Skip to main content

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

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.

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.

Romans 8:20 - For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice , but by the will of the one who subjected it

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)

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.

Chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis (Video)

© 2012 Jeremy Christian


Thedecadentone on August 12, 2020:

Precisely, Malcolm. Genesis is not the story of the first humans, it is the story of the eternal king's lineage. The garden of eden was the perfect incubator and clearly outside of the garden life was as science claims it to be, harsh and horrible and natural and deadly.

Hence a fiery sword being used to keep people out.

Augustine iirc was really the first champion of the belief about Adam and Eve being the first and everyone else such as Cains wife was a direct descendant of his father. Jews both ancient and current never made a big deal about such things as heaven, hell, nitpicking how similar evolution and scripture is, etc.

Malcolm on August 11, 2020:

Jesus is the second Adam, He came to redeem mankind to be like God. Man already existed when Adam came to make man the image of God also.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on June 23, 2020:

Hi Bonita,

By '2nd Earth' I assume you're speaking in the context of the gap theory with the second Earth being the second creation after Gen1:1? If you read my hub on creation then you'll see I don't subscribe to that particular speculation, but in that context it would all be the same. With the first Earth in this scenario really being irrelevant.

Stephen Robertson on June 21, 2020:

Finally I've found someone speaking reason! I've read the first few sentences and now I'll read the rest.

Bonita M Williams on June 20, 2020:

Who Was The First Human Person To Create A kingdom On 2nd Earth?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on May 20, 2020:


I can't speak for everyone, but for me it's about stripping away everything I've ever been told about what it says by institutions who decided what's what and have stuck to it blindly for centuries, and re-evaluating it in light of modern knowledge gained throughout those centuries.

And if you do that, like I'm attempting to show, you'll find that there are actually quite a lot of words that are correct.

thelastwiseword on May 19, 2020:

It's incredible to me how still today people are interpreting and reinterpreting the biblical scriptures to fit their personal understanding. The need to add to what the scriptures are saying. Is due to the lack of clarity of the scriptures themselves. We are merely desiring to impose on ancient writings an interpretation that they don't possess, having relative to us today. Not one word of it is correct, and many biblical scholars and scientists have refuted its claims. But because people just want to believe the bible is true, these conversations about scriptures persist.

Fortunately, most millennials are not believers of the bible, and the day will soon come when this blind faith in a belief that has never borne fruit will die the death it should long ago have died.

Melina on April 23, 2020:

We didin't evaluate from monkey's, they can't prove it even and it is a Theory, Adam was the first man, God made him from earth's dust

he didin't make monkey or fish that becomes human later

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on January 07, 2020:


I have studied, extensively. That's why I can't agree with you that the sons of God are angels. Just search the bible for "sons of God". You'll find that it's never used to describe angels. The only passage that makes people think that is the story in Job.

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”?

The sons of God being angels is a misconception that only confuses things. It's important in understanding the story being told to know what this means.

In Luke 3 it describes Jesus' entire family line all the way back to Adam as "sons of God". Not angels,

Susan on January 04, 2020:

Sons of God are the angels who left their first estate. Mated with humans and created the Nephillum and corrupted the Earth. That is why God destroyed the Earth with the flood. The 120 years was not for the age of people. It was given to people as a countdown to how

many years they had until the flood. I have never heard anyone interrup the Bible such as you. You need to study more. You are really mixed up on what it means

Thedecadentone on October 13, 2019:

Derp, sorry, my bad. I meant that 'daughters of man' could be the line of Cain in response to Matts post, hence my rant about Cain and Mormons. Had a late night brain fart for a minute there.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on September 27, 2019:


The 'sons of God' are Seth's line. It specifically says it in Luke 3 when it says Jesus is the son of Joseph, son of Heli.... son of Abraham ... son of Noah ... son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.

Thedecadentone on September 27, 2019:

Sons of God could be the line of Seth, but it wouldn't explain how interbreeding causes physical mutations. That line of thinking is why the Mormons claim that they 'used to believe' (funny the official stance didnt change until 2013) Cains curse is that he was given immortality and turned black so he can wander about like a demon bothering people, and is why black people were thought of as cursed because they were his descendents. I love when people cherry pick verses. Like the scores of people who believe every word of the bible means exactly what it says, and yet gloss over passages such as those of Jesus who was literal maybe half the time. I thought the ancient Jews and Jesus' disciples were just dense and simple minded for the longest time when really, it was just God trying to draw people who truly loved and fervently sought to understand his truth. I understand most of the bible is literal, but we can’t fall into the trap of believing every single word in every language in every version of the bible means only their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory. Then we become like the legalistic pharisees and we know what Jesus thought of those guys. Yet here we are, parroting what other people tell us what the bible means, cherry picking what they do or don't want to be literal.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on September 25, 2019:


I never could get on board with the idea that Cain's line was unrighteous and that Seth's was righteous. What about Cain's line made them so different? Because Cain killed Abel?

And the other issue with that is that Gen 6 describes the "daughters of humans" as being "mortal" compared to the sons of God and only living 120 years while Gen5 describes Adam's line (sons of God) as living for centuries.

Matt B on September 24, 2019:

Jeremy--I like how you attempt to separate the sons of god, from daughters of men, as being totally different. I must tell you tho, your missing the truth. Sons of God were clearly Adam's bloodline thru Seth, The daughters of men were "men" and there daughters, from Cain's line, which was an "unrighteous" bloodline, Seth's bloodline was "righteous"...and very planned out...10 Men from Adam to Noah...10 from Noah to Abraham..ect. Its so easy to understand !

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on September 12, 2019:


Look at Genesis 6. It describes two groups, the 'sons of God', and the 'daughters of humans'. Humans it describes as "mortal" and says only live 120 years. The previous chapter described Adam's kin as living for centuries.

Genesis 6 comes right before the flood and explains that these 'sons of God' married and had children through the "mortal" 'daughters of humans'.

This is why the lifespans decreased so rapidly. They were intermingling with "mortal" humans. Their offspring, the Nephilim, still lived for centuries, just not as many.

Kevin G Amburgey on September 12, 2019:

Hopefully you see this. I've kind of leaned towards this belief for quite some time. The one thing bugging me though, that I can't seem to find a reasoning for, is why did the ages of mankind start falling so drastically after the flood? And if this long life "gene" for lack of a better word, was in Adam's seed, why wouldn't there still be a lineage of people to this day that live way longer than everyone else? Would mix breeding with those not in your blood line cause this trait to slowly be lost? Just curious your opinion. I also find it fascinating when you compare the ages and time lines surrounding a flood with the Sumerians, their Kings list has people living well into there 900's and 1,000s of years. I feel like it's possible that these King's were indeed the Nephilim spoken of. They shared that DNA trait from Adam. Them being of the chosen lineage would make them great picks to become Kings and leaders. Especially if everyone else around you is living 80 years or so. It's just awesome to see that our history of earth, and even science doesn't have to be contradictory when applied to the Bible, but can actually be backed up and supported of sort. These tales of great powerful immortal like people could very well have been this lineage. Anyway, great read. God Bless.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on September 09, 2019:

I don't think it's accurate to say they were the first spiritual people. All life has a spirit. That's what makes it a living thing. What's illustrated through the garden story as unique to Adam and Eve is the free will to behave contrary to God's will.

Ernie Jacobs on September 09, 2019:

I do agree. Adem and Eve wasn't the first people on earth. But. They were the first spiritual poeple on earth. Its all about logic. Where dit Adem and ave children got wife's if there wasnt any ather people. Not logic.

Antonio50S on August 30, 2019:

Jeremy. You too cool you are. I like that quote from the Matrix. Give man "Free Will" they end up corrupting every biblical teaching that was meant to hold us together, but the real Magic is when we see them teachings work for real in life "Especially the teachings of Jesus" It beats all other ideologies people have ever come up with down through the ages.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 29, 2019:


I agree. It's all about restoring what was lost. God gave us free will through Adam and Eve and is now giving us the opportunity to experience it and make our own decision for ourselves whether or not we want to be a part of it.

And the bible accomplishes exactly what I believe it was meant to.

I agree context is important. And I agree Sumer was the result of Babel. Post flood Sumer. There were a people there in that region before as well. And like before where Cain came in and influenced the first phase of Sumer, the people scattered at Babel arrived in the region and did the same thing. Spawning the second phase of Sumer.

That influence, first from Cain, then from the sons of Noah and their families, was free will. It's altered the way humanity exists on this planet ever since.

Mille on August 29, 2019:

The time of the Sumerians were after the flood. Adam and Eve were already been created by God. The Sumerian were the result of the rebellion in the Tower of Babel. When God confused their tongue, those that could understand each other, they went as groups to settle. One of these groups called themselves the Sumer, Sumerians. They were not the first man and women nor the first civilization. This article has many twisted issues. Not knowing the when, where, will take the bible out of contents. This is the conflict I see here. Assuming is not truth or facts. God is God whether the Sumerians publish their book first or not. God is the Creator, He created man and women to have fellowship with them. When they sinned God brought redemption when He sent His son to die and ascend to heaven where He sits in heavenly places. The bible is the inspired word of God that teaches the true hope and final triumph for those who accept Him as their savior. In the bible we learn that God said, not to commit idolatry,(the act of worshipping man made gods). The book of Enoch and others were not added to the bible because it has nothing to do with redemption. There were many other books written but not inspired by the Holy Spirit. God is interested for individuals to find their way back to Him to restore what was lost through sin in Eden, (man lost His image). There is a place for believer and also for unbelievers the choice depends in each individual. I pray you make the right decision. He already paid the price for you.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 28, 2019:

Animals do not have free will. Free will isn't the same as intelligence. Free will is what makes humans an anomaly in the natural world. I think a quote from the Matrix actually puts very well what I'm speaking about ...

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

He's exactly right. Animals, much like humans before the events of Genesis and the birth of civilization, live in harmony with the natural world. We modern humans bend the world around us to our will. That's free will. That's what sets us apart from all other life on Earth.

Thedecadentone on August 28, 2019:

It very likely would have stopped Cain if God had told him directly that the punishment was sevenfold. Doesn't say how Cain killed Able, but I can imagine it was awful since blood was spilled. Probably something akin to how Able slaughtered his sacrifices.

I think you might be mixing free will with intelligence. Do animals have free will or merely instincts they must follow? So if they would have killed Cain without the mark, why did they let him build a city? Scripture doesn't say harm anywhere in regards to Cain. He said they would kill him, and gods mark only activates when he is killed. It's just as likely they would have just beat him up and kicked him out rather than let him rule over them. Doesn't say he took over Enosh, or got it after marrying his wife, but was rather the founder of the very first city.

While I do agree with your theory, I am playing devils advocate as I see what I think are a few flaws skeptics might latch onto.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 26, 2019:


The only scenario in which a mark would have been effective would have been where there was no free will. If Able were marked, would that have stopped Cain? Presumably not.

Humans without free will could very well have harmed Cain I think. Harm and killing is a common occurrence among animals in the animal kingdom. Gen1 naturally evolved humans have been making and using weapons for 400,000 years.

A new creature, like Cain, in their environment could very well have led to Cain being harmed.

Thedecadentone on August 26, 2019:

Gaton, when you say saint, you dont mean Mormons, do you? They treat Cain like an immortal bigfoot bogeyman type person who reveals himself to and pesters them from time to time. They also use him as a reason why it's okay to be racist to black people because Cain was apparently turned into a black man according to their founders. Wasn't until 2013 they retracted their belief that being black was a curse. If you mean one of the Catholic saints, well, unless it was one of Jesus' desciples, Paul, or one of the seventy who directly received the power of the holy spirit in Acts I would take their claims with a grain of salt. Not saying it couldn't have happened, but I'm cynical of it.

Jeremy. Well, the naturally evolved humans had no free will and had to obey every command of god, no? No mark would have been necessary as they wouldn't have had the ability to choose to kill Cain if God so willed it. God would have no qualms whatsoever forcing people who cannot choose for themselves to leave Cain alone. Only people who could make the choice to kill or not kill someone out of revenge would need a mark warning them to stay away. If there were more of Adams descendents alive, the mark would have been necessary to convince them to leave him alone. Only people who knew Cain would have wanted him dead as well. Why should people he didn't know, who have never heard of him, and didn't live on the land of his father, care?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 25, 2019:


Cain, Adam, and Eve have all proven capable of disobeying God. So how can a mark ensure his safety?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 25, 2019:

Gaton Don,

The problem with that, if the population was made up of Cain and Abel's extended family, why the mark on Cain? Wouldn't they all already know who Cain is? Why mark him to keep him safe?

Gaton Don on August 25, 2019:

Interesting article Jeremy.

Most people think Cain killed Abel at a young age, but according to several saint visions Cain killed abel when was at middle age. So Cain and Abel had fathered several dozens of children, and Adam and Eve fathered dozen of children also, so it's highly probably that Earth was well populated by the time of the first murder.

Arows on August 25, 2019:

Religion is a bullshit

Thedecadentone on August 21, 2019:

Watchman. I'm not Hebrew so why should I adhere to Jewish Levitical law? Are you murdering everyone you come across who you know is committing adultery or who is a homosexual or habitually disobeys their parents? We who accept Jesus' sacrifice are free from the law of sin and death. Not from all, or even a tittle of the law, but some interpretations of it. So I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate from your queries.

Yet since we're throwing around New Testament chapter and verse, I shall rebut with the following:

Ephesians. 2:11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Taking scripture out of context doesn't work around here, my friend.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

All scripture, yes, but not disjointed verses cherry picked from all corners of the bible and used to support a personal worldview.

Antonio50S on August 21, 2019:

To Watchman.

There's a difference between quoting bible verses and KNOWING the scriptures. Even ( OLD NICK ) quoted the bible.

I may answer your question myself, but to be honest, only a fool who don't want real answers would ask dumb questions like that.

Jeremy knows the bible better than most churchgoers i ever met.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 20, 2019:


That passage you quoted starts with ..."I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

They are fulfilled. The requirements laid out regarding the sabbath and what to eat and all of that.

That all still mattered. Served the purpose. But now they're fulfilled.

Watchman on August 20, 2019:

Till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle shall pass from from the torah till all be fullfilled. Mt. 5:17-20 are you keeping the true sabbath? Are you eating swines flesh, are you keeping pagan holydays?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 14, 2019:

I appreciate the clarification

Thedecadentone on August 13, 2019:

Oop, made bit of a mistake there. It's based on some writings supposedly found in the dead sea scrolls telling of Paul's being banned by someone thought to have been James. But I got my biblical figures mixed up a bit there, combining him with when John (who was an apostle) and other Messianic Jews were kicked out of a supposedly Christian church by a leader named Diotrephes in 3 John: 9-11.

Antonio50S on August 10, 2019:

Thanks Jeremy. That's my Approach to things as well now.

( 1 John 4:1 ) Test the Spirits. Test the claims of any institution. If they're true, they ought to be able to substantiate any claims made, or questions asked. But if they start getting authoritarian and prefers you to only ask the Questions set out in THEIR OWN BOOKS only, then they likely fit the description of the entire verse of ( 1 John 4:1 ) True "Freedom in Christ" is a Freedom that no institution can give.

( Acts 17:11 ) The "Bereans" NEVER just accepted what Paul said, but rather examined the scriptures daily to see if what he said was true. Keeping ( 1 John 4:1 ) in mind, it's even more important to do that with all these various institutions, ALL claiming to be a prophet in one form or another, while ALL contradicting themselves at the same time.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 09, 2019:


That's interesting about Paul. Do you have anything you can refer me to to read more about Paul's excommunication?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 09, 2019:

Antonio and Thedecadentone,

I appreciate the discussion guys, and particularly appreciate input like the referral to Acts 15, Antonio. That's exactly the kind of thing that fascinates me. I'm woefully under-familiar with the NT. I am a christian, but I've never claimed to be a good one.

I feel its important to periodically make it clear that despite how I may come off in this type of discourse, it is not my objective to argue or "be right" and I'm not doing what I do to "win souls" or convince anyone of my way over theirs. I just enjoy talking about and thinking about these things.

I want to be corrected if I'm wrong about something. But I'm not going to just swallow every argument given. I'm going to wrestle with it. Poke at it. Question it. You might have to convince me I'm wrong. But I'm totally open to being wrong. I just blurt out what I honestly think. If something I think is true isn't, I want to know about it. I want to fix it. Get it right.

So I always appreciate when someone participates in these discussions that can bring some wisdom and knowledge in with them.

Antonio50S on August 08, 2019:

I will say though Jeremy.

Putting Institutions to one side, There's a lot of "Individuals" out there that are doing a Great Job, who are a Great example to many. "Cannot" fault those despite their imperfections.

Antonio50S on August 08, 2019:

Also about "The word of God"

As i said, i agree with you, but one thing that makes the message of Jesus harder to accept is the warning Jesus gave about "False Prophets" in ( Matthew 24 )

You know, the truth is, there's NOTHING in the N/T to show Jesus or God is going to use Prophets in the "Later Days" People can do the work of a prophet in the sense by proclaiming the the Gospel message of Christ, but NOBODY has been appointed directly as a prophet. Them days are GONE now, and that is really odd considering the amount Religions, Institutions, even Idividuals all claiming to be Gods prophet, while at the same time contradicting other prophets. All that does is discredit the name of God & Jesus. Yes, sure, they ALL think what they're teaching is "God's Word" but it's also odd how so many are (( arrogant & boastful, elevating "THEMSELVES" HIGH UP as if somehow "I'M SPECIAL, I'M the ELITE )) "funny that"

In the Old Testament one of the biggest problems the people had to deal with, as well as themselves, was "False Prophets" the reason they were there was for similar reasons above, but MOSTLY to make it harder to recognise the genuine Prophets God sent.

When Jesus said many will come in my name ( Matthew 24 ) he knew none could literally claim to be him, since none of them could raise the dead, but they will claim to be his spokesman nonetheless, "In Jesus name for example" They come in various disguises, that's why Jesus went into some details as to what to watch out for.

Putting it simply, a "False Prophet" by "Bible Definition" is anyone from a "Single Individual" right up to large "Religious Organizations & Institutions"

All the O/T pointed towards the Arrival and birth of the Messiah, JESUS.

After the disciples seen the resurrected Jesus as well as others, that's when thay really started to proclaim Christ as the Saviour to the world. THE NEW TESTAMENT IS ALL ABOUT JESUS and Most books in the N/T begin by making some reference to that name, Jesus.

Our "Faith and Trust" should rest in that name alone, and NOT in the name of any Institution.

God can hear the prayers and help any individual whatever Institution they belong to, but there's Absolutely NO evidence that God is using the Institution itself.

It all rest on that Name Jesus.

Thedecadentone on August 08, 2019:

I'm not saying I agree with the interpretation of those verses. You asked who said it, and I delivered passages that back up the hypothesis. Timothy being the primary passage of reference for people's belief that every word in the bible, even when translated to other versions, is coming straight from God's telepathic lips into the minds of the authors.

Antonio50S on August 08, 2019:

Just wanted to clarify why i mentioned ( Acts 15 ) in the first place. It wasn't to support God was using any Institution, but just to explain the early church writers filtered out any false ( Pseudepigrapha ) from entering the biblical Canon. And about the "Jerusalem Council" itself, Who some call the "Governing Body". They were NOT there to govern the affairs of Christian Congregations as claimed. That claim is totally untrue.

That Council was there for ONE reason ONLY. And that was to assist the Jewish people accepting or transferring over from Judaism to Christianity after the death of Jesus. And any claims that Paul was a "Governing Body" Member is totally False as well. Anyone making that claim only does so to support God is using a Similar Governing Body to direct the affairs of their religious Institution.

"The Book of Acts in Palestine Settings" explains why the Council first developed and it's purpose.

If we read ( Act 15:12-16 ) It's clear that the Council wasn't even aware of the work of "Paul and Barnabas" Peaching to the Gentiles. And after hearing Paul & Barnabas relate their experiences, In ( Vs15 ) the Council says "The words of the prophets are in agreement with this" then Sites ( Vs16 )

Also like to state, Paul was very respectful of that council and went along & accepted the decisions made by them, One reason for that is, because it added weight to Pauls message to the Gentiles.

Paul knew very well as the Council did in ( Vs11 ) "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are"

( Galatians 2:6 ) Also makes reference to that Council or "Governing Body" but in a respectful way again. Paul says "As for those who SEEMED to be IMPORTANT---whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance---these men added NOTHING to my message" But instead ( Vs7-9 ) shows the Council suppoted the work of "Paul and Barnabas" because they realised God was using them to preach to the Gentiles.

In all this Paul was very respectful because he knew, the Gospel Message ulimately belonged to God for the benefit of all people. Therefore any institution claiming to have the soul Truth and that we must be a part of their group for Salvation is in reality a Trap, because all Salvation comes, and is Centered on the "Work of Jesus" based on our own "personal choice" to put faith in Christ.

Any church or place of worship we choose after that, has to help and assist us along the way, but if we feel trapped by them, then that's a sign that our faith is not really our own at all, but rather dependant on their institution. That's a dangerous spiritual situation to be in, which can also be open to various abuses.

And though God is not a God of disorder but of peace, and that all things should be done in a fitting and orderly way, dose NOT support God is using any Institution either. ( 1 Corinthians 14:33 & 40 )

Our faith, "If we choose" has to be a "personal" one Centered on the work of Jesus. Not on the work of any Religious Organization/Institution.

Antonio50S on August 07, 2019:

A few General verses on "The word of God"

( 1 Thessalonians 2:13 )

( Hebrews 4:12 )

( Revelation 1:2 )

( 2 Timothy 3:16 )

( John 17:17 )

But like to add, Just because the Bible mentiones these, does NOT support any "Religious Organizations" claims that God is using them, Or that God is in agreement with them.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 07, 2019:


Re : John 1/Mark13

Today the word "word" is synonymous with the bible. But is that what they're talking about when they speak of God's word?

God's words are what shaped the Earth and all life on it. These are the words of God in my mind when I read this. The fact that you and I and every other living thing are naturally driven to "be fruitful/multiply" means God's words have not passed away. God's words are one and the same as natural law. God's word will not pass just as gravity will not pass.

Re: 2 Timothy

I think you can agree with what Paul is saying and agree with what I'm saying. I think it's evident the bible is something more than a mere fiction constructed over centuries by 50 different people. If human history has demonstrated anything over the millennia, its that humans can't put together anything really lasting.

But there's a big difference between recognizing the value of the bible and treating every word as the inerrant word of God.

Antonio50S on August 07, 2019:

Just for now, when people say God's infallible word, what they really mean is their understanding and interpretation of some passages are infallible. ( It's people that's fallible, including their interpretations to a whole lot of passages from the bible ) If that wasn't the case we'd all be in agreement, and nobody would have speculated on dates for Jesus return which was the driving force for "some" now claiming "absolute truth"

Antonio50S on August 07, 2019:

Yes Jeremy. Pretty much, totally agree with the last couple of post of yours.

Quite surprised really. I wish "some" of these large Religious organizations claiming "Absolute truth" understood these BASIC things as well.

Give me a little while, will explain my thoughts on this.

Thedecadentone on August 06, 2019:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 (does that count?)

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away (Mark 13:31 is another).

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

So.. I believe it would have been the 'apostle' Paul who said the last one, which everyone uses to support that claim. Very first pope of the catholic church, reportedly. The early pre catholic church also excommunicated Paul, a man who claimed to be an apostle without ever having met Jesus, whose claim to have seen a vision holds no more weight than Constantinople's whose vision said to kill in Jesus name, before he went and did his thing so..take that however you will.

Closest other reference iirc comes from 2 peter 1:20, but that refers to interpreting scripture, primarily prophecy.

Thedecadentone on August 06, 2019:

I don't really know how to tell if any of our biblical books are the gods honest infallible truth, but I know how to tell which ones most certainly are not. To be quite frank, Paul could have been full of bull for all we truly know. This is where that whole 'faith' thing comes into play. If God could let hundreds of thousands of Christians be martyred to test faith, theres no real logical reason why he wouldn't let some people pretending to follow his son shove some stuff in a book and only have their word as to its veracity.

If a 'book' contradicts the Tanakh, or more importantly the Torah, then said writings such as Enoch and Jubilees which are believed to have been written around the first couple centuries B.C. are not worthy to be called biblical.

To address another comment, many biblical translations of Genesis 3:20 have a conditional component. "Would become" mother of all the living. Not only that, but the bible is chock full of idioms and figures of speech. Jesus used them more than anyone. Ever heard the term 'I dont want to just be alive, I want to live'? Plus Jesus said he is the living water, that through him people would find true life. Also the bible is only concerned with the biblical line leading to salvation. So using Genesis 3:20 to validate Adam and Eve being the very first homo sapiens can come under attack from a myriad of biblical as well as secular directions.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 06, 2019:

Basically I think the bible is exactly what it needs to be and accomplishes exactly what its meant to. Just the way it's remained such a central ever-present influence throughout human history shows me its value and impact.

And I believe the laws were necessary to achieve God's ultimate goal. Breeding Jesus. All of those laws were specific to a God who's controlling breeding of a specific line.

Once Jesus was bread of this line, it is through Jesus as that salvation is achieved. The goal has been reached. The OT laws are no longer necessary. They did what they were intended to do.

God could show Himself and tell us all He's the God of the universe and the bible is His word. But then it wouldn't be a choice to choose Him. To seek Him.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 06, 2019:


Where is it said the bible is the word of God? It seems to me this is a position posited by organized religion. God is what they claim the power behind their institution resides, and in any and all matters related to God the bible is the decider. So every word of the bible must be affirmed to be unquestionable. So when the bible is referred to to justify the ruling of the religious institution, it was counted as the authority. The words of God. Straight from God's lips through this bible is the direction and the decisions of this institution.

To maintain that leverage, they savagely punished anyone found to be a heretic. They were the authority, they were the ones to decide how to decipher it, and they were the ones to administer the punishment for being a heretic if you disagreed or dared read it another way.

This is my distrust of humans. It plays a big role in how I look at things.

In my mind, unless it was in some way stated directly by God, I find treating the bible as the infallible word of God as being exceedingly reckless.

Antonio50S on August 06, 2019:

Also on the point of "inspired text" explanation. And "humans deciding what is and isn't inspired by God"

( Acts Chapter 15 ) Is a very interesting chapter.

That Chapter is the Turning point between the Old & New Testament. It's about the "Council of Jerusalem" and the work of Paul and Barnabas. And how the Council resolved a "longstanding issue" that needed settling once and for all.

If the Council can resolve DEEP longstanding issues like these knowing they're just men, I don't think they would have any issue at all deciding what was Canonical and what wasn't.

Basically the issue was whether the "Gentiles" or ( Nations outside the Jewish faith ) were required to keep the to the OT Laws or not ?

( Vs1 ) was the begining of the issue that threw Gentile believers into confusion. Paul knew very well the Gentiles weren't required to keep OT laws, and that if Circumcision was required then all the OT Laws would be binding as well.

The point is, after much discussion and disputing by the apostles and elders "In a respectful way" ( Acts 15:6-9 ) makes the point. Peter addressed them, explaining how God purified the hearts of the Gentiles "As well as the hearts of the Jews" by FAITH in the death of Jesus.

And ( Verse 11 ) "NO! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we ( The Jews ) are saved, just as they ( The Gentiles ) are"

Also after deciding what "If any Laws" were binding on the Gentile ? they decided on them 4 decrees in ( Vs 20 & 29 ) but ( Verse 28 ) Shows how they reached that final decision. "It seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT and to US ( MEN ) not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements" The 4 decrees in ( Vs 20 & 29 )

And also want to say, if them 4 decrees or Prohibitions was all that was required for salvation then ( thats not enough anyway ) since even the 4 decrees are covered by the FAITH of Jesus. Them decrees were issued for other reasons, other than binding Laws.

So the REAL story and issue is all about JESUS, his birth, life, death, and resurrection. ( "Anastasis" Greek )

The Bible writers guided by the spirit would NEVER allow any other books ( pseudepigrapha ) to destroy the work of God, because that work was centred on the work of Jesus himself.

The question is ? What other way could God communicate with man, other than the OT Laws that man couldn't keep up with? And the death of Jesus ?

In reality, anything else apart from "Men guided by the Spirit" is just man made Laws & Books written by men that cannot save.

Antonio50S on August 06, 2019:

RE: "inspired text" explanation. And "humans deciding what is and isn't inspired from God"

First of all i would like to say this situation is very similar to "Cains". What prevented anyone from killing Cain ? in the same way, what's to stop others trying to exert, influence, or distort the intended message of the Bible ?

It may appear it's men who decided what was to be included in the Bible, but that's not the case. It took generations for the Bible to be written by different authors, and all ( biblical discoveries ) support the accouts that happened in the Bible as well, therefore adding further proof that the Bible authors were in agreement with Gods intended message for us. Any claims of "truth" or revelations by outsiders needed to be tested by believers who knew what the overall message of God was.

Also as time past, it became more and more clear which books were actually inspired by God and which wasn't.

For that i would say Men deciding what is "Canonical" is actually a very good thing, when guided by the spirit, otherwise what do we have ? In the last 200 years alone many institutions have based there religion on the findings and revelations of ONE man, and when we look at their doctrines, they're just as "fantastical" as the "Book of Enoch" itself with a number of their teachings outright contradicting the Bible as well.

Being realistic, if some books of the Bible shouln't even be there, then the whole "inspration" of the bible is wrong as well in the fact that God allowed his intended message to be distorted.

The early Bible writers knew what was to be included in the Bible and what wasn't, or let's say, they filtered, ruled out other writings which were NOT intended for the Bible. All this needed time to be accomplish, Using mans "Free Will" again guided by the spirit.

( 2 Peter 2:1-3 ) Verse 1 "But there WERE also false prophets ( In the past ) among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them" ( Peter was hardly going to accept the "Book of Enoch" destructive heresies, the very things he warned about ) Even if he did quote from that book, Peter may have thought, even the foolish sometimes come out with the exceptional truth. Maybe the Enemy was trying to misdirect ? But peter used it as further evidence to his advantage ?

Also ( 1 John 4:1-6 ) Warns about not believing every spirit, but rather to TEST the spirits to see whether they are from God or not. That principle would have applied when deciding the Canon of the Bible as well.

Keith on August 06, 2019:

The bible does say she (Eve) is the mother of all living Humans), Adam was the first man (Human) then Eve Was made from one of his ribs and there we have the mother of all living (Humans).

Antonio50S on August 05, 2019:

And there's me thinking i was done with commenting :)

Give me a little while, will explain how i see that whole "inspired text" explanation. And "humans deciding what is and isn't inspired by God"

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 05, 2019:


I don't follow my heart in these matters. I stick strictly to logic and evidence. As hard as it can be to actually accomplish, I want no part of my ego in any of this and try to ensure that's the case.

I agree Jesus is the only way and that none are capable on their own. There can only be one DNA code for the universe. We, while living inside the universe's body, behave according to our own code. We don't work in harmony with this environment.

It is possible to get into harmony with the universe and its DNA code. But you have to willfully choose it. We're not made like everything else in the universe is, inherently pre-programmed to work in harmony within the body of the universe. We've been given our own agency. We've been made creators who add things to God's universe that are not of God's making. It's an exceedingly powerful capability to have been given and requires wisdom to wield it responsibly.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 05, 2019:


That's something that I think fascinates me the most about the bible. Or, more specifically, the "books of Moses". The first 5. The book of Enoch is a good example. All around the time of Jesus there was a lot of trying to figure out what they were and what they meant. Like the Pharasees. Dedicated to studying it.

Writings like the book of Enoch give great insight into the minds and the imaginings of the people of that time in that culture. And just like today, sometimes liberties were taken in an attempt to connect the dots.

Thedecadentone on August 05, 2019:

Jeremy, I was just going to write myself that Enoch reads like fanfiction, lol. Not only that, but bad kaballah high fantasy fan fiction with discrepencies and contradictions galore. For instance circumcision wasn't a thing until Abraham yet it was prevalent according to the book of Enoch. Its style is pedantic and simple with far too many absolutes in its prophecies.

Thedecadentone on August 05, 2019:

That is bit of a cop out. The bible contains more than just the path to salvation. The ways of god are not unknowable; with research and logic they can be uncovered. Research shouldn't make you lose faith, otherwise the bible wouldn't advise to examine it daily and uncover its secrets. Only real discrepency I found was in the creation account, stating the earth was made before the sun. Yet from a vision standpoint, seeing the universe made from earth it would seem that first came light, then came the sun by the compound cover in the sky. The sun wouldn't have been visible until the earth was formed enough for the methane and carbon/sulfur dioxide to recede. Within the murky yellow orange haze it would seem light was everywhere until the great oxygenation event of 2.3 or so billion years ago. (Or you could just say gods presence was light enough if you've absolutely gotta have a supernatural, non-scientific origin for everything). Plant fossils point to a little over a billion years now, though only a few short years ago it was believed the first plants only arrived almost 600 million years ago. Couple years before that in the 2000's it was 450. Heck, about a hundred years ago it was believed by the scientific community that the universe was infinite and always existed, so.. take current scientific evidence with a grain of salt, for as the more time passes, the more the secular and biblical worlds align.

Many biblical discrepancies can be fixed with similar methods of thinking. The more research, the closer one gets to god, not further.

And yes, it says God took Enoch, but not bodily to heaven. Same with the prophet Elijah who, after he was taken by a chariot into the first heaven, aka sky, was also written about having a letter sent to the ruling body of Israel. The bible says only Jesus and the angels are in heaven.

Antonio50S on August 04, 2019:

Well Jeremy. At least you know what you believe & don't believe in. ( All i was trying to do was show there are answers to many questions if we're looking for them )

( For me however ) the Bible covers all the "main" questions, which is good enough for me. If i went looking for answers to every everything, i would soon lose faith, because real faith isn't really about having all the answers, it's about belief, living out the faith, and seeing it work in real life.

Peace to you.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 04, 2019:

Enoch is the one exception in Genesis 5 where it says that he walked with God and then God took him. I think this is the inspiration of the book of Enoch.

The book of Enoch goes off on this fantastical explanation of what's going on behind the scenes in the world of angels. It reads like fan fiction. Which is exactly what I think it is.

This is the danger, in my mind, with the whole "inspired texts" explanation. It's humans deciding what is and isn't inspired by God. Once that decisions made, all texts included are treated as such. Words directly from God.

There are just too many human hands involved, especially in these books of the OT, to reasonably consider it in its entirety to be "inspired by God".

Antonio50S on August 04, 2019:

My Apology.

When i said early Bible Writers, that's not to be confused with those who wrote the Bible, and other general writings on the Bible, including commentaries.

Antonio50S on August 04, 2019:

Also Quoting what you said Jeremy.

"I'm very sceptical of the involvement of human hands and the motivations of men"

Too right Jeremy, but that also applies to you as well.

( Jeremiah 17:9 ) "The heart is deceitful" "Who can understand it"?

That never just applied to the OT people, since nothing's changed in the heart of men down through the ages, and the way we keep reasoning on things also exposes our own inner motives as well, unawares. We may not see it ourselves, but you can be sure others see it.

Will tell you the difference between True Christians & People who may well be good and live so called good lives. There's NOBODY, not one person on earth, now or in the past that was considered good in the eyes of God. Even Jesus knew that.

The difference with "True" Christians is they are aware of who they are, their faults, issues, Sins, and so on, but have been declared righteous in the eye's of God by putting faith and trust in the real saviour Jesus himself.

The people that live good lives who consider themselves good, are NOT good in God's eye's UNTILL they themselves put that faith and trust in the death of Jesus, otherwise, they're just good in their own eyes only. NOBODY is good through and through. There's dozens of examples that can be shown to prove this, but the point is, the righteousness that comes from God, comes through faith in Christ, and not by obeying the OT laws any longer. ( Philippians 3:9 ) Makes this clear.

Also ( Romans 3:26, 4:5, 5:17, 5:19 )

Even Peter knew what it was all about.

( 1 Peter 3:21 ) It's not "the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge ( REQUEST ) of a good CONSCIENCE towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

Antonio50S on August 04, 2019:

Something i was "reading up" on.

Quote in [ roundabout words ] "Some of the early church writers such as ( Clement of Alexnadria and Tertullian ) viewed the Book of Enoch as being virtually inspired, and assumed Jude quoted from that book, but later on when the book of Enoch fell into considerable disfavor ( being classified as "pseudepigrapha" ( literally false writings ) others, also assuming that Jude quoted from that narrative, and as a result "QUESTIONED" the very inspiration of the book of JUDE itself" It then goes on to site Jerome's references.

Apart from this, any surggestion that Jude was quoting from Enoch or the Book of Enoch is just an "assumption"

The whole Book of Jude is a Warning, dealing primarily with these "very issues" itself, Apostasy, False teachers and writers, Warnings from past examples like Sodom and gomorrah, Cain, the deliverance from Egypt, Korah's rebellion, "As well" as the Angels that did not keep their positions of authority in the heavens.

Jude was writen at a time when the church was falling into that Apostasy, and served as a warning, not just to them but to all future generations untill the Arrival of Jesus himself.

Any reference Jude may have made which seems as though he was quoting from Enoch in reality (( came "directly" from the "Spirit" of God )) ( Jude 19 ) and is also in "Agreement" with the rest of the scriptures warning about these very issues. And even if Jude did quote from Enoch ? Sometimes that is done, not because the rest of Enoch is true, but rather because of the recognition of that one individual truth and why it's there in the first place.

Any other outside "pseudepigrapha" references that seem to agree with Jude, are there to misdirect and cause a shadow of doubt, NOT just on the book of Jude, but on the entire Bible itself. The question to ask ourselves ? who is it that's trying to create doubt in our minds and why ?

It Could be the "Enemy of God and the Bible" or it Could be a case of "following our mere natural instincts" which don't come from the "spirit" ( Jude 19 ) But if it's coming from the Enemy of the Bible, we might find ourselves doing the work of the Enemy unawares.

No disrespect Jeremy, but these early Bible writers were NO fools. That's the whole purpose to the book of Jude.

It also needs to be remembered that some of these early Bible writers themselves also fell into Apostasy, and that's why they assumed Jude was quoting from Enoch.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 03, 2019:

The only references that speak of the angels this way come from the same source. Enoch itself describes angels in a very different way.

Thedecadentone on August 02, 2019:

The Bible references extra biblical sources sometimes, such as Jasher and Jubilees, which is what Enoch also is. Not only was it not written by Enoch, it's dated back to about a hundred years or so before Jesus' birth. Doesn't mean those books were divinely inspired. Just like with Socrates, all his works were written by others well after his death; doesn't make them any less true, but the bible is held to much higher scrutiny. Fun fact, Jesus and Peter used the Socratic method to test other people's beliefs all the time.

The book of Jude. on August 02, 2019:

It's good you made reference to the book of Jude. All true christians should know what that book is about. And yes, it was written later, but for good reason as well.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 01, 2019:

I would also like to add (exposing another widely unpopular view of mine) both 2 Peter and Jude were written very late. Like 65-70AD.

I'm very skeptical of the involvement of human hands and the motivations of men. In the decades following Jesus' death, the later books that made it into the NT become more and more fantastical.

Which is why, I think, I tend to lean into the OT. Human involvement, specifically free willed human involvement, became a part of the story very early on. In the beginning, in fact. But it is from this time that the stories come to us most free of human manipulation, in my mind.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on August 01, 2019:

It's no coincidence, in my view, that two of the quotes are from Jude and 2 Peter outside of Revelations. These are the two texts that quote from the book of Enoch. Enoch also postulated misbehaving angels.

Thedecadentone on August 01, 2019:

Not just in Revelations.

6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; (Jude 6)

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; (2 Peter 2:4)

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:41)

Isaiah and Revelations, yes, but the above verses are pretty straightforward. The verses surrounding those do not infer any need for being cryptic and having hidden interpretation.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 31, 2019:


Re: Wisdom

The issue in my statement about wisdom not being something that can be given might be that I'm using the wrong word. By "wisdom" I mean understanding through first-hand experience. Not sure what the biblical writers meant by it. The only way we can truly understand free will and it's impact on everything around us is to live life just as we are and experience it. That is the kind of "wisdom" I'm speaking of. Something that couldn't just be explained.

I agree with you on nearly every count where the 'sons of God' are concerned. The only caveat being #3. In my view, that interpretation in Revelations, equating the stars in the sky to angels, is a bit of a stretch. A whole narrative has been bent around the cryptic prose of the book of Revelation.

The way I understand it, Revelations was written during a time when it was particularly dangerous to be a Christian, causing the writers to be more cryptic, and less descriptively clear in what they were saying.

Thedecadentone on July 31, 2019:

Wow. That is a lot to read in such a short span.

1. 12 days ago it was claimed wisdom can only be earned, not given. Yet Proverbs 2:6 states "For the LORD grants wisdom! From his mouth come knowledge and understanding."

Also in James 1:5 "If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and he will give it to you. He will not rebuke you for asking."

Also remember, Solomon prayed for Wisdom and God gave it to him. What is earned is knowledge, by listening to Gods word.

2. Speaking of Gods word, sons of god being angels is blatantly false and Jeremys claim of Adams long lived early generations is much more in line with both logic and scripture (I mean why lock Adam in a perfect garden protected from the rest of the world if all the earth was perfect and safe?). And how can Nephelim exist if God wiped them out in the flood? Science can explain that too via recessive genes, things that skip generations, which gigantism or hereditary pituitary gland dysfunction does. It's also why it can be explained David seemed to kill Goliath so easily with a stone because while he was big, he was also likely very slow and had an overly large, weak cranium (he also would have had a tumor, which if hit would have ended him pretty quick). The Nephelim Joshuas spies saw in Canaan were likely bred to show this trait (hereditary, remember, and breeding traits into creatures isnt only reserved to dogs and horses), and in so doing likely would have had to kill a vast number of babies to produce in the numbers they reported (like how Spartans are rumored to have killed deformed or imperfect babies to breed their perfect warriors), an act that would have made God very much want them all dead for. That and their worship of Molech, the infamous and historic baby sacrifice god of fire which also helps support this as a somewhat plausible theory. No sci fi kaballah angels have sex mysticism required. We have to remember that any interpretation that causes a contradiction is wrong. Hebrews 1:5, Matthew 6:26, Luke 3:38, John 1:12, Galatians 4:7, 1 John 5:1, and many more verses plainly state, no interpretation necessary, that only Adam, Jesus, and those of us who believe in Jesus, have the right to be called sons of god.

Verses about sons of god attributed to angels are assumptions, such as one story in Job that angel and human relations defenders use, when Satan went with the sons of God to see the Lord (no mention of Heaven, that is popularly assumed), as people often presented themselves before the lord, and Satan claims he went to and fro in the earth, not to Gods throne and back. Genesis 6, v1 and 2 state the sons of god took wives, yet Jesus states angels dont marry, which is another demerit towards the fable.

3. Angels tried to have free will once, remember, during the fall. Now they are doomed to suffer gods wrath for eternity which is why they hate and try so hard to take us with them. Be very thankful that God did not grant humanity immortality (Satans lie that we will not die) like he did the angels and will only do so to those of us whom he mercifully grants it.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 29, 2019:

This does bring up something I'd like to address.

When something is assumed to be the actions of God... or like in this case... something is assumed to not be "true" because if it were God's actions it would look like this, that's somethinig to be cognizent of.

We have the benefit of having the books of the bible where actions that are definitely of this God's doing are documented. Through them we get an opportunity to see for ourselves how the creator of the universe operates.

We all often do this. Project our own version of God onto how we see things. That's how things like the misconceptions of Genesis I'm addressing here happen. All the gaps that that traditional interpretation causes, it's just assumed that God's perfectly capable of traversing whatever gap it is, so that's what must have happened.

Rather than recognizing those gaps as symptoms of an inaccurate interpretation.

Antonio50S on July 28, 2019:

I thought that's what you meant :)

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 28, 2019:

That's exactly what evolution is. Adaptations to an environment. Some adaptations make the species that have them more successful, thus more likely to pass on those genes.

It's an automated system. No maintenance required. No "right", no "wrong". You set it in motion and it becomes what was intended.

Brilliant, really.

Antonio50S on July 28, 2019:

Jeremy. Re: "On the point of evolution" To be precise, if evolution were an established fact, without the need for a God, then all mutations would be harmful. And my understanding of evolution is not actually evolution at all, but rather variations within a kind, which is built into the DNA to begin with, otherwise species wouldn't be able to adapt to the environment.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 28, 2019:


Re: "... if God was guilding the process then all mutations would be beneficial."

I think the point is it doesn't require guidance or constant maintenance. It's a system that reaches the intended result.

Re: "Prior to the flood ( just like Cain ) they must have had Free Will otherwise they wouldn't have been able to act contrary to God's will"

What angels acted contrary to God's will before the flood? This view is generally based on the idea that the 'sons of God' in preflood Genesis were angels, though that view contradicts many other passages.

Antonio50S on July 27, 2019:

Jeremy. That thought did cross my mind about evolution, and realistically there's nothing stopping God using any means for creating life if he wanted. However, i think there's a problem with mutations being the basis for evolution if God is taken out the picture. Reason being, any genetic mutation could go either way, either beneficial or detrimental to life, but if God was guilding the process then all mutations would be beneficial. There's nothing stopping God using that means if he chose to. Who could argue with God ? And apparently, there's millions of species of animals that went extinct even before man walked the earth. That's interesting.

The fossil record itself however is another subject.

Just a note on the angels and Free Will. Prior to the flood ( just like Cain ) they must have had Free Will otherwise they wouldn't have been able to act contrary to God's will, and that imprisonment or "Restriction" came later on as a result of what they did, that's why permission was needed by God first before Job could be tested. Same in the case with Jesus.

Thank's for the welcome back offer. Will keep that in mind.

Peace to you.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 27, 2019:


Sharing the same DNA is the same thing. Whether or not we directly descend is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what the hang up is where evolution is concerned, other than the obvious that it seems to contradict the traditional view of Adam being the first human. But aside from that I see no issue.

Just the fact that both monkeys and humans work on the same basic DNA design should be enough. All life does. Evolution is just a clever way for God to fill the planet with a wide variety of life. That's working smart to build an evolutionary process in. God didn't create a universe that requires His constant maintenance.

And the bit in Matthew where Jesus is speaking of the flood, it's not the scale of the flood he's referring to. It's how it came unexpectedly.

Antonio50S on July 27, 2019:

Jeremy. It was good talking to you as well and mean that. Excuse my past abruptness, but in the past i used to go REALLY DEEP into things, but now i try and keep things more simple, and focus more on the teachings of Jesus himself. In fact, that's the very reason why i first commented on your HUB, to show that people don't need to lose faith because of the actions of a few bad religious institutions.

Thank's for the offer, will keep that in mind.

May Peace be with you.

Antonio50S on July 27, 2019:

Re: DNA. We don't come from the same genetic chain as primates, "We SHARE the same DNA" That's a big difference which don't support evolution. Genetic information is passed on from one generation to the next as you say, but that don't support evolution since enzymes in the DNA prevent mutations from developing. Plus mutations would have to be the basis for evolution, but that cannot be so since mutations are alway's harmful to life.

And not sure what Jesus would disagree with since you already believe the Nephilim were half human, but the real story wasn't about the Nephilim, because they were nobody's in God's eyes, the story was about God's judgements agains't them and humanity, including every other time God stepped into world affairs. Jesus reference to Noah's day in ( Mathew 24:36-39 ) is to show a much bigger judgement to come on humanity, even bigger than the biblical flood, untill a "final" judgement after a 1000 year period as mentioned in ( Revelation 20:7 ) and Jesus Preaching to the spirits in prison, the original fallen angels was to proclaim his victory and final judgements on them fallen angels. ( 1 Peter 3:19-20 )

As i said. Maybe in the future ? ( have things going on ) right now.

Peace to you.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 26, 2019:

You're welcome back anytime, Antonio. Good talking to you.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 26, 2019:


Re: "humans evolving from monkeys"

DNA shows it to be a certainty that we come from the same genetic chain as primates. We can observe how genetic information passes from one generation to the next, making it apparent that the genetic similarities we share with not just monkeys, but dogs, mice, even house flies, means all life comes from the same stock.

Re: "there's more chance the Nephilim could procreate with humans..."

To be clear, I never said Nephilim couldn't procreate with humans. In fact, my claim is that the Nephilim are offspring of humans and what the bible calls the "sons of God". I believe the Nephilim are half human. Therefore they can procreate with humans, in my view.

On what do you base your conclusion that Jesus is in disagreement with any of this?

Antonio50S on July 26, 2019:

Jeremy. It's been good conversing with you. Maybe in the future again ? but not now. ( Have things going on )

Peace to you.

1 Peter 3:19-20 on July 26, 2019:

It's not about you seeing what i see, it's about you being in agreement with [ jesus ] the flood and Nephilim. And for the record, there's more chance the Nephilim could procreate with humans than humans evolving from monkeys, and why should the spiritual be detached from the physical ?

Come on, you believe in God, you know these things ?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 26, 2019:


Okay. Walk me through your connection between the Nephilim.

I agree with Jesus as well, but don't see what you see.

1 Peter 3:19-20 on July 26, 2019:

John 18:37 by being in agreement with jesus.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 26, 2019:


Determining yourself "in line with the truth" and then inserting things "between the lines" sounds highly speculative and suspect.

How do you know you're in line with the truth?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 26, 2019:

I don't doubt the Nephilim were real. I just don't think they were angels.

They were the "heroes of old, MEN of renown".

They were the demigods who were born of both lines. Like Perseus in Greek mythology or Gilgamesh in Sumerian mythology.

1 Peter 3:19-20 on July 26, 2019:

When in line with the truth you can read between the lines on most bible teachings, you notice details that really [ should not be there ] if the teaching was false. If not all you see in contradictions.

Antonio50S on July 25, 2019:

I quess it's not my job to prove the Nephilim were "REAL" but when the "right time" comes, you will know for sure.

Peace to you.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 25, 2019:


"the demon possessions jesus was dealing with were the original Nephilim spirit angels or sons of the most high"

Where'd you get that?

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 25, 2019:


Wow, that took a turn I wasn't expecting. My intention was not to offend you or to try to influence you or anyone else's views. I just enjoy having the discussions. I tell you what I think and why I think it. That's it.

This bit in particular regarding the 'sons of God' always gets my attention. Things like the book of Enoch have really muddied the waters in my opinion and has added a supernatural element to these stories that doesn't belong.

Basically, I'm not sure why anyone thinks the creator of the universe would need any kind of work force to help in creation. And any ideas about angels rebelling against God and breeding with human women, well that just totally loses me.

Even Satan in Job needed God's permission. They don't have free will. And only through free will could they rebel. Free will is a gift specifically for humans.

And why would angels be biologically capable of procreation? They're not biological/naturally evolved beings. Are there momma angels and baby angels?

I certainly don't mean to offend and I don't mean to influence or mislead anyone. I just think having an open, honest conversation is always preferable to sticking to established dogmatic principals out of loyalty to some man-made institution. Especially when that loyalty is grounded in the false idea that rejecting their views is somehow a rejection of God. It isn't.

1 Peter 3:19-29 on July 25, 2019:

1 Peter 3:19-20

If you think demon possession is not possible, think again, because the demon possessions jesus was dealing with were the original Nephilim spirit angels or sons of the most high. That preaching was to show their doom.

Antonio50S on July 25, 2019:

Oh, and if you was wondering the reason for my reaction ?

Some of them solid dogmatic views of yours reminded me of Red Flags as well.

Had my own past experiences with some of these institutions. So for me it wasn't a case of one extreme as opposed to another, I haven't said anything that was dogmatic myself, other than defend the real truth of the scriptures, yet you still counteracted everything with negativity. For me that's bad news, and a "Red Flag"

And yes, you don't need to lose your faith because of the actions of some institutions. That i agreed with, but that also includes not being swayed by people like you either adopting other peoples theories like evolution, local floods, "others" and so on. Better to be an atheist Jeremy, because some of them views are not even original, for that you can hardly call yourself a free thinker or that you arrived at truth yourself. You Jeremy have been mislead, and you're trying to do likewise to others.

The different between me and you, "it's me that can think for myself" here, and I don't need to accept other peoples false theories just beccause of the actions of a few.

That's the difference between me and you.

Once again. Peace to you.

Look after yourself kid.

Antonio50S on July 25, 2019:

P.S. No need for any responses.

And "Peace to you" Regardless.

Antonio50S on July 25, 2019:

You know my problem ? A lot of times i assume people like you mean well because of the way you communicate, but the truth is, you're just an arrogant individual living in their own little world. All that knowledge in your head and you still don't know what the truth of the bible is about.

You take other peoples work, Trash it, then claim it as your own, while offering NOTHING back in return.

That SUMS you up really good Jeremy.

Really Sad that is.

Try living the life of Paul. He knew what that "truth" was about, he also knew what his ultimate fate was for getting that truth over to people, just like many others over the centuries who suffered a similar fate. "William Tyndale" for one.

Quote from "Paul" knowing his fate ( 2 Timothy 4:7 ) "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have KEPT THE FAITH"

No wonder his "Influence" over the past 2000 years.

Can you say the same for YOU ?

Paul is the "Real Man" here Jeremy. NOT YOU.

Antonio50S on July 24, 2019:

I don't remember making any kind of dogmatic statements about the status of angels Jeremy.

Over the years i have read various bible commentaries by different authors on various doctrines. Most explanations are clear cut, understandable, but a few are little harder to understand, such as the "Sons & Angels" Even Paul said some things are difficult to understand.

What they don't do Jeremy is approach the subject in a critical manner like you keep doing. They offer alternative and "very good" other explanations.

Plus i don't need every piece of the Jigsaw to fit perfecty before i believe it. People that need endless proof really don't have that much faith, that's why they keep distorting the scriptures to fit their own belief system, which the bible said would happen as well.

What you're doing Jeremy is creating doubts in the minds of others just because YOU have trouble accepting some passages. I may not believe in Hell Jeremy, but i do believe everyone will be resurrected to be Judged. ( Acts 24:15 ) I wonder what the outcome of that will be ?

Also, In case you need reminding, the bible wasn't writen by you "All interpretations belong to God" NOT You. You know, i would have more respect for you if you actually thought the bible was all nonsense, but instead you twist it because of your own lack of faith.

Incidentally. Aside from the word Sons. The "Hebrew" word for "Nephilim" means "fallen ones" angels. You can't read that both ways, and with the other alternative explanations that was offered, one thing did become clear, whatever happened back then was "corrupt" and was one of the biggest reasons for the flood.

Regarding Jesus and Paul, they were also aware of the flood and the fallen ones, are you saying you know better than them ? Especially with all the literature and influence they had over the past 2000 years and still do ?

Bottom line Jeremy, will you be remembered by Jesus, especially with all the doubts your putting in the minds of innocent people, just because you cannot accept what your reading yourself ?

Anyway Jeremy. It's been good conversing with you, but we're just going round in circles.

Peace to you.

Jeremy Christian (author) from Texas on July 23, 2019:

Yes, it's making a distinction. But it's directly stating that this is not a status that's given to an angel. If not, then the answer to the question posed would be, the "sons of God" are angels you call sons.

Antonio50S on July 23, 2019:

Just wanted to add as well. The context of ( Hebrews 1 ) is about God's one and only "personal" Son "Jesus" in comparison to the angels.

Example, Vs13 "To which of the angels did God ever say, Sit at my right hand untill i make your enemies a footstool for your feet'' ?