Does the mention of Adam in Luke 3 suggest a young earth?

[Justin108]

Does the mention of Adam in Luke 3:23-38 suggest a young earth? If Adam is indeed the first man, surely the genealogy in Luke would be much longer

[ttruscott]

truscott,
...The good seed is dead on saying the followers of Jesus teaching who have entered the kingdom.

Could you rewrite this sentence for me - I find the meaning of it elusive and confusing.

The proof is that these Jewish historians classed any human who is not Adam or Eve's descendant as animals.

Where did these humans not of Adam or Eve's descent come from then? That is all I was asking...

[earl]

truscott,
The Jewish historians traced their line back to Adam and Eve and stopped.

The Jewish historians blended animal and man not of Adam's seed but Gen.3.1 states God created Serpent ,a beast of the field and at Gen.1.25 God created the beasts of the Earth "after (his) kind".It did not say this for cattle.
This is a long shot in that Gen.1.25 shows no human conduct .But because God created the beast of the field at Gen.3.1 the beast of the field both man and animal had to be created prior to God making Adam and Eve since they were last on the list to be created.


The good seed is those who have entered the Kingdom Jesus spoke of.

[rickmeist]

Does the mention of Adam in Luke 3:23-38 suggest a young earth? If Adam is indeed the first man, surely the genealogy in Luke would be much longer

Not necessarily, unless one believes Adam was created before the earth. I personally belive ,man appeared on the world scene long after the plane was formed.

Well, saying 'I personally believe' actually implies that you don't really know, it's a guess.' It has always intrigued me why people of faith never actually say 'I really don't know so I'm guessing'

Apologies for not debating but the answer was not debating either.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 33 by rickmeist]

Well that's probably no body alive today was there to witness when and how the universe began nor were there any human eyewitnesses for man's emergence on the world scene. We can only read what is reported on the subject and believe or disbelieve what we read.

Given a choice between, if we go back far enough, our forefathers were ... fish, or if we go back far enough, we come to the first created human, I choose the latter. We are all stating what we believe, atheist or theist. If we are honest and lucid.

[rickmeist]

[Replying to post 33 by rickmeist]

Well that's probably no body alive today was there to witness when and how the universe began nor were there any human eyewitnesses for man's emergence on the world scene. We can only read what is reported on the subject and believe or disbelieve what we read.

Given a choice between, if we go back far enough, our forefathers were ... fish, or if we go back far enough, we come to the first created human, I choose the latter. We are all stating what we believe, atheist or theist. If we are honest and lucid.

Ah well - if it's honesty you want then merely a smattering of understanding about evolution by natural selection would dismiss the idea that a human was created by a higher authority as described in Genesis 1. No one would need to have been present. Just lucid enough to grasp evolution and its theory of fact.

[American Deist]

Does the mention of Adam in Luke 3:23-38 suggest a young earth? If Adam is indeed the first man, surely the genealogy in Luke would be much longer

The Earth is much older than 6,000 years.
Adam was not the first man.

Problem solved.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Does the mention of Adam in Luke 3 suggest a young earth?

Requires subjective determinations on how old a young earth must be.

Conclusions?

I remember a week past, so the earth's as old as that.

[JehovahsWitness]

Ah well - if it's honesty you want then merely a smattering of understanding about evolution by natural selection would dismiss the idea that a human was created by a higher authority as described in Genesis 1. No one would need to have been present. Just lucid enough to grasp evolution and its theory of fact.

In your opinion. We are dealing here, as I said with beliefs and opinion, you have stated what you believe and so have I.

Our beliefs do not seem to be the same, I can live with that.

[Kenisaw]

Kenisaw,
I was making a simple joke.
Some people do not believe that dating human remains is to show any accuracy.

Correction noted. I missed the humor, my bad.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 33 by rickmeist]

Well that's probably no body alive today was there to witness when and how the universe began nor were there any human eyewitnesses for man's emergence on the world scene. We can only read what is reported on the subject and believe or disbelieve what we read.

Given a choice between, if we go back far enough, our forefathers were ... fish, or if we go back far enough, we come to the first created human, I choose the latter. We are all stating what we believe, atheist or theist. If we are honest and lucid.

Excuse me for sticking my nose in, but I would not agree that I believe in evolution. I have accepted evolution as a valid explanation for the progression of life on Earth because the empirical data and evidence support the theory. I know that is splitting hairs to some, but it is an important difference to me.