AcademiaSTEMAgriculture & FarmingHumanitiesSocial Sciences

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

Updated on January 24, 2017

God Created Evolution

'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.

The creation of man in Genesis has always been read to mean that Adam was the first human God created. Why is that exactly? It doesn't state that anywhere. In fact, what it actually says is that God created humans on day 6 of the creation account in chapter 1, then it says 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 was ever before possible. And that 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.

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 also became talented builders, they created the first government and the first laws. They also invented arithmetic, astronomy/astrology, the wheel, sailboats, frying pans, razors, harps, kilns for firing bricks and pottery, bronze hand tools, and plows, just to name 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, as writing became more advanced, they began to record stories passed down through the generations that explained how their people came up with all of these ideas that would forever change the human race. 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 as we know them today 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.

There’s no doubt Sumerian mythology had an impact on subsequent civilizations. The Akkadians were definitely inspired 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, male and female, who were fallible, moody, and often at odds with each other. And they all speak of intermingling between these immortal beings and mortal humans, producing demigods or titans.

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 them, 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 first legalized Christianity, then a few decades later made it the only legal religion. And they 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.

In today’s scientifically enlightened age many dismiss Genesis as nothing more than mythology as well. There are nearly as many in the Nonreligious/Secular/Agnostic/Atheist category as there are Muslims, making them the third largest segment of the population behind Christians and Muslims.

A big 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, much less 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.

The thing is, those interpretations of Genesis that say the flood was global and that Adam was the first human to ever exist were formed centuries ago by people who couldn’t have known any better. Now we do. Re-reading the first five and one-quarter chapters 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.

Pre-Flood Genesis in an 'Already Populated World' Context

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?

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:

Genesis 1:28 - 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."

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:

Genesis 1:29-30 - 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.

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 on 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:

Genesis 2:5 - 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.

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 - eat from any tree but that one.

Genesis 2:16 - And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;
Genesis 2:17 - 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."

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 is He brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them.

Genesis 2:19 - 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.

The humans created in Genesis 1 were given very specific commands that would take generations to realize; populate/subdue the Earth, establish dominance in the animal kingdom. So then 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 introduced into 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.

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 four. A concern God validated by somehow 'marking' him to protect him from harm.

Genesis 4:13 - Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear.
Genesis 4:14 - 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.”
Genesis 4:15 - 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.

It also puts a whole new spin on the first few verses of chapter six that 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 five.

Genesis 6:1 - And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them,
Genesis 6:2 - 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.
Genesis 6:3 - 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."

The Flood wasn't 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'.

Genesis 4:20 - And Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents, and of those who have cattle.
Genesis 4:21 - And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who handle the harp and organ.
Genesis 4:22 - And Zillah, she also bore Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron; and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

These descendants are 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...

Genesis 6:4 - 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.

... and one after...

Numbers 13:32 - 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.
Numbers 13:33 - 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.”

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.

In Conclusion

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.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Michael 11 days ago

      The biggest mistake we made as human beings is to look at everything through physical means. God is not human. God is a infinite glorious spirit being. Now with most of our reasoning and understanding contaminated by the limits we found ourselves into due to sin, there is no way we could stomach all that is godly. The bible talks about more realistic things like building an ark, yet we can't find it suitable. Less we try to match more unrealistic things with what could be more plausible. Like e.g ,an ark can be built but how do you get all the animals mentioned into this structure without it being a supernatural fit.? To describe the whole event both natural and supernatural aspects has to be mentioned. The trouble starts when we commence with trying to bring it to our level of understanding. This is difficult,, as we only can comprehend as far as our mental readiness can allow us. E.g someone get premonition of a car accident. The physical side of it can be explain in full detail. But the premonition side of the whole incident no one can explain. How can a person know that something bad is about to happen if he is not somehow connected to the outcome of it? That's where spiritual side of being human is coming in. As long as we don't explores spiritual side of our existence ,we can write volumes about this type of topics without reaching a common understanding about biblical things. We as humans has existed all the mysteries of the physical world, we are not close to being elementary school what our spiritual knowledge is concern.

      And thanks God we were denied that , less we used it to wipe each other off this planet .

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      I have a hub dedicated to creation in invite you to read. I don't buy into the gap theory concept because it seems to me to be a lot of speculation based on very little context.

      In my creation hub I lay out how the creation account, if read from the context of God being on the surface of Earth as described in verse 2, is very much consistent with what actuallyhappened.

      -------------------------

      Re: Sons of God/Gen6

      There are multiple reasons why the 'sons of God' in Gen6 cannot be fallen angels. One, angels aren't biological, so they have no need to have the ability to procreate. Are there momma angels and baby angels? Second, angels do not have free will so they are incapable of "falling. Third, it's not consistent with the rest of the bible. In the OT only Israelites are referred to as sons of God. In the NT, before Jesus' death/resurrection it's Jesus' bloodline from Joseph all the way back to Adam who are called the sons of God (Luke 3). After Jesus' resurrection it extends to all believers in Jesus as 'sons of God'. Then, there's this ...

      Hebrews 1:5 – For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my son”?

      -------------------------

      Re: Science

      Science is not a religion, though there are some who use it as the foundation of their beliefs. Science has no agenda. It's simply a means to determine what's true about matter/energy. But we can only evaluate what is a product of this universe. God, being the creator, is not a product of this universe, and is therefore not matter/energy and undetectable through scientific means. God cannot be observed, but science can be used to learn about God's creation. Like it says ....

      Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

      Science is the understanding of what has been made.

    • profile image

      Psalm37 3 weeks ago

      Sorry, keep forgetting stuff...

      As to the god-like beings that helped kick start civilization after the flood...look to Gen. 6:4 and the fallen angel view of this passage...

    • profile image

      Psalm37 3 weeks ago

      In addition...

      So, quite to the contrary, science and Biblical truth are not in conflict, but are perfectly harmonized depending on perspective and one's faith, because though many proofs may be given to this fact, God still requires faith to be pleasing to Him (Heb. 11:1; 6), and faith is in the end the very antithesis of that zealously held "religious holy grail" of science, the empirically measurable scientific method, or walking by sight (2 Cor 5:7).

    • profile image

      Psalm37 3 weeks ago

      Jeremy, are you an adherent to the Day-Age view of the Genesis creation account? If so or if not, I'd recommend a fresh look at the Ruin-Restoration view (aka Gap Theory) as a solution to the many seeming contradictions between the Biblical account and what's observed in nature.

      In other words, is the earth both very old and relatively young at the same time being that God originally created it long ago (Gen 1:1), then sometime in ages past allowed it to be brought into ruin (Gen 1:2) only to remake it again for our current era (1:3 and following). Keep in mind that scripture clearly states that God did not originally make earth formless and void (tohu va bohu) as stated in Is. 45:18, thus preventing Gen. 1:2 from speaking about the originally creation.

      As to the timing of the writing of Genesis verses the timing of the older texts, this is resolved in the favor of the Bible by accepting the fact that God "in His perfect timing" ordained the accurate oral tradition of the Hebrews to be codified as a lasting accurate record for humanity, thus superseding the early flawed writings of the nations. Earlier does not mean more accurate and does not mean that the Hebrew scribe (Moses) borrowed from those flawed texts and traditions.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      I agree, believing is enough. But to properly understand the story being told it's important to read them in the correct context. Clears up a lot of confusion.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Thanks for the comment, Felipe. I'm curious about your opinion that science is "manipulated/corrupted" and that science and religion are conflicting. What is this conclusion based on? Is it that your interpretation and/or the traditional interpretation doesn't match up? So, based on that, you reach the conclusion that your interpretation, or the traditional interpretation, is more likely right? And that scientists deliberately manipulate and corrupt their data? Why?

      St. Augustine was an important forefather of modern day religion. And he once said that if the "book of scripture" and the "book of nature" ever appear to conflict, that it's human interpretation that is flawed. The natural world cannot conflict with God. He also said that biblical interpretation must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge. That's all I've done. Science gives context to these stories and clarifies what's being described. I suggest you reconsider.

    • profile image

      Felipe Gutierrez 5 weeks ago

      Thank you very much for the effort. However, one gets a sense that people that believe this certain interpretation are definitely over thinking and alter scriptural meaning to perfectly fit the science that is already manipulated/corrupted. Evidently, Mr. Jeremy is trying to marry conflicting views (science and religion). I admire his intention and this article is certainly the epitome of good effort. Thank you

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Raymond,

      Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts. I'm afraid your explanation here isn't plausible. The last time the land masses were gathered as one was the supercontinent Pangaea, which began to break apart 175 million years ago, over 170 million years before humans. The flood wasn't global. The most obvious clue is the two mentions of the Nephilim, once before the flood in Gen6, and the descendants of the Nephilim that the spies of Israel saw in Hebron in Numbers 13. The people of that age didn't know there was a whole planet and certainly couldn't report on the status of all the Earth. Only the Earth that they could see. Just a regional flood in the Mesopotamian planes would suffice.

      The 120 years bit is comparing what Gen 6 calls "mortal" humans to that of Adam's kin who all lived for centuries, showing a distinct difference between the two. These two blood lines intermingling is why lifespans declined so drastically from generation to generation after the flood.

    • profile image

      Raymond 7 weeks ago

      You have a few things wrong with ur logic but I will try and offer a correction 4 just one 2day. The lifespan of a human being cut down 2 just 120yrs is wrong. According 2 the bible 120 yrs was the amount of time given 2 man 2 repent b4 the flood so man was given 120 yrs of grace. How do I know this ? Bcuz the bible says in the days of Pele ,the son of eber the sons of men were divided and in the latter days the earth was divided (land masses broken n2 continent's which would also explain how it was viable 4 the ," whole earth " 2 be covered with water in the flood of noah''s day as there was only a single landmass at that time ) then the bible goes on 2 say ," and the name of the second son of eber was yoktan, meaning that in his day the lives of the sons of men were diminshed and lessened (shortened ). These things happened after the flood so the 120 yrs was not the limit on a man's lifespan at that time but rather a time span in which noah preached repentance even as he was building the arch.

    • profile image

      Keith 2 months ago

      Very nice read.. Some of it might be true also, but some of it is just opinions

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 months ago from Texas

      The flood wasn't global. One way you can tell is that the "Nephillim" are mentioned twice. Once before the flood in Gen6, once after in Num13. Descendants of the Nephillim are seen in Hebron. Yet they were not on the ark.

      The flood wasn't meant to wipe out all humans. Only where free will had been introduced into humanity and made them "wicked". Gen6 explains that the Adam's descendants began marrying and having children with humans. This introduced free will into humanity making them wicked. But they only existed in a small part of the world. So the flood didn't have to be the whole world.

      Also, 'sons of God' are not angels. Luke 3 says everyone from Adam through Noah/Abraham/David, all the way down to Jesus, they were 'sons of God'. Plus, there's this ...

      Hebrews 1:5 - for to which of the angels did God ever say, "you are my Son; today I become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my son"?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 months ago from Texas

      The description in Gen2 of their surroundings sounds similar, but is not a rehashing of Gen1. Gen2 is talking about a particular place on Earth. Mesopotamia. And in that age it really was barren. Climate changes drastically changed that region of the world during that time. Adam was created around 6500BC. Humans fully populated the planet around 10000BC, over 3000 years earlier.

      All other humans aged just as we do. Only Adam and Eve and their descendants lived the length of lives they lived. You can tell this by Gen6 ...

      Gen6:1-3 -When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      Here it's talking about two different groups. 'Daughters of humans', and 'sons of God'. Humans, in comparison, it says are "mortal" and only live 120 years. This is one chapter after Gen5 says Adam and his family lived for centuries. The 'sons of God' are Adam and his kin.

    • profile image

      Isikeli 3 months ago

      To say that the flood was not global when the Bible says it was it is interesting. First flooding does not stop sin nor did it stop fallen angels having sexual realtions with daughters of man. So no where in the bible says that. So now post Noah all races as we know it come from Noah. At last we can be sure that there was no incest as all Sons had there wives and so there children as first cousins can now marry and multiply and occupy the entire earth.

      Surely the fallen angels would do their best still to corrupt the human race why to ensure that we all go to hell. Why else.

      Is it possible that there may be other people survive the flood we dont know. What we do know in the flood conditions described unless you had a boat like noah and this a huge ark it is impossible to survive that long in the water fully exposed if live after the first blast of water.

      So now God really populated the animal kingdom who cannot live in water as 2 by 2 birds and animals both. Plants of all kinds would germinate from seeds.

      Have you thought about Fish mamals they were never threated just a joyful blissful experience. I am sure there is a lesson there.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 months ago from Texas

      Isikeli,

      Gen1 says God created humans on 'day 6'. Then in Gen2 it starts with 'day 7', then Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created in an already populated world, so you're right, there were others for them to marry and have children with.

    • profile image

      Isikeli 3 months ago

      Read Genesis 2 and you will find that when Adam was created it was like the 2nd day of creation by reading the way it explains the surrounding. Also Even came nuch later first God created the garden for him to roam and work then he saw he was lonely and he created Eve from his sleep and finally he saw he was happy. You see thats why you love your wife always it makes you complete. Now in day 6 many couples were created in different races. I has to be.

      No one knows how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of eden lets say it was 500 years the earth would have been populated well during that time. Aging did not occur or time did not matter till after Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were kicked out of Eden.

      Only Adam could have sinned as he was the one given the first law. Do not eat of that fruit. Of course after being there for a long time idle thoughts and wondering what would happen allowed Satan to enter the Garden. You ask yourself how did Satan entered the Garden it is idle thought and sinful thought against what God says do not do that.

    • profile image

      Isikeli 3 months ago

      My reading of Genesis is clear that Adam was the first created being then Eden then all the plants and animals then Eve. The somehow God created all the earth simultaneously or after Eden. On the sixth day when men and women was created Adam and Eve were already in Eden so therefore others were created just like Adam and Eve. In pairs so there were no incest committed by Adams family. Also we accept that plants fiah animals were created in numbers and different species but somehow we limit the creation of men and women in different races. Finally you cannot say God allowed incest then later called it sin. It is impossible for God to do that.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      I have read the Koran, or at least most of it. The part of the bible I'm focusing in on here is the same in the Koran. The first books, the books of Moses, are also the beginning of the Koran.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      I certainly don't want anyone to take my word for it. Like you said, read for yourself. But it seems to me there being two groups, naturally evolved humans from Gen1 and Adam and his descendants from Gen2, the others Cain feared in Gen4, the two groups it talks about in Gen6 (sons of God/daughters of humans). Just consider that context when you read it and see what you think. You're right, we shouldn't listen to others. That, in my mind, includes old religions who decided they knew what it said generations ago and stick with that. We've been told by others how the story goes. So, everyone should follow your advise. Read and decide for yourself.

    • profile image

      Anonymous 4 months ago

      I don't know whether you miss interpret but Adam indeed was the first man...Genesis 1 1-18 clearly admits God created man...not men..and seen that that man was lonely so he created eve (his helper) .... Though it didn't stated Adam first chapter it stated him in the 2nd.. The 1st chapter states WHAT he created the 2nd WHO..JUST LIKE example 1st chapter it tells us what animals God created and in the 2nd just like Adam It gave the names of the animals by Adam..Also its says in the Bible A hell is created (What) ..But never states Who by name will be going but it gave characteristics as adultery etc ...So I say to you don't deceive others by Your misinterpretation.....READ FOR YOURSELF PEOPLE AND THEN YOU WILL KNOW...Don't go by what others say...Be Blessed

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      Thank you, Jim. It's always good to encounter like minded people. Yeah, I feel organized religion has made the mistake of appointing themselves as an authority on these topics when all they've really done is tether themselves to ideas born generations ago and make themselves resistant to new ideas and approaches. I'm more of the mind of St. Augustine who said, "The interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge."

      I'll be sure to check your articles out. Thank you for the feedback.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 months ago from Texas

      I don't have a specific area designated for that purpose, but you can ask me here, you can email me, or if necessary I guess I could start a forum thread.

    • Green-TZM profile image

      Green-TZM 5 months ago

      Do you have an area where people who heard you on Dogma Debate can ask questions?

    • Mageswaran Shalom profile image

      Mageswaran Shalom 6 months ago

      who was the serpent in the garden ? what is the mystery hidden in first three chapter of genesis ? anybody can help on this ?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 months ago from Texas

      Created by God, by evolution. For more detail on this you can check out my hub on creation ... https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Genesis-A...

      According to Gen1:2 God's spirit was on the surface when He created the Earth.

      The "sons of God", or the gods according to the Sumerians, descended from the 'heavens'.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 6 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      I seem to be behind here.

      "Yes, but created by whom?

      How?"

      Describe this "God of Creation."

      Created How? by evolution? manipulation? thin air?

      Did God materialize on earth to do this?

      What about Planet X; today it is called "The Ninth Planet," by astronomers.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 months ago from Texas

      Basically that the idea that the creation of humans in Gen1 and the creation of Adam and Eve in Gen2 are two separate events. God created humans in the same image as Adam and Eve on day 6 of creation. Once He introduced free will into the world, the descendants of Adam/Eve, the "sons of God", found the "daughters of humans" beautiful and began intermingling with them, introducing free will into naturally evolved humanity. This is what caused humanity to become "wicked", and this is why God "regretted" putting humans on the Earth.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 6 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      "Actually, that's kind of central to my whole theory. If you read this hub then you'll see it's made pretty clear that Adam and Eve were created in an already populated world."

      Yes, but created by whom?

      How?

      Stated simply, what is your theory?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 months ago from Texas

      Actually, that's kind of central to my whole theory. If you read this hub then you'll see it's made pretty clear that Adam and Eve were created in an already populated world.

      Genesis 6:1-4 - When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [1] man forever, for he is mortal [2] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

      This comes just one chapter after explaining that Adam and his family lived for centuries. Yet here it's speaking of two groups; the "sons of God" and the "daughters of humans". It then says that humans are "mortal" and only live 120 years.

      So, basically, if Adam and Eve were created as described, in the region of the world where the Sumerians lived according to Genesis 2, then to the Sumerians Adam and Eve and all their offspring would seem alien. Like they came from another planet. God-like, in fact. My theory here is that the gods that not only the Sumerians, but also the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, and a dozen or so other cultures claim were a part of their ancient past in that region of the world were actually speaking of Adam's family.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 6 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      "First, both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List say the flood happened just before the city of Uruk was built, which was built around 3900 BC."

      If you are into the Sumerian writings, what do you think of their story about:

      an alien race coming to earth and

      Planet X?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 months ago from Texas

      There really was a flood. Both the biblical writers and the Sumerians wrote about it. It was only in the southern Mesopotamian valley. This is where both the people of the bible and the Sumerians were. The planet was fully populated by humans by that time, but not humans with free will. Free will was introduced into the world about 5500BC through the creation of Adam and Eve. Only humans with free will could be 'wicked', so the region of the world where people the flood was meant for were located was a small one.

      This flood happened about 4000BC. This can be determined in at least two ways. First, both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List say the flood happened just before the city of Uruk was built, which was built around 3900 BC. Also, Sir Arthur Whooley, an archaeologist from the 20's, found a thick silt deposit in the Sumerian city of Ur that actually separated Ubaid artifacts from Uruk artifacts. The end of the Ubaid culture and beginning of the Uruk culture was also about 4000 BC.

      If you read through my hubs you'll find that all the events of early Genesis can be pinpointed in both location and time frame.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 6 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      "Well if that is true that these are the results of some great flood, it's not the biblical flood. The biblical flood can be pinpointed quite accurately as being roughly 4000BC."

      Also see descriptions of a "wall of water" in the book, "Navaho Legends" by Washington Matthews (1897)

      What is a "Biblical Flood?" When did it occur, if at all. We just do not know. I am Not saying water covered the entire surface at one time. I am saying there were a series of Wave Actions which swept over great expanses of land. Is a 100-200-300 foot wave a flood? There is enough water in the mantel which, if heated, could rise up and inundate the surface. We just cannot say with certainty.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 months ago from Texas

      Well if that is true that these are the results of some great flood, it's not the biblical flood. The biblical flood can be pinpointed quite accurately as being roughly 4000BC. Not only do the ages given indicate a span of time between the flood and Abraham as being just a couple of centuries, and Abraham's interactions with both Sumer and Egypt indicate around the same age, but both the Sumerian King's List and Genesis both say that the city of Uruk was built not long after the flood, and it was also built around 4000 BC.

      The flood was not global. If it had been global then there'd be unmistakable evidence the world over of a matching silt deposit found at the same layer on every continent. Nothing like that has been found.

      Besides, how could people from the bronze age report on a flood that reached Alaska? They couldn't. They were only speaking of a flood in their region of the world.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 6 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      When digging for gold in Fairbanks Alaska massive amounts of animals were found in tangled masses, interspersed with up-rooted trees. They seem to have been torn apart and dismembered. Skin, ligament, hair, flesh, can still be seen.

      K. Macgowan, Early Man in the New World (1950), p. 151; F.Rainey, "Archaelogical Investigation in Central Alaska," American Antiquity, (1940).

      Similar finds of bones and artifacts have been unearthed all over Alaska. See the "Ivory Islands" of the Arctic Ocean above Siberia." "These islands were full of mammoth bones and tusks and teeth of elephants and rinos..."

      D.G. Whitley, Journal of the Philosophical Society of Great Britain, XII (1910), 35.

      Hippos and animals that live in the marshes of Africa left their bones in abundance in England and France. These bones are not yet fossilized. J. Prestwich, professor of geology at Oxford (1874-1888). J. Prestwich, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, XLVIII; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1893).

      All of the above show bones of animals broken and buried due to some Great Flood action.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 months ago from Texas

      The Toba volcanic eruption was a very catastrophic thing, and it did nearly wipe out the human race that existed at the time. But this is not the flood of the bible. According to the bible, the flood happened 1656 years after Adam was created and Abraham lived roughly 2000 years after Adam, or roughly 350 years after the flood. Abraham's father was born in Ur, a Sumerian city, and Abraham himself had dealings with the Egyptians. Both Sumer and Egypt came into existence around 5000 BC. So the flood of the bible could not have been caused by the Toba catastrophe as this happened roughly 70,000 years prior.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 months ago from Texas

      As for the serpent it's tough to say. It would seem throughout the rest of the story that Lucifer plays a very specific role, almost debating God about humanity and whether or not they can be loyal to God with free will. So I assume this is him playing his usual role in the garden.

      As for the fruit, I don't think the fruit was anything special in particular. What made it what it was was God's commandment to not eat it. Adam and Eve were the first of God's creation able to act contrary to His will. So they're eating of the fruit was their first act of behaving of their own will, outside of God's will. So it wasn't the fruit that had the effect on them it says to have had, but rather their breaking God's command.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 6 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      According to the Toba catastrophe theory (Noah's flood), a massive volcanic eruption changed the course of human history by severely reducing the human population. This occurred around 70–75,000 years ago. The Toba caldera in Indonesia underwent a category 8 or "mega-colossal" eruption on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. This may have reduced the average global temperature by 3 to 3.5 degrees Celsius for several years and may possibly have triggered an ice age and a world wide flood.

      This massive environmental change is believed to have created population bottlenecks in the various species that existed at the time; this in turn accelerated differentiation of the isolated human populations, eventually leading to the extinction of all the other human species except for the branch that became modern humans.

      Structures in the Andes and India have not been explained by modern science. These structures were built long ago or in a way science cannot explain.

      Much has been written about the remains of Puma Punku and Saksaywaman in the Andes. Pumapunku or Puma Punku is part of a large temple complex or monument group that is part of the Tiwanaku Site near Tiwanaku, Bolivia. Tiwanaku is significant in Inca traditions because it is believed to be the site where the world was created.

      Saksaywaman, Saqsaywaman, Sasawaman, Saksawaman, Sasaywaman or Saksaq Waman is a citadel on the northern outskirts of the city of Cusco, Peru, the historic capital of the Inca Empire.

      More recently discovered is the ancient city of Dwarka. The strongest archaeological support comes from the structures discovered in the late 1980s under the seabed off the coast of modern Dwarka in Gujarat by a team of archaeologists and divers led by Dr S.R. Rao, one of India's most respected archaeologists. An emeritus scientist at the marine archaeology unit of the National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, Rao has excavated a large number of Harappan sites, including the port city of Lothal in Gujarat.

    • profile image

      Magesh 6 months ago

      who was the serpent ? what is the the fruit ?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 14 months ago from Texas

      Hey IM,

      Good to hear from you. Things have been going alright. I can't say I'm still enjoying the philosophical "battles" as much as I used to. I don't engage in them nearly as often.

      Yeah, Neil sounds like he knows a thing or two about what he's talking about, but as is often the case I get a response of how he doesn't really have time to get into the details, but does have the time to just tell me I'm wrong. I'm not sure what to do with that. The details are kind of important. If you don't have the time to lay out the details, why take the time to tell me I'm wrong. I'm naturally going to want the details at that point.

      Most times in the past when someone claimed to have more information that proved this or that wrong, it ultimately proves to not be the case. It usually turns out they didn't share because they don't actually have anything. They just disagree in general and felt compelled to say so.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 14 months ago from Earth

      At least Neil sounded like he had some good sense.

      I must say, though, not many people (percentage-wise) are like Neil, and actually have enough logic and reason to understand that both young-earth creationism and Darwinian evolution are closed systems dependent upon preliminary constants based on fantastical fabrications via forced-feeding mental limitations upon thee.

      At any insane rate, I wasn't aware of the ID movement Neil mentioned, but I can only assume it's from a more holistic-like universal approach, which anything of that nature is always closer to reality than dogmatic dung or heavily trending, ultra-filtered scientific agenda that is trying to pervade the already-weakened minds of these new-age humanoid thingies. LOL!

      Either way, just thought I'd drop by and say "hi." How's everything been going lately? You still enjoying your philosophical battles on this K-3 planet? Ha!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 14 months ago from Texas

      Neil,

      I would love to hear more. If there's something you're that certain I'm wrong about then I want to know about it. I want to correct it. If you could find the time to correct where you see that I'm wrong, it would be much appreciated. I would love to have a better understanding of exegesis and hermeneutics.

      A couple of points regarding Darwinian evolution. First off, whether or not you buy into the specifics of how exactly evolution occurred, there's no denying that's how life propagated and filled the planet. The mere fact that we and chimpanzees both share all the traits common with being mammals makes the concept of evolving from a common ancestor as being the most likely explanation. Add to that the fact that human and chimpanzee share commonality both in being carbon based/DNA based mammals, but also the commonality of our genetic sequences, its hard to argue anything other than common origin through reproduction and changes over time.

      As for my points being speculation and conjecture, that's not entirely true. They've verified for historical legitimacy and accuracy. There's evidence that supports these events happening where and when the story describes. If all there was was my interpretation and the text alone, then yes little more is possible than conjecture and speculation. An argument could certainly be made. That's why I anchored everything I'm saying in historical evidence.

    • profile image

      Neil 14 months ago

      Your points are pure speculation and conjecture based on false assumptions. Your understanding of the exegesis of scripture and hermeneutics is that of a failing catholic schoolboy, but I don't have time to correct all your mistakes here today. Just consider that Darwinian evolution has proven itself to be nothing more than a philosophical hypothesis searching for it's first piece of supporting evidence. Anyone that believes that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor has either not done the research themselves or is just parroting what they've been taught. Evolution might have been a nice notion 150 years ago when you could make such outlandish claims, but in our current day of scientific discovery it is amazing to me that people still believe this fantasy. Young-earth creationism and Darwinian evolution are closed systems based on presuppositions. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is the only field of study into the origins of life that is purely scientific and open to all possibilities.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 16 months ago from Texas

      That, I think, is a very important question. Where there are multiple free wills in the same space there will inevitably be conflict. So, there must be rules/laws, and there must be an authority to set them. Because the will is free, all participants must willfully acknowledge that authority as the authority. That's what this life is for. It's two fold. One, it gives us each the opportunity to experience life with free will, and it gives us each the opportunity whether or not to willfully acknowledge God as that authority.

      Like our roadways. We each have the freedom to go where we wish when we wish, but for it to work for everyone, there must be rules and order. Everyone must acknowledge the authority that sets and enforces those rules. And they must be licensed to be a participant.

      It's all about achieving eternal life with free will. I think the entirety of human existence on this planet will serve well as the knowledge base needed to wield such a capability. This life will show us how destructive it can be and why it's so important that there be rules and that those rules not be broken.

      So, in my mind, the answer to your question is the whole meaning of this life.

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 16 months ago from California

      If humans will continue to have free will, and if all humans are sinners, then how will it ever be possible for humanity to exist in heaven?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 16 months ago from Texas

      It seems human because it's the story about the creation of humanity and the element that makes humanity what we are ... free will. It's modern humanity's origin story.

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 16 months ago from California

      Jeremy, will humans ever cease to have free will?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 16 months ago from Texas

      Yeah, He allowed them to make their own choice and choose their own destiny. That's the whole point. Whatever happens, it was up to you. Nobody forced you to do anything against your will.

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 16 months ago from California

      It failed. He already the outcome and still allowed it to happen. If I have a child who is heading towards boiling water that can kill him, I will stop him. I know what will happen if he falls into the boiling water. Why should I let him die? Nonsense begets nonsense I suppose.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 16 months ago from Texas

      The capability to behave freely of God's will and break God's rules doesn't matter if there's no rule to break. For what? Free will. If we're going to be our own beings with our own minds then we have to be able to behave free of God's will. That's what the garden scenario was setup for. To test His creation. And it worked.

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 16 months ago from California

      Genesis 2:17 - 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.

      Ok, here is this all powerful all knowing God. He goes through all this trouble to create a vast universe. Of course, he only allows us to enjoy 1/10000000000000000000000000000 of it. Then, knowing all along that his little creatures were going to disobey him, he goes along with the whole soap opera. For what???? This has to be the most capricious all powerful God ever created by man. Nonsense.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 16 months ago from Texas

      Right, but living in this case is I think speaking about living of their own wills and not of God's. I know that sounds like a stretch, but the bible makes it clear that there were other humans not 'of Eve'.

    • profile image

      Jennifer 16 months ago

      Eve was the mother of all living (Genesis 3:;20) 3:20)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK3eh4Z5Ko4

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 22 months ago from Texas

      Looks like I have more research to do.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 22 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      The sites to which I refer are:

      Underwater Dwaka (not the one on land)

      Puma Punku and

      Baalbek

      All the above archaeological sites are thousands of years BC. No one really knows who built them.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 22 months ago from Texas

      I just looked up each site on Wikipedia.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 22 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      To what sites do you refer?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 22 months ago from Texas

      Hi Jay,

      Thanks for reading and for the comment. All of these sites date to the first centuries BC/AD. Well in line with what I'm speaking about here in both time and location.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 22 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      We are just beginning to learn about ancient civilizations. Research archeology underwater. See the underwater city of Dwarka off India's west coast. Also see the remains in the Andes such as Puma Punku. Lastly see Baalbek in Lebanon. How old are these remains?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 22 months ago from Texas

      Thank you for that. The more you read it in that light, the more you reflect on different bits of the story, the more interesting it gets. It goes from being a vague confusing mess to becoming a coherent story.

    • colorfulone profile image

      Susie Lehto 22 months ago from Minnesota

      My brain feels like it just got enlightened and expanded. You explained so much very well. Excellent history lessons that I will meditate on as I study the Scriptures in a different way. Thank you!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 23 months ago from Texas

      Jay C,

      There were no known cultures to predate those who already had the knowledge that these beings described by the Sumerians imparted onto them. The beings in the old testament are not angels. Angels are not what the title 'sons of God' is referring to. They are the long-living descendants of Adam/Eve, introduced into a world already populated by naturally evolved humans. These new beings lived for centuries, making them god-like in comparison to naturally evolved humans, just as the beginning of Genesis 6 explains. These beings were prevalent in the area and didn't die out until the time of Abraham. It's these beings who were the inspiration for the mythological gods of the Romans, the Greeks, the Sumerians, and many other cultures in the region. The displacement of all of these beings in the Babel story is what introduced them into each of these regions. Multiple civilizations sprang up from that. This event archaeologically is known as the 5.9 kiloyear event when the Sahara changed back into desert.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 23 months ago from Texas

      Hey Steve,

      Yes, I'm interested. I would love to get this published, but know next to nothing about how to do that. I'd prefer published to self-published. Not sure how you went about it. But I'd love to collaborate on this. I'm intrigued about the two religions thing. This is a topic we share in common and should be able to work together on. In fact, working together, and bringing different views together, is a big part of my motivation.

      Feel free to email me at jeremycchristian@gmail.com and we'll discuss.

      Thanks

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 23 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      History is a story of the rise and fall of civilizations. Catastrophes have occurred which wiped out civilization as we know it with only a few survivors to carry on. Such catastrophes have taken the form of floods from super-volcanoes and comets. See the "Toba Catastrophe Theory." “Atlantean” will be used to stand for a civilization which was lost in a catastrophe. It was migrating Atlanteans who interfaced with the ancient people, not God or angels. In this context the story of Noah and the flood is equivalent to the "Toba Catastrophe Theory". Noah was "Atlantean" in this context.

      All one has to do to fully explain the Old Testament is to substitute the word “Atlantean” for Lord or God or angels for the Old Testament to make sense. All actions by God, The Lord or angels in the Old Testament were by Atlanteans. This reading preserves the history of the Hebrews and absolves God of the atrocities committed by The Lord (ordering the killing of men, women and children.)

    • profile image

      steve 24 months ago

      I am a Muslim and a student of Computer Science at Columbia University in New York. I have always had a very hard time reconciling evolution with theological explanations for humans existence. I very recently came to almost the exact same conclusion you have. I am also a published author and if you would ever like to write a book about your theories I would be happy to collaborate. I think two different religions examining this as a team would be incredible!

    • profile image

      Friend 2 years ago

      we don't know nothing....

    • profile image

      Tom 3 years ago

      Headly, I had been monitoring the other page for your response and so missed all the above! Since writing that lengthy Hebrew commentary I have been made aware of and have noticed many other points, problems and solutions. Perhaps another time I will add to what I wrote.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Raymond,

      Thank you for that. The whole reason I do what I do is because I was at one time right where it sounds like you are. I found myself conflicted about many of these same things. And at one time I actually felt conflicted about being conflicted. Like my faith was slipping because I doubted the more traditional interpretations. I think it helped me when I realized a lot of the forefathers of religion thought much like I do. For example, St. Augustine is a revered thinker to both Catholics and reformists. And St. Augustine believed God reveals Himself to us through both "the book of scripture" and "the book of nature". In fact, there's a whole philosophy known as "natural theology" that's all about gaining wisdom concerning God through observing the natural world. Our modern "book of nature" is more filled with knowledge and information than was available to anyone before this age. So I believe its of the utmost importance to ground what we read in the bible in known history. Most of the traditional ways in which those stories are deciphered are done so by people long ago who didn't have all the information we have now. So it's important to reassess in light of modern knowledge....

      "Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge." - St. Augustine

    • profile image

      Raymond kankomba 3 years ago

      Well, you guys are such great analysts!! I am one person who has always been at cross roads when it comes to believing the biblical explanation about the age of earth vs the scientific age, the flood, adam and Eve etc!!! there are times that I have thought about myself as more of a radical thinker because of the number of questions that I have regarding biblical provisions and their accuracy. I don't believe that the world is less than billions of years in age though i believe that its existence points to some kind of design. I also rubbished the flood issue when I was a teen because I didn't understand why a caring God would want to flood the entire earth just to get read of a few disgruntled humans at some place in the middle east. I also had many questions about putting animals of every kind into that Boat. Having read so much on your hubs really make my thinking feel like nothing. I love you guys keep writing the world is much a better place with your kind around.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      That's an interesting story. I was late getting to it due to an insanely busy schedule, but yeah, philosophical breakdowns can be crucial to a person's moving forward or whatever. I never really encountered a critical situation that re-invented myself or anything, but there did come a time that I began to question everything. The end result of it all, was what I already knew to begin with; cheers!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Yeah, I can't say the impact would be equal for everyone. In my own experience it was nothing short of traumatic. I had just met my now wife. When we met I had a good job with a good company and had just moved in with her. Just a handful of months after I moved in and we began to build a life together, I got laid off. I worked in the travel industry and this was in the months following 9/11. All of the sudden I was this child in an adult body contributing nothing and feeling like a leech. I remember days sitting at home while she was at work, pacing between the refridgerator, looking out the blinds, the peep hole, back to the fridge. And I was crying constantly. I never before in my life cried hardly at all. Now, a particular touching commercial could send me into a tailspin. I couldn't even carry on a normal conversation with my wife because I would just implode. I can't hardly even explain it. I thought for sure she would dump me because I was utterly useless. I couldn't find a job, was out of work for 13 straight months. I went from feeling pretty good about myself to feeling like a total waste of space. But out of that, during what I refer to as the rebuilding period, I became who I am today. I had always been an analytical thinker, but now it was different. I formed this all new philosophical outlook to myself and to life in general. It was after that that I kept noticing in songs and things I'd read others who described something similiar. And it always seemed to be in their late 20's/early 30's.

      I do think there is something to it happening, or at least being maybe a bit more traumatic, for certain kinds of people. People who, not to sound like a total douche here, but people who are more cerebral-dominate than others. People who have maybe built a cerebral concept of reality around them more than just a straight life-experience kind of thing, I guess. It was a philosophical breakdown. A complete collapse and rebuilding of who I am. I guess that's why I maybe saw something similar in you. I see some of myself in the way you write an the way you think.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I guess because I know too many people that have stayed in the same imbecilic/backward/redneck/hillbilly/moronic state of mind their entire life. Sort of like how some people have one speed, the cogwheels of their brain never change gears or rhythm or cycles. Sure, I'm sure some people have cycles of mental maturity later on in life, but it seems that too many people decline in their cognitive function throughout their life.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Human development is undoubtedly cyclical. We lose our baby teeth around the same age, begin to walk around the same age, and begin to speak and understand speech at around the same age. Speech in particular is a development of the mind. Why can't there be phases our mind goes through moving into each cycle of maturity?

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      Oh, so it is a cyclic fascination that you are speaking about? Every mind/brain/soul is different, but it is nice that some people try to pry a cycle upon a natural process that has complete individuality of the utmost divinity.

      Maybe the real concern relates to the percentage of life that actually feels the inner-workings of "the source" as opposed to the life that falls under the mechanics of robotics, talking rocks, or the automation of a nameless organic generator without reason. Yeah, same shit, just worded different. Ha-ha!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      The correlation to Saturn more has to do with its orbit being roughly the same length of time, so of course Saturn would be in the same region when it happens next. I don't think Saturn in any way causes this. But people in the past, observing behavior, correlate it with Saturn because of the similarity in timeline. What I'm more interested in is this maturing process of the mind. Correlating it with Saturn is more to recognize that it is this that those that wrote and spoke of it before are referring. The change people go through every 30 years or so.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I don't know about all of that Saturn-based gyration of spirituality stuff, but I'd definitely say that there are cycles and levels through various stages of enlightenment (and/or 'age of existence per soul' or whatever) albeit a more crude diction for such things would often be more appropriate on this K-3 planet; ha!

      At any insane rate, anytime a person throws out enough random verbiage, there are bound to be enough ambiguous terms to relate to the reader. When I get a bit more free time, I may follow the link you provided and check out what you are speaking about, though.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well, how crazy is it really? The correlation with Saturn could very well just be coincidence because of the length of its orbit. What if the mind also, like the body, goes through stages of maturity? Much in the same way the body sheds baby teeth, roughly around the same age for all, hits puberty roughly around the same age for all, etc. What if the psyche itself goes through stages of 'puberty' every 30 years or so? I was just curious if that's around the time in your life that you wrote that particular piece. I think it was this line in particular that got me to thinking that way ... "It’s time to grow up now, even though you’re different than before; why can’t you fully share?" Conjured a familiar feeling I had once.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      I don't know about any of that crazy stuff. Back when I worked straight midnights for over a decade or thereabouts, I'd often come home from work, drink a few beers and write all kinds of mini-rants, satirical non-sense, informative posts, miscellaneous ramblings and random poetry, etc. It just comes natural for me to play with words and emotions, and doing such things is even easier online when you have the time.

      Personally, as of now, I don't have the time for such things.

      As for the spiritual side of all of this, I was simply born that way via a divine memory, I suppose; ha! I have no choice... I couldn't be an atheist if I tried. I hope some of that makes sense. Oh, I'm glad you liked the poem. I'm sure I can find loads of others to share, but that (the substance abuse poem) was the most fitting for this comment field.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      That's interesting IM. Some of the stuff you said there reminds me of a time in my life that was probably the most defining moment I've experienced. It happened in my late 20's, which apparently is pretty normal. Astrology types associate it with Saturn. I'm a big Tool fan and saw a correlation between what I was experiencing and what was being described in Tool's 'The Grudge'... "Saturn ascends, choose one or ten. Hang on or be humbled again."

      I later found out that Saturn's orbits take roughly 29.4 years. " It is believed by astrologers that, as Saturn "returns" to the degree in its orbit occupied at the time of birth, a person crosses over a major threshold and enters the next stage of life. With the first Saturn return, a person leaves youth behind and enters adulthood. With the second return, maturity. And with the third and usually final return, a person enters wise old age. These periods are estimated to occur at roughly the ages of 28-31, 56-60 and 84-90." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_return

      So, naturally, I'm curious. Were you maybe around the age 27 when you wrote this? In my experience it was like all I held to be my foundation was torn away, leaving me remake myself out of the pieces that were left. I thought I was losing it at the time. But later found out its apparently a transition that many go through at about the same age.

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 3 years ago from Earth

      This sounds more like people comparing flour to crackers, hardtacks, and the all-too-common sliced bread. It is all the same crap, more or less.

      In fact, Headly's last comment reminded me of an old poem I once wrote that was entitled "Substance Abuse." I normally wouldn't copy & paste an old poem like this, but somehow I feel that it relates to the prior exchanges at hand:

      ‘Substance Abuse’

      Life finally hits your cranial structure, without the childishly free-spirited playtime; you are finally aware.

      It’s time to grow up now, even though you’re different than before; why can’t you fully share?

      Inseparable in spirits, even though you feel perpetually disjoined, you acclimate to your surroundings – in hopes to be adjoined.

      It doesn’t work out. Things don’t go right……

      Disfigured in thought and itching to rebel, a coincidental ’substance’ comes across your line of sight that compels.

      Is this a snare, perhaps; is this a shiny glare that beckons for your escape?

      Engrossed by it, you dive into this new type of life that seems to sing toward your life’s band…… Eccentric feelings take place, without the aimless joy of childhood or the responsibility of adulthood; mere ecstasy is at hand.

      Time went by so quick; what happened and what was that?

      I like this; want more; please, come back fast……

      The quick-fix and joy is no longer there……

      The platform for ’substance abuse’ is on; it is a separate course from hereon.

      Once rejected before, you have an artificial family, a fake network, and a feign zone.

      Even though you’re dejected, dispirited and crestfallen, you now have an addictive home.

      *You have ’substance abuse’ without substance.

      *You have integrity issues without an awareness of prior structure.

      What have you forgotten … or was it ever even there to start with?

      Essential nature, essence, substance ... what are you looking for?

      You know the answer, now dig within and find it……

      * Life is endless; cycling like the seasons and light as a feather, what is drifting can settle; what is sediment can be churned into refinement; what is unknown can be known. Together, we can enthrone.

      Side Note: Appreciate Nature’s Mysterious Ways, for we are all attached in one way or another: atomically to the universe, chemically to this Earth, and biologically to each other……

      ---End of poem.

      Ha! At any rate, I thought I'd change it up a bit and join the crowd by breaking out some poetic gobbledygook... LOL!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Uhh, Jim, you lost me on that one. That's quite a bit to extrapolate from Jesus' wording here. Going into that kind of depth can lead to all kinds of conclusions that aren't necessarily true. To suggest that by this wording he's referring to some entire other race of humans is a stretch.

      See, in the way I read it, these verses at the beginning of Genesis 6 is the root of everything ...

      Gen6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      Now, according to Luke 3, in the eyes of the Jewish people of that age, everyone from Jesus to his father all the way back through David, Isaac, Abraham, all the way back to Noah, to Adam, were all 'sons of God'. So, the way I read Gen6 is that it's saying that the 'sons of God' were Adam and those 'of Adam'. 'Daughters of humans' were just that. Mortal in comparison, living only 120 years rather than centuries. Genesis 6 explains, in its explanation for why the flood was necessary, that the 'sons of God' (immortal sons of Adam) began to intermingle with mortal humans (daughters of humans).

      In the chapters that follow that explanation in Gen6 it shows a sharp decline in lifespans. I think this is because of what God said in Gen6, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      I think intermingling with 'naturally evolved' humans diluted 'God's spirit' which was given to Adam when God breathed the breath of life into him. In Ezra I think it is, it mentions how the priority of the Jewish people is to not dilute the 'holy seed'. So, in my view, the creation of Adam was God introducing a being into this world that has a 'free will', which I think is what the Eden story is illustrating. Adam and Eve were capable, unlike anything else in God's creation at the time, to behave contrary to God's will. Intermingling with 'mortal humans' introduced this capability into humanity. This is why I think it then says in Gen6 that humans became 'wicked' and why it says that God 'regretted' putting humans on the earth. He created humans in Gen1 that were the same 'image' and 'likeness' of Adam and his family, and because Adam's family was able to behave however they willed they were not in God's control like everything else. So, of their own free will, they began intermingling with mortal humans which introduced free will into humanity and gave them the capability to be 'wicked'.

      So, when Noah's descendants were dispersed throughout the world at Babel, I think the flood was only local and only meant for those created through this intermingling, so it only had to be in that region, though the entirety of the planet by that time was populated by humans. Just not humans with free will. So, this already populated world is the world that Noah's descendants were dispersed into. That's why I think the ages continued to decline. Because from that point on they continued intermingling with 'mortal' humans. This gave rise to the civilizations in Sumer and Egypt and the Indus Valley and beyond.

      So, basically, the story told in Genesis would be this. It's God working in an environment dominated by free will, and thus not entirely under His control. When God tests Abraham, He finds Abraham to be 'good stock' to breed from. So He tells Abraham that He will make his descendants many. So God makes this happen by interacting directly with the Israelites, giving them specific commands that tell them to breed within their own kind and such. I read this to be God creating Jesus through these interactions. Breeding him, so to speak.

      So the bit about not being 'of Abraham' I take to mean they descend from one of the other lines. Which were the result of free willed beings doing much like Eve did, listening to their own wants and not following God's will, so therefore being 'of Satan', so to speak.

    • profile image

      JIm Olsen 3 years ago

      I concur (regarding to people latching on to old ideas….but I find them to get those ideas from their pastors.) I would certainly like to compare notes sometime….A lot of points unfortunatley must be left by the way-side in communicating like this. But having said that, let's touch on this briefly….

      In John 8, Jesus is talking to the pharisees. They are saying their father is Abraham. Now the first question is, are they telling the truth? Yes!..in the physical sense. However, another bit of truth is Jesus never spoke with the "physical" view in mind. Many examples come to mind….here's one: The little girl who died…Jesus said, "she's not dead, only sleeping"…of course she was dead…..But here's a clue….Jesus apparently views death as sleep….but as usual, I'm drifting off the main point :)

      Back to the pharisees…..Jesus said, "You are not of Abraham,,,you are of your father, the devil. He was a a murderer from the beginning!" He, no doubt, is speaking spiritually. But here's the key. We know from Isaiah 14 & Ezekiel 28 that at one time, the devil Lucifer was perfect. So obviously, Jesus wasn't referring to Lucifer's beginning. What is another really big "beginning" in the Bible? We have, of course, already referred to it in our posts. "In the beginning"..To be fair, however, and in the light of our earlier posts, let's use the word "origin". But notice how Jesus says it…..He didn't say the devil was a murderer "in" the beginning/origin….He said "from" the beginning/origin….from the end of that point on. In essence, Lucifer was a murderer from & including Genesis 1:2….but not Genesis 1:1. What is the obvious question? WHO DID HE MURDER? There must have been someone around at Genesis 1:2. And that "someone" was an entire race of "humans" (perhaps not in the sense that we know them, but some type). They ALL were murdered by Lucifer, as the Bible says, "he smote the people with one continual stroke".

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Don't worry Jim, I've been called a heretic too. People tend to latch on to ideas and translations that were formed long before we had the amount of knowledge we have now, and they feel that letting go of their particular view is somehow a sign of their faith slipping. So they can get protective and defensive about it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well you definitely peaked my interest with the bit about proving Adam wasn't the first being through the book of John. To test my theory I often bounce this idea off of people more knowledgeable than myself of the bible to ensure it doesn't conflict. I've, so far, found nothing but further clarity through this view. Are you referring to the bit about Jesus being the 'last Adam'? I know that's part of the Paulinean view, but not sure it's from the book of John.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      PS….using the Bible as the only source, it can also be proved (via the book of John) Adam wasn't the first being. It can't be done in one short paragraph, tho. :)

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      I appreciate you not considering me crazy. :) We have some definite points of agreement! I do not believe Adam was the first "being" either. And this is an important point concerning Gen 1: 2,3. And there is an important explanation in the next few verses regarding "gods".

      It always amazes me when I tell someone there are "Gods" and also "gods". They scoff & bluster. They say I'm a heretic, and I'm not taking the Bible at it's word or "obvious" meaning. Then I ask them what the 1st commandment is. This usually stops them in their tracks. Now, all of a sudden, THEY don't take the Bible at it's "obvious" meaning….primarily because it doesn't fit with their preconceived notion. It's an old problem.

      I am more than happy to keep typing if you want to keep reading.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Well Jim, I certainly can't call you crazy because I've been down similar paths attempting to decipher what's what word for word. And I am also critical of the English translations.

      If you read my hubs then you'll know I have a rather unique take on things. My alternate take also suggests some problems with the translations. A primary part of that is recognizing that Adam was not the first human ever created, but rather was a being created in an already populated world. A world populated by 'mortal humans' who didn't live the length of lives that Adam and his descendants did. That's the primary reason why the first bit about 'Elohim' jumps out at me. As I'm sure you're familiar, there are other 'gods' spoken about in early Genesis. If beings like Adam and his family were actually created as described in an already populated world, they and all of their offspring would seem 'god-like' in comparison. So it makes sense to me that this text would refer to multiple gods, as that is who they most likely would have gotten an accurate telling of the creation account from. These 'gods' who walked and talked with God.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      Excellent!

      Let's start with an utterly silly analogy. I have a pet goose! He's most amazing! He sings! He's famous throughout the county. His fame reaches your ears. You call to make an appointment to hear my amazing pet goose sing. I am happy to oblige. You ask, "What song will the be performed?" I reply, "The geese will be singing Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody". Instantly, this question almost leaps out of your mouth! "There are more than ONE?" You may not know how many, but by me saying "geese", you know there are more than one.

      So also with this second word of Genesis. I was being somewhat gentle with the translators when I mentioned they choose the phrase "in the beginning". They tried to do well, however, they leaned on their own understanding, (Is there a particular verse that comes to mind that discourages this?), and this "understanding" clouded & colored the actual meaning. They complete obliterated the "number" concept of the word.

      However, when it comes to "God", they went into it with a preconceived notion, and attempted to bend the Bible to fit that notion. The Hebrew (H) word translated as "God" is Elohiym. "El" is the the H word for "God". "el" is the H word for "god". "Elohiym" is the H word for "Gods" PLURAL! By rights, they should have said, "In the first order, rank, & time the "GODS" etc. This, however, would be viewed as heresy, as all of them believed & taught there is only one God. So they changed it. If, however, you go into the Bible with no preconceived agenda, the correct way to translate this word would be "Gods". At this point, we don't exactly know how many, because, again, we are using only the Bible as our reference,,,but we know by the use of the word "Elohiym", there are more than one.

      This brings us to the 3rd word. "Created". This is the H word, "bar-a". To save time & space, let us forego a lengthy H description of this word. A short definition, tho, would be "Born of - the Father". For example, "Bar" is "born of", and "a" is Father (Abba). Example: "Simon BAR Jonah"...Simon was fathered Jonah. "BAR-Abbas", in essence, was named as an orphan. He had no first name…which could take us on an especially interesting study of Easter, and who "the people" chose rather than Jesus.

      The concept here is that something was "born". "Create" sort of works,,,for if you have a child, you have created it, and you have also caused it to be "born". However, if you make a clay pot, you wouldn't say you "caused it to be born",,,Rather, it was "created". The 3rd word of Genesis has a definite "born" quality to it.

      So what was born? The heavens & the earth. (& please note the small "h" & small "e"..this will be important later.) Let's look at these definitions: "heavens" is "that which is aloft", and "earth" is "that which is to be firm".

      Now, of course, the sun & the moon & the planets & and everything else out in space are "aloft"….sort of. I mean, to pinpoint them, you have to look "up". But wouldn't you say the moon & the planets are also "firm"? I mean, we have samples of the moon, and they are rocks….which are very firm. Could we find better words for "heavens" & "earth"? What might be another word for "that which is aloft"? Where would you say God the Father lives? Most people would say "UP"…."in Heaven" (capital H). And how might you describe God the Father? (again using the Bible as our reference). "God is Spirit". So, "UP" in "Heaven" is Spiritual…."That which is aloft" is Spiritual. The Spiritual Realm. "That which is to be firm" is then easily discerned. It is the Physical Realm.

      Genesis 1:1 should read thusly: "In the first order, rank, & time, THE GODS birthed/fathered the spiritual realm & the physical realm"…and does, if you disregard the errors injected by the translators.

      At this point, you will either call me crazy or start to see that the Bible isn't as confusing as we have been led to believe. We have only, however, scratched the surface. I would encourage you to continue. I will share more if you like. But as always, I would suggest one keeps an open heart, and after we have looked at this and the next verses, you would go to the Lord and ask Him if what I'm saying is true.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Go for it.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      Well, we've not even gotten to the second word yet,,,and I've not even begun to address of my original comment. So far, I am presenting the opening steps of a foundation. Actually, we're not told about the "first day" until verse 5. Verse 1 is referring to the "first time".

      But let's consider this……You are saying the Bible is saying God created the heavens & earth, in the First Day. If this is so, what did He do on the other days? The view that this first "time" is the same as the first "day", negates the other meanings of the word….How does one reconcile the other definitions? What then is the "first Rank"?….or the "first Order"? In actuality, there was a First Time & Rank & Order. But in order to understand this, we need to study the next words of verse 1.

      Shall we continue with "God"?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "In the first time" sounds right to me. It's the first day, or the first age, of creation. The 'beginning'. I'm not sure how this goes back to your original point that the first two chapters of Genesis have nothing to do with creation. "In the first time" God created the heavens and the earth. This seems to me to still be consistent.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      "In the beginning" is the English translation (at least by the translators) of one Hebrew word…which is the first word of Genesis. The actual translation of this word would be "In the first order, in the first rank, in the first time". By "actual" I mean, if you saw/read/heard this word in any context in Hebrew life, you would understand it to have 3 meanings…those 3 I just mentioned. The translators had to choose something, so they choose a phrase that sort of encompasses (in their minds) those 3 aspects. You can see how "in the beginning" could possibly be OK. However, it is also limiting….and worse yet, it detracts from the original meaning. Here's at least one way it detracts & colors the original word. Let's say you were coming to my house for a visit. And along the way, a police officer stopped you for speeding. Let's also say in my house I have & listen to a police scanner, and I hear my friend HVNoggin has been stopped for speeding. When you arrive, I inquire, "How fast were you going when you got stopped by the cops?". You reply, "Well, the first time I got stopped, etc….." By you saying this, I immediately conclude you had been stopped more than once…I'm not sure how many times, but I believe it to be more than once. So, too, this opening word of the Bible. In the very first word of Genesis, I am told by implication there are more than one "order", "rank", & "time". At this point, by using only the Bible as my source, I don't know how many o's, r's, or t's, but I do know there are more than one. (that's almost 300 words on a very elementary explanation of just the first word of scripture. Are you interested in going on?)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      I'm willing to listen. I'm intrigued. Please explain.

    • profile image

      Jim Olsen 3 years ago

      The first 2 chapters of Genesis have nothing to do with creation. I can prove this if any are willing to listen.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Thank you, Tom, for the excellent info. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. It's taken me a little while to digest all of this. I think your analysis in regards to when (bara) is used is interesting. Namely because of where specifically it is used. As I attempt to highlight in my write-up, much of what's described in the creation account can be understood to be the causal result of what came before. Or what would have "comes to pass" (hayah). For example, the same laws that shaped and formed the heavens and earth, are the very same conditions that created the seas, the atmosphere, the land, etc. It's as if these things are the 'natural' result of that first creation. No interference or need to override what's already set in motion. For the next example to be the creation of humans is interesting. It's like this was a 'change' in the process. An edit. Something that would not have 'naturally' occurred otherwise, without direct intervention.

      I plan on going over this in more detail, so I may have more to add later. But one of the things I was hoping to get through bouncing these ideas off of others, was an analysis of the text by people who know this stuff better than I to see if it adds or takes away any legitimacy to how I'm reading it.

    • profile image

      Tom 3 years ago

      Alright, it's finished. I'm pasting it to the other page now, and it's very, very long. Please enjoy!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      "Archaeologists have discovered evidence of an early occupation at Ur during the Ubaid period. These early levels were sealed off with a sterile deposit of soil that was interpreted by excavators of the 1920s as evidence for the Great Flood of the book of Genesis and Epic of Gilgamesh. It is now understood that the South Mesopotamian plain was exposed to regular floods from the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers, with heavy erosion from water and wind, which may have given rise to the Mesopotamian and derivative Biblical Great Flood beliefs.[7] The further occupation of Ur only becomes clear during its emergence in the third millennium BC (although it must already have been a growing urban center during the fourth millennium)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Tom,

      Yeah, there is. At the site of Ur, there was an occupation of this land during the Ubaid period (5500-4000BC). There is a silt deposit in the layers there that indicates a flood that literally caps off Ubaid artifacts. It appears that this flood ended the Ubaid occupation in that area.

      Because the only ones the flood would be intended for would be those who were the result of interbreeding between naturally evolved humans and descendants of Adam/Eve, the flood would not have to be global. A regional flood would have accomplished this as these descendants would still be in a rather small area.

      In Gen1, these humans were given very specific commands that would take numerous generations to carry out; 1) be fruitful and multiply, 2) fill/subdue the earth, 3)establish dominance in the animal kingdom. Homo sapiens actually accomplished all of this between roughly 70000BC and 20000BC. In the context of the Genesis story, it doesn't make sense that this would be talking about Adam and Eve as the Adam/Eve story makes it clear that they were able to behave outside of God's will. So how could the humans in Gen1 be expected to carry out these commands if they were capable, as Adam/Eve were, of behaving contrary? If Adam/Eve were the beginning of the humans in Gen1, could God have looked on all He made and deemed it "good"?

      That's what I think the flood was for. God introduced free will into the world through Adam. A free will as in a will apart from God's. A will that is capable of behaving contrary to God's. This intermingling introduced this capability into naturally evolved humans. Only with free will can humans be "wicked"....

      Gen6:1-4 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

      4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

      This right here says that humans are mortal, and only live 120 years. Just one chapter after explaining that Adam and his descendants live for centuries. It's following this that the lifespans sharply decrease. I think this is because these long living descendants of Adam were breeding with "mortal" humans.

    • profile image

      Tom 3 years ago

      My original complaint defeated, your theory has my support! But is there another great flood candidate from around the period you give of 4000 BC?

      The analysis is very nearly done, I should hope to post it in perhaps an hour.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      Also, Tom, I forgot to say, I'm looking forward to seeing your analysis. Let me know when you have it completed.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 years ago from Texas

      You're exactly right, Tom. Cross-breeding means all of us 'civilized' humans descend from both naturally evolved humans (the humans created at the end of Gen1) and Adam/Eve. Mitoconrdrial Eve would just be on the other branch of our collective family tree.

      The way I see this happening is after the flood when Noah and his sons and extended family are dispersed by desertification, they found their way to already settled lands along river banks. Recall they were building a city and a tower at Babel when they were dispersed. So after dispersal, they continued to do the same, only then it was the beginnings of Egypt and the Indus Valley culture in India and Akkad to the north. All the Medeterranian civilizations would have been kick started by this dispersal. With these sons of Noah continuing to live for centuries for multiple generations, these would be who inspired the mythologies of the greeks, the romans, etc.

      It all fits in history and offers some explanations behind things that are still a mystery to us. This is the era that modern humanity emerged. I think the story of Genesis is explaining what happened. What set the modern human world in motion.