Reconciliation challenge: a literal single male ancestor, or modern science? (Acts 17:26)

From Reconciling understandings of Scripture and Science
Jump to navigationJump to search
Reconciliation Challenge PQRC 1 — Acts 17:26 – a single male ancestor?
There is a body of scientific evidence that people are not descended from a single male ancestor. Acts 17:26 includes the statement that God “made from one [man/source/stock(?)], every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth”. Can these be reconciled?
Suggested Appraised Formulated Discussed Conclusions
here here here here and here here

Reconciliation challenge (PQRC_1)

If Acts 17:26 refers to a single male ancestor of all humanity, it contradicts scientific evidence that all humanity is not descended from a single male ancestor.
Editors' endorsement of this statement of the problem
We agree that this is an accurate statement of the problem.
Bruce Paul Prue (talk) ~ ~

Solutions already proposed

by Christadelphians

 inline comment:

The views of the above sceptics brethren [BP] are not representative of a general acceptance by Christadelphia that Adam was the progenitor of the human race. Our Statement of Faith establishes what Christadelphians believe the Bible to say, viz., "That the first man was Adam whom God created out of the dust of the ground as a living soul, or natural body of life, "very good" in kind and condition..." (Clause IV). You are referred to the page headed "Christadelphians arguing against any resolution" where only a sample of Christadelphian writers confirm the generally accepted understanding. It is speculation to say that had they had recent scientific discovery to hand they wouldn't have written that way, and because the science of biological evolution does not have full support, that assertion cannnot be justified, however unwelcome it may be. — Colin
Christadelphians Origins Discussion posted again in 2020 citing further relevant context: Acts 17:26 and Greek thought. — Bruce (1 December 2020)
  • bro Alan Fowler proposes the genealogies in Gen 5 suggest Adam was created about 4000 BC. He says, from the evidence of much older fossils we must conclude these hominids are unrelated to the Adamic race; that the remains of pre-Adamic 'cave people' have been found who had none of the special characteristics of Adam and his posterity as described in Genesis. That while palaeo-anthropologists continue to speculate and argue amongst themselves, their opinions do not affect Bible teaching regarding the origin of Adamic man as described in Genesis and endorsed by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matt 19/4. He also affirms that although minor 'evolutionary'changes can be inferred from the fossil record, the fossils do not support the hypothesis that major evolutionary changes occurred and were responsible for the major categories of life on earth. Some prefer the term adaptation or microevolution rather than 'evolutionary' changes in this context. —Colin (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we have a reference for this, please? I've heard that Bro Fowler's final thinking in his last book was full acceptance of evolution. — Bruce (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • References to '"A Drama of Creation"', viz., p94-95, but elsewhere in his book as well. — Colin (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

by others

  • Ellicott's Bible Commentary highlights Paul's "Philosophy of History" referring to "a oneness of physical structure, of conditions and modes of life, of possible or actual development, which forbids any one race or nation, Hebrew, Hellenic, Latin, or Teutonic, to assume for itself that it is the cream and flower of humanity"...
  • F F Bruce, here interprets "the first man" of 1 Corinthians 15:47 as Jesus himself, in Adam.
  • In a thesis recommended at the link above by "Christadelphians Origins Discussion", Paul, the Athenians, and the Breath of Life: Acts 17:22-31 William Russell Horst proposes extensive Classical Greek and Old Testament background, particularly noting that Paul may be alluding to Isaiah 42:5-10. A relevant extract of Horst's paper is here.

Christadelphians arguing against any resolution

The following insist that Acts 17:26 must refer to a sole progenitor Adam, thus questioning that any reconciliation is possible as per the task in hand.

 inline comment:

This heading is disparaging of Christadelphian writers of some note who wrote about this subject, expounding the Scriptural weight of its statements of truth. To say they are against resolution in terms of the "task" is grossly unfair, especially as they are not alive to answer this aspersion. — Colin (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)    (Please keep this sort of talk to the Discussion page or the "Free discussion" section below! — Bruce)
  • L G Sargent, The Christadelphian, 1965, Vol. 102, p. 401
See extract here. Mentions Genesis 6:1-2.
  • Michael Ashton, “The Beginning”, The Christadelphian, vol. 136, 1999, p.104
See extract here. Alludes to Acts 17:26 ("descent from one original source") and applies Acts 17:24-29 to "the beginning of life".
  • Alfred Norris, Where Religion and Science Meet, The Christadelphian, v101, p437-439 (1964)
See extract here. Arguing from other texts that Adam and Eve must have been real people, ADN says Paul seems, in fact, to have indicated something of the kind in his address to the Athenians . . ..
  • L G Sargent, The Christadelphian, 1965, Vol. 102, p. 340-346 “THE ORIGIN OF MAN”
See extract here. LGS deals directly with the task in hand on this page. He uses the RV translation (. . he made of one every nation . .) and says it is not enough to say that the whole race is from one pre-Adamic interbreeding stock. He accepts the possibility of a pre-Adamic race, but insists they cannot be saved:

What happened to any pre-Adamic race, we cannot know; that there may have been such beings has never been denied; what we cannot admit is that they could have had any part in the Gospel of salvation as preached to the race of Adam.

Bro L G Sargent also accepts that Christadelphians have long held various views on "whether the Flood was universal or local" but disagrees with the suggestion that pre-Adamites survived:

This conception of the existence of other peoples alongside the descendants of Adam and of Noah is the basis for the whole of the argument on the distribution of peoples, the development of languages, and the comparison of myth with revealed religion. It is developed with a wealth of learning in archaeology and ethnology, but one has the impression that in these fields a great deal is being stated positively which is tentative and theoretical, and the whole construction is admittedly speculative.

He dismisses bro Ralph Lovelock's reading of Genesis 6:1-2 again:

That archaeology presents problems, we must admit; but it is the supposed intermingling of the Adamic strain with contemporary races outside Adam which is so intractable to reconcile with the Biblical revelation; and Gen. 6 : 1–2 is a wholly inadequate basis for the structure of speculation offered here.

He offers a range of arguments against "the belief that evolution can be regarded as God's method in creation."
See a larger extract here.

The following also write in favour of a single progenitor Adam but do not directly address Acts 17:26 in extracts available at Christadelphian Writers in Support of Monogenism — Robert Roberts, CC Walker, John Carter, Alan Hayward, H P Mansfield.

—Colin (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC) — with reorganisation & creation of new page by Bruce (talk)

Relevant Scriptures

Free discussion

Bruce (talk)

— Paul is not speaking of any individual, and certainly not of Adam, so there is no contradiction and no problem. This is the answer to the question that we are working through.
— Drifting into the more general question of whether Adam had contemporaries, the Biblical evidence that people are not descended from a single male ancestor, concurs with the Scientific evidence. This does not prove that the "one man" or "one blood" interpretations of Acts 17:26 are mistaken, but it does weaken their already-weak case. (So far as Monogenism goes, more depends on Romans and Corinthians than on Acts 17:26 anyway.)

Colin (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

— Paul is speaking of one from whom all humanity arose, and he knows that from the Jewish oracles, Romans 3/2 (if we can use that expression) which trace lineage back to Adam - See Gen 5/1, 1Chron 1/1 and Luke 3/38. Most translations confirm humankind comes from one -"made from one all nations of men". ESV "made from one man" and NET which also explains in its notes on this verse, "The one man refers to Adam (the word 'man' is understood)". It is also confirmed by Paul in Rom 5/12 'by one man sin entered into the world'.
The inspired Paul knew the ideas around and the Athenian thinking. He does not need to be 'scientific' in his explanation to those assembled on Mars Hill. Nor are we permitted to impose a view on his words beyond their plain meaning.

Bruce (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC):

It's not helpful to say "the inspired Paul" unless it is relevant to the matter being discussed. In this case the important part is that he knew who he was speaking to, and they were people who wouldn't know Adam from Hercules, and who did have legends of people descended from gods. If they thought he was talking about one individual, they'd have assumed it was a demigod, which we can assume was not Paul's intention.
Bruce (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC):
— See also here for Greek ideas of the descent of many from one in Ovid, Diogenes, Zeno, Seneca, Aratus. It isn't as though the Athenians had only one possible option, or Paul the Hellenistic Jew for that matter, not to mention Luke editing his narrative for Theophilus.
To my mind the point made by Ken Gilmore on his blog here is convincing: Paul wasn't speaking to Jews. See at Acts 17:26 — good reading in context gives the true meaning and there is no conflict between this verse and science. So fundamentalist-leaning translations ESV and NET are wrong in their dogmatism, and non-fundamentalist translations KJV and REB are right to leave it open - no more nor less open than the Greek is. As you say, we are not permitted to impose a view on the plain meaning of the words!
Nobody is seeking to impose scientific thinking on Paul. The only reason that science is relevant to an understanding of this verse is that if it were correct that the verse teaches explicitly that all humanity is descended from one man, then there would be a contradiction with modern knowledge of human biology. But since it's not explicit even if it does mean that, there isn't necessarily a contradiction. Which is all we need to prove in this case.

Bruce (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC) :

The Heliocentrism theory and the science of Meteorology are both analogous to Evolution, in that the Bible can easily, but in my view mistakenly, be read as opposing them. The Biblical cases against Heliocentrism and Meteorology are strong, though wrong; the Biblical cases for Monogenism and against Evolution are weak by comparison.

Prue (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC) :

Colin, in the second indented quotation, how is L G Sargent dealing directly with the task in hand? The body of scientific evidence (which he mentions as "a wealth of learning in archeology and ethnology”) he dismisses rather vaguely because he has the “impression” that it cannot be trusted. This is not the kind of argument we are looking for, which should be giving "attention to solving these difficulties”
Questioning Mainstream Science
"true science"
Colin By reading the full article cited, LGS is arguing against the idea there were other beings pre and co-existing when Adam was created and Acts 17/26 supports his case. Rather than relying on the 'science' of archaeology and ethnology (which he says is tentative and theoretical), he observes that "the supposed intermingling of the Adamic strain with contemporary races outside Adam which is so intractable to reconcile with the Biblical revelation;" is unacceptable. Science is not as settled as some may claim - it is a moving target. Consequently we should be most wary of its claims where the Bible says otherwise. I think God knows best; stick to that. —Colin (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This would be better used as a quotation to prove that there are Christadelphians who do not trust science, are unwilling to understand it and are unwilling to reconcile difficulties between understandings of scripture and science.
Colin I rather think this is a biased opinion. I think its bad science they mistrust, not good science. —Colin (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, some of these quotations are not stating that Acts 17:26 must refer to a sole progenitor Adam, and are about the flood or hypothetical pre-Adamic races. Please make it clear how these quotations are relevant to this specific reconciliation challenge.
The only directly relevant quotation I can see from LGS is this assertion (and what was recently pointed out? - this needs more context):
“He made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17 : 26, R.V.); and as was recently pointed out, while this can mean “of one man” or “of one race”, it cannot mean anything else. Nor can there be any doubt that Paul was referring to the Biblical account of man’s creation in Genesis 2, "
LGS line of argument is more about the problems he sees in reconciling the doctrine of the atonement with evidence of humans existing prior or concurrently with Adam, or alive now who were not descended from Adam. This is sure to be relevant in another reconciliation challenge, but is not an argument about why Acts 17:26 must refer to a sole progenitor Adam.
The other Christadelphian writers quoted here (ADN, MA) read Acts 17:26 as referring to Adam, but is it fair to say they are arguing against any resolution? I certainly don't think so: these two quotes demonstrate that "some believe that Acts 17:26 refers to a single ancestor called Adam", which is exactly why this is a reconciliation challenge and is restating the problem rather than contributing to an argument against a resolution.
Bruce here. To be fair, I was responsible for the heading "Christadelphians arguing against any resolution", trying to organise the quotes and assuming that Colin had put them there to support the idea that the verse necessarily refers to a single ancestor Adam, thus putting it into permanent opposition with certain generally accepted discoveries of modern science, in which case the reconciliation would be impossible.

Colin Thankfully I didn't put in the heading "Christadelphians arguing against any resolution" which I said yesterday is quite unfair. The writers quoted say they believe the human race came from Adam, not "some believe", because their findings in Scripture are consistent with what the Bible says. If Adam was not the first man from whom the human race derived ( and sin & death falling upon mankind as a result of Adam's transgression), then yes, of course, there is a consequential conflict with the whole scheme of salvation, the atonement. As a body of believers, we agree the Bible says Adam was indeed the first man, and that is confirmed in our SOF (at clause IV). I don't think the Bible supports that we came from apes in the Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution model. The model is not generally accepted at all; there are many scientists who dissent from this model. The 'one' in Acts 17/26 gave rise to 'all families of the earth' and it stands to reason it had to start with one man in terms of the Genesis 1 account of creation, and as confirmed by the whole tenor of Scripture.
—Colin (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Questioning Mainstream Science
dissenting scientists
Bruce: re "there are many scientists who dissent from this model..." This idea is promoted by the Discovery Institute and others but it does not work as a get-out card. See Qms:Lists of "scientists who reject evolution"
— Bruce (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Paul Paul (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If the word “blood” is not present (which is the case in some sources) then literally the verse says that our God created from a starting point of ONE, expanding to a multitude of humankind and other life. This passage (Acts 17:26) does not limit God from only creating ONE single humankind; our God could have created many humankinds. The emphasis is on our God who has fashioned from a single source the populations, boundaries and histories of the world. God is the ONE starting point. The emphasis is not on the single male adam. It appears to me that the first male adam would not have necessarily been in Paul's mind as Adam (the first male) may have been a significant distraction for Paul's audience; Paul's focus was on explaining this unknown god (in contrast to all the other gods) to a challenging audience filled with preconceived ideas. Paul, guided by the Spirit, communicated about this new god (our God). Therefore Paul is describing that this unknown god has given life to all things living from the very beginning until now (v25). This god made from "one" (source, creation, beginning, plan, Word (as in John 1), continuation, whatever - but not necessarily "blood" as it is not consistently present). This provision of life has spread across the whole face of the earth v26 but this is in accord with this god's time and space / distance constraints. For this god seeks to be worshipped, not with humanly manufactured idols v25 but by acknowledgement of His children's filial relationship and connection and their duty to search Him out v27 and to be like Him in character (for they are His offspring v28). On this basis I don't see that Acts 17v26 is necessarily talking about a single male Adam in Acts 17v26.
Colin You are right in saying the starting point was ONE - see 1 Tim 2/13 and then Eve was subsequently formed from his side. It's clears from Genesis 1-3 who that one was. An individual. Genesis 5/1-3 does not say there was humankind created before Adam was created, and named. To say otherwise enshrouds the record with confusion. Even the genealogical record says Adam was the son of God as a federal head of our race, the starting point.
Colin Paul did not need to apologise to his Athenian audience for telling them the truth of human origins, counter to their belief they descended from the earth (interesting!). Nor was Paul apologetic in explaining to the superstitious Lystrans in Acts 14 the realitiies about a true and living God, the Creator of heaven and earth, the sea and all things therein, and (similar to his remarks to the Athenians) that the times past was no excuse to remain in ignorance of him. That the blessings of rain and produce that they were happy about all came from this living God (Acts 14/15-17). Open statement of the truth was what was required.
—Colin (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Not being a expert in Greek mythology, were no Greek gods the source of humanity? Their gods use to have many human partners (resulting in demi-gods as well as lower level god/humans over time) but Paul implies that there was no god that made this claimed for the source of humanity. Hence this may have been the interest that Paul had sparked with his audience. Conjecture!


Editors' endorsement that enough discussion has been had for the present purpose.
We agree that this matter has been adequately discussed and can proceed to decision-making.
Bruce Prue (talk) ~ ~ Paul

Our conclusion(s)

As the Template:Problem says, Please do not pre-empt this. This section can stay empty until there is consensus or a decision to formalise a "split" decision. but I hope we're ready to finish this one off soon. Bruce (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was April and this is June. Beginning conclusions with mine at Conclusions:PQRC 1

— Bruce (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
NB: Use the Template:PersonalConclusion like this: {{subst:PersonalConclusion}}
Ask on the email list if you need help putting your read-only text into the page. — Bruce

Useful deliverables

Retrieved from "https://bibsci.sutherlandchristadelphians.org/index.php?title=Reconciliation_challenge:_a_literal_single_male_ancestor,_or_modern_science%3F_(Acts_17:26)&oldid=22733"