Adam Was Not the First Human, for the Bible Tells Us So

Updated on August 6, 2018
HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

For as long as he can remember, Jeremy has been formulating theories that reconcile his fascination with science and his faith in God.

"God Created Evolution" is a project consisting of multiple articles that evaluate the first 11 books of Genesis in the context of known history and modern science.
"God Created Evolution" is a project consisting of multiple articles that evaluate the first 11 books of Genesis in the context of known history and modern science.

Was Adam the First Human?

The creation of man in Genesis has always been read to mean that Adam was the first human God created. Why is that exactly? This isn't stated anywhere. In fact, what it actually says is that God created humans on day 6 of the creation account in chapter 1, then God rested on day 7 at the beginning of chapter 2, then comes the story of Adam's creation. It's nothing more than an assumption that these are two tellings of the same event.

For most of recorded human history, it really didn't matter. The events listed in the creation account were of little consequence. Whether God created all the earth in six days or in 4.54 billion years was irrelevant as there was no way of knowing one way or the other. There wasn't any reason to even suspect it was any different than how it read, and the overall message of the Bible didn't hinge on it.

Today, it does matter. In these modern times, we now understand more about the history of the earth and humanity than ever before. Modern understanding has proven to be in direct conflict with traditional interpretations of Genesis. This has resulted in many rejecting the Bible as nothing more than mythology, and many others rejecting modern wisdom and scientific progress as false.

The creation versus evolution debate has come to be one of the most divisive topics we face. Many people of faith fight tooth and nail to keep topics like evolution out of the school curriculum, and many others don't see why their children must remain in the dark because some people can't let go of their old religious beliefs.

The interpretation that says Adam was the first man in existence is the primary misconception that makes the Bible and modern science seemingly incompatible. Correcting this one small error takes pre-flood Genesis out of the realm of mythology and plants it firmly into known history.

Sumerian writing tablet recording the allocation of beer.
Sumerian writing tablet recording the allocation of beer. | Source

The Mythology of the First Civilization

Civilization first began in Mesopotamia over five thousand years ago, and the Sumerians are credited as the inventors. They built the first cities that ever existed, with populations in the tens of thousands made possible through their development of large-scale year-round agriculture.

Throughout the rise of civilization the Sumerians became talented builders. They also created the first government, the first laws, arithmetic, astronomy/astrology, the wheel, sailboats, frying pans, razors, harps, kilns for firing bricks and pottery, bronze hand tools, and plows, to name just a few.

Not long after large-scale agriculture first began, a crude form of writing was developed out of the need to keep records of labor and materials. Another first accredited to the Sumerians. Over the centuries that followed, writing became more advanced and they began to record stories passed down through generations that explained how their people came up with all of these ideas that would forever change the human race. The funny thing is, these stories didn't give credit to their ancestors. They claim they were taught by immortal human-like gods.

The Sumerian and Akkadian tablets where these Sumerian stories are found predate the oldest books of the bible by over a thousand years by our best scholarly estimations. Some of these tablets contain stories that share many very similar components to stories found in early Genesis, including the story of Adam and Eve, the biblical flood, and the confusing of a once universal language. Numerous tablets from throughout the latter part of the 3rd millennium BC containing these stories have been found all around Mesopotamia, suggesting they were very well known in the region during that time. Because of this, it has become a more and more common assumption that some of the stories found in early Genesis were actually inspired by these ancient tales.

There’s no doubt Sumerian mythology had an impact on subsequent civilizations. The Akkadians were definitely inspired by this first civilization, considering they basically adopted much of the Sumerian lifestyle, including their mythology. Greek and Roman mythology also contains echoed themes that suggest the roots of their beliefs may have come from the well-known Sumerian beliefs as well. They all speak of multiple immortal gods, human in form, both male and female, who were fallible, moody, and often at odds with each other, and they all speak of the intermingling between these immortal beings and mortal humans, producing demigods and titans.

Were There People Before Adam and Eve?

If the creation of Adam in Genesis happened in an already populated world, given the time frame and location specified, then the humans who eventually became the Sumerians would have been the people that populated the landscape.

The Books of Moses

Other than the obvious correlation between a handful of stories in early Genesis with Sumerian mythology, the Books of Moses are very much unique.

The most obvious quality that differentiates them from the others is that in this story there is only one God. The Greeks were fascinated by these books, which is why some of the oldest manuscripts of the Torah that still exist today are written in Greek. They also had a strong impact on the Romans, who after over a century of Christian persecution legalized Christianity, then a few decades later made it the only legal religion. What's more, the books have continuously been an ever-present influence on the western world in every age since. Today, the Books of Moses serve as the foundation for the world’s two largest religions, making up half the world’s population, three thousand years later. No other writings from these ancient civilizations can make that claim.

At the same time, in today’s scientifically enlightened age many dismiss Genesis as nothing more than mythology. There are nearly as many in the non-religious, secular, agnostic, or atheist category as there are Muslims, making them the third largest group behind Christians and Muslims.

One reason for this is because it has been confirmed that those events in early Genesis did not happen. For instance, we’ve confirmed geologically that there has never been a global flood. The last time the entire planet was covered with water was over three billion years ago when land did not yet exist, let alone humans. And we have confirmed genetically that, while every human alive today does actually share a common ancestor, this ancestor existed in Africa tens of thousands of years before the events of Genesis.

Those interpretations of Genesis that say the flood was global and that Adam was the first human to exist were formed centuries ago by people who couldn’t have known any better. Now, we do. Rereading the first five and one-quarter chapters of Genesis for what it actually says, and not for what we’ve always been told it says, tells a very different story that's much more in sync with our modern scientifically-based understanding.

A map of DNA migration.
A map of DNA migration.

What Was the State of the Earth During Genesis?

The first order of business is to establish the proper context. What was the state of the Earth during the time frame in which early Genesis is set?

Pre-Flood Genesis in an Already Populated World Context

We now know that by 10,000 BC homo sapiens had already populated the planet and had over the course of many generations established themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom, which is exactly what the humans created in Genesis 1 were commanded to do:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

We also know that humans in this same region were the first to use the seeds in seed baring vegetation to grow food starting around 9,000 BC, which matches up with the illustration in Genesis 1 of God teaching humans. Where these same verses also state that the animals will use these plants for food as well, only with the humans does it specifically talk about the seeds that then bare other seed-bearing plants:

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so. (Genesis 1:29-30)

And we also know through climatological evidence that this same region matched the description given at the beginning of Genesis 2 from around 6,200 BC due to the dramatic shift in climate that transformed much of the region from lush green lands to desert. An aridification event often referred to as the 8.2 kiloyear event:

No no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground. (Genesis 2:5)

Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden

But where the humans (and everything else) in Genesis 1 were specifically told what to do, in Genesis 2 Adam was only told what not to do: He was to eat from any tree but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)

In fact, the whole theme of the Adam and Eve story has to do with them exhibiting their own individual free will. For instance, one of the very first things it says God did after placing Adam in the garden was to bring the animals to Adam to see what he would call them.

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (Genesis 2:19)

The humans created in Genesis 1 were given very specific commands that would take generations to realize. They were told to:

  • Populate and subdue the Earth
  • Establish dominance in the animal kingdom

So how could Adam, Eve, and their descendants be expected to accomplish these things considering how capable and willing they were to disobey?

Reconsidering things with the idea that Adam was not the first human, but rather was the first human capable of behaving contrary to God's will in an already populated world of humans yields many interesting possibilities both throughout the remainder of the bible itself, as well as far outside of it.

Cain leads able to death.
Cain leads able to death. | Source

Who Were the "Others" That Cain Feared?

Within the Bible, some of the more cryptic and confusing verses in the chapters to follow begin to make much more sense if the region was already populated when Adam was created. Like the unnamed "others" that Cain expressed concern about in chapter 4. The concern God is validated by somehow "marking" him to protect him from harm.

Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear.

Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over. ” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. (Genesis 4:13-15)

It also puts a whole new spin on the first few verses of chapter 6, those which talk about the "sons of God" finding the "daughters of humans" beautiful and having children by them. This comes right in the middle of its explanation for why the flood was necessary. It even goes on to explain that humans are mortal and live less than a hundred and twenty years, contrary to the hundreds of years it says Adam and his descendants lived in chapter 5.

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them,

that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took for themselves wives of all whom they chose.

And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:1-3)

Noah's ark.
Noah's ark. | Source

Was the Flood Really Global?

This should be obvious, but many still hold onto the belief that the flood completely covered the entire Earth. Even in the traditional context this would not make sense as the flood occurred just 10 generations after Adam. So Adam's descendants could not have populated more than a small portion of the Earth. There would be no need in that sense to flood the entire planet. Not to mention the fact that the authors of the bible would have no sense of what global really means as the entirety of the Earth from their perspective was the land they lived in.

But even beyond that reasoning, there are a couple of subtle clues that tell us the flood wasn't a global phenomenon that wiped out everything that lived. The first comes at the end of chapter four when the author explains that three of Cain's descendants were the "fathers of all those who: lived in tents and herded cattle, played stringed instruments, made metal tools."

And Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents, and of those who have cattle.

And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who handle the harp and organ.

And Zillah, she also bore Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron; and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah. (Genesis 4:20-22)

These descendants come seven generations after Cain, which is the same number of generations Methuselah was from Seth. Methuselah died the same year as the flood, probably in it. Specifically stating that these descendants "fathered' or "instructed" anyone would be totally pointless if Cain's descendants and everyone else were wiped out in the flood. Plus, it's clear these verses are referring to individuals the intended reader is familiar with, so they couldn't be people who hadn't existed since the flood.

The other clue can be seen in the only two biblical mentions of the 'Nephilim'. One before the flood:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

And one after:

So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height.

And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” (Numbers 13:32-33)

Of course, simply proving the flood wasn't actually global doesn't do much considering the whole purpose of the flood was to wipe out the "wicked" element that had risen in humanity. A localized flood would hardly accomplish that in this already populated world scenario. But, if Adam was the introduction of free will, and wickedness was only possible through free will, then a local flood of the Mesopotamian valley would be all it would take. In fact, that valley, which is a geological equivalent of a storm drain, would be the perfect location to place an element as potentially dangerous as free will.

Adam Was Not the First Man

In this modern age, many will surely find this a bit much to swallow. But in the context of the evolution of life as we understand it, the appearance of a new species of humans with free will and extended lifespans would be no more of a leap than the change from single-celled to multi-celled organisms or the adaptations that made crawling up onto land from the sea possible.

Even in the progression of the Homo genus, there were large leaps forward from one species to the next. However, if an even more advanced species did actually appear just a few thousand years ago, they're certainly not here anymore. Of course, according to the story, they were all washed away by a large flood. Mass extinctions play a crucial role throughout the evolutionary history of life. In that context, the flood was merely the last of many edits that shaped life as we know it today.

Is this possible?

Even if any physical remains that could potentially confirm this theory had been washed out to sea by a large flood, certainly the existence of beings like this would have left some sort of lasting impression, especially if they existed for over sixteen hundred years in a region populated by humans. You might expect to see rapid advancements in intellectual and technological capabilities, like what appears to have happened with the Sumerians and the Egyptians. Or you might expect to see their influence reflected in the mythology written by these ancient civilizations, like what can be seen in the Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman stories: Immortal beings who lived the equivalent of ten mortal lifespans who were exceptionally wise and knowledgeable in agricultural practices, who were prone to human emotion, who bred with mortal humans and created beings of both bloodlines, then disappeared.

FAQs About Genesis

Below are some frequently asked questions about the creation story, Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden.

How Was Eve Created?

According to the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions, Eve is the first woman created. In Islamic tradition, Eve is known only as Adam's wife, and her origins are never addressed. According to the second chapter of Genesis in the Bible, Eve was created by God (Yahweh) from the rib of Adam, and was meant to be his companion.

How Old Was Adam?

Adam was created by God as an adult of an unspecified age. Genesis 4 describes the birth of Adam's three sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. Genesis 5 lists the descendants of Adam with their ages at the time they had their first sons, and they ages they were at their deaths. According to this measure, Adam was 930 years old when he died.

Who Ate the Forbidden Fruit First?

Eve succumbs to the serpent's temptation to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She shares the fruit with Adam, and as a result humans are expelled from the Garden of Eden. Christian and Jewish teachings sometimes hold Adam and Eve to a different level of responsibility for this error, while the Islamic teaching hold both equally at fault. This scene is often called the "fall of man."

Where Is the Garden of Eden?

The Garden of Eden is considered to be mythical. However, there have been suggestions of its supposed location. These suggestions include:

  • The head of the Persian gulf
  • Southern Mesopotamia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea (now Iraq)
  • The Armenian highlands
  • The Armenian plateau

What Was the Forbidden Fruit in the Garden of Eden in the Bible?

The forbidden fruit is never specifically identified, but is instead referred to by only the phrase "forbidden fruit." According to the Book of Enoch, the tree of knowledge is described as a "species of the Tamarind tree, bearing a fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended a considerable distance." Using this information, the forbidden fruit is often thought to be one of the following fruits:

Fruits That May Have Been the Forbidden Fruit

Fruit
Supporting Evidence
Quince
According to Enoch's description, the forbidden fruit may have been a quince.
Apple
In western Europe, the fruit is often depicted as an apple. This is where the term "Adam's apple" comes from to describe the bump of cartilage that is often seen in the throats of men.
Grape
Rabbi Meir says the fruit was a grape. This is why Noah attempted to rectify the sin of Adam by using grape wine for holy purposes.
Fig
Rabbi Nechemia holds that the fruit was a fig since Adam and Eve were wearing clothing made of fig leaves when they left the Garden of Eden.
Pomegranate
Proponents of the theory that the Garden of Eden was located in the Middle East believe that the fruit was a pomegranate, an indigenous fruit to the region.
Wheat
Rabbi Yehuda holds that the fruit was wheat because "a baby does not know to call its mother and father until it tastes the taste of grain."
Mushroom
Terence McKenna proposed that the forbidden fruit was a reference to psychoactive plants. Before this suggestion, John M. Allegro proposed the mushroom as the forbidden fruit.

Are the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge the Same?

Whether tree of life and the tree of knowledge are the same tree is still a matter of debate. According to the book of Genesis, the tree of life was planted "with" the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "in the midst of the Garden of Eden" by God.

Karle Budde proposed a one-tree theory which says, while there was only one tree, it was qualified in two ways:

  1. It is known as the tree in the middle of the garden.
  2. It is known as the forbidden tree.

Ellen van Wolde noted in a 1994 survey that among Bible scholars "the trees are almost always dealt with separately and not related to each other” and that “attention is almost exclusively directed to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, whereas the tree of life is paid hardly any attention."

Chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis (Video)

© 2012 Jeremy Christian

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Peter 

      2 days ago

      Thank you for these discussions

    • profile image

      Little Maroon 

      5 days ago

      If Noah is first mention then in my own explaination there are crowds already who's witnesses Noah's ritual. Thinking if only two persons a male and female are created and what will happen if their siblings got each other as a husband and wife. Do they populated the world flesh to own flesh, own blood to blood race? These are all ridiculous.

    • profile image

      Little Maroon 

      5 days ago

      This Entire Globe already God created the first humans not a related blood to each other called male and female. From generation to generations and from offspring to offsprings all the entire globe already populated. Others speculations or made mentioned about their own flesh blood relationship inside the family.

    • profile image

      Clark 

      6 days ago

      Deuteronomy 29:29 New International Version (NIV)

      29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law

    • profile image

      Mark Moore 

      7 days ago

      I believe it is. I am book-marking your author page so I can come back when things are not so pressing. PS- I also get called a heretic from time to time. By folks who apparently don't evaluate that by the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed but rather by the Newsletters of Ken Ham.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      7 days ago from Texas

      Mark,

      I agree the first account is the "big story" and the second is "zoomed in". The second zooming in on Adam in particular and the specific region he was created in, Eden. To me, the beginning of Genesis 6 clears up everything when it speaks of two different groups (sons of God/daughters of humans) and when it says God "regretted" putting humans on the Earth.

      Adam was the "first Adam", Jesus was the second, as it says in the NT. So I think you're right on that count. The events of the OT, the specific interactions God had throughout the OT with humans, specifically the Israelites, was all in the interest of breeding/creating Jesus. This was made necessary by the actions/choices of Adam.

      So I guess you could say my model is Christ-centered as well.

    • profile image

      Mark Moore 

      7 days ago

      You are teaching a version of the "two-population model" for early Genesis. When I was given "Early Genesis the Revealed Cosmology" I did not know that anyone else held views anything like that. Since then I have found a few, and today you. We differ on the details a bit, I agree with one of the posters here that Gen. 2:4-6 is more of a bridge between the two accounts which were meant to be together. The accounts are not strictly sequential but Chapter one is the big story and two is zooming in on the key part of that big story. One is like "the rise and fall of the Roman Empire" and the other is "The life and times of Julius Caesar". The model I proclaim is very Christ-centered. The point of Adam not being the first man is that he is actually meant to be a figure of Christ and this works better if he isn't the original human man. Conceptually though, I think we are in the same theological family.

    • Alan Modisette profile image

      Alan Modisette 

      7 days ago from Bali, Indonesia

      Excellent piece, Jeremy. Nowhere does the Bible say that Adam was the first human.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 days ago from Texas

      Larry,

      So how did you determine I'm a false teacher? Because what I'm saying doesn't agree with what you were taught? How do you know what you were taught was right?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 days ago from Texas

      Larry,

      First off, the bible is not written by God. It was written by humans, so don't take every word as coming directly from God or you're going to be led astray.

      Second, I wear the "heretic" badge with pride. Galileo was a "heretic" according to the church. He had witnessed with his own eyes that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the sun around the Earth. When he, a devout Christian, then began to reassess bible verses dealing with the sun and Earth with this new information, the church put him under house arrest for the remainder of his life as a heretic.

      That is very similar to what I'm doing here.

      Don't decide you know better so quickly. You're probably wrong.

    • Larry A Busick profile image

      Larry A Busick 

      8 days ago

      We are told to stay away from people like you. False Teachers who spread lies about the truth!

    • Larry A Busick profile image

      Larry A Busick 

      8 days ago

      Heresy is what you are doing. Adam was first man or God would not have told us so. He cannot lie or fail.

    • profile image

      Fullgencio D. Roda 

      8 days ago

      Thedecadentone,

      You are such a good Christian, I believe in your thoughts and knowledged regarding the matter. Thank you Sir.

    • profile image

      8 days ago

      Please pray for wisdom and guidance next time you read the Bible before you publish anything else in attempt to conform Christianity to secular beliefs.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      10 days ago from Texas

      Cindie,

      What made Adam and Eve significant is that they had free will. In fact, in Gen6 it says God regretted putting the humans on the Earth because they were made in the same image as Adam's family, who found them beautiful and began breeding with them. This introduced free will into mortal humans and made them wicked, which warranted the flood.

      These humans were not suitable mates for Adam because they only lived a tenth of Adam's life.

    • profile image

      Cindie Jenkins 

      10 days ago

      Why would God create Adam from dust and why would Adam need a helpmate and why would God need to create a woman for Adam if men and women already existed?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      13 days ago from Texas

      Wanita,

      Originally, these verses were all together. The breaks of chapter and verse were added later. It's long been debated if the first 4 verses of chapter 2 should actually be included at the end of chapter 1. The way it's broken up makes it seem as though the introduction of chapter 2 is setting up a retelling of creation.

      But the creations listed afterwards are in a different order than what's described in chapter 1. And when it says no rain had come it isn't talking about the whole world. This account is speaking specifically about the region where the garden was created. Creation has already happened. The world is already populated with plant life, animal life, and humans.

      Where these verses might leave one confused, the later story makes it apparent. In Gen4 and Gen6, there are other humans in the world.

    • profile image

      Wanita 

      13 days ago

      PLEASE read Genesis 2 verses 4 to 5... AGAIN AND AGAIN SEEKING INTERPRETATION:

      vs 4: this is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth.

      "WHEN THE LORD GOD MADE THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH, neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil.(NLT) .....NOTE.....(same day God made humans, So God MADE the heavens and the earth and explained neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth as there were no people to cultivate the soil, then God said, let us make man (verse 7, God creates man) (verse 15, God places man in eden and causes him to tend and watch it)

      Genesis 2:4-5 King James Version (KJV)

      4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. (so he made made on the same day after explaining this verse, man was then made) this account is BRINGING US BACK to the day 6 of creation and elaborating on its events as they are clearly significant)

      Genesis 2:4-5 New King James Version (NKJV)

      4 This is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;

      Although this verse is INDEED WRITTEN JUST after the description of the creation of man on day 6. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE this verse is NOT REFLECTING A STEP after the creation of man, the verse begins by referring back to the account of WHEN THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH WERE MADE AND where man is being made.

      VERSE 4 COMES BACK TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION OF THE HEAVANS AND THE EARTH AND NOW GOES INTO GREATER DETAIL ON THAT ACCOUNT.

      SO EASY TO MISUNDERSTAND AND THEREFORE A GOOD IDEA TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND BEFORE LEADING OTHERS ASTRAY AND LEADING OTHERS INTO UNNECESSARY CONFUSION AND IDLE DEBATE.

      THE BEST WAY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION FURTHER IS TO GO INTO THE HEBREW ALPHABET TEACHING, WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THE HEBREW TRANSLATION, THERE IS SO MUCH MORE DEEPER TRUTH TO BE REVEALED. BE BLESSED AND TURN TO THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR UNDERSTANDING.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      D. Smith,

      Did plenty of that during the course of this research.

    • profile image

      D.Smith 

      2 weeks ago

      If you are interested in finding the truth from God's word then pray that he will open your mind & heart to accept the truth when his witnesses come knocking at your door.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      No, not imperfect. Free will was the intent. The first of any of God's creations able to behave according to their own will, even if it was in conflict with God's will. The Eden story was a perfect test scenario. An environment where only one rule existed. And they broke that one rule.

      Yes, free will is the intention because the alternative is being robots/drones.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 weeks ago

      So he created Adam and Eve imperfect on accident after having 13 + billion years to experiment and work out how to get it right, including the first good humans he made? Sounds like an idiot god I'm not so sure I want deciding the fate of my race.

      P.S. All indications point that he designed the fall to happen on purpose because having robots worship you is bound to get old after a few million years. Angels were created first and had free will who could disobey, so it also contradicts because angels would not have been good either by the time its written that he said his creations were good.

      Having humans be like animals in that they do what they want and then die, forever, save the many whom are worthy and proven to be good stewards given life in the resurrection is logical. Also fair.. at least according to 90 percent of the internet that makes it seem like most people on earth are atheist.

      Might seem unfair, and the majority of people should go to damnation or cease to be. However... if it's true that Jesus will return to rule for a thousand years and the lifespans of humans will be just as long, where only truly unfortunate people will die prematurely, where sickness and war are no more..earths living inhabitants will probably at least match the number of people who have ever lived.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      kimmy,

      After God created the humans in Gen1 He called all He created, including these humans, "Good". He also commanded the Gen1 humans be fruitful and multiply and to fill the Earth. Commands that would take numerous generations to accomplish. Adam and Eve showed they're capable of disobeying God's commands right from the start. And so did Cain one generation later.

      So, could God have been speaking of Adam and Eve when He called His creation "good"? And could they be expected to carry out these commands?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      nicole,

      I assume you mean 'Adam' when you say 'matthew'.

      The bible is what says there are others out there when Cain is banished. It's the bible that says God created humans male and female in Gen1 on 'day' 6, then 'day' 7, then Adam.

      It's the bible that says Adam was not the first.

    • profile image

      nicole 

      2 weeks ago

      the bible is true matthew was the first one

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      The humans created in Gen1 were told to be fruitful and multiply. Multiplying is a physical/biological process. Not spiritual.

    • profile image

      KUDAKWASHE KUIMBA 

      2 weeks ago

      HEY MAN PLEASE NOTE THAT ADAM AND EVE IN GEN 1VS26 ITS TALKING ABOUT THE SPIRITUAL CREATION.....THE BIBLE GOES ON TO SAY THAT MAN BECAME A LIVING SOUL WHICH MEANS THAT BEFORE THEY MANIFESTED IN THE PHYSICALL THERE WERE SPIRITUAL

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      Re: Before Abraham was

      I think this is accurate. Everything God did in the OT, from testing Abraham, through promising Abraham his descendants would be many, to laying out rules for the Israelites regarding who they breed with, all of that was in the interest of creating Jesus. So in that way, with Jesus being the driving intent, Jesus existed.

      Re: two different creation stories

      For one thing the two different accounts don't match up chronologically. The creations are in a different order. Second, Adam/Eve would not be capable of carrying out the commands to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the Earth". They proved capable of not following God's commands right off the bat. God included the Gen 1 humans in his statement that all He created was "good". This would not have applied if that were Adam/Eve.

      The sun wasn't created after the Earth. That's where the 'light' came from. The Earth's atmosphere just finally thinned out enough for the sun God created to be visible.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 weeks ago

      Jesus being god is much more impactful than him just being some kind of mental mutant that never sinned. He was either mad, a liar, or never existed as he claims divinity more than once. "Before Abraham was, 'I am'" ring a bell? If that was made up, then absolutely nothing written about him has any believable merit.

      And how come so many other stories are just retelling the same event over and over but you are so adamant there are two different creation stories? Not mocking you, but seems like you like twisting scripture to fit your hypothesis' rather than the other way around, which a lover of science should do. Much of the creation myth seems more like poetry, such as Job, to be quite frank. Even though it has everything right except the sun being created after earth.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Zeroszabo,

      Paul was just calling it as he read it. We have science now and know that's not accurate. But Adam was the 'first' as he was the first every time they listed their descendants.

      Abraham was born 2000 years after Adam and he encountered an Egyptian Pharoah. Considering Pharoahs weren't around until about 3500 BC, Adam could not have been created any earlier than about 5500BC, and there were plenty of humans around by then.

      They're in the story too. Just take a look.

    • profile image

      Zeroszabo 

      2 weeks ago

      Here is thd problem with that.

      1 Corinthians 15:45 KJVS

      And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      ismail,

      You're right, it doesn't specifically say Eve/Hawa was created from Adam's rib, only that "He created for you mates from among yourselves".

      Both Quran and Bible start with these popular and familiar stories of the region. Stories that predate both the Quran and Bible by many hundreds/thousands of years.

      What's significant about Adam in both stories is that he has free will as the story of the garden illustrates. I don't believe it's God teaching Adam the names that he then simply recites to the angels. It's that Adam is creating names for the creatures Allah is showing him. This is what He's showing the angels. Adam is a creator. Creating things, in this case names, that are not 'of Allah', but rather are 'of Adam'.

      That's how I read it anyway.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Felix,

      There's a couple of things to consider in relation to these verses Paul wrote. First, Paul wrote these roughly 50AD. The apostles were not imbued with knowledge beyond his age about the history of the world. What he knew came from the same text you and I are reading. It was already ancient and mysterious to them during Paul's age.

      Second, what he says is still relevant. What was significant about Adam was not that he was the first physical human on the planet, but that he was the first of God's creation to have his own mind and behaved according to his own will. The first 'living' being. And Jesus too, the "last Adam" had free will. Adam's the beginning of their familial line.

    • profile image

      Felix Johnsson 

      3 weeks ago

      1 Corinthians 15:45

      45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      WIZ-DON,

      I'm not sure I follow.

      First God created men and women (1:27)

      Then told them be fruitful and multiply (1:28)

      Then created Adam (2:7)

      Then created Eve from Adam (2:22)

      God telling the humans before Adam and Eve to 'be fruitful and multiply' is WHY there were more men and women than just Adam and Eve in the beginning.

      It only says God created man THEN woman in regards to Adam and Eve. It doesn't say that about the humans before. They're who He told to be fruitful. He didn't say that to Adam and Eve.

      In fact, it wasn't until they ate the fruit that Eve was told she'd have to endure the pains of childbirth. Only because they ate the fruit did they have to procreate because that meant they were going to die. Without death procreation isn't necessary.

    • profile image

      WIZ-DON 

      3 weeks ago

      God Created man THEN woman from man and said "BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY". he wouldn't tell man and woman to be fruitful and multiply if there were more men and women than just Adam and Eve in the beginning.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Larry A Busick,

      Okay, then maybe you can explain to me how you know the correct sequence of events if the sequence given isn't in order. We're presumably both getting our information from the same source.

    • Larry A Busick profile image

      Larry A Busick 

      3 weeks ago

      What you are spreading is wrong. The Bible is not always in chronological order. Just because it talks about stuff in a chapter later does not mean it happened later. You need to do some more studying.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 weeks ago from Texas

      Care to explain? What specifically are you calling BS?

    • profile image

      frank hilton 

      4 weeks ago

      do you know what B S means. the people that wrote this, are covered in it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      5 weeks ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      Regarding God creating Jesus.

      This is a place where I differ in opinion with most Christians. To me the most significant thing about Jesus and his accomplishments during his time on this Earth was that he was a human just like the rest of us. Would Jesus' life and accomplishments be nearly as meaningful if he was part God? If he's supposed to be an example for us, yet is half God while the rest of us are not? Jesus being a human makes the story and the accomplishments more significant.

      The story of the OT comes into focus and begins to take on meaning and purposeful intent when read this way. All of God's interactions with the Jewish people during this time was in the effort of creating Jesus. All the rules regarding how they bred. The way God would choose a subject and test them, then breed through them. His efforts to keep one bloodline separate from all others.

      When put into the context of God interacting with free willed humans influencing their actions to create Jesus through breeding, it all makes sense.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      5 weeks ago from Texas

      TobyO,

      Free will isn't required to do harm. The natural world works according to God's will/natural law, and the natural world is very much a harm/be harmed environment. Would you consider a lion evil for harming a gazelle?

      The world Cain was walking into was an environment established without beings like him. It's response to him, as God agreed to, could and would most likely be harmful.

      If these other humans did have free will then God marking Cain would have done no good as they would not have been beholden to God's will anyway so a mark wouldn't have done any good.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      5 weeks ago

      Mitochondria, the powerhouse of tbe cell! Anyways, male and female have it, but just like blood type being passed from father to child, it is only passed on from the mother to child, male and female both.

      Toby presents a very good question. If these so called other proto humans could only obey gods commands, why would Cain be scared? Why need a mark at all? If they have no free will, God would have just programmed them to leave him alone. Why would they even CARE Cain killed his brother? According to you:

      "Adam was not the first human, but rather was the first human capable of behaving contrary to God's will in an already populated world of humans yields many interesting possibilities both throughout the remainder of the bible itself, as well as far outside of it."

      If these beings could only do God's programmed will, he would not be scared, and if he was, he wouldn't need a silly mark to keep him safe. He would be a nigh immortal god to them, which we both agree is almost exactly what he and many other descendents of Adam were considered, whether by their choice or through posthumous stories concerning them.

      Also, why do you keep saying God created Jesus? That's mormon apocrypha. Jesus was always there. Part of Elohim. Jesus existed in and out of creation. Jesus is the incorruptible Holy One. He parlayed face to face with Abraham. He wrestled Jacob. He is one of the many facets of the one God alongside Yah and His sevenfold spirit. And please don't bring up Proverbs 8:22 through whatever as proof Jesus was created as the JWs do, because it is God speaking metaphorically about wisdom, which couldn't have been created as it would mean God didn't have wisdom until he created the concept. In Psalms, Solomon also describes wisdom as the master workman, further helping debunk the created Jesus myth.

    • profile image

      TobyO 

      5 weeks ago

      Great article, Jeremy. This is the first time I've heard many of these points being brought up, and they do seem to make a lot of sense.

      One thing I'm wondering about-- you said below in the comments that Adam and Eve may have been the first people to have free will. So would that mean that they were the first ones capable of doing wrong? If so, how do you explain Cain's fear of being harmed by the others when he was sent out? Did they have free will to harm or not to harm him?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      5 weeks ago from Texas

      DRWatsonNZL,

      I may be wrong about this but Mitochondrial DNA is only found in females, so I think you can only determine most recent common female ancestors by that means.

      Being that we're of two bloodlines, Adam/Noah and naturally evolved humans, and considering evolved humans bottlenecked when we were reduced to less than 1000 mating pairs at one point, there's a good chance common ancestors could go back further.

    • profile image

      DRWatsonNZL 

      5 weeks ago

      Using mtDNA should show that the most recent human common ancestor of all males is Noah, not Adam. The most recent common female ancestor will be from much earlier depending on the most common female ancestor the of four females on the ark, being Noahs wife and the wives of their three sons.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 weeks ago from Texas

      Yeah, the church had to establish itself as an authority on these matters to ensure they had final say so. Like Galileo, who invented the telescope and saw with his own eyes that the sun was the center of our planetary system rather than everything revolving around the Earth. Galileo was a devout Christian and began to reinterpret scripture that dealt with the sun and the movements of the heavens according to his new discovery. Because he chose to interpret scripture on hiw own and without the church's consent, he ended up spending the rest of his life under house arrest for heresy.

      The intentions of the early church in a lot of cases was to maintain control. Like the threat of hell fire. Think about the wording of John 3:16. Specifically "will not perish". Burning for eternity is not perishing. It's the opposite. When it speaks of the lake of fire and the eternal flame, it's not speaking of a place where you burn forever. It's talking about where souls go to cease to exist. The "second death". To perish is to cease to be.

      Free will was introduced into humanity by Adam and his kin. This is what made humanity "wicked" and why it says God regretted putting humans on the Earth in Gen6. From this point forward humans stopped living in harmony with the natural world and began to inflict their will on it. Began building civilizations. Before this homo sapiens lived as indigenous cultures still do to this day. In harmony with the natural world around them. All of us born of civilizations are of both bloodlines. We are humans with free will.

    • profile image

      Friedalrussell 

      6 weeks ago

      This part I am a little slow in understanding it.

      We are all descendants of both the naturally evolved homo sapien race and Adam and Eve. The two bloodlines mixed in Gen6 passing on free will to humanity. To us. All of us are born of both of these lines.

      I believe that our fore-fathers, had the best intentions in gaining an understanding of the bible, and we as Christians through our tunnel vision did not want God to think that we did not trust him. God forbid that we shared our thoughts with anyone else.. WE WERE GOING TO BURN IN HELLLLL, to let them tell it. I dont know the truth, but God is merciful, if we are off and our intentions a

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 weeks ago from Texas

      Friedalreussell,

      I love this as well and agree with you. I had that same fear initially. We're brought up discouraged to question what's taught. Questioning feels like doubt, and doubt feels like your faith is slipping. But that's not it at all.

      We're not questioning God or whether or not He exists or the legitimacy of Christ. We're questioning human interpretation. We should interpret scripture informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge. Truth is truth. I cannot imagine God would ever have a problem with searching for truth.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 weeks ago from Texas

      Friedalreussell,

      "Okay, if Adam was not the first man created, how can it be said that we all orginated from two people? Adam and Eve, just wondering."

      That, I think is still true. We are all descendants of both the naturally evolved homo sapien race and Adam and Eve. The two bloodlines mixed in Gen6 passing on free will to humanity. To us. All of us are born of both of these lines.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 weeks ago from Texas

      Nsane13,

      Gen4:1-2 - Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.[b] She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth[c] a man.” 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

      It's made pretty clear right here. Cain is Adam's son. Cain's familial line is given very briefly in Genesis 4. It accounts for seven generations of Cain's children. Considering Methusulah was the seventh generation given in Genesis 5 and the fact that the flood happened the year he died, seven generations would be about how long Cain's line would have lived assuminng they perished in the flood.

      I've read many different takes and Cain's descendants are often cast as the 'evil' ones. They were all equally evil. Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and all of theiir family. They had free will and as Adam, Eve, and Cain all illustrated, were fully capable of going against God's will and being 'wicked'.

      What makes Jesus significant is that he was the one human to live without once conflicting with God's will. No others did this. Not Adam, not Cain, not anyone of Seth or anyone else. This is why Jesus was necessary. This is why God then made Jesus. The "second Adam". This is why after the fall God said Eve would have to bare the pains of childbirth. Originally there was no need to mate and have children. They were to live forever. But the fall made it necessary to make Jesus, and Jesus was made through baring children.

    • profile image

      Friedalrussell 

      6 weeks ago

      Wow! I am lovin this; agreeing to disagree. For decades, I have believed that Adam and Eve were not the only people if the earth. My belief is a little from this. But, I do believe that when God create Adam he was not alone on the earth, I did not quit understand why I felt that way but I did. I believe that we intrepret the bible based on our understanding if life and science, not that we are trying to find ways to demean the bible, just to get a better understanding of what truth is. An example is: growing up in church "COGIC," Revelation, was one of the hardest books to understand. As a teen I actually thought there was creators that would be coming out of the sea, now, I have a better understanding. The one thing that we all can be assured of is that all of God's thought concerning us are good, and he loves us with a dying love... I believe that we should utilize science to help us benefit with a better understanding of God's word. As Christians, it is my belief that we are so afraid to have our views changed based on what we have been conditioned to believe. I know without a shallow of a doubt that I love God and nothing or nobody will ever changed that and I am not afraid of the unknown, as in, did the entire earth flood or just part of it or was Adam the first creation or not; things like that. Jesus lives and is alive within me. I am truly learning how to look at the events in the bible differently-to me it is simpy understanding the timeline in some cases. You may be a witness to an accident, but when you talk to an officer, you may get the times mixed up. Does it mean that you did not see what you saw? No, you just was off with the timing of it, and you are a Christian filled with the Holy Spirit and you follow Jesus. Today was my first day of reading these post and I am getting a better understanding.

    • profile image

      Friedalrussell 

      6 weeks ago

      Okay, if Adam was not the first man created, how can it be said that we all orginated from two people? Adam and Eve, just wondering.

    • profile image

      Nsane13 

      6 weeks ago

      Very interesting article. I have a few opinions of my on learning some from other people that went to the root and meaning of the Hebrew words.

      I believe Genesis 1& 2 are 2 different creations also. #1 Uses the term of Elohim, the princes of the most high, little God's. Created man and woman, woman and man they did creat to dominate over beast and Earth. In their image(illusion)

      #2 uses The Lord, the supreme being of all created. Yes he created good and bad. The Lord blew life into Adam. The Lord created Eve from Adams rib..the curve as DNA helix and made Eve. Woman of his flesh

      Eve desired (lusted) after it, the fruit. The fruit easy the serpent and he had sex with this being. The Lord told the serpent the seed of the woman will bruise your seeds head and the seed of the serpent will bruise the heel of Eve's seed. Eve then shared the fruit (sex) with Adam and she bear Cain and said I have a son from the (angel of the Lord) then continued the birthing process and bore Able who was the image of Adam. Info obtained from the Septuoin and Targum of Jonathan.

      Cain(able) were twins. If you notice the genealogy of Adam does not include Cain. It starts with his son Seth which is the line Jesus Christ comes from. Cain was of the serpent seed.

      There probable are thousands of years separating these 2 Genesis. The The Natives of all countries being Native American Indians, Native Peruvians of Peru, Africans, India Indians Aboriginies of Australia and many more were of the 1st creations with their many God all Elohim(fallen) angels with the Supreme Lord God being the creator of all.

      Despite Satan twisting of the The Word from many different doctrins and the catechism that Are in complete oppostion to the Gospels. If people actually read The Holy Bible instead of listening blindly to their religious leaders they would see they are being decieved. The below has to be understood as the ONLY TRUTH FOR SALVATION and that is

      The Lord gift, his promise through the New testament his Grace that Our Lord came to earth in the flesh in Jesus of Nazareth through the Virgin Mary, died a righteous sinless man on the cross for ALL THE WORLDS sin, rose from the dead, walked this Earth 40 days and ascended to heaven and is the One Living Lord God sitting on the Right hand of The Father Head God and dwells in all that believe in Him through the Holy Spirit. WE CAN ONLY GO TO THE FATHER THROUGH HIS SON JESUS CHRIST. It is by HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS we are SAVED NOT by ours, any pope, priest, and especially not through the mother Mary.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Scott,

      I feel for you man, teaching science in a public school in this day and age.

      I think you're very right about the story of the bible on back through to the beginning of the OT is centered around Jesus.

      I agree Adam was God's most important creation, not because of his lineage, but because he was the first in all of creation with free will. That's what the garden story is illustrating.

      Think about God working like a scientist. First, to test His creation of a being with free will He creates an environment where only one rule exists. And he broke that one rule.

      From then on God works with the line of Christ like one would breeding animals. He segregated the Israelites from other groups. Made sure they didn't dress like, didn't mix with other groups. He gave them very specific rules about who can mate with who. Controlled their diet.

      Along the way He'd choose one, like Abraham, test him, then breed through him and his offspring.

      These are actions of a God who is working toward something. Breeding. This is the line Jesus ultimately came from. Jesus was actually created by God through His interactions with free willed humans. God creating in an environment He had no control over.

      The story starts taking on some really fascinating avenues when read this way.

    • profile image

      SCOTT D WHITE 

      6 weeks ago

      As a science teacher in a public school I have thought about this topic quite a bit. I have developed a theory of my own based on what Genesis actually says. I don't believe that the Genesis story of the creation of man was written to explain the creation of the first man. I think God created hundreds of humans the exact same way as he did Adam. I would propose that the story of Adam is only significant because Adam is the first member in the lineage of Christ. Moses was not given visions to see how man was put on the Earth. Instead he was given these visions so that the Bible would start with the beginning of Christ's story. Adam wasn't the first man created, but he was God's most important creation. I have heard this said many times "All Scriptures point toward Christ," so it seems logical that the Adam story would be the start of the Christ story.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      7 weeks ago from Texas

      Ernest,

      I went through the same thing. Initially it felt like my faith was slipping when I began to question. It was a hard thing to come to terms with. I found it helped to recognize that what I found myself questioning wasn't God or His existence at all, all the questions I had had to do with how other humans interpreted God and the stories of the bible.

      You're not questioning God. You're questioning fallible humans. The stories of the bible as you and I were taught appear to be wrong in places. All the people who initially established these interpretations didn't know nearly as much as we know now. So I simply re-evaluated the texts in the light of modern knowledge.

      If you're not familiar with St. Augustine you should look him up. He is regarded as one of the founding fathers of the church. There's a couple of things he said that I've quoted many times. First, he said that biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge. Science is "demonstrable knowledge". He also said that the two books of God, the "book of words" and the "book of nature", cannot contradict one another and that if at any time they appear to conflict it's human interpretation that's flawed.

    • profile image

      Ernest Sanne 

      7 weeks ago

      Thanks, Jeremy, I'm going through the Bible starting at the beginning and your assertation of Humans male and female first and then Adam and Eve answers my questions of the "others" and Cains wife etc...I've read commentaries that say we must assume Adam and Eve had other children but why then would the Eve say Seth was a replacement for Abel... wouldn't the assumed children have been the replacements. What you said about Humans male and female makes perfect sense in the same way He created animals male and female etc.. and your explanation of faith helps me, helps me understand why I need it and also why I have lost it.

      I understand why some are going back and forth about what you wrote, my wife, for example, thinks I am questioning the existence of God when I ask questions, she is childlike in that her faith needs no explanation she believes it for what it is... I don't worry her anymore and never question or try to get her to see my point, if she says something with conviction I just say "I love your faith" as you may want to do with the semantics you're bombarded with.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      7 weeks ago from Texas

      Michael,

      Re: "Adam is the first human. If he was different in any way from what came before him, what that was would be something different."

      He is something different. That's what the story is describing. First it describes humans who followed God's commands to the letter, because they were "good", then it gives this very specific scenario about this specific human where it depicts God placing this human in an environment where only one God-mandated rule exists, and that human broke that rule. That's what's different about Adam. Free will.

      Re: "You are reading into the text that which is not present. The text calls Adam the first man. Men come from men after the first is created."

      The text is where I'm getting what I'm describing. The text first explains that humans were created. Then it explains that a different kind of human was created. Then the story makes it clear it's set in a populated world with two groups of people, like the others in Genesis 4 and the 'sons of God' and 'children of humans' in Genesis 6.

      Re: "My assertion is that any thing prior to Adam, but not the same as Adam in any way, is a different thing, and not human."

      That's why it specifically says the humans created in Genesis 1 were created in "our image". The descendants of Adam were the original tellers of the stories. When it says "our image" it means these humans were created in the same 'image' as Adam and his family.

      This is why it later says God regretted putting "mortal" humans on the planet. Genesis 6:1-3 says the sons of God (Adam's family) found the daughters of humans (Gen 1 humans) beautiful and began having children by them. This was the element of free will doing something God didn't anticipate. This is why the flood was necessary. This introduced free will into naturally evolved humanity. This is why God said they became "wicked".

      Like you said, "By grace everything God does is good." God is the standard that establishes what "good" even is. Free will gives you the ability to act according to your own will, even if it's in direct violation of God's will, which is what makes 'wickedness' even possible. Mortal humans now had free will.

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      By Grace everything God does is good. Until the fall, Adam and Eve were God's good creation and He can call them whatever He wants, especially until they fail to listen. Not that I am perfect, but by Grace I need to be

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      I think your argument surrounding the term good has many possible talking points. My assertion is that any thing prior to Adam, but not the same as Adam in any way, is a different thing, and not human. A cat is not a dog but both are pets. They even express "emotion" but are not human. Adam is unique as being the first, according to Paul, of a certain class of being. Anything created prior or after him that is different from his class would have a different name, such as cat, dog, angel, demon, etc.. You can define human basically as you choose in a sense, but once you say that something is different from that in some way you are no longer describing a human.

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      Adam is the fist human. If he was different in any way from what came before him, what that was would be something different. Therefore Adam is the first man, anything created before or after that is theoretically different than him is not the same as him. I believe the earth was created before him. He is not the earth, he is the first of a distint type that is catagorically nothing else except for what he is. He he is human, anything existing prior, by definition, is not.

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      Man was created witht the capacity for knowledge and language, apart from animals. Humans are created seperately. People, plants, and animals are all cometely distinct, however similar they may seem. I believe you are incorrect, the text say Adam was the first man. You are reading into the text that which is not present. The text calls Adam the first man. Men come from men after the first is created.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      7 weeks ago from Texas

      Michael,

      What's significant about Adam was that he was the first man to have a free will. All humans who came before did not have free will. This is why they were able to carry out the commands of God who said to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the Earth".

      Think about this. Adam/Eve proved capable of behaving contrary to God's will right away. And again, in the second generation, Cain did the same.

      If Adam/Eve were the humans created in Genesis 1, would God have called them "good"?

      Yes, Adam became a "living being" not just alive, but living and making his own decisions apart from God. This, I believe, is what Paul is speaking about.

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      I just believe that 1 Cor 15:45 corrects this error very clearly, but we can discuss textual issues or the New Testament in general.

      To quote you,

      "They were created day 6 of Genesis 1. Then Adam was created in a world already populated by the humans created in Genesis 1"

    • profile image

      Mchael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      1 Cor. 15:45* Thank you for responding this far I need to stay out of troubleyself, sorry for typos and errors

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      1 Cor. 14:45 states Adam was the first man. He needed to be created before other men or women. Man, Adam, needed created before they, other men, were created. Man needed to be created before man was found on earth. Adam was the first, then others follow. Is that reasonably stated?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      7 weeks ago from Texas

      What do you mean by 'before they were created'? They were created day 6 of Genesis 1. Then Adam was created in a world already populated by the humans created in Genesis 1.

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      I can see that you have a few issues wrapped up here, however, without knowing your response, I imagine Paul's (many potential debates here) interpretation is relevant.

      1 Corinthians 15:45 

      New International Version

      "So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit."

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      7 weeks ago from Texas

      Michael,

      That's not my claim. My claim is that Genesis says humans were created before Adam. In Genesis 1 it says humans were created male and female on "day 6", then "day 7", then Adam was created. When Cain is banished in Genesis 4 there are already others that he voices his concern about. A concern that God doesn't dismiss by saying "what others?", but confirms by agreeing he may be in danger and marks him.

      It's only human assumption that the humans created on "day 6" in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 are the same event. I'm saying they're two different events. Two sets, naturally evolved humans (Gen1) and Adam/Eve (Gen2).

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      Simply put you are incorrect, humans can not be in the created world before they are created. The Bible states(reasonably) when humans were created. Please excuse any typing errors.

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      Internet* definition*. Right, humans are all imperfect. The reading of Genesis states humans were created. You attempt to claim humans are born and exist prior to their creation. That is incorrect and not scientific.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      7 weeks ago from Texas

      Michael,

      It's not God or the bible that's in doubt here. It's the human interpretations of it. It's human interpretation that reads these texts and comes away with the conclusion that Adam was the first human.

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      Just a quick addition. Science is regularly adjusting its proclamations. Many previously held truths have been disproven or amended. The very defenition of science necessitates that what is currently "known" might be wrong because people must be open to new information, observation, interpretation, understanding, etc.

    • profile image

      Michael Parise 

      7 weeks ago

      By Grace I need to stay out of trouble myself. I not sure this is the best place for defending that Adam is, through faith, revealed as the first human. The foundational issue with your hypothesis is that men can not be born before man is created. There are countless arguments regarding this dealing with carbon dating, textual references, language, personal biases, etc. Calling the historical book for the Jews myth does not mesh with "faith in God". Sorry if this is a waste of time to discuss on an interent website.

    • Arnold Joseph profile image

      Arnold Joseph 

      7 weeks ago from U.S.A.

      Thank you Jeremy for your reseach and for sharing your findings. Especially the Scriptures about God telling the Man And Woman that they can eat everything but told Adam not to eat... I have been focused on Old Earth Creation and life before the Garden. Please take a look. Thanks again. Arnold J. Www.andgodsaidkaboom.weebly.com

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 weeks ago from Texas

      SaiyanRace,

      "What do you mean, now you know?! Your God, you know everything! I believe God has sovereignty over his mind and chooses not to know certain things."

      This, I think, is an important clue. This and the bit in Genesis 6 where it says God "regretted" putting humans on the Earth. How could a God who knows all, knows the future, regret a decision? Or, in this case, why would God have to test Abraham assuming He would already know?

      The answer is that He actually doesn't. God knows all where the natural world is concerned. The natural world behaves exactly according to God's will. But free will is a will apart from God's. God really doesn't know what a being with free will will do until they do it. Our decisions really are our own.

      This is why we must exist and live. We must be given the opportunity to live and make our own choices. Without actually living and choosing, God has no way of knowing how it will go.

      You - "Yes, God gave us free will, but he wants to see his creation exercise that free will in faith in his words,"

      Yes, exactly. It is about faith. But faith is only necessary through free will. Without free will there is no need for faith. Faith is a choice. With free will we are our own individuals, but free will is a powerful capability. It makes us creators who can create things in this universe that are not "of God", but that are "of us". So we must choose to acknowledge God as the authority. To live in eternity with a free will we must choose to adhere's to God's laws as everything else in nature without free will does inherently.

    • SaiyanRace profile image

      SaiyanRace 

      8 weeks ago

      Hey Jeremy,

      It's been almost a year since my last comment. Nice to see your thread is still going strong. Lots of great discussion going back and forth.

      One thing you mentioned a couple weeks ago, was about Abraham, the Isrealites and free will. That them exerting their free will is the central theme of the Old Testament, to paraphrase. Correct me if I misread that.

      I think that it is a theme, but not the central theme. I believe the central theme is "Faith". Yes, God gave us free will, but he wanted to see the Isrealites use that free will to have faith in the things he asked of them as well as in the promises he gave them.

      Hebrews 11 is the Faith Heroes chapter. Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph etc., all had faith in what God asked of them and what he promised, and their faith accounted for righteousness. Without righteousness, not our righteousness, we can not enter God's presence.

      Genesis 22:12 says that after the Lord called out to Abraham and after staying his hand, He says, "Now I know that thou fearest God"....

      What do you mean, now you know?! Your God, you know everything! I believe God has sovereignty over his mind and chooses not to know certain things. In the same way he will cast our sins away as far as the east is from the west. I would imagine it gets boring knowing everything all the time! Also, "Fearest" means reverential trust!

      Yes, God gave us free will, but he wants to see his creation exercise that free will in faith in his words, he wants to experience that, he wants that reverential trust. Gnostikos is the Greek word where we get the words gnostic and agnostic. To know or not to know. It's an experiential knowledge. If you have a kid who is a star athlete, you've seen all the trophies in his/her room, but never have been to a game, you've never experienced your kid being a star, so you don't truly know.

      God wants that experiential knowledge as he is a personal God and wants that personal relationship with his creation. The free will comes into play in that God doesn't want to force us to love or obey him, it's our decision. Where is the pleasure or satisfaction in forced love/obedience? I'm sure most people wouldn't get any pleasure/satisfaction out of it, why would I expect God to.

      So, while I think free will is a common theme, i believe it's only the mechanism for the central theme which is Faith. If faith accounts for righteousness and righteousness is what we need to be with our Heavenly Father, I would think that that would be far more important to him than the free will that he gave us. Basically, the free will that he gave mankind is means to an end. When God spoke and made everything out of nothing, he had faith in his own words never having done it before. He was the first one to have faith in his own words, that's how we know we can have faith in his promises and the things he asks of us. Faith was there since the beginning of the universe. Gensis 1:1 backed up by Hebrews 11:3 ending with John 3:16-17. Faith has more depth and value.

      That's my 2 cents, sorry for getting to far off topic.

      Thanks for reading Jeremy!

      Saiyan

    • profile image

      hilla 

      8 weeks ago

      nice............I like it niceee move ya Adam is not the first

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      8 weeks ago

      All mountains were at some point under water some point in their lifetime. Basic bible backed science. What are now mountain tops were once sea floors. The Earth constantly changes due to erosion, wind, varying temperatures, volcanoes, etc. In a worldwide flood, they would be at different levels, not at the tops of every one. What was once at the bottom of the ocean is now at the top of a mountain after millions or even billions of years of movement called subduction.

      Do NOT alter science to fit the bible, and do NOT alter the bible to fit science. In its proper god given time all things are revealed. Using the still in its infancy science of today to explain each and every bible statement ends in tragic failure. A Christian invented the theory of the 'big bang' for a reason. No one has been able to debunk it because it is truth. Let there be light. There was light which dimmed, stars then formed, then oceans, then plants, then animals, then man, just as the Bible claims.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      8 weeks ago from Texas

      daniel cristancho,

      Re: multiple translations

      Yes, you're right, in many cases alternate translations don't change the main narrative of the story. But often these discussions come down to disagreements based on specific wordings. And between translations those can be very different. For example, in Gen6 some bibles call them "Nephilim", others say "Giants". Or in Job, some say "angels", others say "sons of God".

      And in the end little things like this can even alter one's perception of the message. Like in these cases stated above some believe the early Earth was populated with angels that rebelled against God and procreated with humans. That leads to big differences in the perceived message of the bible. Here's an example of a misunderstanding that I feel is based on small differences in wording ....

      "Advocating some kind of theistic evolution or trying to fit evolution into the Creation narrative is absurd and violates what's actually written."

      It actually doesn't. Creation says God commanded life to be fruitful and multiply. That's what evolution is. Multiplying. And often, to be "fruitful", life had to adapt to the environment it lived in. Small changes over time that made life more capable of being "fruitful" led to significant evolutionary changes over time. God gave life a direction, I desired outcome, and life became. Like "let there be birds in the sky". Life became that, over time. Through evolution. This is how God creates. His word, His command, dictates the behavior of all things in the universe. He doesn't just make things magically appear. He doesn't form each one as He did Adam.He commands, it becomes. This is no way conflicts with the explanations given in the bible.

      " It also destroys the very basis of the Gospel, that death was foreign until the fall of man and Christ came to take away death and give eternal life."

      The Gospel isn't talking about physical death. To reach eternal life we must all still physically die. Believing in Jesus doesn't make you physically immortal. That death still exists. And always has. There are species of insects and animals who only feed on death plants and animals. They exist because physical death has always existed. It's part of the natural system.

      The Gospels are talking about spiritual death. Evolution in no way invades on the themes of the Gospel.

      ".. there are sea fossils on the tops of every mountain in the world."

      This simply means life existed in the sea before the formation of those mountains. Mountains are places in the continental land masses that buckled up as they shifted. This doesn't mean the sea rose over them after they had formed into mountains. There was no reason for God to flood the entire Earth. The situation simply didn't call for it.

      There was a time early in Earth's formation when the seas formed before the continents existed. This is the only time the entirety of the Earth was covered in ocean.

    • profile image

      daniel cristancho 

      2 months ago

      ''To treat the bible, which is printed in countless different forms/translations, as if it's God Himself directly speaking to you can and often does only lead to misleading misconceptions.''

      So what? True, the bible is the most translated book in the history of literature (the entire bible has been translated into 800+ languages and counting), but it is consistent in it's message, no matter what translation it's in. You can take any bible you like and the stories are the same. There isn't one version of David and Goliath in one translation and another version in another. No matter what version you choose, the story of David and Goliath is the same. Same thing with the Creation story and the world flood story. The only thing left is man's interpretation of those events. That's where the errors pop in as you have so blithely demonstrated. But the bible message is consistent all the way through.

      ''Any explanation other than evolution is laughable.''

      Advocating some kind of theistic evolution or trying to fit evolution into the Creation narrative is absurd and violates what's actually written. It also destroys the very basis of the Gospel, that death was foreign until the fall of man and Christ came to take away death and give eternal life. You cannot shove evolution into the Christian faith without wreaking havoc on the gospel and bringing into question the entire credibility of the bible. After all, the creation story isn't just believed by Moses, it was believed also by Jeremiah, Isaiah, Christ, Peter, Paul, and Luke. How utterly ridiculous to think that in Luke 3, Luke, a physician, in recording the family tree of Christ, adds the supposedly fictional characters Seth and Adam. Men who try to discredit the simple reading of the scriptures, know not what they are messing with.

      ''There's absolutely no reason to flood the whole planet, and no way the authors of the bible ''

      This is why the bible is considered the Word of God. There are things in it man could not possibly know but God would. What's interesting to the the denial of the world flood is that there are sea fossils on the tops of every mountain in the world. Every mountain. A few mountains can be explained away. Every mountain including Everest, is not explainable. There was a world wide flood.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Cipriano.jr100,

      Haha... Right to the point. Care to share what specifically you find to be nonsense?

    • profile image

      Cipriano.jr100 

      2 months ago

      Nonsense

    • profile image

      VipinPA 

      2 months ago

      God's wisdom and power is all above human wisdom & understanding.You can't measure god's wisdom with human wisdom.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      TreyTevin,

      My statements about it being man-made are to address those believers who treat it as the infallible word of God. To treat the bible, which is printed in countless different forms/translations, as if it's God Himself directly speaking to you can and often does only lead to misleading misconceptions.

      But for it to be man-made doesn't mean it has no value as a reference. It's a man-made text that documents actual interactions between the God it's speaking about and humanity. It also gives specific geographic details and a specific timeline that can be used to locate these events in the archaeological record.

      I did not cherry pick or "one time they got it right". I found a span of time in the region it specifies where the series of events it describes can be seen as to have happened along the same timeline it gives. This isn't cherry picked events. This is a series of events that spans over 2000 consecutive years.

      Any explanation other than evolution is laughable. And so is the idea that the flood was global. There's absolutely no reason to flood the whole planet, and no way the authors of the bible could even claim that considering they didn't know there was a whole globe at the time and certainly could not report on the status of the whole planet.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Hey Jay! Long time no see!

      Yes, you're right. Humans have been anatomically modern for roughly 200,000 years. But this doesn't mean there were ancient cultures all along the way through that time.

      The cause that led to civilization is the creation of Adam and through him the introduction of free will into the world. Before that humans lived just as indigenous cultures still do to this day. They have no ambitions to progress beyond the simple life they are content living. That ambition that makes modern "civilized" humans what they are is a product of free will.

      While there were ancient cultures along the way, none were cities with a ruling/working class. That's one of the tell-tale signs of free will. The humans that built the Sumerian and Egyptian and Indus Valley cultures were the first to behave as they did, unlike humans had for tens/hundreds of thousands of years.

    • profile image

      TreyTevin 

      2 months ago

      If man made what exactly is the point of this? You can't possibly be using,referring to,or backing any claim(s) by using it then. You cannot claim only that supports your theory as "viable". So why use any of it at all? It's just a silly book with a few perhaps somewhat accurate historical contexts according to you. You do realize you must take those views if you wish to continue your theory? Right?

      Cherry picking,or in your case I assume you'd deem it as "one time they got it right",is not a method respected by anyone of intellect.

      It's either bunk with a few got it right moments or it's true,correct,the actual God Inspired Infallible Word Of God as it claims to be. You cannot have it both ways Jeremy. It always baffled me when an individual does this circular reasoning. With a "cherry"on top as it were. Evolution is laughable. I don't have the time nor inclination to prove to you how,if you missed the ridiculousness of it to begin with odds are you cannot cure stupid. Suffice it to say,bunk and plain lies aside,they merely replaced God with their own and named it "nature". But I digress.

      A global flood is proven,actually the bible has been proven accurate,science merely moved the time line. And "we" buy it because we trust in them,in man. No need to prove it to yourself,or even demand science prove it,if science merely can say so and explain that "evidence" in a manner in which it could but never that it did,it must be true. So let's change the world around us to coincide,correlate,support, such science,and disregard,even argue against anything that doesn't. Even if it's the infallible word of God. Good job Jeremy. smh-

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 

      2 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      The human mind has been around with its current capacity to think and plan for about 200,000 years or more. If it takes 1,000 years to make a civilization, then 20 civilizations could have risen and fallen in succession. That does not even count parallel civilizations. So, Humanity goes back about 200,000 years.

      The Ancient writings tell a story of a group of War Lords trying to rebuild civilization after a catastrophe. God was not in the Old Testament (OT), it was a Human War Lord. For evidence of ancient civilizations, see monolithic structures such as Baalbek Lebanon and the ancient city of Dwarka.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      They weren't the ones editing the book together. That was done way later by people who weren't dumb, but who were certainly ignorant.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 months ago

      They weren't dumb enough to make the same mistake but they are dumb enough to record them in the same book, change three words around and pretend it's not the same person.

      "You're free to think that if you wish, but it's pretty apparent what actually happened."

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      You're free to think that if you wish, but it's pretty apparent what actually happened.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 months ago

      Abram. High or exalted father. Abraham, father of multitudes. Given to Abram after 25 years of loyal and faithful service. Same guy. You and the secular world say these are retellings, but I dont buy it. The mistakes Israel made right in Gods face were also ridiculous, taking from his example more times than makes sense, but truth is often stranger than fiction.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      As for the desendents of Adam being mistaken for gods, Erech is very likely Uruk. In fact Uruk was the first Sumerian city after the flood, and Genesis says Nimrod established Erech right after the biblical flood.

      I don't personally think Nimrod and Gilgamesh were one and the same primarily because Gilgamesh went to visit the "Sumerian Noah" in the Gigamesh story. If they were one and the same then Gilgamesh would have been visiting his great grandfather. He visited him to find out the secret to not dying and living such a long life.

      But yes, I think Nimrod was himself seen as a god by the humans that populated the region. All the patriarchs of the bible are the gods of the Sumerians/Egyptians/Greeks/Romans/etc. It's the descendants of Noah who were dispersed at Babel, all of them long-living god-like beings that showed up in the human cultures that had formed along riversides, like the Tigris/Euphrates in Sumer, the Nile in Egypt, the Indus Valley in India. All of them carrying with them the same stories of a flood. All of them the god-like beings in the ancient histories and fuzzy memories of these cultures.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      While the quote was found on Wikipedia, it was a direct quote from the Jewish Dictionary.

      The mistakes of the Jewish people were not limited to just them. These are the free willed humans the stories focused on, but the same would have been the case for any human. You included, I assure you. It's simply illustrating how free willed humans are out of God's control no matter what He does. With free will God introduced an element into the world that's not under His control, by design. That is what they were and what we are.

      This is the central theme. When God tested Abraham it was the same thing. Would his own personal will override God's will, or would he choose God's will even if it was something he very much did not want. This is why He bred from Abraham the line that ultimately brought about Jesus. God actually worked with an element not under His control to create Jesus.

      And I never said the bible is just a book filled with a few nuggets. These are actual accounts of the God of this universe interacting with mortal humans. These texts and the information in them are priceless. My pointing out that it's man made is not to diminish it in any way. Just to realize the importance of not interpreting it as a fault-free word of God Himself. To recognize it for what it really is to aid in studying it. To better understand it and what it's saying.

      And no, it really doesn't work. The first two times it was Abram, then Abraham. The third time it was Isaac. All three with a Pharoah in Egypt. The same Pharoah in the second and third. This is the same story. Same beats. Same events. Same ending. Same structure. Yes, history has as tendency to repeat itself, but this is just ridiculous.

      The Jewish culture is a story telling culture. Word of mouth tales were all the rage. This was one of those. Very popular and recorded multiple times. Multiple variations as it changed over the years.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 months ago

      Going back to the descendents of Adam being mistaken for gods, any thoughts on the belief Gilgamesh could have also been Nimrod, which means "rebel", great grandson of Noah from the bible? The city of Kish, and Nimrods grandfather Cush, seem likely to be related. Erech is very likely to be Uruk as well. Him being great grandson of Noah would be perfect tie in for him being 1/3 god. There are several other similarities as well.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 months ago

      You make it seem like these supposed conflicting incidents you keep bringing up, this one massive glaring contradiction spanning 3 well separated chapters of Genesis, are just rehashing the same story. These aren't just two random dudes who lived decades or even years apart. Abraham and Isaac respectively, are father and son. Time flows like a river and depressingly history repeats itself. You could be right. I could be wrong. Of course. Like Plato credited to Socrates, I don't claim to know more than I know. But I do have faith. I suppose all we can do is respectively agree to disagree.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 months ago

      Its hard to take your critiques when you try to validate yourself through secular and unreliable sources like wikipedia. Thats even worse than trying to get me to believe what some atheist with a bunch of degrees on the history channel has to say. 9 times out on ten, at least, the media goes out of its way to make people with faith seem nonsensical and antiquated. My impression of people is that they are people. I respect Abraham but have no allusions about his mistakes during his early years. You must not have paid attention to the Tenakh? The Hebrews made the same mistakes over and over and over and over. And yes, Abram was scared and its obvious, a trait his son also carries. You know, like father like son? He did great things but not until later in life. Same as Moses. In fact, in the desert every five minutes they went back to worshiping Baal whenever Moses' back was turned. Do I seriously have to give a bunch of verses about the Israelites doing the same shady stuff over and over again? God let them be enslaved and dispersed constantly due to their really dumb mistakes. I have face palmed several times reading the Old Testament wondering how they are so hard headed. Which version full of geniuses have you been reading? They are so consistently wicked that in 2nd Kings God finally lets 10 of their 12 tribes disappear for several thousand years (or forever if you dont adhere to Revelations) and ends their winning streak until just a few decades ago.

      "Not very probable" isn't good enough to persuade me into thinking the bible is just a book filled with a few nuggets of truth and nothing more. The whole bible, cover to cover isn't just improbable, it's all but 102 % with a 2 % margin of error impossible save for a couple historical accuracies to the secular world, which is also what these Jews of today and yesteryear "close to the source material" invariably are.

      And I don't kind of make it work as that would mean it also kind of doesn't work. It just works. These aren't philosophical fictionalized history stories meant to have a moral at the end. If anything, this is God proving that people are weak and shady and helpless and no one is righteous without him; yet for all of this he is always faithful to keep his word in the long run. It's the paraphrased playbook He uses to grow closer to his sinful creation.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      See, this is the danger in treating the bible as God's infallible will I feel. You've rationalized a whole explanation around it to kind of "make it work". And in doing so you've deemed some characters chicken shits and whatnot. It's completely altered the impression you have of these characters. It changes the whole story.

      "According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the recurring story has a unified purpose:

      "From the point of view of the history of culture these episodes are very instructive. But it is not very probable that Abraham would have run the risk twice. Moreover, a similar incident is reported in regard to Isaac and Rebecca (Genesis 26:7-11). This recurrence indicates that none of the accounts is to be accepted as historical; all three are variations of a theme common to the popular oral histories of the Patriarchs. That women were married in the way here supposed is not to be doubted. The purpose of the story is to extol the heroines as most beautiful and show that the Patriarchs were under the special protection of the Deity." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife%E2%80%93sister_...

      Even those closest to the culture and the language don't take it as historical. These texts committed to tablet, were popular stories. I'm sure it was a popular story to tell. It's got all of that good stuff that people want to hear. A punished man of power who's oppressing the hero. The hero going off into the sunset having been protected by a powerful God. The wife is exquisitely beautiful to the point that no man can resist.

      Yes, you're exactly right. Context is everything. Part of understanding context is understanding each story for what it really is.

      As for the hangup I have about the mysteries in the bible and the research is that I don't see God as being coy about what's happening. Like it's some puzzle we have to figure out. Or to feel better about ourselves because we feel God has in some way deemed us worthy and has revealed something to us in some way.

      That inevitably leads to too many misgivings and pitfalls of imagination.

      Like your comments about David and Abraham and Moses. These men lived long, full lives. There's a reason why these stories only really focus in on their not so proud moments. If you edited together a brief story of my life with nothing but the less attractive moments end to end then I definitely would not come off well.

      But that's the theme of these stories. Humans have free will and constantly do their own thing. They can't be controlled. You can do miracles right in front of them. Feed them mana from heaven. Water from rocks. Strike them down in front of one another. Free them from slavery. It doesn't matter. They won't follow God's will. Free will is the theme of the story and illustrating how it affected these people is the whole point of the story being told.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 months ago

      Context context context. It's considered everything for a reason. Without it the bible makes no sense.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, owlcation.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://owlcation.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)