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.
The problem is that you haven’t supported your claim. Here we have a clear demonstration of Proverbs 18:17, “The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him.”
Let’s review the support you claim to have provided and the cross-examination that was not answered.
1. There was no suitable helper (Gen 2:18). We can ignore the trivial fact that what you had cited was actually verse 20 (“but for Adam no suitable helper was found”) and just remind everyone that this passage doesn’t say “anywhere on Earth.” You are assuming that part and imposing on the text, which would be eisegesis. You scoffed at this criticism but provided no answer to it, which is to say that you didn’t bother justifying your assumption. In other words, you were unwilling to support your claim under cross-examination. Your comment about me needing to prove that there were other humans on Earth implies that you believe your assumption is justified until someone proves otherwise—which is, of course, an informal logical fallacy (and those by definition don’t support anything).
How to make your case: You need to demonstrate through meaningful exegesis that Genesis 2:20 contextually refers to the entire planet—because if it’s referring to Eden (and it is) then it doesn’t support your claim.
2. Eve was the mother of all (Gen 3:20). It is sort of weird that you persistently fail to quote that verse accurately. It can make a person wonder if perhaps you’re doing it on purpose—and, if so, why. I checked every single translation at the link you provided, and every single one of them includes the phrase that you curiously omit. (All the translations I have in my library also include it.) At any rate, your claim requires that this passage is making a biological point, so that’s what you need to demonstrate exegetically for this to support your claim—and you haven’t done that.
How to make your case: In order for this passage to support your claim, it has to be making a biological point. In other words, you need to demonstrate through meaningful exegesis that the Bible defines life in biological terms—because if it defines life in theological terms (and it does) then this passage doesn’t support your claim.
3. Adam was the first man (1 Cor 15:45). This is probably the strongest argument for Adam being the first human to ever exist, which means it was one of the first things I had to address when developing my view. And I shared with you the most obvious exegetical problem with that interpretation (for which no answer has ever been provided, including from you). Insisting that Adam was literally the first man on the basis of this passage commits you to insisting that Christ was literally the second man on the same basis, otherwise you violate basic principles of exegesis and such a move would require substantive justification, not a hand-waving dismissal.
How to make your case: This passage serves as support for your claim only if Adam was the first man literally while Christ wasn’t the second man literally, but I really don’t know how you would tease out that distinction from the text. It seems pretty clear that the apostle Paul wasn’t bifurcating Adam and Christ like that, but rather making an archetypal point regarding federal headship, Adam being the first and Christ being the second and last, and the covenantal consequences of each. “These are forensic and existential realities of our covenant relationship with God, which means these are theological matters, not biological.”
I find it interesting that you included additional arguments that are brand new to our discussion. The question of whether they support your claim is a separate matter (and I'm going to address that) but it was painfully obvious that you just slipped these in here. In fact, I chuckled when I saw you including Genesis 2:5. Perhaps your memory is short, but I'm sure most everyone else can remember like it was yesterday—because it was—that you weren't thinking of that text when trying to support your claim, but rather Genesis 2:20 (
June 23). I mean, you're welcome for bringing that text to your attention, but let's not pretend that it was part of your support. (But it is now, apparently.)
4. There was no man to cultivate the ground (Gen 2:5). This text presents a similar problem for you that verse 20 does: What does “the ground” refer to? The entire planet, or Eden? If the latter, then this passage does not support your claim. And there are two particular Hebrew words in the text itself, שִׂיחַ and עֵשֶׂב, which tell us that it is referring to Eden (as do other exegetical considerations from the preceding and following chapters).
5. From one man God made every nation of men (Acts 17:26). This is another one of those obvious and compelling texts that I had to take seriously when developing my view, so I'm going to spend just a little more time on this one. I learned from the historical-grammatical exegesis of this text that the word man (or blood) does not exist in the earliest and best manuscripts. It is an interpolation, perhaps a marginal note that was later inserted into the text itself. And it hardly needs mentioning that it was the original texts that were inspired by God, or that interpolations are not original, by definition. The implication is clear.
Yes, God made of one every nation of men—but one what? I believe the surrounding context (vv. 24-29) provides that answer (cf. Mal 2:10), especially a historical understanding of the first-century Athenians and their religious ideas. (I highly recommend the
Expositor's Bible Commentary by W. R. Nicoll.) Against the Stoics and Epicurians, Paul explained that we are all of one God, not many, that the visible world is not identical to God but is rather his purposeful creation, and that God is personally and deeply invested in this world. This message would also constitute a subversive polemic against these Athenians who maintained a sharp, radical distinction between themselves and the outside barbaric world. No, said Paul, from one were all the nations of the earth made, one whose providential care "determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live," etc.
Having said that, I would also remind everyone of the work done by Swamidass who showed that, even if we would like Acts 17:26 to be a reference to Adam, it would not prove that he was the first human nor disprove billions of years of natural history. Why? Because, as can be argued biblically and demonstrated scientifically, we are all the genealogical progeny of Adam and Eve who lived 6,000 years—
even in light of evolution being true.
Therefore, no matter how you slice it, this verse doesn't support your claim—even if it refers to Adam (and I haven't seen any good reason to think it does).
