Spoke to Kent Hovind!

I reached out to Kent Hovind’s organization to invite him to comment on Genealogical Adam - - either here at PeacefulScience.Org, or at least over the phone.

The Reverend returned my call and and was most courteous and gracious … though his overall response to God using Evolution AND Special Creation to execute his designs was an energetic “seems ridiculous”.

I mentioned the highpoints of @swamidass work, including Eve being the (or a) mother of all human life by the time of the birth of Jesus…

… and

that Adam’s role of bringing sin and death in Paul’s Romans 5 was preserved.

Maybe he will eventually visit here to dispute the case personally!


Rev Hovind’s first 2 objections (which i noted to relay back to @swamidass!) was:

[1] if there is any evolved humanity at all, how does Adam bringing death to the Universe make any sense?


[2] if there was a pre-Adamite population, how can Eve be the mother of all [human] life!

More of this “opposition research” would help Joshua adequately responding to the more specific concerns of our Evangelical audience!

1 Like

Both questions answered in my book. Encourage him to reach out to me if he wants to find out.


Before the call was over, i assured him that you would be happy to discuss the fine points on any platform… his or yours.

Well, actually, that was how i wanted to word it… but im pretty sure i will get better with practice!

I’ll visit with him again down the road if we dont see him doing a treatment o. Genealogical Adam…

1 Like

Is there a significant difference between the mother of all living and a mother of all living, and if so, which one is Genesis claiming?

1 Like

As @Guy_Coe notes, there is even dispute about this. God does not declare that Eve is mother of all the living, but Adam in the context it is a rebellious statement. There is no reason to think that Adam is correct in this assessment.

It also works (though hardly necessary) to understand it as “becomes” mother of all the living. Notice also that Hovind must insert “human life” rather than merely “living”. Genesis does not restrict it to merely human life, so we all have to restrict it some how down by context, because Eve is clearly not the mother of all our pets and livestock, even though they are all living.

Nice work, @gbrooks9! :slight_smile:


I don’t see the rebelliousness. And in context, the text is clearly implying that the name is true. Even if the words aren’t put into God’s mouth, if the text implies that it’s true anyone who accepts inspiration of the bible must accept it as true.

Certainly. But becomes the mother or becomes a mother? “Becomes” doesn’t settle that argument.

That’s not an insertion. That’s an explicit statement of the clear meaning of the text. Hovind didn’t have to insert it at all, because we would have known the meaning without that insertion.

All that aside, are there grounds for assuming a, not the?

I concur with @John_Harshman.

When i challenged Hovind on this point, he said:

Isnt it implicitly so? Did the author think Eve could be the mother of anything else?

As a former Latin student, i had to concur. Latin grammar is filled with implied individuals and groups… when the key term (singular or plural) may be an adjective - - without a formal noun of any kind!

For example: the use of the feminine form of “cold” can mean perfectly well:

“the cold women” or the “cold girls” or the “cold females”.

Where does “human life” appear in genesis 3? Please show me the original language? Note also the NIV text:

Adam[c] named his wife Eve,[d] because she would become the mother of all the living

On what basis do you dispute this translation @John_Harshman?

In context, it makes most sense just like it is translated here: “become mother of all the living”.

“Living” here implicitly refers to only things that Eve can expect to be the mother of…

Exactly, which does not include all biological humans before she was alive. She is not expected to be the mother of the Nephilim or of Cain’s wife.


Hey… i like that!


Remember, in common usage (in a plain reading!) “everyone” is a relative term. It is not an absolute term. It always has contextual bounds.

1 Like

You might as well have a paragraph (or footnote) on this particular grammatical point in your book - - ive never seen it discussed in this way!

There is a whole section (and a chapter) on it in my book.

1 Like

Major ick.

In this case, “all the living” could just as easily be: “mother of ALL [her offspring]”…

… which would be making the same kind of point many middle eastern speakers make when they say:

“It was the Mother of all Conflict”… i.e.:

The “Greatest” … or “Best Example”… rather than the “Source”.

The “mother of all bombs” is obviously not the SOURCE of all bombs!

1 Like

Ick? How so, @Djordje?

Full quote

1 Like