Adam was NOT the First Man Like You Thought!

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-25

[00:00:00]Adam and Eve were not the first humans, and here's the secret. The Bible never says they were. That is an assumption you are adding to the text of the Bible.

[00:00:09]But, the Bible seems to give details that say otherwise. Now, I know all the Christians have stones out ready to stone me as a heretic compromising on God's word. And all the atheists have your accusations ready to say that I'm just using mental gymnastics to avoid the problems with the Bible. But, if you hang with me, I'm going to address all of the arguments from the Bible. So, let's go.

[00:00:35]Welcome back to the Word Room where we make difficult Bible passages make sense. We're going to dig into this topic. Now, I want to be clear right from the beginning what I'm not saying.

[00:00:44]I am not saying Adam and Eve were not real people. I'm not saying the fall didn't happen. And I'm not saying that the story in Genesis 2 to 4 is an allegorical. What I am saying is that the text of the Bible doesn't require Adam and Eve to be the first humans ever to exist. One of the reasons people think Adam and Eve were the first humans is because they bring assumptions to the text. They don't even realize they're doing it. And one of the biggest assumptions is that the Bible is answering modern questions. It's funny that so often the people who disagree with me, who say Adam and Eve were the literal first humans that was literally made from dust and literally made from a rib out of Adam's body, or the claim that the Earth was made about 6,000 years ago in a literal 6-day time span, they will often say that if I disagree with that, that I'm compromising the word of God by taking modern ideas of science and trying to read them backwards into the text. I'm not. We'll kind of look at that as we go, but what's interesting is that it's actually the opposite. Often times, it is them doing this, and they don't even realize it. Because they look at the text of the Bible, and they assume that it's answering modern questions that the ancient world wouldn't have been asking.

[00:02:02]We, in our modern times, with our modern understanding of science, want to read biological questions into the text that the text isn't addressing. Most of the time, the Bible is dealing with a completely different topic from a worldview of the ancient world that wasn't concerned with modern biology or cosmology, but rather was concerned with theology. And oftentimes, we forget that, and therefore, we look at the Bible looking for modern answers to modern questions. The Bible wasn't addressing questions about dinosaurs, but people will read dinosaurs into the text when they see the word dragon or Leviathan. The Bible wasn't answering that question, and you shouldn't be looking to the Bible to find those answers because that wasn't the point of it. Oftentimes, people will also bring assumptions to the text that the text doesn't explicitly say. We're going to look at one of those here in just a moment with the context of Eve being the mother of all living. So, stick with me.

[00:02:57]We're about to look at that. And then oftentimes, people will just ignore the context of what is actually being said because we cherry-pick the Bible. We take verses, and we say, "Ooh, this verse seems to fit my idea. So, I'm just going to pull that verse, use it as evidence for my idea, proof text it, but I will ignore all of the context or what is actually being said." You can't do that with the Bible. You have to take the whole text and understand what's being said. Now, you might be asking, "Why does this even matter? Who cares about Adam and Eve or the first humans?" Well, it matters because many people assume that if Adam and Eve were not the first humans, then the entire text of the Bible falls apart. There are so many people who may hear evidence from the natural world that shows or seems to at least indicate that Adam and Eve were not the first humans, and then they question everything about the Bible because they've been told this is what the Bible says. But if it's not what the Bible says, and then they find out, "Hey, Adam and Eve weren't the first humans." Then there's no problem.

[00:04:03]They don't reject the Bible. And that's why this becomes a very important issue.

[00:04:08]And the question isn't even whether Adam and Eve matter, of course they do. The question is whether we've made them answer a question that Genesis was never intending to answer. And what's interesting is by forcing these modern contexts and these modern ideas into the text of Genesis, we actually miss the depth. We miss that depth of what the text is trying to say. If Genesis is telling us who got appointed and how humanity is supposed to function and how sacred space became corrupted, then Adam and Eve become much more important than were they the first biological humans.

[00:04:42]Now, we're going to address some of the arguments that people use to say that I'm incorrect and claim that the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans. And then I'm going to explain towards the end some clues from the text of scripture that indicate that maybe Adam and Eve weren't the first humans.

[00:04:58]So, stick around. You don't want to miss that. But first, let's deal with some of these arguments. So, let's start with the place where people think the Bible is most obvious.

[00:05:07]It says Eve is the mother of all living.

[00:05:10]The man named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living.

[00:05:14]Genesis 3:20. Well, there it is. All the living humans came from Eve. Case closed. But not so fast. There are two very important details to notice here.

[00:05:23]First, notice that there is a word that the text does not actually say, but is being assumed. It's the word human. It does not say, "She is the mother of all living humans."

[00:05:36]That is being added to the text. It just says she is the mother of all living, period.

[00:05:43]That includes the animals. That same word living is used all the way through Genesis 1 and 2 right before we get to this chapter speaking of the animals.

[00:05:54]They are a part of the living. It doesn't say she's the mother of all humans. It doesn't say she's the mother of all humankind, of all mankind, or of all living humans. In order to take the interpretation that this is saying she's the first woman and all humans descend from her, you have to add or assume that it's referring to all living humans even though the text doesn't say that. But what if that assumption is wrong? And that's what the second detail that we need to pay attention to addresses. This is not said to Eve when she is brought to Adam and they become one flesh, husband and wife. This isn't said when the humans are given the command to be fruitful and multiply, which would be where it would logically fit if this is talking about biological descendants of all humans coming and filling the earth.

[00:06:42]This is said after the fall, after God pronounces the curses. Why? Context matters here. Let's look at some more verses in chapter 3. So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than any livestock and more than any wild animal.

[00:07:02]You will move on your belly and eat dust all the days of your life. I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike your head and you will strike his heel." He said to the woman, "I will intensify your labor pains. You will bear children with painful effort." Genesis 3:14-16a.

[00:07:23]It is after this, just four verses later, that Adam names his wife Eve and says she is the mother of all living.

[00:07:32]Why is this the first thing said after God finishes the curse? Because [clears throat] God just announced a curse of death that affects all of the living from the animals to the humans to the plants to the ground it affects everything. But in the curse there was a promise. The promise was that the seed, the offspring of the woman would crush or defeat the serpent who was the one who led the rebellion against God. The promise is that it would be Eve and through her offspring, through her children, through her line that life would be re- stored. And in this way she is the mother of all the living because life is restored, living life from death is restored through her offspring. This is a theological statement and that's why it said in context to the fall. It's not said in the context of multiplying and filling the earth right at her creation because this wasn't a biological statement. It was a theological one. Adam's not talking modern genetics. He's not giving you modern science in this ancient text. And that's often how we look at it. We think of it like Adam is giving these type of modern scientific details. He's not. He is naming her in light of the promise of life continuing despite the introduction of death and that the life would come through the offspring of Eve. That is why she is the mother of all living.

[00:09:12]Now you might say, "Okay, fine. But what about Paul?" Because Paul doesn't just mention Eve, he mentions Adam. And he specifically calls Adam the first man.

[00:09:22]That sounds harder to explain or is it?

[00:09:25]So it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, then the spiritual. 1 Corinthians 15:45-46.

[00:09:39]Paul just called Adam the first man.

[00:09:41]Does that end the debate? Well, no. You need to understand Paul's argument, and you just need to keep reading. So, let's keep reading first. Let's look at the very next verse. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust. The second man is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47. The man from heaven here is Jesus. Paul's making a comparison between Adam and Jesus. But this comparison is in the larger argument that Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 15 about the resurrection.

[00:10:09]Paul is arguing that there is a future resurrection for believers, and that we can know this because Jesus' resurrection was the down payment for that future resurrection for believers.

[00:10:20]If Jesus rose from the dead, so we will rise. What Jesus was like in his resurrection, so we will be like in our resurrection. So, he is arguing for a future resurrection, and he's pointing to the resurrection of Jesus as the key piece of evidence for that. And Paul compares Adam to Jesus here because he's making an argument about mortality versus eternal life or resurrection. He talks about Adam being of the dust. Of the dust was an ancient idiom for mortality, and I actually go into details in that in this video right here. I'll link that down in the description, The Shocking Truth About Adam and Eve, and I talk about this concept of being made from dust and mortality. But he compares that to Jesus, who is from heaven, who is eternal, and has resurrection life. So, he's making this comparison between Adam, who is mortal, and Jesus, who is eternal. Adam is from the earth, Jesus is from heaven. Adam's humanity is mortal, Christ's humanity is resurrection life. And here's the key.

[00:11:20]Those in Adam bear Adam's image. Those in Christ bear Christ's image. But did you notice something in verse 47? Jesus is called the second man. If Adam is the first man, and that must mean that he's the first biological human to exist on the planet, then second man, which is used in the same sentence, using the same analogy, would have to mean that Jesus is the second literal biological human on the planet. But Paul obviously isn't saying that. So first and second here is not referencing the first and second literal biological humans. It's not counting every human that ever existed. Something else is happening. Paul is using Adam to say that those in Adam are of the dust, are mortal, and those in Christ are eternal and have resurrection life. So he's using Adam and Christ as heads, representative heads. Adam is the representative of the old humanity under death and sin, and Jesus is the representative of the new humanity under life and resurrection. Adam was the first human to represent all of humanity. Jesus was the second man, the second human to represent all of humanity. It's not talking about the order in their biological appearance on the planet. This is about fall and redemption, about death and life. It's not about biology.

[00:12:57]But then you might say, "Okay, well, Paul may not have been saying that Adam is the literal first man here, but he clearly believed Adam was the first man because Romans 5. Romans 5 tells us that sin entered the world through Adam." So Adam had to be the first human because otherwise you'd be saying that humans who sinned came before Adam and sin didn't enter through Adam, or you'd be saying that there were perfect people who lived righteously and perfectly apart from God. Is that what we're saying? Let's look at the verse.

[00:13:28]Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all people because all sinned.

[00:13:37]Romans 5:12. If humans existed before Adam, then did the people before Adam sin? And if not, how did they not sin?

[00:13:45]How were they righteous? How were they holy? How were they perfect? And if they did sin, how can Paul say that sin entered through Adam? Now, this is the hardest question that someone who disagrees with me could pose. Now, in this video, I'm just addressing whether Adam and Eve were the first humans. I'm not addressing anything about death, so I'm not going to deal with death came through sin and death passed to all men.

[00:14:07]I can do another video on that if you're interested in it. So, if you're interested in that, let me know in the comments below. But here, I'm just dealing with the fact that could there have been people before Adam? And if so, were they capable of sinning, or were they perfect, or how did this work? So, before I answer that question, we need to go back and look at what Paul is actually even arguing in the context of Romans 5. So, we're going to look at his argument real fast, and then we're going to answer the question, did the people before Adam and Eve sin? Paul is not randomly introducing a biology lesson here. He's introducing Adam because Paul spent the previous four chapters arguing that all humanity is under sin. No one is justified by ethnic privilege or by Torah observance, and God's saving answer is found in Christ alone. Paul argues in chapter 1 that the Gentile world is guilty because they rejected the knowledge that was given to them through creation. In Romans 2:1-16, Paul turns his argument on those who would morally judge others, who would think that they are better than others. This could be Jews, Gentiles, whoever, but he looks them and says, "If you can morally judge that what they are doing is wrong, then you are acknowledging that you know what is right and wrong, yet you still do things wrong. So, because you do things wrong, yet you know it's wrong, you are evidence that you are guilty before God. Knowing moral truth doesn't justify you if you violate it. And then in 2:17 through 3:8, Paul focuses more directly on the Jews. The Jewish person has the Torah, the covenant of the circumcision, and the oracles of God.

[00:15:47]Those are real privileges, but Paul is arguing that possessing those things, having those privileges, isn't equal to being righteous. If you break the covenant even in a small part, you're guilty of breaking the whole thing. The Torah ends up exposing the sin, but it doesn't bring righteousness. And then in Romans 3:9-10, he makes his point.

[00:16:10]>> What then? Are we any better off?

[00:16:12]Not at all.

[00:16:14]For we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin, as it is written, there is no one righteous, not even one.

[00:16:22]Romans 3:9-10. So, Paul is saying all the world is guilty, everyone. And then he goes through some examples in the Old Testament to show that guilt. But after that, he spends some time giving the solution, justification by faith in Jesus. We are justified by faith in Christ. And Romans 5 starts with the benefits of that justification.

[00:16:49]>> Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

[00:16:55]Romans 5:1. Paul is explaining the implications of the gospel that he just spent all this time defending. So, Paul has moved from everyone is guilty and God's wrath is being poured out on the guilty to peace has been secured through Jesus's death and resurrection and your faith in that. And this sets up what Paul is actually arguing in the text that we're discussing. Paul knows that his gospel creates a question. If every person is guilty, how can one man's obedience solve the problem? Why would Christ's death count for others? And Paul answers by pointing out that humanity already exists under representative headship. Adam's sin affected the many, Christ's obedience affects the many. Paul's point is not about chronology or biology. He's not giving you a lesson on biological appearance in the chronological timeline. He's giving you a lesson on theology. His point is representation.

[00:17:58]Adam is the representative head of the old humanity, Christ is the representative head of the new humanity. He's not saying that no one who existed before Adam could have ever done anything wrong because Adam's sin was the first sin in all of existence. And we can see this by their use of the phrase entered the world. In the book of Romans, if you study it out, the word world refers to the human order under sin, judgment, and the need of redemption. Paul is saying that Adam's sin opened the door through which sin and death became the reigning power over the human story. That's the flow of the book of Romans. Paul has already said all humans sin, and he traces that human condition back to Adam as the representative head of humanity. There's a key verse in Romans 5 that affects all of this that oftentimes people skip over. In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person's account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression. He is a type of the coming one. Romans 5:13-14.

[00:19:11]So, Paul distinguishes between sin being present and sin being counted in a law covenant way. Paul makes a distinction inside the category of sin. Adam's sin is not just the first morally bad thing that any human ever did. There's something deeper happening. Adam's sin is the first direct transgression against a divine command from Yahweh.

[00:19:38]And that represents representative head of humanity. He was the first one who was a priest of all of humanity before God. And as a representative figure, he directly rebelled against Yahweh. And this is why he becomes a type of the one who is coming or of the one who came, Christ. Because Jesus became the first representative priest of all of humanity, representing humanity before God, who didn't rebel, but obeyed. Now, here's the question.

[00:20:07]If Jesus and Adam are being paralleled here, that Adam is a type in his rebellion against God and in him bringing sin into the world, he's a type of Christ bringing righteousness into the world, here's the question. Did anyone do anything righteous before Jesus? Now, before you answer too quickly and say, "No, our righteousness is filthy rags." Which is true, but clearly the text of Old Testament does mention righteous acts happening in the Old Testament, right? You can't negate the fact that scripture clearly tells us there were those who were righteous. So, of course, there were people who did righteous acts even before Jesus. Does that mean that righteousness didn't come through Jesus?

[00:20:52]Of course not. He is the spiritual head that brought the state of righteousness, not just moral acts, but the being of righteousness. And this is the same with Adam. Did anyone do do immoral or sinful before Adam? Yes. Does that mean sin didn't come through Adam?

[00:21:11]Of course not. He is the spiritual head that brought the state of sin and death, not just immoral acts. So, Adam doesn't have to be the first biological human to exist on the planet to be the representative head that brings sin into the world.

[00:21:31]Okay. Okay. Now you want to go to Acts 17 because clearly Paul speaking in Acts 17 clearly tells us that Adam was the first man. Are you sure?

[00:21:43]Let's look at it. For as I was passing through and observing the objects of your worship, I even found an altar on which was inscribed "To an unknown God."

[00:21:52]Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, he is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by hands, neither is he served by human hands as though he needed anything, since he himself gives everyone life and breath and all things. From one man he has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. Acts 17:23-26.

[00:22:20]Well, see, right there it says God made every nationality of humans from one man. Do you see it? Did you see it?

[00:22:27]Well, there's a few things to note here.

[00:22:29]First, did you see the name Adam anywhere in that text? Nope. It does not say that from Adam God made every nationality. That is the assumption you are making and then reading backwards into the text. You already assume that Adam is the first man and then you read that backwards into the text and say, "See, this text is saying Adam is the first man." That's circular reasoning.

[00:22:53]The text doesn't say anything about Adam. You can't use this as evidence that Adam is the first man when And text doesn't mention Adam. Let's talk a little more detail here because the Greek here becomes very important. You will notice some variation in translation here. What we just read was from the CSB version. But look at this in the King James version. 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. Acts 17:26.

[00:23:24]So is it one man or is it one blood?

[00:23:27]What about the RSV version? And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation. Acts 17:26.

[00:23:39]So is it just from one?

[00:23:41]Is it from one man? Is it from one blood? The ambiguity in the translation and the differences in translation come from some issues with the Greek. We're going to look at that in just a moment, but before we look at the Greek what's Paul even doing in this passage?

[00:23:56]Paul is speaking in Athens to a pagan Gentile audience. He's not giving an account on modern human population genetics. He's making a theological argument to pagan Gentiles and he's speaking against pagan idolatry. His argument is basically God is not a local tribal deity. God made the whole world.

[00:24:15]God does not live in temples made by human hands in your little city, but rather God gives life to everyone and all nations belong to him. Therefore, all people should turn and seek him. Now with that argument in mind, let's talk about the Greek. The Greek phrase is ex henos which just means from one. Now, we do have some Greek manuscripts that add the word blood which is why the King James version uses the word one blood.

[00:24:44]But the shorter reading from one is in our oldest and best manuscripts and is more likely to be original based on all of the evidence and the scholarship.

[00:24:54]So it looks like the word blood was a later scribal extension. It added the word blood, but the original text just said from one. So, he doesn't say from one what? From one man? From one blood?

[00:25:08]From one nation? From one people? From one nationality? Well, from one what?

[00:25:14]Well, the context tells us what he's talking about. The setup for this is Acts 17:16. While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was deeply distressed when he saw that the city was full of idols. Acts 17:16. That tells you the problem that Paul is addressing, idolatry. He's not responding to someone asking how many first humans were here, or what's the biological history of humanity.

[00:25:37]He's addressing idolatry. He's responding to a city that's full of divine images and temples to false gods, specifically temples to competing gods.

[00:25:47]He's targeting Athens' religious worldview. Greek and Roman religion often tied gods to specific temples and idols, and specifically into specific local regions. So, a temple would be dedicated to a specific god in that specific city, and that god would be tied to that city. Paul says that the true god made everything. He's not contained in a shrine. He's not contained to a local city. This is the immediate context for verse 26. So, when Paul says that every nation was made from one, the point is that all nations, all peoples came from one creator, from the same creator. No ethnic group had its own ultimate god or independent divine origin.

[00:26:33]Often times, there was a this teaching, this ethnic pride that Romans and pure Romans, or other groups, they were the ones who were directly made by their gods, and that other people groups were made by pagan gods or other gods besides their own. And Paul is correcting that, saying, "No, you weren't made by your pagan gods.

[00:26:56]Your pagan gods don't have ownership.

[00:27:00]All people were came from one creator, the one true God." And that's Paul's argument. And right after saying that they were all made from one, he goes on to say, "And God allotted times and boundaries for the nations." He's speaking of national and providential language, drawing on Psalms 32 where God divides the nations. Paul is drawing on the biblical theology of the nations and God dividing the nations. All these people he created and he's dividing them. He's not talking about genetics or biology. Paul is saying that the nations don't need their own gods. They don't need their own images, their own cult temples because there is one creator Lord over all. And this idea that the one that all humans were made from is speaking of God himself as the creator is emphasized just a couple verses later when Paul mentions the word offspring.

[00:27:53]Look at these verses. "For in him we live and move and have our being, as even some of your own poets have said, for we are also his offspring.

[00:28:02]Since then we are God's offspring, we shouldn't think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image fashioned by human art and imagination."

[00:28:12]Acts 17: 28 to 29. So, he says that we are the offspring of God, that we come from God. That's the one from which all of humanity comes. So, this isn't talking about Adam and Eve at all, and it's not saying they were the first humans. So, where does this leave us? Am I saying that we should remove Adam and Eve from Christian theology? Absolutely not. God forbid. What I'm saying is that we need to put Adam and Eve back into the role that the Bible gives them and stop adding our assumptions to it. Adam is not important because he answers modern human questions about biology and genetics. Adam is important because without him we don't understand the biblical story of location, rebellion, exile, and redemption. Adam is the failed son of God in the garden. Jesus is the faithful son of God who wins back what Adam lost. Adam was a real historical man. Eve was a real historical woman. But the Bible never claims that they were the first humans, nor does the Bible demand that they be the first humans. So, that raises the question. Does the Bible say they weren't the first humans?

[00:29:21]No, not directly. But it does hint to that in a couple of places.

[00:29:25]>> Since you are banishing me today from the face of the earth, and I must hide from your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, whoever finds me will kill me. Then the Lord replied to him, "In that case, whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over."

[00:29:40]And he placed a mark on Cain so that whoever found him would not kill him.

[00:29:44]Then Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

[00:29:49]Cain was intimate with his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch. Then Cain became the builder of a city, and he named the city Enoch after his son.

[00:29:58]Genesis 4:14-17.

[00:30:01]So, Cain says, "Whoever finds me will kill me."

[00:30:04]Then he mentions having a wife, and then he builds a city. Those details demand a wider population. That wider population is just assumed by the story because the story wasn't ever claiming Adam and Eve had to be the only two humans on the planet. Now, Genesis doesn't pause and tell us where these humans came from because that's not the point of the story. Now, some will argue, "Well, the wife was his sister." And then they'll argue um other things about how he built a city with descendants of Adam and Eve.

[00:30:35]I could go into detail about why that doesn't work for many reasons. One of them being even if we take the assumption of people who hold to a young earth creation model that the dates and the years and the ages in Genesis are literal. And then if you go by that, there wasn't enough time for him to have enough people to build a city. But I'm not going to go into all of those details in this video. If you want a video on that, let me know in the comments.

[00:31:00]But what I am going to say is that even though you can't say definitively this means there were other humans outside of Adam and Eve, it is probable and plausible that that's what this is indicating. But there's another key.

[00:31:14]Humans are first mentioned in Genesis chapter 1. Genesis chapter 2 is where Adam and Eve are introduced. Now, many people will argue that Genesis chapter 2 is a retelling of at least a part of Genesis chapter 1, specifically day 6 where animals and um humans were created. So, they'll say, "Look, this is just a retelling. So, Adam and Eve are the first humans that are mentioned in chapter 1." But the key is the text never actually says that. It's an assumption you're making. You presuppose Adam and Eve must be the first humans, so then chapter 2 has to be a retelling of Genesis chapter 6 because you can't have humans before Adam and Eve.

[00:31:51]Circular reasoning again. Now, in reality, chapter 2 is actually a sequel to chapter 1. It's happening after chapter 1. After the seventh day, God rests. All the events of chapter 2 happen after that. I know that might have just blown your mind. I have an entire video breaking down all of the evidence for this and explaining why that's the case. That video will be linked down in the description below. I highly encourage you to check that out if you want the details and evidence of that. So, based on that, humans are mentioned before Adam and Eve. But here's the important point. Even if you don't buy that, even if you don't think Genesis 2 is a sequel, even if you don't think Genesis 4 is compelling enough to say there were other humans before Adam and Eve, the point is that the text doesn't demand Adam and Eve be the first humans.

[00:32:36]It doesn't speak on the biological first humans. It doesn't say whether Adam and Eve were or were not the first humans.

[00:32:42]It just doesn't address it at all. And if that is the case, then you are not bound to demand that they be the first humans. And if there's evidence from other places that they weren't the first humans, that doesn't conflict with the Bible. It's not a problem for the Bible or for Christianity. You can still say that Adam and Eve are real people, that Paul was correct in his pointing to Adam, that the fall really happened. You can still hold to original sin as long as you define that correctly. And you can still hold that Genesis is historical while acknowledging Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. It isn't heresy. It isn't a slippery slope. It's just honestly dealing with the text and the evidence. Now, this might raise questions in your mind about how Adam and Eve were created if they weren't the first humans. You know, the whole dust and rib thing. Well, you can check this video out next to get all of those details. But be ready. It might shock you. I'll see you over there.