Can We Determine the Age of the Universe and Earth Biblically?

[Bob Carabbio]

Then how do you deal with the genealogy in the O.T. & the N.T.?

I've got no issue with THIS CREATION (beginning in Gen 1:3) being something around 6,000 years old, based on the geneaologies fount in Scriptures. Ussher's chronology is an attempt at documenting that. However NOTHING BIBLICALLY ties Gen 1:1, as being immediate to Gen 1:2. There could have bee millions of years between the two verses, and any number of "creations" before Adam came along.

How do you deal with how death & decay even came into the world because of Adam's sin?

Easy!! God CURSED THE EARTH for Adam's sake - making him WORK for his survival. Adam & Eve were never "Cursed" only the Earth, and the Serpent.

 

[ChristB4us]

I've got no issue with THIS CREATION (beginning in Gen 1:3) being something around 6,000 years old, based on the geneaologies fount in Scriptures. Ussher's chronology is an attempt at documenting that. However NOTHING BIBLICALLY ties Gen 1:1, as being immediate to Gen 1:2. There could have bee millions of years between the two verses, and any number of "creations" before Adam came along.

I got issue with your creation view.

Genesis 1:1 is the topic and the following verse sis about how God did it as it concluded in Genesis 2:1-3 for why there is no former age.

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

God created the first day on that first day and so time did not exist before that first day. Read the conlusion by how "Thus" was used in how God created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 2:1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

It really took God six days to create the heavens and the earth in verse 1 and He rested the seventh day in Genesis 2:1-3.

Easy!! God CURSED THE EARTH for Adam's sake - making him WORK for his survival. Adam & Eve were never "Cursed" only the Earth, and the Serpent.

I reckon I was trying to ascertain why & how you believe the earth was older than it was when it did not exist at all in day one, but only water was there and God created time by that light for why that was the beginning of creation of the heavens and the earth which still was not there yet that first day.

God created time that first day by that light as the light was day and the darkness night as there was evening and morning that first day and every day since as that 24 hour day.

It was the second day He created gravity when He separated the water in forming a water planet with the upper atmosphere. Thus the beginning of the creation of earth. Then He finished the creation of earth that third day by laying the foundations of land, teeming with plant life.

Then He created the sun & the moon, and the stars of the universe hence He created the universe that 4th day and commanded her lights to shine on the earth that day for signs, seasons, hours and days and so that is why science cannot tell the age of the universe by that speed of light.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I reckon I was trying to ascertain why & how you believe the earth was older than it was when it did not exist at all in day one, but only water was there

So what was "the face of the deep" if there was only "water, and no planet. You assumptions are rejected.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I just do not see why [Adam and Eve] would not react to his commandment to go forth and multiply, unless the fall was reasonably close after that day of rest. And so it is within range of that.

Well, if Adam lived to be nearly a thousand years old, then how much of a hurry were they in, really, to get a jump on being fruitful? For someone whose lifespan is 85 years, a week is nothing. How much moreso for someone whose lifespan is nearly a millennium?

We shall know the truth one day when we see him face to face.

Amen, we shall indeed. In the meantime, let the family of God love one another truly and dearly.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The Bible speaks of only two people on Earth at one time in history—in the beginning.

Where does the Bible identify Adam and Eve as the only two humans on the planet in the beginning?

[The theory of evolution involves] populations evolving. They are saying there was a proto-human population that eventually evolved into humans.

First, I'm going to guess that you meant "pre-human," because a proto-human population would mean an original human population—the prefix "proto" means original or first—and it's meaningless to speak of an original human population evolving into humans (because they were already human).

Second, the term "human" in biology and evolutionary science is so vague and malleable that it can refer to more species than just Homo sapiens. This creates needless problems when dealing with the intersection of science and theology, because theologically the term is much more precise, especially in light of christology. You need to keep this in mind because a believer will mean something precise when he talks about humans, whereas an unbeliever will mean something more vague, and the problems incurred by the latter can't be applied to the former.

Third, yes, according to natural history, Homo sapiens had been around for more than 200,000 years by the time Adam appeared on the scene 6,000 years ago. No conflict arises from these two things being affirmed as true: (1) Adam was created by God who placed him in the garden and appointed him as the federal head of all mankind. (2) There were several million people on Earth at that time.

Unless, of course, the Bible states that Adam and Eve were the only two people on the planet back then. So, does it?

Continuing from above: Did all of the evolved humans fall at once, or ... was it only Adam and Eve's progeny?

I have a very conservative, almost fundamentalist evangelical Christian faith, so my views on natural history are unique and very distinct from others who accept evolution. (My theology is likewise unique and distinct within the Christian community, which is often too progressive for my comfort.) That is why I usually frame my answers with the statement, "On my view ..."

So, having said that ...

On my view, the entire human race fell at once when Adam sinned (as our federal head). God's relationship with mankind was covenantal and through federal headship; when that covenant was broken by our federal head, the effect was decisive, immediate, and universal. From that moment onward, all humans were counted as sinners and enslaved to sin.

If I have been understanding you correctly, you are saying humans evolved from a proto-sub-human population.

That is incorrect. I am saying that humans (Homo sapiens) evolved from an ancestral species—which couldn't have been sub-human because, for billions of years, there were no humans. The term "sub-human" is meaningless until there are humans by which it's defined. (But I reject the term "sub-human" no matter what, for I don't accept the great chain of being, a medieval concept I find repulsive. That which is different from humans is not thereby inferior to humans.)

Then, at some point in time, the entire [human] population ... fell. It was not just Adam, Eve, and their descendants that have fallen.

Correct. As I said (above), "The entire human race fell at once when Adam sinned (as our federal head). ... From that moment onward, all humans were counted as sinners and enslaved to sin."

Is Swamidass saying [that] humans evolved and Adam and Eve didn't have parents because they were a separate creation and placed amongst those other humans that did evolve? Or is he saying [that] Adam and Eve had parents, which would be a requirement if they actually were a by-product of evo-ism.

I don't think Swamidass has committed himself to either view publicly. He simply presents the evidence and argues that a de novo creation of Adam and Eve is consistent with an evolutionary explanation of natural history. In other words, he shows that accepting evolution doesn't commit someone to believing that Adam and Eve had parents.

 

[CrowCross]

Where does the Bible identify Adam and Eve as the only two humans on the planet in the beginning?

Genesis. In fact Eve is identified as the "mother of all"...
Adam is identified as the first man.

First, I'm going to guess that you meant "pre-human," because a proto-human population would mean an original human population—the prefix "proto" means original or first—and it's meaningless to speak of an original human population evolving into humans (because they were already human).

If you say so. If you want to use pre-human, that also works.

Second, the term "human" in biology and evolutionary science is so vague and malleable that it can refer to more species than just Homo sapiens. This creates needless problems when dealing with the intersection of science and theology, because theologically the term is much more precise, especially in light of christology. You need to keep this in mind because a believer will mean something precise when he talks about humans, whereas an unbeliever will mean something more vague, and the problems incurred by the latter can't be applied to the former.

Third, yes, according to natural history, Homo sapiens had been around for more than 200,000 years by the time Adam appeared on the scene 6,000 years ago. No conflict arises from these two things being affirmed as true: (1) Adam was created by God who placed him in the garden and appointed him as the federal head of all mankind. (2) There were several million people on Earth at that time.

Unless, of course, the Bible states that Adam and Eve were the only two people on the planet back then. So, does it?

As I said above...Yes.

I have a very conservative, almost fundamentalist evangelical Christian faith, so my views on natural history are unique and very distinct from others who accept evolution. (My theology is likewise unique and distinct within the Christian community, which is often too progressive for my comfort.) That is why I usually frame my answers with the statement, "On my view ..."

OK, go for it...

So, having said that ...

On my view, the entire human race fell at once when Adam sinned (as our federal head). God's relationship with mankind was covenantal and through federal headship; when that covenant was broken by our federal head, the effect was decisive, immediate, and universal. From that moment onward, all humans were counted as sinners and enslaved to sin.

That would be all future humans...Adams progeny...As there were no other humans besides A&E in the world.

That is incorrect. I am saying that humans (Homo sapiens) evolved from an ancestral species—which couldn't have been sub-human because, for billions of years, there were no humans. The term "sub-human" is meaningless until there are humans by which it's defined. (But I reject the term "sub-human" no matter what, for I don't accept the great chain of being, a medieval concept I find repulsive. That which is different from humans is not thereby inferior to humans.)

Now you're arguing words and definitions.

The bible does not teach Adam and Eve...became...as a result of descent with modification.

Correct. As I said (above), "The entire human race fell at once when Adam sinned (as our federal head). ... From that moment onward, all humans were counted as sinners and enslaved to sin."

As I said above the entire human race consist of Adams progeny.

I don't think Swamidass has committed himself to either view publicly. He simply presents the evidence and argues that a de novo creation of Adam and Eve is consistent with an evolutionary explanation of natural history. In other words, he shows that accepting evolution doesn't commit someone to believing that Adam and Eve had parents.

I don't see a "de novo" (spontaneous creation...did I get his definition right?) as being consistent with the evolutionary explanation of natural history.

 

[ChristB4us]

So what was "the face of the deep" if there was only "water, and no planet. You assumptions are rejected.

Water can have depths.

Since the earth was not there until the second day when God created gravity to separate the water planet from the upper atmosphere which He has created, then why would you doubt the face of the deep of that water?

The deep of the water planet has to come from somewhere and so why believe there was no deep to the water that only existed that first day when God created time on that first day for the first day to be that very first day as there was evening and morning by that light that day & every 24 hour day since?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Water can have depths.

Since the earth was not there until the second day when God created gravity to separate the water planet from the upper atmosphere which He has created, then why would you doubt the face of the deep of that water?

The deep of the water planet has to come from somewhere and so why believe there was no deep to the water that only existed that first day when God created time on that first day for the first day to be that very first day as there was evening and morning by that light that day & every 24 hour day since?

Good bye.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Genesis.

I do not understand why you are forcing me to spell it out, but I will oblige anyway: Where in Genesis do we find Adam and Eve being identified as the only two humans on the planet?

Presumably, you are thinking of Genesis 2:5 which states, in part, that "there was no man to cultivate the ground." This one partial verse has to be it, for literally nothing else in Genesis even implies they were the only humans on the planet. Have I guessed it correctly? Stepping around the problematic vulnerability of basing a strong belief on just one partial verse, please provide the historical-grammatical exegesis of this passage which demonstrates that they were the only humans on the planet.

(No, this passage was not unknown to me.)

In fact, Eve is identified as the "mother of all"...

In all of my English translations, Eve is identified as "the mother of all the living" (Gen 3:20). His name was Human, and her name was Life—and these were not their real names, they were assigned names highlighting their archetypal significance. ("Adam" and "Eve" are Hebrew words, a language that did not exist until a couple thousand years later.) That being said, I have three questions for you: (1) Do you think the Bible, including this passage, defines life in biological or theological terms? (2) Was she even a mother at this point? (3) So, do you think her name pointed to the protevangelium and the promise of God, or was it about biological ancestry that pointed to her?

Adam is identified as the first man.

In Genesis? Where? If you mean Genesis 2:5, then I shall await your historical-grammatical exegesis of that passage.

If you say so. If you want to use pre-human, that also works.

No, sorry, pre-human population is the only term that works. "Proto-human population" means original human population and "it's meaningless to speak of an original human population evolving into humans (because they were already human)." I am assuming, hopefully, that you want to avoid using meaningless statements.

That would be all future humans ...

And all of Adam's contemporaries, too. Please pay closer attention to what I write. Again, I said, "On my view ..."

On your view, not mine, there were no other humans besides Adam and Eve in the world.

Now you're arguing words and definitions.

Indeed, for I want to be understood and to help others understand. That includes highlighting the term "sub-human" and pointing out what it means, and explaining that I reject the medieval idea that different from humans means inferior to humans.

The Bible does not teach Adam and Eve became as a result of descent with modification.

Neither one of us believes that and the Bible doesn't teach it, so I am lefting wondering why you even brought it up.

As I said above, the entire human race consist of Adam's progeny.

On your view, yes. But I was explaining my view. I don't understand how you missed that.

I don't see a de novo (spontaneous) creation—did I get his definition right?—as being consistent with the evolutionary explanation of natural history.

Do you see their de novo creation being inconsistent with evolution?

And no, you didn't get his definition right. A de novo creation is basically from scratch (see definition 4), rather than being developed from or based on something preexisting. It does not mean spontaneous, it means they were "created by God as fully formed humans ... with no biological ancestors" (BioLogos 2022).

 

[CrowCross]

I do not understand why you are forcing me to spell it out, but I will oblige anyway: Where in Genesis do we find Adam and Eve being identified as the only two humans on the planet?

Well, Adam had no helpmate. Gen 2:20.

Presumably, you are thinking of Genesis 2:5 which states, in part, that "there was no man to cultivate the ground." This one partial verse has to be it, for literally nothing else in Genesis even implies they were the only humans on the planet. Have I guessed it correctly? Stepping around the problematic vulnerability of basing a strong belief on just one partial verse, please provide the historical-grammatical exegesis of this passage which demonstrates that they were the only humans on the planet.

No, Though what you posted was true and you crushed your own argument...as I mentioned above Gen 2:20. What you are saying is that in all of the "evolved" world...the other population...not one woman was suitable for Adam. Hardly likely.

(No, this passage was not unknown to me.)




In all of my English translations, Eve is identified as "the mother of all the living" (Gen 3:20). His name was Human, and her name was Life—and these were not their real names, they were assigned names highlighting their archetypal significance. ("Adam" and "Eve" are Hebrew words, a language that did not exist until a couple thousand years later.) That being said, I have three questions for you: (1) Do you think the Bible, including this passage, defines life in biological or theological terms? (2) Was she even a mother at this point? (3) So, do you think her name pointed to the protevangelium and the promise of God, or was it about biological ancestry that pointed to her?

Wow, you sure muddies the waters here.

Mother of all refers to progeny.....Cain and Seth came through mommy Eve. So did Abel but we know what happened there....Keeping in mind Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. It is Eve who gave birth to the above mentioned...she was the mother of all of them...and grandmother to their children and so on.

In Genesis? Where? If you mean Genesis 2:5, then I shall await your historical-grammatical exegesis of that passage.

1 Cor 15:45....Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

No, sorry, pre-human population is the only term that works. "Proto-human population" means original human population and "it's meaningless to speak of an original human population evolving into humans (because they were already human)." I am assuming, hopefully, that you want to avoid using meaningless statements.

Call it what you want.

And all of Adam's contemporaries, too. Please pay closer attention to what I write. Again, I said, "On my view ..."

Adam had no contemporaries....unless you consider the animals as contemporaries. All of Adams contemporaries are in his progeny.

The onus is on you to show where the bible speaks of Adams contemporaries.

On your view, not mine, there were no other humans besides Adam and Eve in the world.

Where does the bible mention them? If Eve is the mother of all...then who was the mother of the others? Who was the mother of the mother of all?

As I said....The onus is on you to show where the bible speaks of Adams contemporaries.

Indeed, for I want to be understood and to help others understand. That includes highlighting the term "sub-human" and pointing out what it means, and explaining that I reject the medieval idea that different from humans means inferior to humans.

Facepalm.

Neither one of us believes that and the Bible doesn't teach it, so I am lefting wondering why you even brought it up.

Exactly...Adam was made from the dust the Eve from his rib (side). There were no other humans on earth until Eve the mother of all began to have children,

The onus is on you to show where the bible speaks of Adams contemporaries.

On your view, yes. But I was explaining my view. I don't understand how you missed that.

As pointed out...your view isn't biblical.

The onus is on you to show where the bible speaks of Adams contemporaries.

Do you see their de novo creation being inconsistent with evolution?

And no, you didn't get his definition right. A de novo creation is basically from scratch (see definition 4), rather than being developed from or based on something preexisting. It does not mean spontaneous, it means they were "created by God as fully formed humans ... with no biological ancestors" (BioLogos 2022).

I'm not a big BioLogos guy. They do a lot of twisting and adding to the bible to make it form their false theology. Very cult like.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Well, Adam had no helpmate (Gen 2:20).

While the text says that "no suitable helper was found" for Adam, it doesn't say "anywhere on Earth." That part is an assumption being imposed on the text, which raises the question, "What is that assumption based on?"

[I was actually thinking of] Genesis 2:20. What you are saying is that, in all of the "evolved" world—the other population—not one woman was suitable for Adam.

No, that's not what I am saying. That involves the same "anywhere on Earth" assumption, which your view makes but mine does not. My view doesn't require anything more of the text than is already supplied by the immediate (v. 20) and proximate context (vv. 5 and 8), namely, no suitable helper was found for Adam in Eden.

What you posted [i.e., Gen 2:5] was true and you crushed your own argument.

I think you might have missed something crucial. I am fully aware of verse 5 and have taken it into account, and it doesn't represent any kind of problem for my view. So, perhaps you need to explain how, exactly, it's supposed to crush my argument.

Wow, you sure muddied the waters here.

If that was true, you could have demonstrated it, so it's rather telling that you didn't. I merely provided some important facts relevant to historical-grammatical exegesis which needs to be taken into account. If that "muddies" the waters for you ... well, that says a lot.

Mother of all refers to progeny.....Cain and Seth came through mommy Eve. So did Abel but we know what happened there....Keeping in mind Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. It is Eve who gave birth to the above mentioned...she was the mother of all of them...and grandmother to their children and so on.

So, I had asked you three questions and you answered only one of them, namely, the third one. And your answer is that her name was about biological ancestry that pointed to her (Gen 3:20). I guess we will have to disagree here, because your answer flies in the face of the redemptive-historical hermeneutic common to Reformed theology which informs my view. I believe her name pointed to the protevangelium (v. 15) and the promise of God about the seed, a promise that would be repeated throughout Scripture. But then, on my view, the Bible defines life in theological terms, not biological. (And, no, she had no children yet at that point.)

Just to repeat the first two questions:

(1) Do you think the Bible, including this passage, defines life in biological or theological terms?

(2) Was she even a mother at this point?

1 Corinthians 15:45, "Thus it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being'; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."

If Christ was not the second man in literal terms (v. 47), then Adam was not the first man in literal terms. In what sense, then, was Adam the first and Christ the second and last?

Answer: In a covenantal sense, both of them being a federal head of mankind in our covenant relationship with God. In the context of redemptive history, those who are "in Adam" belong to the first, natural, old humanity that experiences condemnation and death, while those "in Christ" belong to the second, spiritual, new humanity that experiences salvation and life.

It was while meditating on the atoning work of Christ that it dawned on me: If imputation vis-à-vis Christ (righteousness) does not necessitate our being descended from him biologically, then imputation vis-à-vis Adam (sin) likewise does not require our being natural descendants of his. It seems to me that what's required for imputation is federal headship of the covenant representative, either the first (Adam) or second and last (Christ). These are forensic and existential realities of our covenant relationship with God, which means these are theological matters, not biological.

Adam had no contemporaries ...

Anywhere on Earth? That seems to be your view.

On my view, though, Adam did have contemporaries—not in Eden, as the text makes clear, but elsewhere in the world beyond, which is hinted at in certain scriptures.

The onus is on you to show where the Bible speaks of Adam's contemporaries.

No, sir, the onus is on you. It was your claim that "the Bible speaks of only two people on Earth at one time in history—in the beginning" (June 21, 2023). This conversation has been about examining your claim and how you justify it.

 

[CrowCross]

While the text says that "no suitable helper was found" for Adam, it doesn't say "anywhere on Earth." That part is an assumption being imposed on the text, which raises the question, "What is that assumption based on?"

Wow....what a stretch.

The Lord couldn't find a suitable helpmate in all of the so-called people you said were on the earth????

Come on dude. I find no reason to even look into your claim.

What you need to do is bibically show me there was a population of people on earth besides Adam....or back away from your argument.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Wow, what a stretch.

As our readers can easily determine for themselves, it is not a stretch of any kind. It's a simple and verifiable fact that Genesis 2 doesn't say that a suitable helper wasn't found "anywhere on Earth"—at least not in any of the most common and popular English translations.

And it looks like CrowCross is unwilling to tell us what justifies the assumption that he is imposing on the text. That is perfectly fine, but also very telling.

The Lord couldn't find a suitable helpmate in all of the so-called people you said were on the earth?

Does the text say that God couldn't find a suitable helper anywhere on Earth?

No. It says that a suitable helper wasn't found (Gen 2:20) and the context was Eden (v. 5 and 8). This is likewise just a verifiable fact, not a stretch.

It is also worth nothing—and this, too, is relevant and important to historical-grammatical exegesis—that nobody had any idea they lived on a planet, nor do we find God telling them they did. Again, not a stretch, just a fact.

Is this growing list of facts inconvenient to CrowCross and his claim that "the Bible speaks of only two people on Earth at one time in history—in the beginning"? Probably.

Come on dude. I find no reason to even look into your claim.

Good. That liberates you to defend your claim. Please start.

What you need to do is show me there was a population of people on Earth besides Adam ...

I will be happy to support my claim, but not until you have supported yours—or conceded that it is unsupported.

 

[CrowCross]

As our readers can easily determine for themselves, it is not a stretch of any kind. It's a simple and verifiable fact that Genesis 2 doesn't say that a suitable helper wasn't found "anywhere on Earth"—at least not in any of the most common and popular English translations.

And it looks like CrowCross is unwilling to tell us what justifies the assumption that he is imposing on the text. That is perfectly fine, but also very telling.

With all due respect...Gen 1 and 2 is about the creation of Adam and Eve...and a few other things...about them being the FIRST humans as I've pointed out several times USING other verses in the bible to support the natural reading and meaning of the verses.

As I have said...YOU have no shown where there is any other humans alive on the earth.

Does the text say that God couldn't find a suitable helper anywhere on Earth?

That's because there were no ther females. Duh, pretty much a no brainer there. It doesn't mean there was a girl hiding behind some rock.

No. It says that a suitable helper wasn't found (Gen 2:20) and the context was Eden (v. 5 and 8). This is likewise just a verifiable fact, not a stretch.

No, it's quite a stretch.

It is also worth nothing—and this, too, is relevant and important to historical-grammatical exegesis—that nobody had any idea they lived on a planet, nor do we find God telling them they did. Again, not a stretch, just a fact.

Are you suggestion there was a female on Kolob that God could have zapped to earth and given to Adam for a wife?

Do you not understand basic language?

Is this growing list of facts inconvenient to CrowCross and his claim that "the Bible speaks of only two people on Earth at one time in history—in the beginning"? Probably.

Once again the onos is on you to show there were others alive on earth....I have noticed you keep running away from doing that.

Good. That liberates you to defend your claim. Please start.




I will be happy to support my claim, but not until you have supported yours—or conceded that it is unsupported.

If you don't have the ability to support your claim and show that A&E were NOT alone on this planet when Adam was made from the dust the Eve from his rib (side)...That is Adam being the first man and Eve the mother of all....then please don't respond. It's like me telling you 1+2=3 then you asking me to show you a 3.

 

[Carbon]

I've got no issue with THIS CREATION (beginning in Gen 1:3) being something around 6,000 years old, based on the geneaologies fount in Scriptures. Ussher's chronology is an attempt at documenting that. However NOTHING BIBLICALLY ties Gen 1:1, as being immediate to Gen 1:2. There could have bee millions of years between the two verses, and any number of "creations" before Adam came along.

Easy!! God CURSED THE EARTH for Adam's sake - making him WORK for his survival. Adam & Eve were never "Cursed" only the Earth, and the Serpent.

Then you deny scripture.

 

[Carbon]

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

With all due respect, Genesis 1 and 2 are about the creation of Adam and Eve ... [and] them being the FIRST humans, as I've pointed out several times using other verses in the Bible ...

Where? Certainly not here.

As I have said...YOU have no shown where there is any other humans alive on the earth.

And that's because we have been dealing with your claim, not mine. As I said, I would be "happy to support my claim, but not until you have supported yours—or conceded that it is unsupported" (and that has not yet happened).

That's because there were no other females.

Anywhere on Earth? Is that conclusion drawn from the text? If so, where?

Are you suggestion there was a female on Kolob that God could have zapped to earth and given to Adam for a wife?

Of course not. And anyone who has paid the slightest attention to what I've been saying would already know that.

Do you not understand basic language?

I do. What is your point?

Once again the onos is on you to show there were others alive on earth...

The onus is not on me when we're dealing with your claim. And, again. as I have I said repeatedly now, I would be "happy to support my claim, but not until you have supported yours—or conceded that it is unsupported" (and that has not yet happened).

And the readers are watching (and drawing their own conclusions).

 

[CrowCross]

And that's because we have been dealing with your claim, not mine. As I said, I would be "happy to support my claim, but not until you have supported yours—or conceded that it is unsupported" (and that has not yet happened).

I have supported my claim...
There was no man to cultivate the ground.(Gen 2:5)
Adam was the first man.(1 Cor 15:45)
There was no suitable helper. (Gen 2:18)
From one man He made every nation of men. (Acts 17:26)
Eve was the mother of all. (Gen 3:20)

This can't be if there were other people on the earth.

It appears you are the one who has conceded as you have not supported your claim of there being a population of people on the earth besides Adam and Eve.

Thank you for responding, trying. Perhaps another poster has the ability to present your opinion as you certainly don't appear too.

 

[CrowCross]

Adam & Eve were never "Cursed" only the Earth, and the Serpent.

Then you deny scripture.

Is that what you had in mind Carbon?

Was Adam and Eve...and I'll go a step further their progeny (us) cursed? Is there any verses that support either position?

 

[Sereni-tea]

I have supported my claim...
There was no man to cultivate the ground.(Gen 2:5)
Adam was the first man.(1 Cor 15:45)
There was no suitable helper. (Gen 2:18)
From one man He made every nation of men. (Acts 17:26)
Eve was the mother of all. (Gen 3:20)

This can't be if there were other people on the earth.

It appears you are the one who has conceded as you have not supported your claim of there being a population of people on the earth besides Adam and Eve.

Thank you for responding, trying. Perhaps another poster has the ability to present your opinion as you certainly don't appear too.

I think the Bible is more interested in Adam as an archetype than in his biological role, so I don't see any incompatibility between these verses and the concept that other people were around, not just Adam and Eve.

If Adam and Ever were the only people, then we have to ask the obvious questions:
Where Cain got a wife from? Do we really want to consider he married his sister?
And who was Cain afraid of when he says to God:
Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me. Genesis 4:14