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

Updated on August 6, 2018
HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

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

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

Was Adam the First Human?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mythology of the First Civilization

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

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

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

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

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

Were There People Before Adam and Eve?

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

The Books of Moses

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Was the State of the Earth During Genesis?

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

Pre-Flood Genesis in an Already Populated World Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Were the "Others" That Cain Feared?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was the Flood Really Global?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And one after:

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

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

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

Adam Was Not the First Man

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

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

Is this possible?

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

FAQs About Genesis

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

How Was Eve Created?

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

How Old Was Adam?

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

Who Ate the Forbidden Fruit First?

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

Where Is the Garden of Eden?

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

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

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

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

Fruits That May Have Been the Forbidden Fruit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis (Video)

© 2012 Jeremy Christian

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      24 hours ago from Texas

      Hi Scorch,

      Yes, when land first formed it formed as one single "supercontinent" called Pangea, then broke apart and drifted into the form it is now. But this happened during "day 3" of creation, long before the biblical flood.

    • profile image

      Scorch 

      25 hours ago

      Were not the continents attached at one point in earths history? They fit together like a puzzle. Could not this be the reason for a global flood? The word says Gen 8:2-3

      (2)  The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

      (3)  and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated,

      Could not God have caused the continental shift to occur opening the fountains of the deep covering the whole land as it was much closer together? This has been my understanding.

    • profile image

      anastasianastasi 

      8 days ago

      I really respect your outlook.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      13 days ago from Texas

      Bottom line ....

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

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      13 days ago

      Thank you jeremy for the conversation.

      Though i don't agree with your views, i do respect everybody's right to believe or not believe as they choose.

      For me, i could never compromise whats written in the text, the biblical text that is, if i did, i would just discard all of it, but that don't mean not being able to read between the lines, or from being able to distinguish what parts of the sumerian accounts are true or false.

      If you feel the flood story is false, then that's just your opinion, others are just as convinced that a worldwide deluge did happen via other evidences, It's not for you to imply otherwise.

      For me, i know all the accounts mentioned in the bible happened for real, in fact, the bible is so accurate and reliable that you can use it as a map to discover places mentioned in it.

      David Rohl. Egyptologist ( a non believer ) went out to reset dates of biblical events that happened in the bible, while doing that, all the major events that happened recorded in the bible all fell into that time frame, including the Israelites being slaves in egypt, evidences for the plagues, especially mass burials of first borns which was out of custom of mummifications during that time period.

      If you want to reinterpret all the evidence discovered supporting the biblical accounts, names, places, peoples, events that happened, then that's your choice. But I'm convinced the bible is the most reliable book in history, and the only book in history that's truly recorded past world events with honesty.

      I will mention one particular example, the "Taylor Prism" acquired in 1830 by Robert Taylor. It mentions sennacherib's 185,000 army surround Judah ready to overthrow it the following morning. King sennacherib wasn't able to record on the prism that he did conquer Judah like he recorded other nations he conquered, but ( 2 kings 19:35 ) tells why, an angel of God was sent to destroy his army by night. When sennacherib woke up he saw dead bodies everywhere.

      2 versions of one account, but the bible filled in the missing details sennacherib omitted.

      If God was able to deliver Judah from the hands of Assyria in that way, i don't think a worldwide deluge would be out the question either.

      As i said, thanks for the conversation, won't be commenting any further now.

      Peace.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      13 days ago

      Disbelief in how the text is interpreted is disbelief in the text itself if you have to reinterpret it.

      Belief and faith have everything to do with it.

      Peace.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      2 weeks ago

      There's no point even mentioning discoveries if Its going to be dismissed as evidence, by belittling the intelligence of the sumerians.

      The sumerians were just as capable of recording an event that took place as we are today. In fact, the sumerians were just like us in every way, same brain capacity, but without modern technology. They recorded the actual flood itself, but included myths and exagerations, things even people in todays world do.

      Even a small child can report or make a "statement" about an event that happened, plus you cannot compare a worldwide deluge to local floods, and how solid silts would have deposited.

      Them are just preconceptions of how we think things should have happened ( "not" solid evidence )

      As i said, even geologist have different views and opinions.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      2 weeks ago

      The physical evidence you talk about, is also open to interpretation.

      Even geologist have different views and opinions of how certain things came about. You also have open minded geologist "with beliefs" who could show evidence to the contrary.

      Regarding the Nephilim. That's not a contradiction, they just reported what they thought they seen, the people in the land "were" large people.

      Also anyone who understands the history of the land of the canaanites, and what they used to do to people, including children ( via discoveries ) you may wonder why God allowed things to go on for so long in the first place.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Gustas,

      This has nothing to do with belief or faith. There's physical evidence that shows this interpretation of the flood is false. Hard physical evidence.

      This isn't disbelief of the text. It's disbelief in how that text has been interpreted.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      2 weeks ago

      Jeremy.

      Just for now, i would like to say, if we approach this subject with disbelief, we will notice "apparent" contradictions.

      But when you approach it based on faith, the answers come up at a later date. ( Good answers as well ) is that coincidence ? Or Self-deception ?

      With Personal experiences you know the difference. That's "faith and trust"

      Will reply to the last comment as well.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      2 weeks ago

      Jeremy.

      Noticed some contradictions in your last comments. ( Will explain )

      Also the "understanding" of the word "Nephilim" ( Numbers 13 ) is misread.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      The Sumerians had the same limitations in both language and ability to report on the entirety of the Earth.

      It simply isn't logical to think the people of this age could report a flood as being global. They'd have no way of knowing.

      And the evidence clearly shows no global flood. If there had been a time when the entire planet was covered in water then there'd be a solid silt deposit found in every archaeological dig that could be used as a marker. There isn't.

      Not to mention the contradictions a global flood would cause in the text. Like in Numbers 13 where it says the spies of Israel saw descendants of the Nephilim. If the flood were global then there'd be no survivors outside of those on the ark.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Because Genesis starts with God creating all the world. So when one reads the flood they think He's destroying "all" He created.

      I get it. It just doesn't make logical sense considering all the details.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      2 weeks ago

      If they share the same history, then a worlwide deluge actually did happen, because the sumerians recorded that on a discovery found over a centuary ago, at the site of ancient Nippur.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      "But then, you will just say the authors of the bible borrowed stories from the sumerians. "Cannot Win""

      No, not borrowed. The Sumerians lived in the same valley as where the biblical flood happened. These stories aren't borrowed. They share the same history. So they tell many similar stories.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Gustas,

      "but there's discoveries made which makes reference to that flood, some of them discoveris actually ( PREDATE ) the earliest O/T writings, and make reference to that flood."

      How do we know these other references are speaking of the same flood and not just A flood? Any place inhabited by humans will most likely have a water source and at least semi-regular rain. Floods are very common throughout human history as they go hand in hand with the types of environments humans tend to live in.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Gustas,

      "they wouldn't have had any reason to report on the entirety of the planet, not sure the relevance to that ?"

      It's from the biblical description that the concept of a global flood comes from. This is relevant because that can't be what the authors were saying.

      The marine fossil evidence in the mountains is because that land used to be on the sea floor before plate tectonics caused collisions between continental land masses causes land between to buckle up into mountain ranges.

      Land and mountain ranges formed long before the flood.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      2 weeks ago

      About having "evidence in the soil consistent across the globe" ?

      I actually think we do have that evidence. Marine fossils for example have been discovered in there thousands on top of mountains.

      It was argued at one time, the reason for that is because of mountains rising out of the sea, but if that's the case, that could also support waters receding after the flood, as mentioned in genesis. If these marine fossils exist the world over, including mountains, the soil would be the same as well.

      Plus in Australia you have acres of land with fossilised tree stumps, all snapped at the roots, that also seems consistent with a biblical flood.

      Regarding the authors of that biblical depiction, they wouldn't have had any reason to report on the entirety of the planet, not sure the relevance to that ?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      If there had actually been a world wide flood at one point in history then we would evidence in the soil consistent across the globe. We don't. It would be very obvious if that were the case.

      The most compelling argument, I think, is the fact that the authors of the biblical depiction had no way of reporting on the entirety of the planet. Hebrew in that age didn't even have words to describe a flood in that way.

      You have to separate the two; there's the text themselves, then there's the human interpretation of those texts. These are two different things.

      When you and I read the text we read it in the way we've learned it. It's sometimes difficult to see anything other than what we think we already know.

      The people who formed those interpretations that are traditionally taught didn't have the level of knowledge we do now. So it's inevitable that they would have gotten some things wrong.

      That's why reinterpretation is needed. We now know the history of the region these stories are based in. We now know more about the cultures that are mentioned. We can now, for the first time in history, place these stories in the correct historical context.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      2 weeks ago

      OK Jeremy.

      Not sure what scientifically gathered information could disprove a Global flood ?

      For that reason, i can't see any reason for reinterpreting the text either, since as you say, the text themselves aren't in question.

      Whatever information is discovered in those regions, or time frame, all came after the flood ( you cannot go before that )

      A number of "flood tablets" discovered, all make reference to a Global flood, and of a world before that flood. Basically, Sumeria is the begining of mankind again "but after the flood" ( Discoveries support that )

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Gustas,

      The texts themselves aren't in question. They definitely speak of a flood and of Babel and Noah and Abraham. They definitely speak of a specific region and a specific time.

      It's how those words are interpreted that is in question. We now know much more about the history of that region of the world. We now know much more about the Sumerians and the Hittites and others that are spoken of that we knew nothing about back when the traditional interpretations were originally formed.

      Modern scientifically gathered information disproves a global flood. Now that we know that we can re-evaluate the text and figure out what's true and what's misinterpreted. Or, like I've done here, I've found the specific timeframe in which the stories described happened. Then, when you have the correct historical context of the stories, you can better understand what's being described.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      2 weeks ago

      Jeremy.

      I don't understand how the biblical perspective is open to reinterpretation while accepting that there was at least some kind of flood which is in agreement with the Genesis account, and by making references to Noah, Babel, Abraham which all comes from the bible and bible writers.

      What exactly is being reinterpreted if people of the past never had as much information as we do now ? And what information do we have now that disproves the biblical account ?

      All we're doing Jeremy is reasoning, that's before any discoveries are mentioned.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Gustas,

      The multiple legends, I believe, come from the fact that the sons of Noah when they were dispersed at Babel, each arrived at their destinations carrying with them tales of a flood. One local flood spoken about in multiple cultures.

      It has nothing to do with what I want to believe.

      The biblical perspective is open to reinterpretation because the interpretations that most of us were taught were formed centuries ago by people who didn't have as much information as we do now.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      2 weeks ago

      Jeremy.

      How do you explain all the flood legends around the globe ? Isn't that a description of a worlwide flood ?

      Then you have the biblical authors, that's why i mentioned "Psalms" for example, to show that the authors were capable of describing a worldwide flood.

      Just because something don't make sence, or why a God would do that doesn't mean it never happened.

      If it was something you wanted to believe in, you would see all the evidence, but instead, we keep dismissing the evidence. That's why it's a heart issue, but even then, i still respect everybody's views, though i may not agree.

      I also believe the truth about our past, from a biblical perspective is not open to re-interpretation. Though people will reinterpret it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Gustas,

      "Any attempt to reinterpret the scriptures really is a lack of faith"

      I disagree. It's not the scripture itself you're doubting, but the human interpretation of it.

      It doesn't make any sense for the flood to be global. And if there had been a global flood in our ancient past we'd be able to determine that scientifically.

      The language of the bible and it's authors was not capable of describing a global flood. There were no words for that context.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      2 weeks ago

      To Jeremy.

      Without going into all the discoveries discovered over the years, these are just some inconsistencies.

      I know you say there's not enough water to cover the mountains. In one sense that's true, but also wrong at the same time. If we go by earths current geological state, then yes, you are right.

      In just the last few years, ancient cities and shorlines have been discovered under water, while at the same time mountains are being formed via volcanic activity. That also shows the geology of our planet does change to some degree.

      If all mountains and hills were flattened, we would have a deep ocean, to my understanding over 2Km.

      The bible & bible writers are consistent with these discoveries.

      ( Psalms 104:6-9 ) New Living Translation.

      Makes reference to that biblical flood, also stating that mountains rose and valleys sank to the levels you decreed, also setting firm boundaries for the sees, so they would ( never cover the earth again )

      Psalms was written around 3000 years ago. That's a lot of detail to know about the Flood, mountains, and boundaries. But then if we was to argue that anyone could work this out, then the question is why ? They're only supporting an account that actually took place.

      The knowledege of the flood was common knowledge to everyone in ancient times, Especially bible writers, and a number of archaeological discoveries have been discovered supporting this account.

      The real question, does a "Supreme God" exist who can make these things happen ?

      Stephen Hawkins could never work out why our universe even exist, nor was he able to explain what happened before the big bang & where all the matter and energy came from to create the universe.

      Even Carl Sagan & Charles Darwin knew the fossil record never supported the ( theory ) of evolution.

      The heart of the matter comes down to a heart issue.

      Personally, i don't have any difficulty believing the biblical accout of why we are here. Any attemp to reinterpret the scriptures really is a lack of faith, but then, evidence can sometimes lead to faith as well.

    • profile image

      Marcelo Gaye 

      2 weeks ago

      I wanted to share some thoughts on Adam's nature and the question of his sin.

      Genesis 1:26 brings up that Adam was created in God's image. "In the image of God created he created them...Male and female. We tend to believe that this tells of the creation of men and women but I don't believe so.

      As Adam was created he was a perfect man, he had all his parts, he was ONE, he lacked nothing. But some time later, as God thought that it wasn't good for Adam to be alone, he extracts a rib out of him that He forms it into a "woman", the female. So now Adam is not whole anymore, he is not what he used to be. I believe Adam was male and female as he was created, both genders existed within him and that was a perfect being created in God's image who Himself also is: male and female, that's what perfection is. As this separation of Adam's gender occurred Adam became an imperfect individual, prone to error. Eve also suffered the same as she found herself lacking the male side of her being. Doesn't the Bible say when a man and a woman marry they become one, in perfect union?, well that principle comes from this act of separation. We tend to believe that Adam became an imperfect man as he fed from the forbidden tree but that's not so. Adam was already imperfect by this time. Scripture clearly brings out that a perfect tree can only produce perfect fruit and corruption can only bring corruption. Adam in his whole being would have never sinned, he was perfect. This implies God is responsible for Adam's sin and yes he was. Ge.1:26 is God's purpose to crate man as He himself is. The serpent told eve that if she ate of the forbidden tree she would become "like God". Then later on after the sin God says "look the man HAS BECOME AS ONE OF US, to know good AND evil". So what's the problem here?. Wasn't that God's purpose for man, that he be like Him?. As Adam was created Adam was in the image of God but the "software" still had to be implanted, he had to learn. If Adam was to be like God he had to know good AND evil and to this extent God arranged for this experience. God is omniscient, or all knowing, even time past, present and future are all exposed to Him. God was not outwitted by Satan in the garden, that's impossible, God knew and arranged this whole entire experience for Adam and for us. Adam had no idea about life and death, right and wrong, good and evil. Without these Adam lacks power to chose and can not become a free moral agent like his maker. We are all here learning this concepts: Life and death!

    • profile image

      Marcelo Gaye 

      2 weeks ago

      I've come to same realization: Adam not first man on earth. I share with you what I've got. Genesis 1: creation of the Human race. Genesis 2: formation (not creation) of Adam. Genesis 1 all men created last. Genesis 2 Adam is the first leaving being in it. Two different accounts of consecutive events. Genesis 2:1 says the creation of humanity of chapter 1 was a done deal. 2:4 "these (what is at hand, what we already have, genesis 1, not 2) are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created... and every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth...". Earth doesn't necessarily mean whole earth but also country, region, territory, district. So, considering this definition lets read Genesis 2:1-5 like this: these are the generations of heaven, earth, man and plants BEFORE anything grew in a region of it. This region was a parched land, it did not rain there. That was the land from which Adam was formed, apart from the human family. Coincidently the word Zion found often in scripture means "a parched land". I believe this land of Adam was the "natural" Zion, a parched land where God planted a garden for Adam. This land of Zion was awaiting his arrival (2:5, no man there to till the ground). Adam is referred in scripture as a Son of God and forefather of Jesus (Luke 3). Jesus is said to be the "firstborn", has brothers of His own kind (Hebrews 1-3, the angels). Sons of God are from heaven, Sons of Man are earthly (God created all things according to their kind: oranges beget oranges, men beget men, Gods beget Gods). Adam like Jesus BECAME a son of man as he arrived on earth and was given an earthly body. Adam was a different looking man and was civilized, very smart, he knew the sciences and writing. This becomes so as Cain is afraid of being killed by the "humans" outside the garden, who would know there of his murder?, Cain was a different looking man, good looking, large, smart. Also notice that he was driven away from God's presence, obviously this presence was in the Garden exclusively. Adam and his descendants were the teachers of mankind but, they loved the flesh, they took a liking of it and they messed up. Therefore God called them back except Noah. This was a flood of the land of Zion, not earth. Notice that Noah migrated into Shinar, Sumerian land, were civilization first sprung up as if in a day, out of nowhere according to history. This is the story of a divine seed planted on earthly soil (humans) that would overtake the whole world of Gentiles (the humans of Ge.1). I'd have more to share here but it would be long. Thanks for your article!!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 weeks ago from Texas

      Chauncey,

      In regards to the Sumerians it's mainly an attempt to show the rapid progression they made in a very short time. It's to illustrate the impact these biblical events had on the population that existed in that place and time.

      Biblical authors I just try to keep in perspective the knowledge level at the time. Which would have been comparable to the Sumerians in their measuring time and years and such.

      I don't mean to make it sound like the Sumerians were greater. In fact, some of the biblical characters ARE Sumerians. Abraham's father, for instance, was from the Sumerian city of Ur.

    • profile image

      Chauncey Davis 

      2 weeks ago

      Jermy Christian why do you talk about how smart these people (Sumerians) were and the systems etc. that they built. But when it come to the people of the Bible you say they should not or could not have had the knowledge that they had.

    • profile image

      She 

      2 weeks ago

      Yes.It does only temporary.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      She,

      I think there is a point. Sticking a single man and his family on a boat in the middle of a large flood isolates that family from the rest of the population.

    • profile image

      She 

      3 weeks ago

      If Noah could travel to dry land, there was no point of making the ark which took many years and much effort to do so. Just thinking about it!

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      3 weeks ago

      Ok Jeremy. Will do.

      There's a lot of interesting discoveries being made over the years.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Thank you Gustas,

      Please do share any discoveries relevant to this, whether it supports what I'm saying or not.

      What I'm presenting here is consistent to all the elements involved to the best of my knowledge and understanding. It's entirely evidence based. That's the only thing I'm loyal to, so updates to that will always be greatly appreciated.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      3 weeks ago

      Thanks Jeremy.

      Noticed a number of inconsistencies in what you say, but despite that, i do appreciate your views.

      It's an interesting subject.

      May mention some of them inconsistencies at a later date, including discoveries found, but despite any evidence, which can always be interepreted in a different way, i think it's impotant to respect all peoples views, opinions, and beliefs, regardless of evidence.

      I believe people with a faith should respect those who choose not to have one, and the other way as well.

      It's no point having a faith if we don't want to believe. Any evidence really should assist or support what we say, but do appreciate your views.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Gustas,

      Yes, you're right, most of the planet is covered in water. But the water that would come from rainstorms comes from the ocean, and there's still not enough to raise the ocean level above all land.

      We get the impression from the bible that the planet was covered, but that's mainly because the people doing the translations assumed a global flood. So where a word might mean 'hill' or 'mountain', they chose mountain.

      The authors during that age wouldn't have even had the language to describe a global flood. No concept of a whole planet. And could not report on the status of the whole planet if even they did know.

      The flood was only regional. If there had been a global flood we'd have evidence to support that. There's no evidence to support one flood at one time covering the Earth.

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      3 weeks ago

      Mig, Jeremy, if you dont mind me saying, our globe is currently covered by over 70% of water. The other 30% would have receded over time. When Noah was in the ark, he sent out a dove to see if the waters receded enough, so the idea of water receding was already there.

      Plus one side of our planet is totally covered in water.

      The idea of our globe being totally covered in water is no more unbelievable than 70% currently covering our globe.

      The writers of the bible would not have known how much water covers our globe.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 weeks ago from Texas

      Mig,

      It can't. And the writers of Genesis wouldn't have had the language or the grasp of the layout of the Earth to be able to report the Earth's status globally.

      It only sounds global to us modern readers who know the Earth as such.

    • profile image

      Mig 

      4 weeks ago

      To anyone,

      How can a globe be covered entirely by water?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      4 weeks ago from Texas

      I appreciate your concern, Troy. But isn't the "past" where you got these ideas about needing to worry about your soul and the "right path to heaven"?

    • profile image

      Troy 

      4 weeks ago

      Why dont you let the past be the past and quit posting what you think cause they are not facts and worry about your soul and others you could help direct them on the right path to heaven

    • profile image

      Gustas banderas bandelious. 

      5 weeks ago

      KeP. You can't just throw about information, then come up with your own biased conclusions, that's not fundamentalism, you cannot even call it science.

      The sumerians didn't just just come into existence out of nowhere either, they came out of that biblical flood, that's why in nearly every country and ancient tribe they all have some record of that flood. But lets just say they all borrowed ideas and stories from each other which really don't make any sense ? that would still show all mankind had the same origins, all connected to each other.

      What other way is there to interpret evidence ?

      If you want to believe in aliens, that's your choice, but it's not scientific, and don't believe people like "Jay C" should go about insulting a christian woman on her Hub Page asking her owkward questions intended to humiliate her. No religion has all the answers, but even the God of the bible don"t give all the answers either, you've got to have some faith.

      Everyone has faith in something, why is the God of the bible out of the Question ???

    • profile image

      KeP 

      5 weeks ago

      Jeremy, I don't understand how you put up with these Christian fundamentalists telling you by admission that "they know better than you"????

      What if THEY were of an alien race threatening to wipe out mankind?

    • profile image

      jimmy 

      6 weeks ago

      Jay C OBrien.

      I'd be ashamed of myself asking a female christian on her Hub Page, does your god kill children, as in the case of the canaanites.

      You wasn't looking for answers. You talk of peace, but like the woman said, "You just want to fight"

      One day, i may answer your questions myself, but right now, i don't think you even deserve to hear the answers because you wont appreciate them.

    • profile image

      jimmy 

      6 weeks ago

      You got it the wrong way round, the people of the bible never borrowed ideas from the Sumerians, the bible just states facts and what happened regardless of whether the Sumerians agreed with it or not. The fact that the Sumerians predated the book of genesis doesnt prove the bible wrong either, the discoveries add to the accuracy of the bible despite the exaggerated claims of people living over 30,000 years and so on.

      The bible is accurate, the Sumerians recorded the same details but included myths & exaggerations mixed in with facts.

    • profile image

      jimmy 

      6 weeks ago

      Adam was not the first human ? I can tell you that one is wrong just using mathematics alone. Jay C OBrian is also a confused person who obviously dont know the mind of God. God dont think like 'Jay C' or humans do. Thats why you will spend your whole life going round in circles and still never understand the bible or the mind of God, and why he orders certain things to be carried out.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 

      6 weeks ago from Houston, TX USA

      We agree on the first two paragraphs. We disagree on the third paragraph. Torture and killing are not of God. We are here to learn, not to be tormented. Where the Bible depicts God as torturing or killing (especially children) it is Blaspheme. See:

      https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 weeks ago from Texas

      Yes, anything evil is of humanity. We have the free will to behave outside of and contrary to God's will. Our minds are free to create, and our hands are free to follow.

      We are creators. We create things in this universe that are not "of God".

      God is not being evil in the bible. God is doing what's necessary. Evil acts aren't necessary.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 

      6 weeks ago from Houston, TX USA

      Jeremy, sin is in the mind first and when we concentrate, it becomes physical. Mind is the builder, the physical the result. We build our house with our thoughts. Our emotions good or bad are part of those thoughts. The House rule is to Love one another. We cannot control the people around us, but we can always control ourselves.

      My theory is that God does not condemn because Jesus did not condemn. All Condemnation is a projection from Man and is Not of God. The enforcers in This world are the local Peace Officers who are taught to use the least amount of force to restore Peace. After 20 years as a Peace Officer I have learned that Deadly Force is Not needed. Peace Officers are not taught to torture or kill or make war.

      God is the Ideal, Perfect. We cannot have a God which is Evil, by definition. Negative human emotions such as Jealous, Vengeful or Wrathful are Not of God, but of Man. The Bible contains stories depicting God as Evil. Torturing and killing is evil and if applied to God is by definition Blaspheme. How much of the Bible is Blaspheme?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 weeks ago from Texas

      Jay,

      Good to see you. It's been a while.

      I'm not sure jealous, vengeful, or wrathful accurately applies. If you're living in someone's house, and that person's given you rules to follow, and you keep breaking those rules, should that person's response be considered vengeful or wrathful? What's the point of rules if not enforced?

      As for "jealous", I really don't think that applies either. All the universe is God's creation. He's the authority. The DNA, so to speak. So for beings to be following something else and allowing that to influence what they do, I don't know that jealousy is the right term in that light.

      Generally a complex system has a single code of conduct. Like the body's DNA which allows numerous individual components to behave together as a single system. Behavior outside of this code is a threat to the system. It's not jealousy to demand allegiance. It's simply necessary.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      6 weeks ago from Texas

      chris allen,

      Feel free to post your thoughts here. I'll be happy to tell you what I think.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 

      6 weeks ago from Houston, TX USA

      Chris Allen, we do not need to be Bible scholars to read it. You have every right to state your thoughts in the matter. The Bible was written by Men with their own point of view. Surely God is Good and Not Evil (jealous, vengeful, wrathful). Bible stories are a Projection of the authors. Any story which depicts God as Evil, is Blaspheme. Now, read the Bible with this in mind. How much of the Bible is Blaspheme? 80%? 90%?

    • profile image

      chris allen 

      6 weeks ago

      Jeremy Christian,

      I'M not a bible scholar, But was raised in a religious house where I was taught to believe in god and the bible. I do not practice any set religion, so perhaps I don't have any right to state my thoughts in this matter. But I feel you opinion has merit . I feel the bible that was the word of god, should not be taken in a completely literal sense. God did give the word to holy men, but I do also feel through the ages less holy men have changed and edited it, like king James for example. Lastly I feel if you have an open mind, there can most definitely be a coexistence between the bible and science. you can I feel, even take things like the big bang and have the bible coexist .I would love to some time pick your brain about my thoughts on these matters. if you would be so kind as to indulge me on my many different thaughts

    • profile image

      Tea 

      8 weeks ago

      Christian,

      In God's love, I emplore you to re-read Genesis 1:29 :

      And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruits yield seeds; to you it shall be for food. NKJV

      I beseech you to consider and reseach the following excerpt:

      The Journal of Biblical Accuracy

      'who is the author of the Bible and who wrote it' Anastasios Kioulchoglou

      Though first of all, I hope and pray that your eyes will be open and that you will be pleasantly surprise, what the Truth will reveal and offer to you, only if you truly seek and want to know the Truth.

      Here are quick references-- from NKJV

      2 Timothy 3:16

      "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for *instruction in righteousness" *training, discipline

      2 Peter 1:20-21

      "knowing the first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy never came by the will of man , but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. "

      Galations 1:11-12

      But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

    • profile image

      Peter 

      2 months ago

      Thank you for these discussions

    • profile image

      Little Maroon 

      2 months ago

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

    • profile image

      Little Maroon 

      2 months ago

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

    • profile image

      Clark 

      2 months ago

      Deuteronomy 29:29 New International Version (NIV)

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

    • profile image

      Mark Moore 

      2 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Mark,

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

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

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

    • profile image

      Mark Moore 

      2 months ago

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

    • Alan Modisette profile image

      Alan Modisette 

      2 months ago from Bali, Indonesia

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Larry,

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Larry,

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

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

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

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

    • Larry A Busick profile image

      Larry A Busick 

      2 months ago

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

    • Larry A Busick profile image

      Larry A Busick 

      2 months ago

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

    • profile image

      Fullgencio D. Roda 

      2 months ago

      Thedecadentone,

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

    • profile image

      2 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Cindie,

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

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

    • profile image

      Cindie Jenkins 

      2 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Wanita,

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

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

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

    • profile image

      Wanita 

      2 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      D. Smith,

      Did plenty of that during the course of this research.

    • profile image

      D.Smith 

      2 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

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

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

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 months ago

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

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

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      kimmy,

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      nicole,

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

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

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

    • profile image

      nicole 

      2 months ago

      the bible is true matthew was the first one

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

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

    • profile image

      KUDAKWASHE KUIMBA 

      2 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      Re: Before Abraham was

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

      Re: two different creation stories

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

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

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      2 months ago

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Zeroszabo,

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

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

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

    • profile image

      Zeroszabo 

      2 months ago

      Here is thd problem with that.

      1 Corinthians 15:45 KJVS

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      ismail,

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

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

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

      That's how I read it anyway.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Felix,

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

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

    • profile image

      Felix Johnsson 

      2 months ago

      1 Corinthians 15:45

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      WIZ-DON,

      I'm not sure I follow.

      First God created men and women (1:27)

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

      Then created Adam (2:7)

      Then created Eve from Adam (2:22)

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

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

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

    • profile image

      WIZ-DON 

      2 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      2 months ago from Texas

      Larry A Busick,

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

    • Larry A Busick profile image

      Larry A Busick 

      2 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 months ago from Texas

      Care to explain? What specifically are you calling BS?

    • profile image

      frank hilton 

      3 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 months ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      Regarding God creating Jesus.

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

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 months ago from Texas

      TobyO,

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

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

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

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 

      3 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

    • profile image

      TobyO 

      3 months ago

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile imageAUTHOR

      Jeremy Christian 

      3 months ago from Texas

      DRWatsonNZL,

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

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

    working

    This website uses cookies

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

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

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