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

Updated on January 24, 2017

God Created Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mythology of the First Civilization

Civilization first began in Mesopotamia over five thousand years ago and the Sumerians are credited as the inventors. They built the first cities that ever existed, with populations in the tens of thousands, made possible through their development of large-scale year-round agriculture. Throughout the rise of civilization the Sumerians also became talented builders, they created the first government and the first laws. They also invented arithmetic, astronomy/astrology, the wheel, sailboats, frying pans, razors, harps, kilns for firing bricks and pottery, bronze hand tools, and plows, just to name a few.

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

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

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

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

The Books of Moses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis 1:29-30 - Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

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

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

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

Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden

But where the humans (and everything else) in Genesis 1 were specifically told what to do, in Genesis 2 Adam was only told what not to do - eat from any tree but that one.

Genesis 2:16 - And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;
Genesis 2:17 - but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

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

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

The humans created in Genesis 1 were given very specific commands that would take generations to realize; populate/subdue the Earth, establish dominance in the animal kingdom. So then how could Adam, Eve, and their descendants be expected to accomplish these things considering how capable and willing they were to disobey? Reconsidering things with the idea that Adam was not the first human, but rather was the first human capable of behaving contrary to God's will introduced into an already populated world of humans, yields many interesting possibilities both throughout the remainder of the bible itself as well as far outside of it.

The 'Others' that Cain feared

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

Genesis 4:13 - Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear.
Genesis 4:14 - Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
Genesis 4:15 - But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over. ” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

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

Genesis 6:1 - And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them,
Genesis 6:2 - that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took for themselves wives of all whom they chose.
Genesis 6:3 - And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."

The Flood wasn't global

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

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

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

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

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

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

... and one after...

Numbers 13:32 - So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height.
Numbers 13:33 - And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

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

In Conclusion

In this modern age, many will surely find this a bit much to swallow. But in the context of the evolution of life as we understand it, the appearance of a new species of humans with free will and extended lifespans would be no more of a leap than the change from single-celled to multi-celled organisms or the adaptations that made crawling up onto land from the sea possible. Even in the progression of the Homo genus, there were large leaps forward from one species to the next. However, if an even more advanced species did actually appear just a few thousand years ago, they're certainly not here anymore. Of course, according to the story, they were all washed away by a large flood. Mass extinctions play a crucial role throughout the evolutionary history of life. In that context, the flood was merely the last of many 'edits' that shaped life as we know it today.

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

© 2012 Jeremy Christian

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 days ago from Texas

      Here's the chronological order of the books of the bible for anyone who'd like to do this as well ...

      James - 50 A.D.

      First Thessalonians - 52-53.

      Second Thessalonians - 52-53.

      Galatians - 55.

      First Corinthians - 57.

      Second Corinthians - 57.

      Romans - 57-58.

      Philippians - 62-63.

      Colossians - 62-63.

      Philemon - 62-63.

      Ephesians - 62-63.

      Luke - 63.

      Acts - 64.

      First Timothy - 65.

      Titus - 65.

      Second Timothy - 66.

      Mark - 66.

      Matthew - 67.

      Hebrews - 67.

      First Peter - 67-68.

      Second Peter - 68.

      Jude - 68.

      Apocalypse - 68.

      John - c. 85.

      Epistles of John - 90-95

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 days ago from Texas

      Hi Nathan,

      Here's something interesting I found that I'll most likely be doing at some point, but it touches a bit on what you asked about specifically ...

      "In 2012, Jesus scholar Marcus Borg published Evolution of the Word: Reading the Bible in the Order It was Written. Borg encourages readers to explore the 27 books of the New Testament in the order they were written to see how Christian thinking unfolded over time. Ordering the texts as they were written also allows scholars to put the evolution of Christianity in a historical context.

      Read this way, one trend line is that the stories about Jesus become more magical over time. For example, John, the last gospel written, has Jesus making the boldest claims about his own deity." - https://valerietarico.com/2014/12/09/the-not-so-vi...

      Actually this whole article has a lot of interesting bits to dig more into.

      As for Adam's line losing their more godlike qualities ....

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

      Here it's speaking of the two lines in existence, naturally evolved humans/homo sapiens (daughters of humans), and Adam's line (sons of God). It explains that in contrast to Adam's line, humans are mortal and only live 120 years just one chapter after laying out how Adam's line lived for centuries. These two lines began to interbreed. Over time the 'godlike' qualities of Adam's line was diluted by the mixing with "mortal" humans, which is why the ages decrease from this point on from generation to generation, with the last of the long-living ancestors dying out during Abraham's time.

      I go into more detail about this in my hub "The Mysterious Unnamed Supporting Cast of Pre-Flood Genesis".

    • profile image

      Nathan 6 days ago

      I was reading your comments about Jesus and I was just wondering if you could touch on it a little more. Can you explain some of Christ's more divine moments, for example the Transfiguration? Your perspective on Christ is definitely interesting to me, and I agree with your summary of Adam. Also can you clarify when did Adam's line lose their more godlike qualities (such as the long life) and how did they lose those qualities?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 7 days ago from Texas

      So, in other words, you're already convinced and it wouldn't matter what it said, you'd deem it the infallible word of God. Because that's what you were taught. No proof of it. Nothing to support this idea. You're just a 'better believer' because you continue to believe it despite the evidence to the contrary. As you said, believe what you will.

      And it should be specified that yes, it happened to Abraham twice AND it happened to the same pharoah, Abimilek, twice.

      The much more likely explanation is that, like many stories told word of mouth, the story structure remained, but the details changed over time like a game of telephone. Then, whoever was doing the editing just put them in chronological order based on if it was during' Abraham's time or Lots.

      "Most controversial is its revision of Isaiah 7:14 to predict that the messiah will be born to a "young woman," not to a "virgin," a characterization that some critics say casts doubt on the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth.

      The conference of bishops explained that it had concluded that the original Hebrew ("almah") more accurately meant "maiden" or "young woman"...."

      - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life...

      And to match up with that prophecy, Jesus must be born of a virgin. Don't you think it's peculuar how Luke in the first chapter speaks of Mary being a virgin and how this signifies Jesus' significance, then in the very next chapter there's this ...

      "When his parents saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.” He said to them, “Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he said to them. (Luke 2:48-50 NRSV)."

      Why would they not understand? It was conclusively explained in a dream what happened. Who Jesus was and how he was convieved. But they don't understand? In fact, other than those mentions when Jesus was first conceived, it's never mentioned again. This miracle that established Jesus as truly significant seems to have been forgotten.

      "The earliest mention of the birth of Jesus comes in Paul’s letter to the church at Galatia, likely written between 49 and 55 C.E, or about half a century before the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Paul’s description makes no mention of a virgin birth. He says simply that, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Galatians 4:4).

      In another letter, Paul seems to imply that Jesus came into the world in the usual way. In Romans 1:1-3 he refers to . . . the gospel of God…concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” The phrase “seed of David” refers specifically to the genealogy of Joseph, the husband of Mary."

      - https://valerietarico.com/2014/12/09/the-not-so-vi...

      Now I'm not downplaying Jesus' significance. Let's get that straight. But in the context of the rest of the story being told, retaining the "holy seed" is a big deal. God gives all these really specific rules to this one particular line of people. He created everyone, right? But these people he gave strict breeding rules. He bred from Abraham just as He said He would. Because Abraham tested well for the characteristics He was looking to produce, this was his chosen human.

      The story just makes more sense if Jesus is born a human. Makes what Jesus did that much more of a big deal. He was human. Like you and me. Had a will and a temper and temptations and all the rest. But unlike us, and unlike Adam, he never behaved outside of, or contrary to, God's will.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 7 days ago

      I read gen 12 20 26 and yes i still believe the word is the infallible word of God.these are not "edits"what is wrong with you?these three incedents occurrd.a clear time line is given.2 times with Abraham once with isaac. It was God himself that gave them the words to say of their wives.becouse of the great evil in the land.that the sons of cain had no rrspect for God or life.tbeir for did God bless the good king for his good deeds and also his land.but of the Pharoah cursed.by this did isaac and Abraham live and were not slain for their wives.how is it you say "edits"you cant see the time line clearly given?you dont see Gods hand working?dont you know the evil work of the sons of cain?how they would have slain them?becouse all three times they called their wives their sister their for you say different edits of the same story?all three are different and a clear time line is given.read the chapters in between.did you not read that Abraham said that from the time he entered into the land this was his practice?and it continued becouse it was Gods will.why do you have a problem with this?believe what you will

    • profile image

      Keithalan 7 days ago

      What evidence?you think just becouse you hear a negitive comment its true?many many places it calls mary a virgin. The old testament profitcide of the virgin birth.the holy spirit came to Joseph and confirmed this along with various other passages.you claim to reaserch passages and you claim to use your findings to form conclusions. but thats not what you do.you look for negitive comments and report them without knoledge as if true.you do no work in the word.you get your lies from the quran.and the sons of cain who you revier.you fools.you base the quran on the bible and mosses.as a foundation and then tear it down so your house will fall.becouse as Christians we look for truth.we do our own research.not based on lies and accusation...that olny tends to fool ourselves.but reality.we dont need as the quran followers do to change the truth.i have much evidence that the quran is all lies wtitten by an egotistical fool praying to satan himself.who is the father of lies.its all fake.and it will olny survive if you first destroy the truth.but to do so will destroy its very foundarion.how foolish you are.also you keep saying the word has ben manipulated changed and edited several times.tell me then whare are all these competing texts?you cant tell me every time they changed it they destroyed every coppy of the old texts?if you are saying the hebrew bible evolved then whare is the evolution,the trail of differnt texts?you see not olny do you say this you also know what they were thinking.even though the dead sea scrolls contain the exact same texts the same words.and no discrepancy has ben found.you recieve your knoledge by the scolars of the quran whom you follow without question.Christians do not do as you.we look and study and allways check the hebrew that has remained unchanged for thousands of years.and christ himself who was the word made flesh did know them and approved them.who are you to just make up crap and sell it like its true.do your own work instead of vomiting out lies satan gave mohamads childern.you son of cain and follower of him.ive read your quran.till it just became as a man expounding his opinion. As yourself.just a man not profit of God as you suppose.making his religion for satan from the word of God wich he perverts.saying:Jesus will come before and God wil charge him saying "why did you teach my childern to worship your mother, "and all the apstles will bow on their knees and call themselfs Muslim.this is why they tell lies about Jesus and his origins.why would the creator of all things bow to mohamad?and his apstles?really im supprised you even concidet anything correct in it.oh thats right from christ onward the word keeps changing even though we have scriptures well before that proving no change occured.and your inability to privide actual texts showing a change all you have is accusations.stick to mohamad and stop trying to teach the quran from the bible.explain to me again why the equation that science is looking for that includes all forces of nature is written plainly by God.all throughout each profit the year they were born the time they died the days they lived all part of the mathmatics of time..but you will never know a truth bigger than man for your god is man.not a profit a fool

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 8 days ago from Texas

      Yes, Jesus was His son, His only "begotten" son. Not because He personally empregnated Mary, but because Jesus existing was the result of His interactions with Jesus' bloodline throughout the OT.

      There's actually evidence suggesting the early church manipulated the text where it says Mary was "virgin", where it really only said she was 'young'. To add an ora of mysticim to the story they changed it.

      Genesis 12, 20 and 26 alone should tell you this is not the 'perfect' word of God. This is obviously a mistake in editing. It's man made.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 8 days ago

      Not son of Joseph.for God so loved the world that he gave his olny begotten son.different than the apstles and the profits.mary was a virgin and had not had sex at all let alone Joseph.he was God on earth born of woman as ourselfs without memory to conform by nature to his nature.your beliefe that he was just a profit whos birth was for told is just ignoring the word.although as thedecadentone one pointed out,it was the Catholic Church that bound the 66 books of the bible together,and myself am in the same mistrust of them having also added easter at the same time,i know the words were not changed.becouse of the dead sea scrolls and other evidence.if one chooses to read the books that wernt included they are still available.but for myself i know God did bind them together.he created the word and the word became flesh.he would not have his childern without it.even through the device of men he made his porpoise manifest.the 66 books of the bible were selected by him.the proof of the accuracy of these books is easly reaserched...dont be mislead the bible is the perfect word of God.this man seeks to destroy the bible and its perfect nature by unfounded truths.he does this in a selective manner that reviels his agenda.Jesus is just a man profit of God...sons of adam wicked...sons of cain teachers of knoledge..the bible just a book writen by men about a time when God stil interacted with men.just like a history book.not inspired by God just stories.and if you do as God says and give it the benefit of the doubt and search for truths olny a creator would know....he then characterises the work as as being based in missconeptions. and denies the truth.saying the bible is just a collection of stories.he states from preyers his God leads him this way.but i know his agenda is not his own that he would have you believe he recieved his theology by research.this is not true.he first began with a theology and is now in the process of turning the bible into mohamads vision.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 9 days ago from Texas

      This is a conversation I haven't had the opportunity to have very often. I know the concepts I speak about where Jesus is concerned are not popular. But the way I see it, all the old testament is based on the interactions God had with the bloodline of Jesus. All the commands, all the rules about who to mate with and what to eat, keeping them separated from others through centuries in Egypt or wondering the wilderness. All very much like breeding is done in livestock.

      Yes, Jesus' statement is correct. God's intent was to create Jesus. Even before he was born he existed. All the events in the OT were to make him. He's the second Adam. The second creation by God with free will. Only this one actually could and did live as Adam could not. All of that was to undo the damage done by Adam/Eve.

      But how significant would Jesus' life be if he were half a god? What makes what he accomplished so significant is that he was a human. Born of Mary and Joseph. Born of David and Abraham and Adam.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 9 days ago

      It's hard to believe anything the Catholic Church decided made up the "true" Bible because they changed the holiness of the Sabath and revere sunday. For all we know they burned the real history of Jesus and just allowed Matthew-John to be included because it fit with their theology.

      "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. " Daniel 7:25

      "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20:28-30

      Yes, long ago God predicted that, from within the church itself, misguided men would arise who would attempt to change His holy law.

      In Daniel, God lists many identifying characteristics of the little horn who would 'think to change' God's law. The Bible's identifying points clearly implicate the Roman Catholic church. Look at the many statements made by the church and its leadership.

      “The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit – or blame – for the change.” This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, p.8, June 1997

      "The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day." ~The Catholic Encyclopedia

      I can only truly believe the attributes of Jesus which the prophets revealed about him. Everything else has no substance other than what faith gives us. But to say Jesus was just a man and is in no way more God than we are is saying too much. Jesus is the angel of the lord, who is also referred to as an incarnation of Yahweh himself more than once in the tanak, aka the old testament as it was known in Jesus' day. Saying he's just a really good and godly inspired prophet, you might as well call yourself as Muslim as it's what they believe. Which is intrinsically wrong as many things Jesus said and claimed makes him a liar and abomination to all that is good and holy and true. Unless he was correct. God did not create him. Jesus always was. He said that before Abraham was, 'I am'.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 9 days ago from Texas

      "The origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written between 150 B.C. and 70 A.D., remains the subject of scholarly debate to this day. According to the prevailing theory, they are the work of a Jewish population that inhabited Qumran until Roman troops destroyed the settlement around 70 A.D." - https://www.history.com/news/6-things-you-may-not-...

      Jesus is the son of God in the same way that Joseph/David/Shem/Methuselah/Enoch/Seth/Adam were sons of God (Luke 3).

      Jesus was the son of God in that God interacted and influenced Jesus' bloodline, thus creating him in an environment that was not in His control. What makes Jesus' accomplishments so significant is that he was truly human.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 9 days ago

      WHAT?the dead see scrolls date back thousands of years and contain multiple coppies of every book in the old testament.save for 1 i believe ester.the book of enoch is not written by enoch and is not included in the bible becouse it ts mostly unreliable texts.in the book of jude it is said by the profit that enoch spoke profitcy against the fallen ones.this is not a quote from that book of enoch.but is a statement by God as to what enoch did that was good.you say you focus on the book of Genesis but all you do is focus on the parts of Genesis you deem reliable.Genisis 5 being the most unreliable.and whate did you get this idea that from the time of Jesus the texts get more unreliable?really?what are you trying to sell..Jesus son of God or proffit?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 10 days ago from Texas

      Understand, the book of Enoch was written around the time of Jesus, 5000 years after the events of Genesis. The early stories of Genesis were already a mystery by then. Nobody, not the writer of Enoch, not Mohammad, had any sort of informed knowledge of these books beyond anyone else.

      This is why I focus on the books of Moses (Gen-Deut), because these were actually written in that age by people who lived in that age. Well, technically writing wasn't invented for another 1500 years, so these stories were passed down, but from a much more accurate source than those written in Jesus' time.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 10 days ago

      But you have changed the word.the dead see scrolls prove it.centuries ago? Yes or no mohamad profit or not. Jesus profit of God or son?you wish to change the word saying with modern knoledge we can correct it and make it right.doesnt that give us today an advantage? You see the problem?and if as you say some texts are incorrect then you should correct them bind the "modern"version together and rename it.by this you can begin your own religion.you have said in your posts the book of jude is plagiarism the book of Genesis also is plagiarism using old stories with added chapters from the lieing evil story telling sons of adam.then if you are so sure remove them.the 5th chapter chief among them..according to you...also every book that contains any refernce to enoch.and then your problems will disappear.you can teach from your newly revised modern corrected version.as mohammad did.this is your theology that the bible is plagiarism and needs correcting..just certain passages and books...not changeing it just correcting it putting it back the way it allways should have ben.so it makes the quran needed and bible usless.tell me then the man who walked with mosses who knew more than him who performed 3 tasks do you revier him you son of cain betray yourself .jesus profit of God or son?mohamad profit or no?adam was not the first man but the first in the line of Jesus Christs the genome of God.but again follow your heart do the work that proves the word of God,or chang the word to reflect the modern truth you sell.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 10 days ago from Texas

      I've changed nothing. I've merely applied the correct context to the stories and found the truths that were there all along while being totally misunderstood.

      All that's changed is the misunderstood interpretations made centuries ago by people who didn't have the knowledge to know what context the stories were told in. And there interpretations show that to be the case.

      Yours shows signs of not having the proper knowledge as well. From here I can plainly see it's errors. Don't be foolish.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 10 days ago

      Modern knoledge you fool teach the quran if thats your choice but stop trying to cahange the bible to suit mohamsds pourpose.no new knoledge modern or otherwise can change the truth of the bible.im not "butt hurt" over your comments i find them very foolish.written by a fallible man pron to lies snd missconeptions brought on by the nature of your free will.and you have changed the scriptures.regardless of reason,that you obviously revier.foolishness is foolishness.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 days ago from Texas

      I haven't revised anything. You're just butt hurt because I pointed out your equation as meaningless. I don't gain anything by being "right". If I'm wrong I want to be shown I'm wrong. But I'm not going to waste my time when that claim of "what's right" is so immediately flawed from the concept up.

      This "version" that I present is simply a reconsideration in light of modern knowledge. I've omitted nothing. What verse is it that you claim I'm ignoring? You're right about Jude, though. And anything that speaks of the book of Enoch, which is obviously a form of fan fiction written around the well known stories of early Genesis.

      I'm simply taking a level headed approach. You being offended by my response to yours is more about your ego being all wrapped up in what you're presenting. I don't mind being wrong. I will be eternal grateful anytime you can show me that I'm wrong about something. Because I value the truth above all else I want to know if I'm wrong about something.

      I'm not wrong about what you're presenting.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 11 days ago

      Ya everything you twist as if the truth is perverted.not my equation Gods.the truth you turn to lie for your own porpoise.i gave you the science and direction all you have to do is the work.if your preyers have ben answered and the sons of cain you follow then i know your father

      I believe mr.christian that you should follow after your own heart.this same problem you will run into:people will continue to bring up scripture you choose to delete for various reasons.you then should concider a re-edit of the hebrew bible.removing all Genisis ch.5 all the book of jude any that reference enoch and all others you deem unworthy till you have a complete work exalting the sons of cain and admonishing foolishness of the story tellers aka the dangerous sons of adam.when completed you could call it "the newly enlighten jeremy christian version" then you can teach from that and no answer can prevail against you.if it be your unable to answer then just revise it again and again.the fact you twist the truth and follow the sons of cain and deni Gods glory that he gave to alk men proves your motive.do the work eather the math or the edit follow your own heart.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 days ago from Texas

      What makes an equation meaningful is that the characters and values mean something. F is for force, m for mass. Actual measurements that directly reflect what they represent.

      Years in a man's life and in his son's life has no meaning in regards to the length of a day.

      Besides, what does revealing the characteristics of the Earth have to do with anything? What does this accomplish? Proof? Of God? Of the bible's legitimacy?

      Nothing, including the bible, should be an idol that represents God. God is God and no physical thing can lead you to him. That is not what the bible is. Numbers are going to relate to one another. You're going to find a correlation of some kind between this number and that. Coincidences abound in this kind of thinking. And any one of those coincidences can lead you down pointless and meaningless paths. Because there is no meaning at its core. The values of the equation are irrelevant to the calculation.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 days ago from Texas

      So I do this by faith? Faith in what? Faith in God? Faith in your equation?

      I have done the work through prayer. When I prayed for guidance I got what I've written here. Which you are now rejecting because you believe you already have the answer. Because you found yours through faith and work you assume you're right and I'm wrong. So does that make you a better believer?

    • profile image

      Keithalan 11 days ago

      Not exactly...by faith you do the work.im olny giving direction.first you must concider what is most important to you;to prove your theology or to know the truth.and if its the latter then you will succeed.but by faith you do tbe work..how many days in a year..look at my posts i gave you many things to look up scientifically .by following this path and asking guidence from the holy spirit will you see his glory.it is for this purposes that God gave his olny begotten son,that in this day by his holy spirit, he will guide you.you will find answers that come olny by his knowing of your thoughts.and he will lead you and no knoledge will he keep from you.and blessed is he that believes and still has not seen.faith is an action faith with work is righteousness.as counted by God

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 12 days ago from Texas

      You say that it's only by faith that this can be seen. Yet you're showing me. If these were legitimate then it would seem that I could come to believe by finding the equations legitimate. It could be proven to me through this, and not through faith. Does that sound right?

    • profile image

      Keithalan 12 days ago

      No problem at all

      GOD created the bible to unfold over time.as our knoledge of science increased,by his revelations,so too our understanding.

      It is olny by faith one can find tbis truth. And as a fact to reaserch the history of science you will find men of God who gave us these truths, isaac newton,the one most readely researched.but the fact is in the completion of this equation you will also find the creation of light by its velocity.and the formation of the cubits.all to the end that the nature of time can be revealed. So then comes the knoledge of a change of time and its new mathmatics.this do i claim

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 12 days ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      So, you claim these equations can reveal the size, weight, density, rotational velocity, and resonate frequency of the Earth. See, here's the problem with that. If these were proofs of the bible's legitimacy then what that means is that people who live in this age where these things can be known and confirmed have an advantage over others who lived in an age when these things were not known. People before this age had to have faith without confirmation. People of this age don't.

      You see the problem?

    • profile image

      Keithalan 12 days ago

      You mean we all need to look through your lens?i completly understand the orgins and context of Gods word.stop making assumptions as to my understanding.do you really believe what you say?if its true you believe the bible is just a collection of stories of man "with added bonus scenes" then whats the point.you sir should read the quran.your theology is of them.becouse you never look for evidence of Gods word believing it from man,then your misconceptions betrays you.your assumptions tells all men of God of your intensions.to pick and choose the words of scripture as you deem important to your arguments. and all other truths you ignore,believing all men do as you do,making wild conclusions without merit.but i sir am not as you.as i have said befour Gods equation continues throughout the bible.every profit wrote of it.you are very unwise to deni a work that proves the word of God,and his existence.you betray yourself.you should study the texts you believe true.and stop wasting your time on the bible.it is true adam was not the first man.thats why i came to this page,but now i understand all you really want to do is prove the bible is not the word of God.and any man that thinks so does so becouse he is mislead without understanding.please stop selling Gods word short and for that matter my words on the subject.i tell no lies.all you have to do is look.and for that mattet what about the new testament?is that too just a collection of stories by men?with free will?prone to lies?as if the lord christ choose them unwisely? without knoledge of their freewill? You should know the new testament completes the equation God began in Genisis.revelation the last book 2nd to the last chapter 21 brings the new earth.12000 ferlongs and i heard the walls theirof 144 acording to the cubit that is of the angel of the lord for he is a man.if you can correctly solve this equation you will know the truth.but if your bible states it to be 1500 miles then throw it away.God gives equaisions over and over allways counting time and genealogy.i dont want to argue any more.if you won't look then dont comment.im well aware of your stance on mathmatics and your misconceptions about the bible.i say these things olny for your edification.to dispell your own preconcieved notions for wich you can never prove.but by this work can the word be proven.and becouse you will say this is the new city and not the new earth if you do the work you will find it to be the size,weight,density,rotational velocity,and resonate frequency,of the earth.do the work i lead you not astray

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 13 days ago from Texas

      This is why it's important to first understand the texts that makeup the bible as we know it today. For instance, Genesis 2-11, from Adam up through the story of Babel, were found together. Multiple times. This was a popular story in that age.

      Creation was tacked on later. As were the chapters that give the lineages of Adam's descendants.

      This was not written by God. These are not God's words. There's no hidden message to be deciphered. These are humans recording stories that were often told in that age. These are human documentation of a time in history when this God interacted with humanity.

      I don't doubt that God is quite capable of putting some secret message in there knowing what form the bible would one day take, but there's nothing to confirm that these wild speculations are at all correct or relevant.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 13 days ago

      The first time God uses the word year is on the 4th day and uses it in the phrase let it be for days and years.The next time is in the 5th chapter..and also uses it in relation to days saying the no.of days of each mans life is equil to so many years.this is an equation.God doesn't play with words to make it more elegant and fancy.God. lives in a time 1 day = 1000 years.this is his dominion and calls us to look for him.in the 5th chapter the script stays the same olny the names and numbers are changed.till enoch the 7th from adam.and he walked with God and talked with God and God took him for he was no more.his son lived 969 years and died the same year as the flood.not in it.tell me then how many days did eacj man live?anf why would God phrase it this way?just for fun?but how can it be then that this is a perfect equaision? just a lucky sly trick? and the 120 year period is also phrased "for their no. Of days shall be as 120 years.that was 120 years before the flood.how many days is that?you who claim science to be the answer.but instead of science you use theroy.we evolved from what apes?we are closer geniticly to pigs than monkeys.and whare is the missing link?from neanderthals to us?or was Gods

      Image liken to neanderthals ?all over the earth is this one truth missing links to animals living in this time.whales and dolfins are a great example.but concider the diversity of life on this earth.the millions upon millions of species living in simbiotic harmony.this represents trillions and trillions of mutations.im not refering to differnt breeds of animals like dogs as God in his wisdom gave each animal the ability to adapt to changing conditions. But just the species themselfs.how many single cell organisms turned into multi cell creatures?and then to spread all over the earth?mankind has never seen just 1 do this in 10,000 years.nor have we seen any new species develop. Even if we say the earth 200 billion years old it is mathmaticly impossible.not by a little but by impossible.in fact if the earth was 10000 trillion years old it still would not be enough time.and yet this is the 2nd creation.100 million years ago dinosaurs lived in a completely differnt world.the species then died and a new creation all missing links from the past how an intelligent person can over look the simple truth that their isnt enough time in the.universe for this earth with its diversity of life to" evolve ".and thats assuming every mutation was perfect.you just see things adapting and call that evidence that we came from single celled organisms.why dont do some real science and research the the mathmatical possibility of evolution.concidering we see no new species in 10000 years.nor have we seen any single cell turning into multi cell.and for that matter whare did the single cell come from anyway?have we ever seen one created from nothing? So if one just poped into existence how long would it take to fill the earth with just that one cell creature?and what are the odds of that creature being able to reproduce.and what would it eat concidering their is no life on earth.and we fall for it cuz that's what they teach in school.but olny a fool thinks he can use the bible to proove evelutuon.have you really ever conciderd the ridiculous nature of it all.or do you just go along with every theroy becouse some so called scientists say so?does it even matter to you that their motivation is money.theory is theory.not science till its proven.when we see new species being created,single celled organisms just popping into existence,and changing into multicell creatures, at a rate consistent with the number of mutations needed for the diversity that exists today by the age of the earth then maby you can call it science.but that this earth is not flat it took hundreds of years to dispel that foolish belief.but how the moor is the foolishness of evolution.does anyone really think about what their told in schools?will anyone ever do the math to see if its even possible?becouse that is real science...you have a theroy and you proove it.a single cell just popping into existence?really?show me whare is the science?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      It does say it. It's not hidden. It's right there. God created humans male and female on day 6, then day 7, then Adam and Eve. It then reinforces it with Cain's concern for others in ch4 and speaking about the two groups, comparing the 'daughters of humans' to the 'sons of god' by saying they're "mortal" and only live 120 years. This comes right after showing Adam and his descendants living for centuries.

      I'm just pointing it out.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 2 weeks ago

      Really when you "find something" its deemed not sly but if anouther "find something"its sly becouse its not stated as clearly as you would like aka you didnt find it...hippocrit and for tbe record.the no of days being equil to x no of years is an equation.you have all these rules as to what the word of God is not.again you will not succeed.you follow lies.this mathmatics continues to perfection.who are you to limit Gods word.and you state as fact things you know nothing of.one can easly use your same arguments against you.whare does it say adam was not the first man?the bible is not a puzzle book.if he wasnt the first why doesnt it say so?you see your main problem is you believe your the olny one that can find hidden truths in the scriptures,as if you be the keeper of truth.your ego is without merit and the truth of Gods word will consume your foolishness.you pretend to tell me not to persue Gods mathmatics as its a dead end.but ive allready completed them.and it is the explaination of creation.how can you even pretend to tell someone whats not in the bible..like you know everything?you say you have a responsibility to God to tell tje truth and yet when the truth is in front of you you then deni it.it is God that opened this door to me and your foolishness and beliefs of God can never close it...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      It's 'sly' because it's not stated as being part of an equation. It's presented as the number of years Enoch lived. And God taking Enoch just being a 'clue' to those who through faith find this little secret. Like you found a decoder ring in a box of cracker jacks.

      Yes, we view the bible differently. In my mind it cannot be the word of God because it was written by human hands, and they could not write the words of God without God overriding their free will to do so. The bible was written by humans with the free will to choose to do so.

      True understanding comes once you begin to put everything into the right context. I found what I found through prayer and faith as well. The last thing I want to do is talk ignorantly out of my ass and mislead someone looking for answers. There's a responsibility in it.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 2 weeks ago

      The text says the no of days of enochs life was 365 yrs.isn't that a call to look? What is sly about that?you suppose wrongly how i found this truth.i did so by prayer and faith.we are two differnt houses on two different foundations.you believe the bible the word of man about God.i believe the bible to be the word of God about man.by this do we build differently.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 2 weeks ago

      Nice concideration God does nothing slyly he does for his childern of faith.its funny becouse this equation continues to perfect conclusuon.this is olny the first line of Gods mathmatics.if as you say its a pattern of numbers then by them the odds of this one line is 1000×1000×1000 to 1 or 1 billoin to one.but this continues.sorry to see you take the path of denial.did you ever look the no of days in a year or not?you see time and Gods place in heaven all begin with this one act of faith.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      I've considered it and have dismissed it as entirely irrelevant. You really think God took Enoch after 365 years just to slyly nod at the number? Ridiculous. You've found a pattern, which often happens in numbers, because they're all related. 365 jumps out to you as the number of days in a year. From there you've obviously just followed erroneous strands in a directionless brain storm.

      There's nothing to tether any of this to reality. Stick to the hard stuff. Don't get distracted with this kind of thing. God didn't create the bible as a puzzle book. It's not a game.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 2 weeks ago

      Their place in heaven is their orbits.the exact no of days in a year is 365.24225 as a fact.if you still say its irrelevant how can that be?is 969/4000 .24225? Did enoch live 365 yrs? Isnt enoch the first one taken by God?didnt he put an exclamation mark on the number by taking him?and you say irrelevant? Irrelevant to who you?these things completely relate and are true.you can ignore them and be ignorant.deni them and be a fool.or concider them carefully

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Rogers,

      Before Adam and Eve humans didn't have free will. They lived as indigenous cultures do to this day. They have no individual will that compels them to build. They're simply content to live in harmony with nature. Technology and buildings and civilizations are all the result of free will.

      Homo sapiens have been on the Earth for roughly 200000 years. Civilization and what you're talking about has only been around for about 7000 years. Which is how long ago Adam was created.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      keithalan,

      You're really reaching. First off, Enoch living 365 years and his son living 969 years is completely irrelevant.

      Day 4 is God positioning the sun and moon in the sky. Look up the drifting continents that you mentioned before. During this time in creation all the planet's landmass was collected around the south pole where light and dark lasts 6 months and the sun and moon just pass in the northern most part of the sky. During this portion those continents drifted up to where they're located now, between the poles. This did exactly what it states. It positioned the sun and moon in the sky to be used as they are. Creation is told from a 'surface of the Earth' point of view, which is why it begins with God's spirit on the surface.

    • profile image

      Rogers 2 weeks ago

      My question is, as some of you guys mention that there were, some living things even thou they were not exactly as humans as Adam but related "

      My question is ' Why there's no evidence of a least Technology, or buildings which proves that. there were human-like thing before Adam was created. .

    • profile image

      Keithalan 2 weeks ago

      Thedecadentone God is not a God of confusion but of teaching.you do very well in that you keep looking for truth.ive had the same experience loosing my posts just befour posting.and also concidered that perhaps i shouldnt have began to speak on a particular topic.and always it seems the most invested of wrightings is lost.dont believe what man says as to the orgins of the word of God.you are on the right path.Gods word is the bible.he is able to wright it reveal perform it and prove it.but you must first look through the linz that the creator of all things and teacher of the same wrote it.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 2 weeks ago

      Sorry, I just studied random Hebrew texts and commentaries, so my knowledge on Melchizedek is subpar at best and almost certainly near nothing more than what I posted here.

      Probably wont be commenting on this again, sorry, as either an angel of light or dark just signaled that i need to shut up about certain things that I very much want to ramble about (had a huge post written up but the page mysteriously reset 2 seconds before I hit enter.)

      The author is probably right. Hebrew importance on time and chronology and sentence structure is much less evolved or important than to us or the Greek. Hebrew of old didn't even care about an afterlife.

      Moses, Asaph, someone named Ethan, and Korah's sons are attributed to many old testament biblical books so correctly, no, the prophets likely didnt personally pen the Bible. That was just me rambling.

      Chapter 1 is the overview, the record of the origin of the ‘heavens and earth’ (2:4)—whereas chapter 2 is concerned with Adam and Eve, the detailed account of Adam and Eve’s creation (5:1,2). The wording of 2:4 also suggests the shift in emphasis: in the first part of the verse it is ‘heavens and earth’ whereas in the end of the verse it is ‘earth and heavens’. Scholars think that the first part of the verse would have been on the end of a clay or stone tablet recording the origin of the universe and the latter part of the verse would have been on the beginning of a second tablet containing the account of events on earth pertaining particularly to Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:4b–5:1a).

      Let us apply this understanding to another objection: some also see a problem with the plants and herbs in Genesis 2:5 and the trees in Genesis 2:9. We have already realized that Genesis 2 focuses on issues of direct import to Adam and Eve, not creation in general. Notice that the plants and herbs are described as ‘of the field’ in Genesis chapter 2 (compare 1:12) and they needed a man to tend them (2:5). These are clearly cultivated plants, not just plants in general. Also, the trees (2:9) are only the trees planted in the garden, not trees in general.

      Genesis was written like many historical accounts with an overview or summary of events leading up to the events of most interest first, followed by a detailed account which often recaps relevant events in the overview in greater detail. Genesis 1, the ‘big picture’ is clearly concerned with the sequence of events. The events are in chronological sequence, with day 1, day 2, evening and morning, etc. The order of events is not the major concern of Genesis 2. In recapping events they are not necessarily mentioned in chronological order, but in the order which makes most sense to the focus of the account. For example, the animals are mentioned in verse 19, after Adam was created, because it was after Adam was created that he was shown the animals, not that they were created after Adam.

      Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are not therefore separate contradictory accounts of creation. Chapter 1 is the ‘big picture’ and Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation. God has done miracles and defied science more than once in the bible, and has probably again done so an innumerable amount of times that aren't described in the biblical books which is exactly what is said of even Jesus' miracles, that no library could contain them. I have no doubt one or more so called scientific facts of today, God has only made appear that way to confound us.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 2 weeks ago

      How many days in a year? Look closely at the 4th day.. this is not the creation of the sun and moon but the mathmatics of the orbits.let them be for sighns and seasons and days and years.this is the first time the word years is used.the next time in gen.5 concider enoch taken after 365 years his son lived 969 years.to look up no.of days in year you will find that their are 969 leap years in 4000 4000/969=.24225+365=365.24225 no of days in a year.this is the beginning.the line God put on this earth comes from this.and is in such a complete state thatolny a fool could deni it.look it up how many days in a year?

    • profile image

      Kane 2 weeks ago

      Great article, very insightful. I'm always happy to see others who challenge the traditional interpretations of the bible, especially when the challenge is made in accordance with scripture. Contemporary society often seems content to rest with our current general understanding of scripture, however, the past (the reformation) clearly shows a great evolution of theological understanding related to scripture; there's no reason to assume that this evolution will stop with todays church's widely accepted or more popular understanding of scriptural knowledge.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      When you say you know God's equation I get skeptical. I've seen numerous claims of mathematical discoveries found in the bible and elsewhere and each and every time it's been delusional bullshit. Until I see something convincing my immediate assumption is going to be this is bullshit too.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      Yes, the 'wod of God' existed. But that's not the bible, thought he bible is often called "God's word". The bible is a collection of human writings during a time when this God interacted with humans. It's a piece of our history. If it's not read and understood for what it is then a lot of misconceptions can be drawn from it that are ultimately just distractions in search of the truth.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 2 weeks ago

      It is not possable for you to succeed.you have been deceived. I dont say this lightly.in the begiging was the word.read Psalms 139.untill you realise that the word of God existed before it was made known on this earth you will succeed in nothing.it is from this understanding that one begins to search for knoledge olny a creator could know.hidden truths...for example how big is the earth?God not olny gives us its size but also the units of measure used.read job 38.the first question posed to man.also the velocitys of nature.all in the same equation.this i say is true as i know Gods equation. But first i believed or else i wouldnt have looked.how then could anything you revile be above this? The proof of God and his word?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      I went and checked to make sure. I've only ever deleted two comments. And both of those were double postings, so I only deleted the duplicates.

      I haven't stopped learning. What I've published here is only the beginning. The tip of a really large iceberg. This gives you the information that sets the stage for the rest of it. It establishes the correct context to read the rest of the story in. Many new insights come to light as you do so. But until this part of it is understood, you can't even begin to discuss all the rest of it.

      What I've published here is enough to correct some key misconceptions that has caused a lot of confusion over the centuries. Once this has been established we can begin to address the rest of it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Oyeteju,

      "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden;"

      This portion is speaking about a specific place. And yes, in the age Adam was created this region was indeed desert, and did indeed transition to a lush green area.

      "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"

      If he's speaking of the whole world, why just create the one man to 'work the ground'? Just the one Adam can only work the ground in a relatively small region.

      "So Adam is still the first man except if you don't want to agree or you're probably angry about something in the bible"

      Not just these specific verses, but all the rest of the story, makes more sense if there are two groups of people. Others that Cain feared. The fact that Cain left and built a city. Not a homestead. Not a farm. A city.

      Re: Evolution / homo sapien

      Evolution is how God creates. Everything starts in a simple form and evolves into something greater. Seeds become trees. God populated the world by commanding life live. Physical bodies formed and evolved. The natural world became what God commanded.

      Homo sapiens are simpler forms of what we are now. We had to start somewhere. We share commonality with the animal world, and specifically with primates for a reason. We all have blood and lungs and breathe air and have arms and legs because we all share common traits. We are all related. We are all God's creation. Same source. Same origin.

      Genesis 2 starts with the seventh day because the text is incorrectly broken up into chapter/verse. Adam was not created during the course of creation. He was created after. God called all He created in chapter 1 "good". Adam was not "good". God gave Adam one rule and he broke it. Would God call this "good"?

    • profile image

      Oyeteju 2 weeks ago

      Also supporting The decadent one's comment, no homosapien was created before Adam because the bible clearly states Adam was the first man also supported by Genesis chapter one verse 2.

      Homosapiens are chimps for Christ sake!! God created animals in the sixth day !! This stupid theory of evolution really annoys me, and I have to support the shit to pass my exams, fossils of dead animals(monkeys and gorrilas??) are what I originated from?? God Forbid. Adam was the FIRST man and the bible tells us so.

    • profile image

      Oyeteju 2 weeks ago

      Jeremy

      I actually see no mistake in the verses you pointed out, maybe you should state them.

      Okay,if you say Genesis 2 vs 4 is an outro of chapter one, I agree because some verse 1s are sometimes the last verse of the previous chapter in some other translations(Hebrew or Greek).

      But go back to that same Genesis chapter 2 vs 4, towards the middle there is a paragraph which symbolizes another "topic or subject" just like in letter writing, " These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. (Oh fullstop, truly the outro, agreed. But wait what? Paragraph! )

      In the day that the lord GOD made the earth and the heavens, (vs 5) when no plant of the field was yet in the earth (clearly stating it is the whole earth which is before third day of creation)

      Check again (read it well)

      Thedecadentone is Right, moses and other prophets wrote the bible . it was only translated by scholars.

      And I'll suggest you get a Revised standard version of the bible and read the preface.(if you haven't)

      So Adam is still the first man except if you don't want to agree or you're probably angry about something in the bible

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      "Are you even a Christian?"

      Yes

      "Please tell me what mistakes the Bible makes so I can set you on the correct path."

      Genesis 12, 20 and 26. Did this same series of events happen three three times, twice to Abraham and his wife, once to Lot and his wife. Abimilek is the Pharaoh in two of the versions. Did this happen to this Pharaoh twice? Or did three versions of the same story get edited together?

      Understand, just because I say the bible is fallible doesn't mean I'm saying it's all nonsense. There's a big difference and a huge separation of time between the people who actually wrote these texts and the ones who edited it all together in the book you and I know now.

      There's a lot that can be learned and gained from the stories of the bible. You just have to know what you're reading. What's what.

      "The bible was written by Moses and other prophets"

      How do you know that?

    • profile image

      Keithalan 2 weeks ago

      To thedecadentone. ..ive been thinking on your theology and im curious as to whare you received your understanding....concerning the priesthood of Melchizedec.you have correctly identified a mathmatical constant in Gods pattern of creation.is their a way we could contact each other outside this forum?

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 2 weeks ago

      Are you even a Christian? Or just some science minded fellow trying to make Christians look like idiots by pretending to be a learned bible scholar when you're not even sure what is actually inspired and what is bologna? Is this just a fun eschatological exercise for you? Please tell me what mistakes the Bible makes so I can set you on the correct path. You can't explain away the bible through science as it wasn't designed to work that way. God has made it impossible on purpose by filling it with miracles.. or lies, since what you just said to Oyeteju makes me think you don't even really believe in most of the bible unless it meets with your wild theories. The bible was written by Moses and other prophets, but since it seems you think the bible is full of contradictions I don't know why you bother at all to try and reason the ramblings of crazed, simple minded desert dwellers.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 2 weeks ago

      When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God gave them skins to cover up with (Genesis 3:21). To get those skins, some animal had to die. In other words, God sacrificed an animal to cover their sin. From the beginning, God has declared the payment for sin is death, and so blood must be shed to cover sin. Fig dresses weren't good enough, just like Cains fruit and vegetables weren't. Wish I knew why God doesn't seem to like figs very much as the bible is always putting them down, but I digress.

      In Romans 5: 12 he writes "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." The verse doesn't say "only death to all men through sin". It means that because of him death exists for everything, which is why God has to remake not only the earth, but all of the heavens as well. Adam and Eve ate fruit of trees; the fruit itself isn't a living, breathing, pain experiencing entity like the tree said fruit grows on, so one can't posit that plant death proves death existed before Adam. As for the dinosaurs? Well, satan did fall like a star from heaven, and the earth at one point was formless and void, whatever that really means.

      Did god retroactively make all creatures die starting millions of years in the past due to something Adam did several thousand years ago? Maybe, but unlikely. Sin entered and corrupted the whole universe, requiring God to remake it once hes finished judging and brings New Jerusalem to earth rather than just reshaping the earth alone.

      And wait..if the bible is fallible then why are we even debating what to you can all be nonsense?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Oyeteju,

      Gen2:4 is I think part of the reason for the confusion. The original text was broken up into chapter/verse much later. There didn't used to be a separation from one to the other. But because there is now, it makes it seem as though this is the intro to chapter 2, when actually it's more of an outro to chapter 1.

      Chapter 2 is no longer talking about "all the earth". The bit about there being no plant of the field and no rain doesn't mean at all. It means in the specific area where he was to create Adam it was dry and desolate. Which would be a good place to create a being like Adam because it would be isolated though the world was already populated.

      The bible is not infallible. It's man-made. Do this, read Genesis 12, 20 and 26, then come back and tell me the bible isn't riddled with mistakes. It was not written by God.

      It's important to understand this. When you don't you come away with conclusions like you've reached here.

    • profile image

      Oyeteju 3 weeks ago

      Thanks for answering my question even though I came back late

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Thedecadentone,

      I only got into the first couple of sentences. Before I can address any of the rest of it I need to address this.

      You - "The first death was when God killed an animal to provide them clothing. You are warping...."

      After this first sentence you immediately begin saying I'm warping things. I can't for the life of me figure out where you got this idea about the first death.

      Gen3:7 - Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

      Please explain this.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 3 weeks ago

      The first death was when God killed an animal to provide them clothing. You are warping easily understood concepts in an odd fashion to support your skewed thesis. Genesis 2 gives the details left out of Genesis 1, just like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John give different details and different perspectives on the Jesus story. To say there were homo sapiens already made in gods image before he made Adam in his own image requires a huge leap of unsubstantiated faith which the bible states is not necessary; only a mustard seeds amount is required, and this applies to doing research on biblical passages. Genesis 1:29–31; 3:1–24; Romans 8:19–22; Revelation 21:4; 22:3 prove that death existed in no way at all before Adam sinned except for the eating of plants, which warped and screwed up the laws of the universe, which only makes things appear as if they have been as we see them. If the universe is perfect aside from earth and death has always existed, then god would have no need to recreate earth and all of the heavens, and Revelations and the other verses I provided is proven as bogus, which means nothing in the bible can really be trusted.

      Adam and Eve were created perfect and lived 900 plus years. Only 500 years is required, and even less with beings who don't die except from being killed or old age, to populate a massive amount of land. And genetic flaws only pile on through inbreeding which caused our life expectencies to drop exponentially over the years. If there are zero genetic flaws in the dna, siblings can produce healthy children for several generations before things go wrong. We need a diverse gene pool of about 70 to repopulate the world as of now due to our flawed genetic code, but in the beginning only two were necessary. God only does miracles and defies the laws of nature on extremely rare circumstance. Cain would have been able to interbreed with Adams other direct descendents without a problem. No philosophical gymnastics required. When The Singularity happens and AI becomes a god, aka the beast, people's lifetimes will increase tenfold in those 3-7 years where it will solve our economic and physical flaws, which is why during the millennial kingdom people can live to be a hundred and still be called children, those who die being very unlucky and cursed. Jesus doesn't have to do anything as we will have come up with everything needed for the millennial kingdom thanks to the beast, its image, Satan, and the false prophet. If you study the entire bible, all the individual puzzle pieces logically fit.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      This is not physical death. Everything dies in this universe. This is speaking of spiritual death. Before Adam there was no free will so there was no way any of the humans or anything else in the universe could be in conflict with God, and therefore unnatural.

      All life continues to live beyond death. Death in this case is actually ceasing to exist. Adam did indeed introduce that. The whole reason we're all capable of falling out of sync with God is because Adam was introduced into this world and through their free will they mixed blood lines with humans, introducing an unnatural element into an otherwise totally naturally environment.

      After God breathed life into Adam it said he became a living creature. This is not simply living like animals live. We live with our own minds and wills. Yes, it is an interpretation, but an interpretation that considers the through line context of the story. In that context, that's how that reads.

    • profile image

      Ben 3 weeks ago

      Jeremy,

      Looking back I realize my first question was vague. To hopefully state it more clearly, did the humans, created before Adam, die? If so, how do you explain, 1 Corinthians 15:21?

      If humans created in Genesis chapter 1 lived and populated the Earth thousands of years before God created Adam, then either A) they were immortal or B) they died (which would contradict what 1 Cor 15:21 says, death entered through Adam)

      "Adam was the first man in that he was the first with his own free will, able to behave contrary to God's will."

      Also this seems like a bit of an interpretation on your part. Why would 1 Cor 15:45 not plainly state "The first man [with his own free will] Adam". ?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Ben,

      The humans created in chapter 1 had fully populated the Earth by the time Adam and Eve were created. In chapter 4 when Cain voices his concern of others he may encounter when leaving Eden, these were them. The 'daughters of humans' that it says in chapter 6 the 'sons of God' began to have children by, these were them. These were the humans it says God 'regretted' putting on the Earth because they looked like Adam and his family and these two bloodlines began to intermingle, introducing free will into naturally evolved humans. This is why they became 'wicked'.

      Adam was the first man in that he was the first with his own free will, able to behave contrary to God's will. Other humans before Adam did not. This is why it refers to one as the first Adam and Jesus as the last Adam. Jesus finally did what Adam was meant to do. Behave according to God's will though he was capable of acting in conflict if he willed it.

    • profile image

      Ben 3 weeks ago

      Hi Jeremy,

      First, your original article was a interesting read. Very thought provoking. Two questions for you:

      1. Did the humans (and their descendants) created in the first chapter of Genesis grow old and die in the time before Adam/Eve were created?

      2. Given the interpretation you proposed, how do you make sense of 1 Corinthians 15:45-47?

      Thanks.

      -Ben

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Sakib,

      No, humans didn't evolve from giants. Homo sapiens have been their same relative size for hundreds of thousands of years, and previous species in the homo genus the same, or smaller.

      If the depictions of the Annunaki, the Sumerian gods, on their tablet carvings is to be any indication, and assuming these are indeed the descendants of Adam, it would seem that Adam and his family were quite a bit larger than naturally evolved humans.

      "Anak is a figure in the Hebrew Bible. His descendants are mentioned in narratives concerning the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. According to the Book of Numbers, Anak was a forefather of the Anakim.The Bible describes them as very tall descendants of the Nephilim." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anak

    • profile image

      Sakib 3 weeks ago

      Didn't humans evolve from giants?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      We are free to choose, but we are not free of the consequences of our choice.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      The story of Adam and Eve is really simple and clear once the context is understood.

      It is not A and E who were deemed "good". It was the humans created in Gen1 through God's commands to "be fruitful and multiply". Lived thrived and populated the Earth as instructed and resulted in humans by the end. This is what God deemed good. These humans were told to fill and subdue the Earth. And that's exactly what homo sapiens, humans before A and E, did. By the time A and E were created in Gen2 the world was populated by humans. These humans did not have free will. Which is why they so exactly carried out the commands of God.

      The creation of Adam and Eve was the introduction of free will into a universe where it never existed anywhere before. All the rest of the universe, every element in it behaves exactly according to God's will/natural law/science. That's what the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were. They weren't magic trees. What gave them their "power" was the rule God gave Adam. By saying don't eat it, God created this perfect environment where only one rule existed. And they broke that one rule. That made them the first and only of God's creation to behave in direct opposition to God's will. That's what severed their connection with God. The knowledge of good and evil is free will. It's a will free of God's free to behave in any way it chooses, good or bad.

      Procreation is a physical/biological necessity. To continue to live, we must procreate. Because we die. Angels don't. There's no need to procreate. They're not biological. We are biological forms.

      "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

      Alright, now this is important. We are not created in God's image. God is not a physical/biological body. The writers/original story tellers telling this story were the 'sons of God'. The descendants of Adam/Eve.

      Gen6 makes it clear. These 'daughters of humans' living among the 'sons of God'/Adam's descendants were created in their image. When it says "after our likeness", this isn't God talking to angels. This the writer saying "our/my" likeness. Like us. These naturally evolved humans / homo sapiens were in the same human form as Adam's descendants.

      This is why it says God "regretted" putting these humans on the Earth. In a universe where everything works exactly as you will it, there is no regret. The regret came because of an unforeseen problem. Adam's descendants began to interbreed with these humans. That's why and how humanity became "wicked". For the first time in hundreds of thousands of years. They too began to behave contrary to God's will. This is what the flood was intended for. To control this contamination.

      You're right, this is all a very physical story. Physical places, physical trees. And physical wills in a physical world where things are effected by it. Out of God's control. In our control. Free will is a big responsibility. This is the story of Genesis and the meaning of life.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 3 weeks ago

      Sorry i didnt fully give you reference to the angels fallen with satan...the sons of god in gen ch.6 is a translation of thr hebrew word neflim meaning the fallen ones.we know from the first ch of job that the battel grounds of satan is the earth..so where did the angels follow him to? And what do you think his plan but to destroy the word of God...this is the first chapter of the bible given to man.older than gen.the book of jude is dedicated exclusively to them that kept not their first habitation. The book of Genesis should be concidered to be the foundation of all creation still revieling its mystries..the angels fallen here turned from spirit form to phisical form to enter this the physical plain.the same as satan in job.their flesh in the phisical relm being not the full pattern of satan or God created giants who still continued well past days of David.these were those who the thoughts of the hearts were evil without end.but noah and his famly perfect in their generations..

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 3 weeks ago

      Well, Jesus did wrestle with Jacob and showed himself several times, so Jesus being Melchizedek is very logical. He is the first "born" of Creation (a matter of status) after all. Don't see how that has bearing on what I was talking about since his order is a priesthood that predated Abraham and the Jews entirely.

      One has to constantly eat from the tree of life to be immortal, or else why would it be in the city of god for the healing of nations? So if the tree of life is literal, why isn't the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? That's like people believing every parable is an allegory except for Lazarus and the poor man when there's no real reason to believe that isn't a story (one told by the pharisees in Jesus' day except with roles reversed and a wall instead of a gulf, as the poor man is in torment while the rich man is happily leaning on Abraham) as well. You can't pick apart one paragraph and just assume what is literal and what is metaphor without good reason. If the tree is a metaphor or allegorical reference for satan, than who can trust any of what Genesis says as literal?

      God punished the serpent because satan is a spirit of strife and contention that can possess humans and animals both... but only if those humans and animals invite it in through sin, which the serpent must have voluntarily did to get such a harsh punishment. Then again the bible calls satan a dragon, so who knows for sure.

      They were aware of their nakedness because sin entered them and where sin is, the glory of god cannot cohabitate. How you get that angels have children with humans is beyond me as it is contrary to the very words of Jesus. Pretty sure Adam, WHO WAS RIGHT NEXT TO HER would have had something to say if said serpent sexed up his wife.

      God didn't accept Cains sacrifice because it wasn't what God wanted and he knew it, but tried to convince God that because he sweat and toiled for his sacrifice it should be worth more. Yet it was Abel's sacrifice that was accepted because when one sacrifices to God, one doesn't just pick a random sheep, it has to be the one the shepherd is fond of and cares deepest about, aka a pet. Fruits and vegetables don't hold a candle to that; blood is required to show man the error of their ways, that death is the consequence of every sinful act: immortality is granted by gods power, and god and sin cannot coexist for very long. Has nothing to do with Cain being satans child. That's just perverted apocryphal nonsense like the rest of the texts that contradict the Torah. The books of Jasher and Enoch spoken of in the bible for instance are not the same that we have today. They are historically inaccurate forgeries.

      Also the first liar and murderer was satan who tricked a third of the heavenly host to follow after his schemes, and whose trickery of Adam and Eve caused mankind to die by the billions.

      Genetic abnormalities do not exist one or two generations removed from the first two perfect people. Now human life requires a minimum viable population of about 70 due to so many genetic deficiencies within our genes, but this probably wasn't always the case if the bible is true.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 4 weeks ago

      Apostle?never did God call satan a snake.he was the serpent.the tree of knoledge of good and evil.and to adam he said:lest you put forth your hand and take of the tree of life in the garden and recieve ever lasting life,therefore he was sent from the garden.that is not an implication but a true statement of forgiveness of sins given to christ on this earth.in the garden he was Melchizedec.and to the serpent he said cursed are you above all.and i will put enmity between your seed and the womans seed.he was satan himself.with the ability to create ofspring from the childern of God,who made him the full pattern.and to the woman he said i will greatly multiply your birth pains.why all this talk about childern and seed lines and birth pains?why did they know they were naked?to be fair to God his judgements are fitting to the crimes committed.he said first to the serpent 'becousr you have done this thing"what thing did he do to cause them to know they were naked?to bring judgement between his seed and the womans seed?to multjply birth pains?the serpents seed was already in her theirfor God did make this judgrment .didnt both cain and able bring their sacrifice at the same time?and one accepted and the other not?is this not enmity between the 2 seeds?who is it that God calls a lier and murder from the begining? Who was the first murder?the first lier? And of time:it is a creation from God.his bteath of life.whos mathmatics are planted firmly in his bloodline and seedline.those who search after me will surly find me.look for me in nature.to search for him you must first know a day in his life is as 1000 years to you and me.he lives in a differnt time.theirfor he has mastery over it.it is his dominion.and constantly gives us an accounting of it.this is the science that prooves God.in the velocitys of nature.but the first question you must answer is how many days in a year? 1000 years?

    • profile image

      Apostle F Chiwara 4 weeks ago

      The greek word for mankind is 'adam aw-dawm' meaning ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

      The assumption you are trying to make regarding the sequence of creation will only be possible if there was no Eden. After Adam and Eve sinned they were banished from the garden and this implies that this was the only race in that garden.

      The assumption of no time measurement is not true either because the first thing to be shouted to existence was light and there was first day and night therefore, there is no assumptions about the lengths of the day.

      regarding the assumptions that Cain could be the son of the serpent, that one is just crazy idea since we know that even before the banishment, the snake sexual or reproductive system was out of question as compared to humans. The punishment was that the snake will feed from the dust of the earth not beyond that. The seed referred there is Jesus, that was the first prophecy of the manifestation of a Messiah.

      In regard to the wife of Cain, the possible outcome will be that Adam had a lots of children since we are not told his age when the two man submitted their sacrifices however we know that they were already capable of understanding their duties and roles. Adam had a lot of children and these children would also have their children.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 4 weeks ago

      Thedecadentone: you know your scriptures well and correctly identify the pertinent.however you should know it was satan in the garden among the trees that was the knoledge of evil.they knew good as they were led by God.the tree of life in the garden among the trees was Melchizedec who was imortal on this earth.created in the image of God without mother or father.who was walking this earth before any man was created.and by the holy spirit did a virgin concieve and Gods imortal flesh took the form of mortality.and like us came here fresh without memory born again from above so that by the nature of a spirit he so does.When God created man on the 6th day he said "let us make man in our own image""in the image of God created he him"this was God on earth.Melchizedec who was imortal perfect.male and female created he them.this is the angels whos likness was fashioned to mortal flesh.and man kind became the image of the angels. Now that the angels and God being of differnt flesh, God created the angels not as himself but for himself, so too mankinds creation on earth must reflect the image of heaven.First God on earth then the angels.but more to the point salvation and forgiveness of sins was allways on this earth.for this Melchizedec the image of God was the substance of Adams creation Gods own genome on this earth.and just as the 6th day creation of the angels image to man ,so too he first created he him.this is christ himself and his seed line.whos genetics are that of Melchizedec.who walked this earth imortal alongside the childern of God.till the 62 generations had passed. Then it was Melchizedecs own flesh perfrct as the image of God was placed in mary.born as ourselfs without memory to conform by nature to his natural sate .this Melchizedec then left his imortal state and took on mortality. Thus we have the bible.without Gods flesh and the creation of Adam and the seed placed in adam the testimony of Gods genome by the childern of Israel.and the testamony of Jesus Christs seed line.this is his testimony: the breath of life breathed in adam is the same as the breath that moved on the face of the deep.it is time itsself.this is the scientific evidence of God just a single creation of mankind.but 2 creations,himself first as a perfect imortal man then mankind male and female created he them then from himself was created salvation in the sons of Adam.their for Adam is the father of all living.and is called the first man separated from God before the angels.and Jesus the alfa and omega the begining and the end.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 4 weeks ago

      Before I forget, Adam was the high priest of God, followed by Seth, followed by Methusaleh, followed by Noah seven days before the flood, followed quickly by Shem since Noah was tricked out of the priesthood by his children. This is the order of Melchizedek, and they received special dispensation by god for following his statutes, so the likelihood of these holy people's children being the sons of God is very great where as other children were likely self centered and quite estranged; Cain is no longer a son of God due to exile as a murderer as well, so I'm sure he must have been pretty bitter and had children left and right. The logic I believe is pretty sound since god never told an angel they were son and father. I hope my logic is as sound as I think it is.

      Plus the main point I wanted to say since the above is just a more detailed reiteration, is that you can't really use science to perfectly explain away the methods of God, many of which are miraculous like the sun stopping during a fight or the walls of Jericho falling to a repetitive horn blast. Science changes all the time (how old the universe will be next week is anyone's guess since Stephen Hawking just added 1.2 billion years to the total recently, ugh) whereas God, and his word, are everlasting and changeth not. Who knows how many more homo-add flavor of the week cousins to homo-sapien we'll uncover tomorrow.

    • profile image

      Thedecadentone 4 weeks ago

      So many things to address! You are so close to the mark as well. What will really get your goat is that Satan in the garden was right. The tree of knowledge and the tree of life is why lifespans dwindle (Revelations states that people must eat of the fruit of the tree of life in gods holy city once per year to maintain perfect immortality) and mankind loses its immortality, trading eternity for having the mind of God to know things otherwise unknown. That is why the people of Sumeria, with Cain and other children of Adam (Seth being chief of those chosen by god) invented so much in such a short time frame. That is why Adams family was seen as immortal gods giving knowledge to simple evolved mankind (if your theory is correct, personally I can't attest). Also Cain and other of Adam and Seths children did set up Egypt, likely after setting up the first city and Sumeria since he was exiled to the east. There would have been so many people alive, many people with shoddy memories and who haven't been told anything of Cain except his mark. The apocryphal story about Cains death is because the youth guiding Lamech didn't realize who Cain was from afar..an allusion to the fact even someone close might have accidentally killed Cain unless his mark was visible. If most humans didnt have frer will, why wpuld god let them try to kill Cain? Speaking of the Adam family, God did say Adam and Eves creation was good, because he said it before they fell.

      You're using biology and history and psychology so well, so keep on that. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge are very physical things! Remember an angel with a fiery sword had to guard the garden before the holy city (a huge, bright, Borg cube of heavenly, physical awesome that will replace Israel, powered by God himself which will allow us to exist eternally without our finite sun... the bibles words in Revelation, not mine) of God reclaimed the garden lest the flood destroy it. We'll need that tree of life again later.

      Next, making man in our image is God the father/son/spirit aka Elohim talking to itself/each other. Only God can create with the power of his voice so it couldn't have been regarding Adam and Eve about making evolved man especially since evolved humanity was supposedly created first.

      You're right. There were no angels breeding with humans as along with other verses you quote, Jesus himself states in Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven." There are no sexual or loving human relations in the renewed heaven and earth, so why would the angels be able to reproduce? Sons of God can also refer to the obedient line of Seth mating with the unholy children of Cain (ousted from the bloodline leading to Jesus) and Adam/Eves other children which God didnt walk with. Remember that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but the bible decided they weren't worth recording, therefore Adam/Eve had other children along the same vein that Cain and Seth could reproduce with. Remember these guys lived for 900 years plus and you only need 500 years for Adam and Eve to populate an enormous swath of land. Plus genetic abnormalities do not show up until recessive genes within related couples activate, and Adam and Eve were pretty much immune to everything but being killed and old age as were their children for several generations until god removed his spirit completely/the effects of the tree of life until Jesus' departure gave the Spirit in part back to those who receive Jesus' salvation. Humanity always had free will, it was the constant interbreeding and polluting of the line infected by the knowledge of good and evil, not the concept of free will, that caused humans to war and take slaves and whatever they wanted by force. Adam and Eve had free will all along.

      Genesis 3:20 kind of conflicts with your hub as well because the bible states Eve is the mother of all of humanity. Doubtful, but I suppose it 'could' be she is the mother of all Adams line through Jesus that those who are granted eternal life are included with. During the thousand year reign of Christ people will be granted the lifespan of Adams direct kin again, so that a century old person is still a child, and in that time life will be perfect - ish under Jesus' and the resurrected saints iron rod so humanity will likely multiply enough to make our current 107 billion humans ever born pale in comparison. Then of course gog and magog do battle where God and his holy 1500 mile by 1500 mile city arrive to disintegrate Satan's misled rebelling humans (think Independence Day, but the aliens are the good guys) as Satan convinces the earth that their perfect utopia comes at the cost of being "slaves" to holiness. People just love their free will to do the worst things imaginable to their own children (Sorry but if it would stop just one child from being raped and killed I would sacrifice everyone's free will for eternity, but thankfully gods plan is so much better). I highly doubt something like that is biologically passed on, but knowledge on the other hand..

      Another hint that free will existed beforehand is when the devil, the dragon, rebelled and took a third of the heavenly host to damnation (called a liar and a murderer from the beginning, even before humanity). He had to trick and deceive angels to fight for him because his own sin would cause just a look from Yahweh to obliterate him. Just because God uses him doesn't negate Satan's free will, it's just that he'd rather drag creation through the mud and suffer a fire hotter than the sun and be burnt to smoldering ash than live in a reality where he isn't God.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      Kristen,

      The humans before Adam were the naturally evolved humans created by God in ch1. Those humans were commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the earth and subdue it". That's exactly what homo sapiens did.

      But free will wasn't introduced until Adam. At the end of ch1 God looks on all He made and deemed it "good". Including the humans. This is not something God would have said of Adam/Eve. The humans of ch1 were given very specific commands that would take generations to carry out. Adam and his descendants proved immediately they were willing and able to behave contrary to God's will. This is how the humans before Adam were different.

      You're right about the geographic perspective. For instance they could not have been speaking about a global flood because they had no concept of what "global" was. All they knew was that the entirety of the world they knew was under water. All they could see. Bu not all the earth.

      The sons of God were Adam and his family. Look at Luke 3. When it explains how the people of Jesus' age thought of him being the "son of God" they listed his lineage through Joseph, through David, Abraham, back to Seth, Adam. And at the end it says "... son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God". When the Jewish people of Jesus' age spoke of the 'sons of God', that's who they were talking about.

      Ch6 says the 'sons of God' found the 'daughters of humans' beautiful and had children by them. These were Adam's descendants, created by God as described separate from naturally evolved humans. This introduced free will into homo sapiens. These first generations were the "Nephilim". Half 'god', half human. The "heros of old, men of renoun".

      Without free will what would be the point of living life? We'd be just passive observers, with no control over our actions, decisions, or behaviors. We'd be drones. Just living out each determined moment, watching it like a movie, having no control. Even in Eden, what kind of life would that be?

    • profile image

      Kristen 4 weeks ago

      I agree, when I read genesis to me it sounded like Adam was created in an already populated world in a specific heavenly space on earth and introduced boundaries and free will as well as a specific soul-mate type of one-ness connection.

      It brings many questions to mind though, about who was created before Adam and by whom? I wonder if these are the different species of human we have found and now our species is the only surviving human- contrary to primates who still have many surviving species.

      And what were the sons of God and why were they allowed to create children with humans?

      The Nephilim seem more like Allen angels to me if they were corrupt and violent.

      Also, while reading genesis I get the feeling that the writers were writing from the geographic perspective of their particular ancestors.. not of the entire worlds.

      I wish we could just live in Eden without free will! Haha!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      Ben,

      To be clear, Cain having two daddies wasn't my issue. My issue is that there's absolutely no indication in the text that suggests this is the case.

    • profile image

      Ben tickner 4 weeks ago

      Just a heads up people, Adam was the first white man. His name literally means ruddy, to blush or show blood in the face. Noah was white, David was mocked by goliath for being ruddy and of fair complexion. The Nazarites are described as being as white as milk and ruddy as sapphires. After their captivity in Assyria the ten tribes of Israel went over the Caucasus mountains (thats where the term Caucasian originates) and spread right throughout Europe to the British Isles and eventually to Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa just to name a few places.

    • profile image

      Ben tickner 4 weeks ago

      @Jeremy Christian research heteropaternal superfecundation. Two fathers, one mother can make fraternal twins.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      Where are you getting all of this? Satan had sex with Eve? Even though Genesis directly says Adam conceived Cain with Eve you're injecting these gymnastic explanations about Cain and Abel being twins though they were conceived separately.

      If Satan, who was the form of a snake, somehow had sex with a human woman and conceived a child, and not just a child but the children the next phase of the story is about, which forms the basis of the story told throughout the bible, why would none of this be mentioned?

      And given that it doesn't say any of that anywhere, where are you getting it?

    • profile image

      Keithalan 6 weeks ago

      Never said son of adam concieved. .first satan had sex with eve conceiving cain then Gods judgement on the thrre.then Adam had sex with eve conceiving able all halpened withen days of each otber.2 eags 2 sperms 2fathers 2 births born at same time.if through the process of time they both brought their offering and they brought at the same time..its becouse they were the same age. What does it mean when God says i will put enmity between your seed and the serpents seed? just usless filler?do you know how biology works?you have put your mind on cain and the fact that others must have been in this earth.yet this still excapes your grasp?place your mind upon it reread it.let it be a concideration bearing fruit.please read job 38 for the earths history

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Sorry, thought it was Genesis. Moses' death is Deuteronomy 34.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      "the son of adam concieved after cains conception yet born as twins"

      Let's focus on this for a minute. Please explain how you reached this conclusion.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 6 weeks ago

      Saten destroyed them by coming into the daughters of adam all that they choose first saten himself seduced eve this is the sin in the garden and adam with her and the fallen ones then all that they choose.concider the punishment given to eve i will multiply your birth pains and put enmity between your seed and the serpents seed.and so he did having accepted ables gift but not cains .by this did cain become angry and killed his brother that was the son of adam concieved after cains conception yet born as twins.first cain then able.concidet after the sin in the in the garden they then knew they were naked.you have made much from the fact that cain was afraid of being slain by those outside the garden.and that he had offspring not from the daughters of adam but others outside the gardrn.yet how do you reconcile these truths being that youve ignored them.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "so i ask again who was cains father?"

      Gen4:1 - Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.

      The evil one destroyed the offspring? It specifically says God sent the flood.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 6 weeks ago

      It was Adams childeren distroyed by the flood but noah olny and his family were found perfect in their generations.not mixed with the fallen ones who were led to this earth for that very purpose.by who? the serpent in the garden called the tree of knoledge of evil whom God cursed above all.and why?that he created Adam for the conceiving from the holy spirit the Lord Christ that he be perfect in his generations.for it was Jesus the Lord Christ that Adam was formed from.but the evil one distroyed the offspring of Adam supposeing he coluld change the plans of God. .so i ask again who was cains father?and of them that followed Saten to this earth you will do well to read the book of jude dedicated exclusively to this subjec.you asked alot hope this begins to answer ...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      Okay, let's take this from another angle. Let's say you're right. What was the purpose of creating these people only to then destroy them all? In the case of the flood God had introduced free will into the world and humans became wicked. There's a reason for it. What then would be the reason for this? Did God make a mistake? Was His intent all along to destroy them all?

    • profile image

      Keithalan 6 weeks ago

      Your very article you call into question our very understanding of Genesis.i have given you more tools for your primus.if it became uninhabited and empty then at one time it must have been full and inhabited. Taking time to both fill and distroy it.as for moses not the author of Genesis you will have to give me chapter and verse in Genesis that you say prooves moses was not the author so i can check it out.but the first book of the bible given to man by God was job in it his first words to man begin ch 38 and covers a brief history of the earth.every action he speaks of is a scientific truth and proof of his creation as well as a traceable history of earth.from the singing of the stars the line on the earth the units of measure tbeir of and its first distruction to a ball of ice that covers the deep with darkness.and peter2 ch 3 speaking of this flood says the that was then perished. That the world is of old.we both agree the flood of noah was not the total distruction of the earth.then to what is peter referring? Adam the man was formed from the earth and God breathed life in him and man became a living soul. that was 4008 bc at least 2000 years after those created on the 6th day and who knows how long ago the first habitation was.also the sons of cain you list in your artical tell me who was cains father?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Arthur,

      Read the article above. I show it in detail.

    • profile image

      Arthur Rametsi 6 weeks ago

      Please show us in the Bible where it says Adam was not the first man.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 6 weeks ago

      The earth became uninhabited and empty to become uninhabited the inhabitants would have had to first been here and second would have had to leave.this takes time.to become empty it must first have had to be filled.this is as you said not a sly way of giving us history but a direct statement.that should call us to investigation. The word of God and the truths it contains are still being revealed.to those who search in faith with the hope of truth.many things are hidden that the holy spirit reveals to those who search after him.for God made this promise :those who seek after me shall surely find me.peter says the world is of old and most are willingly ignorant of this fact that the earth was destroyed by flood not noahs flood but the one that made the earth uninhabited and empty.before the ice age eather the cause or by product of Gods distruction of the world that was then that Peter says perished. You will have to give me chapter and verse in Genesis of the depiction of moses death im not aware of it. but still job 38 is Gods narrative of the creation.and its fistt distruction and leads to Gen.please read job 38 this is God himself talking and are the first words of God spoken to man in the first book of the bible given to man.in fact he demands an answet to these questions it is required by him of all of us who follow him.no man knows all the word.it is too deep.but every man has something wrong.we must realize we all are wrong about something.this is what keeps us searchimg..peace

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      The Earth was created one verse prior. The earth was new. Anything it was it 'became'. It's not hinting slyly to some previous history in that gap between these two lines.

      Re: God spoke Genesis to Moses

      Genesis depicts Moses' death. How could Moses be the author?

      Okay, let's say 'replenish' was the intended meaning. Was the Earth not full of life prior to this? Wouldn't humanity filling the Earth replenish, not specifically man for man, but man for prior living beings?

      The darkness on the deep was because the atmosphere was not yet transparent before the formation of the atmosphere (firmament). The oceans formed first, but it was many millions of years before the light of the sun shined on it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Maybe, but where's the fun in that?

    • profile image

      Keithalan 6 weeks ago

      That is your mistake it discribes a recreation.snd as i said it is the olny word trsnslated replinish. And go again to the beginning and reread the 2nd line proper and the earth became uninhabited and empty. That is your first clue of prior inhabitants.but the book of job predates Genesis.befour God spoke Genesis to Mosses he spoke job ch.38 to job in fact whare job 38 stops Genesis begins. Clarifying the darkness on the face of the deep attributing it to ice covering the waters and speaking of the frost of the heavens aka freezing of the atmosphere. You eer in that your work searches science to explain your interpretation of the bible when in fact moor work should be done to correctly interpet the bible.as i said befour..and as 99 percent of hebrew linguist agree the word should be translated replinis.mala is the olny word in hebrew that means replinish. by what ever means you use to translate the word mala it NEVER means to just fill.it is complex modifier

    • profile image

      Beilever 6 weeks ago

      Maybe when we pass w3 could ask god for these answer and he could give us a vision of what was happening

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      As you said, the word can be translated as 'fill' or 'replenish'. Because the preceding verses describe creation from the beginning to that point, and there's no mention of previous humans, that should make the correct translation apparent. 'Fill'.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 6 weeks ago

      The word is mala and translated can mean either it is translated both fill and replinish in english translations as in isiah 2/6 and again isiah 23/2 jeremiah 31/25 eze.26/2 eze.27/25 are all examples of the same word in hebrew being translated replinish.in fact every time the word replinsh or replenished appears in the english translation it comes from this same word mala.however many hebrew words are translated fill in most english translations.at least 12 differnt hebrew words are translated fill in the king james.yet mala is exclusive for refill replinish replinished etc.this truth is simple if God wished write replinish he would have used the same word he allways uses mala.4390 in the strongs.but still go back to gen 1/1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void. The word was should be translated became without form translated uninhabited and void empty .correctly tanslated then:in the beginning God created the heavens and earth .and the earth became uninhabited and empty...do not trust newer hebrew dictionaries many have been changed to coincide with bogus translations. Hebrew is a dead language..any new work can olny be concidered suspect.check with alternate sources preferably the older the better..peace

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      "But as any Hebrew interlinear Bible or Bible dictionary will tell you, the word translated as ‘replenish’ in Genesis 1:28 is the Hebrew verb מלאו (mil’û), which simply means fill. Not refill. Which is why most modern versions translate the word in Genesis 1:28 as fill." - https://creation.com/genesis-1-28-replenish-or-fil...

      The specific reason I don't think there's anything more to this is because the creation account up to this point just described all of creation from the beginning. It makes no sense for it to completely leave out some other group of people, then just mention "replenish" in a single word at the end.

    • profile image

      Keithalan 6 weeks ago

      You miss quote the passage Gen 128 wich you provide in your artical..the comand given to the 6th day creation of man kind was to be fruitfull and multipy and replenish the earth and subdue it.and to Gods defence why did he not mention it earlier ? What better time but in his first words to man?you seem to have found many hidden things in Gods word and seek to reconcile them concider if you will why use the word REPLINISH if there were nothing here befour?but if tbeir were something here wouldn't that explain the cities on the bottom of the ocean? and as to your statement that God has told us all of his creation up to that point..you must first realize Gen ch.1 then recounts the recreation of this earth.the first flood recounted in jeremiah and call to our attention by peter in his 2nd epistle ch 3 .and Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes. God himself speaks of in job ch38.that flood was befour the last ice age.tell me how do the archeologists explain flash frozen mammoths with food still in their mouths?the truth is always in the anomalies.and archeologists are very proficient at brushing them to the side.if you want truth look for and interpret the data yourself take none of their explanations as fact.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Barb,

      While I certainly appreciate the concern and the prayers, I think you're passing judgement a bit harshly and without merit.

      What makes you so certain that I am "deceived"? How do you know you're right and I'm not? My conclusion is based on evidence and research. Yours is not.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Stephen,

      By your logic, if the 'others' were humans who didn't survive the flood, then why does it speak of Cain's descendants who forged metal weapons, played stringed instruments, and lived in tents? By your reasoning, considering these lineages did not survive after the flood either, they should not have been mentioned.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Keithalan,

      Up to this point in Genesis it has laid out all of creation from the beginning forward. Why not mention any other humans before saying to "replenish" the Earth? The world is already full of living creatures. Humans were commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "subdue the earth". Which is what homo sapiens did. They populated the planet and established themselves as the dominant species.

      There would have been a mention of previously existing humans had they existed.

      As for a second flood, there's no reason in the text or in the archaeological record, to think that is the case.

    • profile image

      Barb Fendrich 7 weeks ago

      Mr. Christian,

      You are so deceived and a child of the devil. I will pray for you to change.

    working

    This website uses cookies

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

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

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