurston in his book Evolution - Fact or Fiction, published in 2012) Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time, Jehovah God.
At Genesis 4:14, Cain had anxiety for his own life (but not for his brother Abel), for Cain, lacking faith in God, showed a wicked disposition, becoming angry because Jehovah did not look with favor on his offering (Gen 4:4, 5) and later murdered Abel.(Gen 4:8; 1 John 3:12)
Because we were made in God's "image" (Gen 1:26), and are able to appreciate justice and love as well as hate for what is wrong in Jehovah's eyes, the ones that might want Cain to die for his wicked action could of been his brothers and sisters as well other "relatives" since some his brothers and sisters were married (to each other in the beginning) and had children that grew up and heard of what Cain had done.
The life span of Adam and his descendants up until the global flood (there were 1656 years from Adam's creation in 4026 B.C.E down to 2370 B.C.E) were often eight to nine hundred years (Gen 5), allowing for several generations to come into existence while Cain was alive.(Gen 5:4)
The apostle Paul told the Athenians, that Jehovah "made out of one man all nations of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth."(Acts 17:26) Hence, everyone that has ever lived (it has been estimated that from 14 to 20 billion people have lived and died since Adam's creation over 6,000 years ago) or is living descended from Adam and Eve, our original parents.
In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns (genomes) around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” (January 11, 1988)
Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 concerning research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it.(also quoted by Nicholas Nurston in his book Evolution - Fact or Fiction, published in 2012) Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time, Jehovah God.
At Genesis 4:14, Cain had anxiety for his own life (but not for his brother Abel), for Cain, lacking faith in God, showed a wicked disposition, becoming angry because Jehovah did not look with favor on his offering (Gen 4:4, 5) and later murdered Abel.(Gen 4:8; 1 John 3:12)
Because we were made in God's "image" (Gen 1:26), and are able to appreciate justice and love as well as hate for what is wrong in Jehovah's eyes, the ones that might want Cain to die for his wicked action could of been his brothers and sisters as well other "relatives" since some his brothers and sisters were married (to each other in the beginning) and had children that grew up and heard of what Cain had done.
The life span of Adam and his descendants up until the global flood (there were 1656 years from Adam's creation in 4026 B.C.E down to 2370 B.C.E) were often eight to nine hundred years (Gen 5), allowing for several generations to come into existence while Cain was alive.(Gen 5:4)
Christians must be very careful when presenting scientific research that they take extreme care to providing all the relevant data/findings.
http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-mitochondrial-eve-y-chromosome-adam#.UcOp7DORhsY.email
I suggest this article should correct some the misgivings found in the your quoted studies.
Purity
Eve was called the mother of all living because it's a symbol for Christ's Salvation, i.e., those who come to the FINAL land of the living (eternally). Pretty obvious Eve did not bare all... children of this world.Guestman said:
My Bible (nor the NT Greek) does not say, "made out of one man all nations of men". My Bible (KJV) says, "... made of one blood all nations of men...". The word 'man' is NOT there in the Greek of Acts 17:26. And indeed... all human beings have blood that according to type is transfusable from one person to another, regardless of their parents lineage.
That theory is so far fetched only one in abosulte ignorance would believe it. The Jews especially want us to believe they can go back in history using DNA to determine pureness of bloodlines so they can 'ordain' Levitical priests for the future temple to be built in Jerusalem. That's who's behind all that.Guestman said:
The Biblical fact is that the Hebrew of Genesis 1:26-27 specifies creation of a specific man, and then creation of mankind in general. Both Hebrew aadam without either article or particle is there, as also is aadam with. It accounts for the existence of people outside of Eden within its timerange like the Sumerian record shows. It also explains why ancient Sumer-Babylon was the birth place of idol worship againt God, and also how technology came into such an early existence there.
Furthermore, the theory that all races of mankind evolved from one man and one woman IS the theory of evolution, and NOT God's creation.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
It is pretty obvious that through Eve, she, in effect, did "bare all....children of this world", for Genesis 3:20 states that she did as well as Acts 17:26 showing that through Adam "all nations of men" came into existence. The earliest Greek manuscripts reads literally "He makes besides out of one every nation of humans."(Scripture4all interlinear)veteran said:
Though the word "man" is not in the original, this is understood by saying "out of one" (Greek ex henos) or one human or "man", followed by "all nations of men". However, neither is the word "man" at Romans 5:17 nor 14:5, but the King James Bible inserts it because it is understood. And the word "blood" (Greek haima) is not in the original Greek manuscripts, but is placed there by King James Bible.
Those who appreciate the Bible recognize that from "one man", Adam, we all came and exist, but as a result of rebellion in the Garden of Eden by Adam, we inherited sin from him and in need of a ransom.(Rom 5:12, 18, 19; 1 Tim 2:5, 6) Also, serious Bible students appreciate an accurate Bible translation, which is what the New World Translation is. You are grasping at straws like the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus day (Matt 23:24) and fail to do any serious "homework".
Nah, she was called the mother of all living because she represents the Seed of the Woman like Gen.3 revealed, and through that Seed (Christ) all would be offerred eternal life through His Blood shed upon the cross. Thus the expression is more than just some fleshy notion.Guestman said:
The Greek manuscripts of Acts 17:26 does not have the word 'man' in that phrase, period. Instead it uses the Greek word for 'blood' (Greek haima - Strong's no. 129). Don't know where you're getting your info from but it is false on that point.
What do you think this was about?
Deut 23:2
2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
(KJV)
What you've believed with your interpretation of all peoples descending from Adam and Eve is an old tradition, much like the tradition that Eve ate an apple. It has been taught as an obvious fact for so long in most Churches that to consider any other meaning would be like losing part of their foundation in Christ, to those.
It's the same problem with thinking that all peoples descended from one of Noah's three sons after the flood. When one gets to Genesis 15 with the nations of Canaan, peoples are discovered there that had no lineage through any of Noah's sons, yet that tradition continues to go on as if it were Biblical fact also.
Acts 17:26 does not have the Greek word haima at all, for according to the Scripture4all WHNA interlinear and Westcott-Hort's Greek master text of 1881, The New Testament in the Original Greek (both based on the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century C.E.) as well the Emphatic Diaglott (of 1864 and based on the Codex Vaticanus of the 4th century C.E.), Paul did not use the Greek word haima, but rather used just ex henos (meaning "out of one").veteran said:
What you are looking at is based on F.H.A Scriveners text, Scriveners Textus Receptus of 1894 (which Scripture4all now generates instead of the WHNA or Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland text as some years ago), which is a modified Beza 1598 Textus Receptus and not based on the oldest known Greek manuscripts.
He tried "to artificially create a Greek text that closely matched the translator-modified Textus Receptus text and the resulting English version" as found in the King James Bible. (Overview, Logos Bible Software) It was initially called "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version".
Maurice A. Robinson, in the introduction to Scriveners Textus Receptus of 1894 said that "Scrivener's purpose was to provide (290 years later) a Greek text which most closely could be said to underlie the English text of the Authorized Version of 1611.....Because of this, the Scrivener 1894 text should not be considered in any way a product of applied textual criticism and certainly not equivalent to the autograph form of the New Testament text." Hence, he based his text primarily on "Theodore's Beza's edition of 1598 and Robert Stephen's editions of 1550 and 1551."
Thus, the most accurate translations read ex henos ("out of one" or "out of one [man]" ) instead with the addition of haima reading "out of one blood".
So now you want to argue ascendency of the Alexandrian texts of the New Testament that originate from Alexandria, Egypt over the Byzantine New Testament texts which show origin from the Christian Church in Antioch, Syria?Guestman said:
The Alexandrian texts have something like a 1,000+ year gap in their transmission, where the Majority Texts (Byzantine) do not. The 1611 KJV Bible New Testament is from the Majority Texts (Byzantine) and are not called "Majority Texts" for nothing. It's because they make up the majority of New Testament manuscipt copies in historical existence. The Alexandrian texts from Egypt do not have that kind of history, and even has a gap in transmission over a thousand years (disappeared from 400 A.D. to mid 1800's), so arguments of the Alexandrian texts being older does NOT establish it as the best nor most correct NT text.
The mere fact that the Alexandrian texts of the NT have that 1000+ year gap in transmission reveals a major truth. It reveals how God did not select it with His Promise to establish His Word.
(For those not aware, the newer modern Bible translations, like the NIV, are from the Alexandrian texts, not the Majority Texts which were in majority usage by the early Christian Church.)
It is not the Alexandrine manuscript (5th century C.E.) or text that is being noted as having more weight of accuracy, but it is both the Codex Sinaiticus and Code Vaticanus (No.1209) of the 4th century that has more validity than other manuscripts.
The King James Bible is based on late Greek manuscripts, rather than either the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, for it was not until 1859 that Konstantin Von Tischendorf was able to bring back some 393 leaves of possibly 730 from the Monastary of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai.(It has been reported that 8 to 14 more leaves were discovered in the same monastary in 1975) And the Codex Vaticanus (housed in the Vatican Library) was not made fully available by the Vatican until a photographic facsimile was published in 1889-90.
In fact, by the time the Codex Alexandrinus was written in 5th century C.E., alterations and unlawful changes were made, such as at 2 Peter 3:10, saying that "the earth that are therein shall be burned up" (KJV), rather than the accurate reading of "earth and the works in it will be discovered."(New World Translation)
There have been an wide array of alterations made that has brought corruption with it, such as at 1 Timothy 3:16, in which the King James Bible reads: "God was manifest in the flesh" instead of the accurate reading "He was made manifest in the flesh" (New World Translation), pointing to Jesus Christ and not God.
The King James Bible is based on late Greek manuscripts, rather than either the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, for it was not until 1859 that Konstantin Von Tischendorf was able to bring back some 393 leaves of possibly 730 from the Monastary of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai.(It has been reported that 8 to 14 more leaves were discovered in the same monastary in 1975) And the Codex Vaticanus (housed in the Vatican Library) was not made fully available by the Vatican until a photographic facsimile was published in 1889-90.
In fact, by the time the Codex Alexandrinus was written in 5th century C.E., alterations and unlawful changes were made, such as at 2 Peter 3:10, saying that "the earth that are therein shall be burned up" (KJV), rather than the accurate reading of "earth and the works in it will be discovered."(New World Translation)
There have been an wide array of alterations made that has brought corruption with it, such as at 1 Timothy 3:16, in which the King James Bible reads: "God was manifest in the flesh" instead of the accurate reading "He was made manifest in the flesh" (New World Translation), pointing to Jesus Christ and not God.
This thread was a test to see how Christians can test evidence external to the Word of God. From the direction it has taken it appears the results are conclusive.
Yes it is, claims of the Alexandrian manuscripts being more accurate is exactly what their 'my texts are older than your texts' debate is about. That word "validity" is in the same sense as 'accuracy'. It's just an asumption by that crowd.Guestman said:
That claim easily refuted here:Guestman said:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/byzantinetextlate.htm
I ask again, what do you think this was about?
Deut 23:2
2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
(KJV)
Similar threads
