Did Paul believe God made one human who is father of all mankind?

[Derf]

It is written, "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:10ff)";
The long held belief that GOD ONLY used 2 originally sinless people to begin populating the entire earth, DOES NOT stand up to "sound" doctrinal scrutiny when soundly, carefully and reasonably examined (for example, who are those that Cain is worried about, after murdering his brother Abel, when he says, ". . . I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, if there is ONLY Adam, Eve, & Cain populating the earth at that time???); and is shown to be very doubtful &/or questionable as can be, especially when one considers, AMONG SO MANY OTHER infallible proofs, how HE (GOD) seems to have had to use 6 SIN TAINTED people (Noah's 3 sons & their 3 wives) to begin RE-populating the entire earth after the Flood.

The bible doesn't say there were only the 3 people at the time. In fact, Cain took his wife with him when he left the region Adam and Eve lived in. We don't know how long of time there was between his birth and Seth's birth, which happened around the time Cain left, but there could have been some 100 children of Adam and Eve around by then, and maybe some grandchildren.

It really doesn't help your argument when you have to tell me how sound it is in comparison to mine. It is pure bluster, along with logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion ("begging the question").

What you have to show is that there is no possibility from the scriptures that there were any other people descended from Adam and Eve on the earth at that time. And you can't. In fact, Paul talks about all mankind being descended from Adam: [Act 17:26 KJV] 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
and Moses says Eve was the mother of all the living: [Gen 3:20 KJV] 20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

So Cain's wife was either his sister or his niece, perhaps, descended from Adam and Eve. Those that might slay him were brothers or sisters of his and Abel's. You can see why they might slay him, if they were brothers or sisters of Abel.

 

[Gary K]

My assumptions are no more huge &/or UNsound than your assumptions; especially when you purport to assume what I "think"!
So to clear it up for you as to what I think, based on precept upon precept, etc.: my contention is that Adam of Genesis 2 was NOT the FIRST nor the ONLY human that GOD Created, and anyone who believe him to be either (FIRST &/or ONLY) is NOTHING MORE than someone with a 'huge assumption' regarding this matter, because Scripture, in Genesis Chapters 1-4 NEVER CLEARLY tells us one way or the other, no matter WHO or What you yourself choose to believe.
To clear it up further for you: I believe Adam, of Genesis 2, was just 1 of many "sons of GOD (having no [human] biological parents)"; and FURTHER, I can provide much more Scriptural PROOF for believing that, than you and/or anyone else can provide for believing "the sons of GOD" were [fallen] angels.

So, you're finally admitting your "theology" is made up of assumptions. And those assumptions contradict the plain word of God. Adam was the first human. That's the plain declaration of the word of God. You just don't want to accept that.

Do you really believe that God's only planetary creation in an eternity of time was the planet earth? Do you really believe God was so lazy and non-creative He created nothing throughout all the eternity He existed before He created earth? The very same God who has advised us to go to the ant thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise? You know, stay busy.

God couldn't create beings as well as other planets and solar systems with free wills who were not made in His physical image? As He was their creator they would be "sons" of God. And God couldn't have councils with these creations in heaven? Really? There are so many alternative ideas that are far more plausible than your's you look to be completely without any imagination that actually goes along with what the Bible says about God. The God who is incredibly creative.

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

The bible doesn't say there were only the 3 people at the time.

And it certainly DOESN'T say Otherwise; so then my believing there were ONLY 3 Scripturally Verifiable people seems more plausible than your UN-Scriptural speculation that there were more at that time huh.

In fact, Cain took his wife with him when he left the region Adam and Eve lived in.

Scripture DOES NOT say that "Cain took his wife with him when he left the region Adam and Eve lived in." In fact, so we are clear, And Cain went out from the presence of THE LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he built a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. (Genesis 4:16-17) The narrative seems to imply Cain left alone as it certainly DOES NOT imply he was accompanied by anyone else. Again, you UN-Scripturally speculate!

We don't know how long of time there was between his birth and Seth's birth, which happened around the time Cain left, but there could have been some 100 children of Adam and Eve around by then, and maybe some grandchildren.

What we do know from Scripture is that Adam was 130 yrs old when Seth was born (Gen. 5:3); and ABSOLUTELY NO mention of ANY BIRTHS by Eve between the death of Abel and the birth of Seth.

It really doesn't help your argument when you have to tell me how sound it is in comparison to mine. It is pure bluster, along with logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion ("begging the question").

What you have to show is that there is no possibility from the scriptures that there were any other people descended from Adam and Eve on the earth at that time. And you can't.

You should NEVER say "can't" using any other pronoun EXCEPT "I" when you've shown NOTHING MORE than you have thus far - - - WATCH THIS:
. . . one [human] blood (after his kind), in no way implies ONLY one man. You cannot take 1 verse of Scripture to prove a point that NONE OTHER Scripture supports! And in case you missed it, the Scripture/Paul say one blood, NOT one man &/nor "Adam".

In fact, Paul talks about all mankind being descended from Adam: [Act 17:26 KJV] 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
and Moses says Eve was the mother of all the living: [Gen 3:20 KJV] 20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Hmmm, this actually supports my argument since this statement was made at the time there was SUPPOSEDLY ONLY Adam & Eve . . . or were there other HUMANS (other sons of GOD & their wives) LIVING at the time of that statement??? For her to be the mother of all living, there would need to be OTHER LIVING Humans, right?

So Cain's wife was either his sister or his niece, perhaps, descended from Adam and Eve. Those that might slay him were brothers or sisters of his and Abel's. You can see why they might slay him, if they were brothers or sisters of Abel.

Speculation with ABSOLUTELY NO Scriptural support; which makes my supposition/speculation that Cain married one of the daughters of the [other] Sons of GOD even more plausible. BTW, did you know that Luke refers to Adam as "the son of GOD"?

 

[JudgeRightly]

And it certainly DOESN'T say Otherwise; so then my believing there were ONLY 3 Scripturally Verifiable people seems more plausible than your UN-Scriptural speculation that there were more at that time huh.

Argument from silence is a fallacy.

Scripture DOES NOT say that "Cain took his wife with him when he left the region Adam and Eve lived in." In fact, so we are clear, And Cain went out from the presence of THE LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he built a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. (Genesis 4:16-17) The narrative seems to imply Cain left alone as it certainly DOES NOT imply he was accompanied by anyone else. Again, you UN-Scripturally speculate!

Talk about illiterate...

To "know" someone in this context is to have sex with them. It's called a euphemism. And this one, if it were any more obvious, would bite you on the nose!

"...And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch"

He had sex with his wife, and had a son named Enoch. This was AFTER "Cain went out from the presence of THE LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden."

Learn to understand what's being said and to think critically, because right now, you're acting as dumb as a rock.

 

[CHR_Iam_IST]

Argument from silence is a fallacy.



Talk about illiterate...

To "know" someone in this context is to have sex with them. It's called a euphemism. And this one, if it were any more obvious, would bite you on the nose!

"...And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch"

He had sex with his wife, and had a son named Enoch. This was AFTER "Cain went out from the presence of THE LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden."

Learn to understand what's being said and to think critically, because right now, you're acting as dumb as a rock.

This is what happens when one has been looking for an opening into a conversation that goes counter to all that they been gullible enough to believe without ANY question, ALL THESE YEARS!
I simply highlighted more of the Scripture quotation than I intended to (And Cain knew his wife;) And if this implies to you that I'm illiterate then so be it. But since that is the ONLY part of my few posts here that can be childishly attacked here by an administrator/super moderator (Try answering some of the questions that I have posed/asked since returning here . . . that no one else seems to be able to even offer an iota of an answer) says NEGATIVELY MORE about you than it does about me.

 

[Derf]

But who really wants to argue with a rock?

 

[JudgeRightly]

But who really wants to argue with a rock?

Be nice, now, ya hear? ;P

This is what happens when one has been looking for an opening into a conversation that goes counter to all that they been gullible enough to believe without ANY question, ALL THESE YEARS!

I was simply pointing out the error in your logic, which destroys your entire position.

I simply highlighted more of the Scripture quotation than I intended to (And Cain knew his wife;) And if this implies to you that I'm illiterate then so be it. But since that is the ONLY part of my few posts here that can be childishly attacked here by an administrator/super moderator (Try answering some of the questions that I have posed/asked since returning here . . . that no one else seems to be able to even offer an iota of an answer) says NEGATIVELY MORE about you than it does about me.

Yawn.

Your entire argument is based on a fallacy. And what do you think my post was? Chopped liver?

Scripture says that Cain left the area he was living in to live somewhere else, and then it says that he knew his wife.

It doesn't say in the immediate context where she was from, nor does it say that he brought her with him, yet to argue that therefore she must not have been a descendent of Adam is grasping at straws.

What the CONTEXT of the verse, the entire Bible, says, is that all humans are descendants of Adam, as @Derf pointed out to you earlier. Thus, since Cain's wife was human, and his descendants were human, she is therefore a descendant of Adam, thus the only possibility is that she is either his sister (which is, in my opinion, far more likely than the alternative, but I suppose the alternative is still a possibility), or she was his niece.

The fact of the matter is that Cain's wife was human, and there is no reason to believe otherwise, other than delusion or fantasy.

Question 1: Do you recognize that "to know" someone, in this context, is to have sexual relations with them?
Question 2: Do you recognize that Scripture describes all of humanity as one race, the human race, as being of "one blood"?
Question 3: Are you able to have a rational discussion without blowing up at someone who brings up counter-points?

 

[Gary K]

My assumptions are no more huge &/or UNsound than your assumptions; especially when you purport to assume what I "think"!
So to clear it up for you as to what I think, based on precept upon precept, etc.: my contention is that Adam of Genesis 2 was NOT the FIRST nor the ONLY human that GOD Created, and anyone who believe him to be either (FIRST &/or ONLY) is NOTHING MORE than someone with a 'huge assumption' regarding this matter, because Scripture, in Genesis Chapters 1-4 NEVER CLEARLY tells us one way or the other, no matter WHO or What you yourself choose to believe.
To clear it up further for you: I believe Adam, of Genesis 2, was just 1 of many "sons of GOD (having no [human] biological parents)"; and FURTHER, I can provide much more Scriptural PROOF for believing that, than you and/or anyone else can provide for believing "the sons of GOD" were [fallen] angels.

OK.

Let's look at your assumptions.

1. That God created other human beings before He created Adam. Really? Where is this assumption of yours recorded in Scripture? Or do you see your assumptions as valid as scripture itself?

2. Adam was created on the sixth day of creation. Before that the other 5 days of creation were spent putting into place the environment in which he could live. Before creation began the earth was without form and void. Wlhere were these other humans beings supposed to have lived? They lived without the sun, moon, stars, an atmosphere to breathe, and zero plants and animals from which to take their sustenance? They lived with nothing to breathe, eat, nor light to see by. So how did they survive?

3. So you see taking scripture as written a baseless assumption on my part. Really? The way I see this statement of yours is that you do not see scripture as authoritative. I do. It is God's word and as such it is the ultimate authoritative source. Your baseless imaginings are not scripture and never will be scripture. You're not God, nor are you one of His prophets. If you were you would not be contradicting scripture.

4. Scripture clearly tells us just the opposite of what you think/believe. What I see in your ideas is that you reject the Biblical account of creation. I do not. I never will.