Help with translation

I am trying to find the correct use of “man” and “blood” for Acts 17:26. KJV and NKJV say, "from one blood, the other translations use “man”. I have also seen just the use of “one” without “man” or “blood” added. I have found different Greek roots in online Greek lexicons and a Young’s hardback Concordance that I have.
In trying to discuss evolution and DNA, I would love to cite the use of “blood” to demonstrate Adam as the originator of all mankind, especially since science has found a common thread in all men, from all nations in their DNA.
Can anyone give me any clarity on the correct root? Or how can I reconcile this?

2 Likes

@sgewehr According to the NET Bible, a helpful tool you can check for questions like this one, neither the word ‘man’ or ‘blood’ is actually in the Biblical text. The text simply says “And from one”—the word “man” is understood though not explicitly stated. I believe this text is clear that Adam was the originator of all mankind without any need to talk about blood.

2 Likes

Thanks for your question it is something to consider. I agree with Sean and how he approached it.
This may be a different way to look at it.

Leviticus 17:14 NKJV
for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.’

Science knows that all life is in the blood and we cant artificially make blood, so it had to begin with Adam, the first man.
Dont know if this helped but the thought came as I read your question. Would you all share your thoughts on this please.
Mike

Thanks, Sean. I was hoping “blood” was in there someplace so I could directly connect it to DNA. But, it is implied.

image003.jpg

image002.jpg

1 Like

Yes. Definitely. Thank you so much.

image003.jpg

1 Like

@sgewehr Don’t be disappointed :slight_smile: There are other lines of evidence pointing to the rationality of believing in a historical Adam and Eve (in addition to the testimony of Scripture). You may find the following resources helpful.

We also point to research papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature written by leading geneticists that conclude that genetics models are useless for determining ancestral populations. Furthermore, we cite conservation biology field experiments that demonstrate that a pair or small population of individuals in a mammal species always generates more genetic diversity that what current genetics models would predict. Therefore, these field experiments establish that Biologos’ conclusion that the ancestral population of humanity was at least ten thousand individuals must be an inflated upper limit.

Personally, I have observed the ancestral human population derived from genetics models decline over the past fifty years. Fifty years ago, geneticists were claiming an ancestral human population of about one million individuals. Thirty to forty years ago, that number declined to about one hundred thousand. Ten years ago, Biologos’ Francis Collins wrote that it was about ten thousand individuals. When my colleague Fazale Rana debated the Biologos geneticist Dennis Venema, Venema said the number was 1,200 individuals. When i had a public dialogue with the president of Biologos, Deborah Haarsma, she said the Biologos biologists could go as low as 132 individuals. I suggested in that dialogue that we should plot a graph and that the graph would indicate that geneticists will be done to the biblical two in less than two decades.

Thank you, Sean @SeanO and Mike @mgaplus4 . In further study of the use of “one” as it was used in Acts 17:26, I found that the word “heis” was used for “one”. That word means the union of a man and woman after marriage. It is a union so strong no one can separate it. This usage parallels Gen 3:24 where the Hebrew “echad” was used when God said the two would become one flesh.
Putting that together with what Mike said about blood, it can be expanded to show that from that union, the blood containing the DNA was carried into the next generation. I know that children can be identified by the mother’s mitochondria in their DNA. So, it all works.
I love the study of Biologos that shows declining ancestral human population models.
With both of your help, I think I can make my case, now. Appreciate it so much.

You are welcome, I pray His words will fill your mouth as you share, and they will have ears to hear.
Mike