John-Luke Muresan Supporter Part-time Children and Youth Minister of Arthur Pentecostal

That is a very interesting question and can be answered two ways. One, Adam's name is literally "man" or "mankind" when you see later in the Bible the word "mankind" in Hebrew is "Adam". It can be argued that Genesis is a figurative account for the creation of man as a whole, but in the end it's irrelevant because only Noah survives the flood (unless you think Noah was also figurative). So even if you argue from silence (the Bible doesn't say otherwise) it doesn't matter in the end. But, this argument fails because the Bible does say otherwise.

Scripture is clear that everyone came from only one man, in other words Adam was a real singular man who is the father of all "for from one man came all the nations of the world" (Acts 17:26). Not to mention the solution to the human condition arises from a literal reading of Genesis (1 Corinthians 15:45-49; Romans 5:12-19). Salvation is made necessary by the literal existence of Adam and a literal reading of Genesis. If you don't think Scripture is inerrant then believe as you will. But in summary, if you believe in Jesus Christ and the inerrant word of God you must believe that all people on earth came from one man.

I hope this helps, I've struggled with this myself, so God bless.

October 22 2013 • 4 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

Al Mari Supporter Private practice as a cardiovascular & thoracic surgeon

There are 2 major versions from different translations of Acts 17:26, that this teaching of all mankind is a progeny of one Adam, was based on, (http://biblehub.com/acts/17-26.htm), viz., 

"From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands". (This can certainly mean, all humans started with one Adam.)

"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". (This, however, may mean all humans are made "of one blood", and not necessarily from one person.)

But also consider these translations;
"He caused to spring from one forefather people of every race, for them to live on the whole surface of the earth, and marked out for them an appointed span of life and the boundaries of their homes"(Weymouth)

"He made also of one blood every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth -- having ordained times before appointed, and the bounds of their dwellings"(Young's Literal Translation)

From the preceding 4 versions, one cannot summarily conclude that all mankind came from only one line of Adam. It is equally possible and consistent with any of the above translations, that there are many "adams". The Adam created in the garden of Eden was from where the genealogy of Jesus was derived from, through Joseph and Mary for "kingly and priestly" inheritance. But, there could also be "other adams" for each and every race of men that could explain differences in color and cultures. 

Be that as it may, the Bible is clear as to who was referred to as far as the "doctrine of imputation" is concerned. It was the sin of this specific Adam from the garden of Eden that was counted as sin of mankind so that the 2nd Adam that was "created from above" (referring to Jesus), would take on the consequence of death for mankind. So, whether there were humans before or after Eden's Adam, does not matter an iota. 

Moreover, reading Acts17:22-31, the context appears to center on the fact that God created all (v-29), and that all are called to repentance. Certainly, not that we all came from that Adam from Eden. Otherwise, "suspension of disbelief" is needed to ignore scientific data and anthropologic discoveries. We need to learn from the experience of Copernicus and Galileo.

January 13 2015 • 4 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report