Gen 1:27, then Gen 2:18. Adam was alone before God made Eve and those are the ONLY two humans God created. All the rest was done by procreation.
Did God Create More People Than Just Adam And Eve?
- Thread starter Tainted Scrolls
- Start date
Gen 1:27, then Gen 2:18. Adam was alone before God made Eve and those are the ONLY two humans God created. All the rest was done by procreation.
The book of Genesis is often the subject of great debate regarding literal translation and symbolic or figurative translation among all kinds of theologians.
You might find this video fascinating, Tainted Scrolls.
You might find this video fascinating, Tainted Scrolls.
This is known as GAP Theory or Theistic Evolution, and is NOT supported in the Bible. I've never heard of these two men but the theory is old in that I've known about it for my entire life.
I have a question for anybody that believes the ACTUAL beginning of creation is in the millions of years? How old was Adam and Eve when God created them? Were they ONE day old or were they 15-20 years old? How can ANYONE question HOW the creator did things? Does He or does He not know how to create? DO scientists today KNOW how to create? Guess nobody has really thought that MAYBE the ages we THINK we know are NOT accurate? As God created Adam and Eve as physically mature human, along with EVERYTHING else He created on those six days, why would the supposed age of the earth and universe not be based on the same way He created life?
Also years ago in 1987, scientists revealed that ALL mankind could be traced back through mitochondrial DNA to a common mother. At that time I recall the age was around 100 - 150 thousand years. What is funny is that Adam existed much earlier, from 126 to 156 thousands years ago. Apparently this means the Man propagated by himself for some 5 to 20 thousand years!
I wonder HOW they could screw that up so badly?
The Bible, does NOT have to be supported by science, nor the other way around. As Christians, we believe the Bible, no matter how ridiculous some people thing that is, INCLUDING people like William Lane Craig.
I have a question for anybody that believes the ACTUAL beginning of creation is in the millions of years? How old was Adam and Eve when God created them? Were they ONE day old or were they 15-20 years old? How can ANYONE question HOW the creator did things? Does He or does He not know how to create? DO scientists today KNOW how to create? Guess nobody has really thought that MAYBE the ages we THINK we know are NOT accurate? As God created Adam and Eve as physically mature human, along with EVERYTHING else He created on those six days, why would the supposed age of the earth and universe not be based on the same way He created life?
Also years ago in 1987, scientists revealed that ALL mankind could be traced back through mitochondrial DNA to a common mother. At that time I recall the age was around 100 - 150 thousand years. What is funny is that Adam existed much earlier, from 126 to 156 thousands years ago. Apparently this means the Man propagated by himself for some 5 to 20 thousand years!
I wonder HOW they could screw that up so badly?
The Bible, does NOT have to be supported by science, nor the other way around. As Christians, we believe the Bible, no matter how ridiculous some people thing that is, INCLUDING people like William Lane Craig.
It's not quite a statement of questioning God or his abilities, nor is it a statement in order to bring a more forgiving approach to theism to atheists, but it is theory that suggests God's creation, while expressing the same exact cause and not meant to be recognized as a contradiction to the Bible, but is to be regarded as a scientific reasoning explanation behind the literal process of God's creation.
The reason why it's not considered to be macro is because it doesn't suggest God's metaphysical creation of man as that itself has never evolved if evolution still took place--at least not by theists.
I definitely agree that the Bible doesn't have to be supported by science, and much of it can't be, but this doesn't mean science should be discredited either. St. Augustine argues that the first creation account in Genesis cannot be interpreted in isolation but must be set alongside the second creation account (Genesis 2:4-25), along with every other statement about the creation found in Scripture. For example, Augustine suggests that Psalm 33:6-9 speaks of an instantaneous creation of the world through God’s creative Word, while John 5:17 points to a God who is still active within creation. This was in the 4th century, long before the theory of evolution.
I have never seen this particular area of science reconciled with the Bible, and I don't think it can be. In an either or situation I will always choose the Biblical account. In my view the video was very condescending to YEC believers, in the same fashion that evolutionists themselves have been over the years. If that's what it means to get on board this band wagon I hope and pray nobody will be fooled.
The context of Psalm 33 and John 5 are two different things and Jesus is NOT talking about His Father's creative work. That God rested from on the sixth day. God has never stopped working in the spiritual sense.
The context of Psalm 33 and John 5 are two different things and Jesus is NOT talking about His Father's creative work. That God rested from on the sixth day. God has never stopped working in the spiritual sense.
I think you got more of a personal glimpse of William Lane Craig. While I think it's just to question the position of Theistic evolution, I wouldn't call it into question merely because the guy presenting it gave you a condescending vibe. Didn't mean for that to sound arrogant, but you know what I mean.
How do you account for these two that you believe St. Augustine was mistaking?
As I said before this is NOT the first time I've encountered this trend of thought but the snideness is always just beneath the surface. Not by him but by whoever he was co-hosting with. Calling the over 50% of Evangelical pastors who believe in TEC embarrassing?
I didn't say Augustine was mistaken I said his comment about John 5:17 is about God's work WITHIN creation, in a spiritual sense. Or do you believe Psalm 139:13 is literal?
I don't speak for him, nor people who represent him--I don't quite take his position--but I think there is something to be said for those who close their minds off. I don't mean to say this arrogantly because I am speaking about those who are also madly in love with God, but for those of us who DO know the truth, who know that God is real and that there is a cause, it is embarrassing to have all these truths on our side and then shut ourselves from even an open debate. At least that was my experience. I remember hearing, "No--God created the heavens and the earth and Adam and Eve were the only two -- end of discussion."
You bring up a good question -- do you believe those who side with Theistic Evolution consider God only beginning work in the metaphysical sense when Adam was created or did it preexist that?
edit:
Forgot to answer your question. No--David was writing this in form of poetry, though the substance remains true.
Last edited:
I agree there is “something to be said” but I think it is for those who feel there is a need to reconcile scientific "truth"…
I do not see a need...it captured the story…. no other stories can capture it well, imo.
Last edited:
"The Beginning"... the story of Garden of Eden, of Adam and Eve... it captured the story, no other stories can capture it well, imo.
Last edited:
By it you mean the book of Genesis I suppose. Indeed, it did. I think what's being brought to question is 1) is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden a type of telling of the first appearance of humans by the Yahwist author(s), or 2) a very brick-by-brick literal explanation?
I think the real heresy is when people remove God from the equation, taking the 'naturalist' position that leaves illogical holes in how mankind came to be.
Then I fail to understand why you would post the video, if you don't support them or take their position?
You are confusing faith with closed mindedness and that can have fatal consequences. I'll refer you to Eph 4:1-16, and pay special attention to v14. I don't know how old you are in Christ, but when you don't get to be as old as I am in Christ by paying attention to everything that comes down the pipe. The sad fact is some people CAN'T debate or don't want to and that should not be held against them. Taking a poll question does not require any debate and I think it is disingenuous to use a poll against those who answered it for a different purpose. The problem with the video is that they provide NO citation or context of why or when the poll was given, or IF it is even real. I don't discount deception by groups that like to quote polls.
I don't see them as much different than those who support Intelligent Design, in it's proper context, NOT how some use the term.
So you believe it is literally saying God KNIT David in His mother's womb?
I am
I'm a big fan of Walter Martin and Billy Graham, but I don't accept everything they espoused.
I've always loved Ephesians 4.
I'm not new to Christianity--in fact I may very well have taken your side a few years ago when I did side with Sola Scriptura--but you may very well be much more mature than me. Though I don't always attribute maturity to righteousness either. <---Not intended to be jab. I meant it with all affection.
Not at all. I provided the video because it is consistent with the topic. While I don't necessarily take their position, I don't stand against it either as I don't know enough about evolution to refute it or stand by it. I cautiously listen to every side, evaluate it, and especially consider whether a position contradicts the faith. While I want to listen to every side, I certainly don't want to be pliable with my faith, lest I fall for anything/everything I hear.
Friend, I already said I do not. This was written as poetry by David. This was a poetic way of saying that God has made David uniquely and in his own likeness. Forgive me if I'm coming off rude--that's by no means my intention--but I feel as though my statements aren't being understood. That could be my fault though--I'm not the best in writing as you can see
Last edited:
Neither do I of St. Augstine, though I think his comment on the subject is food for thought. However, I've always like Thomas Aquinas's writings a bit more
Sorry no disrespect intended in my last post. Are you RC? I was born and raised RC until I was saved in 1971. Your fondness with Augustine and Aquinas' writings seem to indicate you are.
I know enough about evolution to know the CHICKEN came first, via creation, and that all life follows it's own pattern as God commanded in Gen 1. As such, the THEORIES of evolution are NOT support in the Bible.
Friend, I already said I do not. This was written as poetry by David. This was a poetic way of saying that God has made David uniquely and in his own likeness. Forgive me if I'm coming off rude--that's by no means my intention--but I feel as though my statements aren't being understood. That could be my fault though--I'm not the best in writing as you can see
Sorry I DID misunderstand you. Kudos for being patient! You are NOT coming off as rude. With me it's best to answer my question with a yes or no otherwise I can get lost in the verbiage.
Indeed I am. I was raised as a devout Protestant. After many years of studying and comparing and learning about the misconceptions I had of the RC, I came to the RC--though I'm happy to say I never lost my faith in between.
There are definitely theories about evolution that I cannot side with--those being the more popular ones that claim it disproves God (which makes no sense). This is something I enjoy discussing, but because of my naivety, I often like to listen more. Though I guess I'm talking a lot right now
Sorry I DID misunderstand you. Kudos for being patient! You are NOT coming off as rude. With me it's best to answer my question with a yes or no otherwise I can get lost in the verbiage.
It's my fault -- I'm too wordy. I often do that so that no one jumps to conclusions or makes assumptions about what I've said, though I guess the more I write/speak, the more my message gets lost
Agreed!