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

Updated on January 24, 2017

God Created Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mythology of the First Civilization

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

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

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

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

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

The Books of Moses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden

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

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

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

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

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

The 'Others' that Cain feared

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

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

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

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

The Flood wasn't global

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

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

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

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

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

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

... and one after...

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

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

In Conclusion

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

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

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 days ago from Texas

      I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm not a believer. This whole thing is about showing these events happening in actual history and being very much reality and not fantasy.

      Cain's concern clearly shows there were others beyond Adam/Eve's family. Yes, I'm sure there were other siblings not named. But if they're only talking about Cain's extended family then why would God need to mark him? Do they not already know who Cain is? Why a mark? And haven't they already shown their familial ability to disobey God. So what good would a mark do?

      And if Adam and Eve were the only humans, where did the Egyptians come from? Cain's family? Abraham was born roughly 2000 years after Adam's creation. And when Abraham went to Egypt it was already a sophisticated society with a pharaoh.

      "Your perspective is a gross misrepresentation of God's Word."

      Actually, it's very much based on exactly what the text says. There's a difference between "God's word" and the interpretations that humans have come up with. What I'm offering is another interpretation. I'm not misrepresenting the text.

    • profile image

      Wow... 4 days ago

      Cain's 'Concern' of others were specific to Adam and Eve's offspring... while Cain and Abel were likely the first sons born of Adam and Eve, nothing is mentioned of Adam an Eve's daughters to which they had many...

      Cain knew it was Adam and Eve's responsibility (given to them by God) to fill the earth... he new others would come from their unity. Those are the ones he was concerned about.

      Your perspective is a gross misrepresentation of God's Word... which isn't surprising as you are an unbeliever. You're not searching for God's truth, you are seeking your truth, something that settles you in your own conceived worldview. Much like W.C Fields, you're simply "Looking for loopholes".

      Loopholes can always be found in the reasoning of man when reviewing any material because of his own discrimination and presuppositions cloud what is truth.

      Funny as I read over all the points you made, the conclusions drawn from each are simply incorrect, but I can see how this is possible when someone equivocates the Bible as a fabled Dr. Seuss story with no real meaning, prior to giving way to the historical clams and the legitimacy of scripture and events therein have been concluded by both believing and secular experts time and time again as true events recorded by eyewitness accounts.

      Its simply easier to hold that this is a book of fiction rather than truth for many, because it undermines our own superiority in the universe by placing a supreme being above us, one that we are accountable to, and one that brings a purpose to our life that glorifies Him, rather than self. Pride will always be in the way of righteousness and ignorance will always be bliss, until the truth is revealed.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 days ago from Texas

      It's clear that Adam wasn't the first human in Cain's concern of 'others' he might encounter while wondering the 'land of nod' who might mean him harm. At this point in the story it's only supposed to be Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel before he was killed. So who was Cain concerned about running into?

    • profile image

      auralmack 5 days ago

      Re: "The creation of man in Genesis has always been read to mean that Adam was the first human God created. Why is that exactly?"

      According to the Bible story, Adam was the first man God created; and Eve was the first woman God created; and Cain was the first son they human they created...if I can try to merge...

      What does it mean to be human? What did it take to make us a human being, a person as opposed man being inhuman?

      What is it exactly that separates a human being from an inhuman being? It's an old question. I think it would exist in the mind, the ability to think and make decisions, our thoughts...our God given ability to reason...what exactly does it require to be a human being; a person; a first Adam?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 13 days ago from Texas

      Opison,

      Humans were made to be dominant over animals in the same way we are today. We're smarter and more capable. We're the dominant species on the planet. This is how humans were made. Lions and tigers have always been as they are now. They're dominant species, but we're stronger. That's all that means.

    • profile image

      Opison 13 days ago

      Hi guys,

      My question is, was there really a time when Man could live with a Lion or Tiger and have dominion of them. Since the Bible doesn't mention the type of beasts of the field Adam and Eve were actually living with and dominated.

      I need some enlightenment.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 7 weeks ago from Texas

      sentinalshogun,

      Half right? Which half is wrong?

    • profile image

      sentinalshogun 8 weeks ago

      Chris... What is wrong? Does the fact that God makes fools of those who think they are wise upset you and your looooong laugh? Tough. Compared to the God who loves us all regardless you are less than a fool. The article is half right but nailed what it got right on the head. The Kicker? Six times "the man" is mentioned by an author who clearly demonstrates no reservation of naming Adam by name. 6 times. Mankind was created on day 6 but more than that? There was also "hee created him." That is according to the 1611. 86 times Christ refers to himself as the "Son of Man" and guess what? When naming Eve? In the 1611 it is "wives" not "wife." The translations done incorrectly in suffering modern man to hell. Your blatant refusal of fact by the most published book in human history that stands as the basis for the science of Archeology and its efforts in the ancient world just demonstrate that with you and your other atheist popes of shame and hatred the digression, dispute, and refusal to acknowledge God was never about Him not being alive and well and real or not but more about you hating Him... because unlike you in 3000 years He will still have an effect on our world and you will have none. Just like all things of man who is made low akin to the fool for thinking he was wise next to the mind of God. Tssk tssk. "Get the behind me Satan."

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 8 weeks ago from Texas

      Well I'm glad you enjoyed it. Maybe you can tell me specifically what is so obviously wrong to you. I agree it's really far-fetched. The thing is, I can't find a single reason to dismiss it. Go ahead and try. Prove it wrong. Show me how it can't be true. Then maybe we can have a laugh together rather than just you laughing at me.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Benihana,

      I appreciate you reading and sharing your thoughts. I assure you if you continue reading these articles you'll find there is demonstrable truth. A good place to start would be 'Genesis: Our Modern Human Origin Story'.

      And once that can be seen it can also be seen where it can provide benefit. Not just in offering clarity in the story being told, but also a key moment in the evolution of humanity into the modern humans we are now.

      It's a pivotal point in our progression. There's much to learn if this is true. And then, beyond that, there's also some key clarifications that offers some continuity between the various religions based on it.

      I invite you to keep reading and sharing what you think.

    • profile image

      Benihana 2 months ago

      "Correcting this one small error takes pre-flood Genesis out of the realm of mythology and plants it firmly into known history".

      Er not really. Changing the story does nothing to prove its validity. You have done nothing to demonstrate the truth of the claim god exists or created man.

      Also you confuse evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution says nothing about how life came to be, only how it came to be what it is now.

      You seem throughout this article to work hard to make the bible fit but I wonder why as there seems no need as I provides no benefit or demonstrable truth.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Yes Karl, I think you're very much on the right track. Adam and Eve were special. They were the introduction of free will into the world. Up to that point everything God created He deemed "good". That includes the humans created on 'day 6'.

      So, to answer some of your questions according to how I see it. The descendants of Adam/Noah, those born of both their line and the naturally evolved human line, are all of us. All of us "modern" humans.

      Humans used to be like native indigenous people are. But Adam and Eve had free will. Once the 'sons of God' (children of Adam/Eve) and the 'daughters of humans' began to intermingle as it describes at the beginning of Gen6, free will was introduced into the world.

      This is why it says God "regretted" putting humans on the Earth. They were made in "our" image. Humans looked like Adam and his family. And yes, I think that's exactly what the flood was to address. This bleeding of free will into humanity made them "wicked".

      You can tell those that have free will because they're compelled. They're the "advanced" cultures that swept thought the world wiping indigenous cultures out. We've all but pushed them from existence.

      So, technically, I don't think indigenous humans need salvation through Christ because they don't have free will. They behave totally within the realm of God's law. Only free will can make us do otherwise because we have wills of our own, apart from His.

      That's what Jesus was. God created Jesus through commanding the descendants of Abraham to not mix with other groups. God worked with this one line. Bred Jesus through them. And yes, Jesus was to be what Adam, and no one since, could be. A human with free will, yet live totally within God's will.

      Mixing now isn't a big deal. Jesus has been realized. That was the goal.

    • profile image

      karl 2 months ago

      I believe that Adam was the first of a special man.Cain was sent outside the garden and into a world of primitive people, married and taught his children skills of the new man.

      The flood was to kill the line of Adam mixed with the daughters of men, which only affected a small portion of that area of the world.

      The men of renown might of been renowned for their war like mentality,which Adams children had not experienced,before mixing.

      Now Noah was perfect in his generations ,meaning no mixing.

      This new start was suppose to start the line of New man again,and taught to keep seperate. This is the wishes of God to be taught by generations to generations.

      Now again the mixing is prevalent.

      But the biggest question is who are out of the humans on earth are the sons of noahs generations.

      Now was Jesus sent to put again the right way of the sons of God, to have these people once Jesus is reconcilied with the individual not mixed with others,to give him the knowledge of the true God which was lost in time to these people.

      The questions are so many.

      Like is all the human race opened to the salvation of Jesus?

      Who are the people of Noahs generation now on earth if their are any left?

      Most races of people centuries ago did not marry out of thier race or kind, very limited.

      Now its second nature and encouraged by leftist and media,who I believe aid the mixing under the guise of humanisim.

      Mostly being ignorant of their own cause.

      It does say like in the days of Noah...

      Is this like the days of Noah now and in the future?

    • mythbuster profile image

      mythbuster 2 months ago from Utopia, Oz, You Decide

      An interesting article. Thanks for sharing this information.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      I don't know. There's plenty to indicate that the introduction of Adam/Eve brought with them many advances never before seen.

      The inventions in Sumer alone are staggering. We know that the Egyptians and others were able to do things we still can't figure out, like the pyramids. All of that started once these people incorporated into these regions.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 2 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      OK, I get all that, but what about the flying crafts described in ancient texts? What about ancient megalithic structures like: http://www.cusco.info/saqsaywaman.htm

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      No, the naturally evolved humans were not animals. They were very much like what indigenous humans are like. They lived simply. They didn't have aspirations to become greater or anything more. They're content.

      The dividing line is free will. The modern human ego. When humanity began to prize having possessions. Things belonging to them. Indigenous humans view the natural world as belonging to all living things. We 'free will' humans, we descendants of both lines (naturally evolved humans/Adam and Eve), we say everything behind this line is mine and is not yours. This belongs to me.

      This was the change that divided the two lines. The ego-driven humans were much more aggressive. They'd decide they could just take the land of the indigenous for themselves. Run them out. That's our entire history story. Us "modern" humans enforcing our will on the world. Taking what we want. Fighting each other into a somewhat sustainable stalemate.

      The ego is what made civilization. Ancient cultures that came before still maintained equality amongst all the people, even in the largely populated places. All were still equal. There was no ruling and working class. It wasn't male dominant.

      That's what changed everything. Sumer was the first culture to show these signs. That's why it's deemed the first civilization. Because it had a class system. It was organized in this way. With some being higher up than others. Some governing.

      There's a book I link to in my hub called The Fall. It explains how the awakening of the modern human ego can be seen in the archaeological record. Traces it, and shows it first beginning where the story of early Genesis takes place.

      That's where the 'Atlantians' came from.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 2 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      So, were the "naturally evolved humans" animals?

      Was there animal creation and then Adam/Eve creation?

      Where is the line separating the two?

      How do you know?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      No, they didn't evolve. They were made just as described. Lived much longer lives just as described. Then, in Gen6, they (called the "sons of God") began marrying and breeding with "daughters of humans". This introduced free will into naturally evolved, or Genesis 1, humans.

      Adam/Eve were created just as described, only the planet was already populated by naturally evolved humans. So, to those humans, they just 'appeared' one day, they lived in your great-great-great grand father's day as they do in your day. They seem like gods. Are gods to many humans. Which is why it's such a priority in Genesis to make everyone understand there's only one real God. Because all the people in that region of the world worshiped these "gods" they could see.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 2 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      OK, I am somewhat blurry on this. Am I to understand that the descendants of Adam and Eve were a new step in the evolutionary line of Man?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      By the way, Jay, I liked your hub. You're very much on the right track, in my eyes, where you see another group of humans having a dramatic impact, but I don't think their origins are fallen ancient civilizations.

      Adam and Eve's descendants were the "Atlantians". What the Greeks called Apollo and Dionysus were children of these people. The families of Noah, dispersed at Babel, and sent into all the lands where civilizations then popped up all over the place.

      In their blurry recollection of their ancient past, there's stories about these god-like men and women who were immortal and who lived among them and interacted with them. The Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Sumerians, all of these cultures had a version of the same kinds of beings.

      What you call the Atlantians, that was these.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Robert,

      The "creation week" is just told in a style. It wasn't actually 6 days. It's talking about 6 eras. Not 24 hour days.

      You're exactly right that the point of creation is to show who God is. How "mighty". His word goes. The laws of nature are in place because God said it and it does. He is the creator.

      The one exception to that is man. We can actually, willfully, behave on our own accord no matter what God says.

      That's what Adam was, the introduction of free will into a world where it didn't exist prior. The humans created in Genesis 1 included.

      So the story of the bible is the depiction of two bloodlines. One that was naturally evolved, the other Adam/Eve's descendants. And those descendants, unlike the other line, had free will.

      That's what the bible is about. God's interactions with humanity after free will was first introduced into the world, making us capable of being "wicked", or "unnatural". We're elements in this universe that don't conform to the rules of this universe/God.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Jay C OBrien,

      I understand your thinking. You'd think in the time that humanity reached anatomical modernity and brain size that we'd have achieved so much more. But we really didn't.

      The key here is to check out changes in human behavior. It's not that we weren't mentally capable, it's that we just didn't think like that.

      If you feel so inclined, read my hubs on the evolution of the human mind. It's a two-parter, but it covers what you're suggesting.

      There were some ancient civiliations, some highly populated, thousands of years before civilization. There's no doubt about that.

      What caused the change in humanity where we started building civilization is a psychological one. There's a point where people became people as we know them today.

      Cultures like what you're talking about have been all over. They're much like a lot of the indigenous people still alive today. Those cultures who don't advance in any sort of way because they don't need or really want to. They're largely content.

      We're not. Somewhere along the way we changed. That's what I'm talking about in this series of hubs. I can show exactly where civilization began and more importantly, why.

    • profile image

      Robert Gilbert 2 months ago

      Agree . . . Adam was probably not the first "man", but the story of redemption, revelation and reconciliation starts to take shape with this one man.

      Now, evolutionism and creationism spends way too much time arguing over the creature and the creation. The point of the genesis week is "God is almighty" which is a resounding theme in the Old Testament. The word and name is El Shaddai.

      So, to get rid of all the mess between the two, lets call it 15 billion years to the first sight of time. Hawking has a nice round number of 15 billion years. This is so much time that we cannot even measure that far back in time which puts a element of error in science that is too big for evolution to measure. For creationism, the obvious of what we see in science is for their blind eyes. The reality of a god of miracles is that it is more interesting and harder to believe that God did this whole thing in billions of years as opposed to a couple of days. Billions of years is a bigger miracle. Time is what the week is presenting versus eternity which the week cannot hold. Time also presupposes death. Many to most of the Jewish Rabbis tend to a time that begins on the 4th day. If one looks at the Passion Week, the 4th day goes silent. The irony is that Jesus spends the day with a dead man named Lazarus. Jeremiah 33 writes of a covenant of day and night. A disruption would cause a problem in the house of David. Only one man can reset time. Who is this man? He is the only man who can exist in the 1st day and the 8th day. The 8th day does not exist in a week. Amazingly, a man rises on the 8th day. The 8th day became the 1st day. The 1st day never entered the week. It was before the colt carried a man into the week. We, most of Christianity, actually worship on the 1st day. How is that possible?

      It is only possible when God is almighty. Creation is a just one thing he does. He is holy and gives the law. He is worshipped in spirit and truth and allows a temple. He enters the world and is called immanuel. He is cruicified on the cross and can be touched. He enters into his children and lives in them. He will usher in the kingdom of God and every one will kneel.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 3 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      Mankind has been around for about 500,000 years with the same brain capacity as now. What has Man been doing all that time? He built civilizations which rose and fell and rose again. Whole cities have been inundated. See the ancient City of Dwarka which has been discovered. This is the city Lord Krishna built. See below for another explanation.

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Atlantian...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 months ago from Texas

      You'd think that would be enough. But when you're working against a highly ingrained and highly guarded ideal or mindset that's in opposition to what should be obvious, it often takes further convincing.

    • profile image

      Elizabeth 3 months ago

      In Luke 3 it clearly states "God was Adam's Father". Enough said.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 months ago from Texas

      The two portions of the bible you referred to are the only two places in the bible that actually quote from the book of Enoch, and are therefore suspect.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

    • profile image

      Jason Waller 3 months ago

      Hi Jeremy C,

      In one of your posts you suggested that angels did not have freedom to choose. {your quote -- "Angels don't have free will, so they can't rebel, and their not biological beings so they're not able to procreate."} Jude 1:6 seems to make it clear that they do have the ability to choose. Also, 2 Peter 2:4 makes reference to the angels that followed Satan and rebelled against God. How do you harmonize your position with these two scriptures?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 months ago from Texas

      SR,

      I appreciate the comments and the explanation behind what you're explaining.

      Actually it says ...

      Gen1:26-And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

      This text was written by people, not God. When they say humans are in "our" image, it's talking about the descendants of Adam/Eve. The storytellers.

      See, here's where it's made most clear ...

      Gen6:1-3 - And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

      2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

      3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

      Right there in verse 2. The 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of men'. Two groups. This is the chapter right after it explains that Adam and 10 generations of his children all lived for centuries. Yet here it says humans only live 120 years. Two groups described. One found the others beautiful and began to intermingle. This is because humans were made in the same image. This is why it says in verse 6 that God regretted putting humans on the Earth. Adam/Eve had free will. Mating the two bloodlines introduced free will into humanity. That's why it says humanity became 'wicked'.

      The planet was fully populated by naturally evolved humans by 10,000BC. Adam/Eve were created around 5000BC. So there were plenty of humans. These were the 'daughters of humans' that Genesis 6 is talking about. And as you'll see in Luke 3, the Jews of that time considered everyone from Adam through Noah, Abraham, David, up through Jesus 'sons of God'.

      The flood was not global. The people who translated the bible assumed it was. So they translated Hebrew words that mean 'hills' as 'mountains'. The people of that age didn't even know there was a whole planet and wouldn't be able to report on the status of the entirety of the planet.

      But local flood are not God breaking His word. Because free will was only in a localized place, this was the "all life" He was speaking of.

    • SaiyanRace profile image

      SaiyanRace 4 months ago

      @Jeremy,

      I got sidetracked and forgot to comment on what I originally wanted to which is the Pre-Adamites.

      I believe that there was some sort of pre-human people on the earth before Adam and Eve were created as mankind was specifically made in God's image, not the other beings. I think the archaeological record supports this. My father, who is a theologian, has told me he believes that there were many things created and have gone extinct before Adam and Eve were created. I personally believe this accounts for Dinosaurs, Hominids, etc. Human type creatures i.e. Neanderthals, Desnovians and a 3rd, newly discovered type of human type being that is yet unnamed, that existed before and during the time of Adam and Eve, but outside of the Garden of Eden because Mankind was created specifically in God's image. I also believe in the gap theory which takes place between Gen 1:1-2.

      Another reason for me believing in pre-human like beings is this scripture - Gen 1:27-28

      27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

      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.

      Replenish is the key word. You can't "replenish" something if it hasn't been plenished initially.

      In regards to who Cain feared. I believe a tremendous amount of time had past between Adam & Eve leaving the garden and the great flood, even from the time Cain and Able were born and when Cain killed Able. I would imagine a couple thousand years. With Adam, Eve and their descendants living 900+ years according to the Bible, it seems possible that the child bearing age stretched out much longer into their life span. It seems possible that the amount of children that Eve and each following generation had was many more than today standards. Many more than the few we are told about in Genesis. Also, if these many also create many and that compounds exponentially, then it would be possible that there were enough people to destroy the earth globally in a flood and not just a particular region. These many would also account for the people that Cain feared that might kill him.

      I also believe that there was a watery layer in the atmosphere before the flood. While sin was the cause for everything living dying, I think pre-flood that the level of sin was much less than lets say today. I think this water layer in the atmosphere acted as a protection from the sun as well. Yes, I know that if the sun were to hit this watery layer, it may actually cause things to heat up. I don't know enough to refute that. The canopy effect would cause a tropical type environment thus insulating humans from harmful sun-rays.

      My reason for thinking this is this scripture - Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Firmament is defined as - "the heavens or the sky, especially when regarded as a tangible thing." The waters below the sky from the waters that were above the sky. I think once the flood happened, these waters above the firmament were released and were gone forever. I think that the amount of sin + this watery canopy contributed the lengthy life that mankind live pre-flood and dramatically dropped post flood. I also believe the 120 years as quoted in the Bible would be the final pinnacle of age that man could live to after the length of age finally settled.

      Gen 7:4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” Not just mankind.

      I think the key phrase here is "all living things", not just wicked mankind. It would take a global flood to accomplish this.

      Gen 7:17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[a] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.

      It says the flood covered the mountain tops and destroyed every living thing on the face of the earth. I would assume that is the entire earth. I understand the silt theory, but I do not have an answer for it. I do know however that every ancient civilization or ancient people have a global flood myth.

      Also, God gave us a covenant or promise to ensure he wouldn't kill all living things by water again.

      Gen 10:11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

      12 And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; 15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”

      You propose that the great flood was a local flood, but I don't think it was because there has been local floods since the great flood. I think that would break God's promise to mankind.

    • SaiyanRace profile image

      SaiyanRace 4 months ago

      @Jeremy,

      Yes, Mankind being able to create is a bi-product of free will, but so is every decision we make and creating is a conscious decision to exercise that free will.

      God has revealed Himself in 3 stages upon the face of history. God the Father appeared to his chosen people, the Jews in the 1st stage. Once Jesus was born, that was fulfillment of prophecy as the beginning of the new covenant or contract i.e. John 3:16-17 and was the end of God the Father's role on earth. God the Son , Jesus and his ministry was the 2nd stage and after Jesus fulfilled his role, dying and resurrecting, his time was finished. Now it's the Holy Spirit's time as the 3rd part of the Trinity and 3rd stage of history.

      You are correct Jeremy in that God has stepped back and allowed his game to finish playing out. The reason you will not see him until after Jesus's 2nd return is because the new contract/covenant is that by Grace we are saved and Grace accounts for Righteousness. Not our Righteousness, but Jesus's. Righteousness is what we need to get into heaven and through Faith, we get that Righteousness because we have fulfilled our end of the agreement which is Faith in a promise, John 3:16.

      Hebrews 11:11 states that "Faith is the substance of things hoped, the evidence of things not seen"

      If we can see God or something tangible, then the belief we have is no longer Faith as described in Hebrews and it becomes something else, thus nullifying what God requires from us.

      That is why you will not see God the Father till after the rest of the prophecy has been fulfilled i.e. Jesus's 2nd return.

    • SaiyanRace profile image

      SaiyanRace 4 months ago

      @Alexandra,

      I disagree respectfully.

      God as mentioned in the Bible is a specific being. A being beyond our comprehension that stepped out of infinity and created space and time through his own words.

      Hebrews 11, the Faith Heroes chapter, clearly states that God was the first one to have Faith in his own words, that's how we know we can have Faith in his promises i.e. John 3:16-17.

      God is NOT EVERYTHING, all though he is everywhere i.e. Omnipresent. Also, we are not God in that sense because we can create, although that is a trait of God, being able to create.

      God is Love, that is correct! You say you don't think he would use that power to punish and he doesn't in the way you describe.

      Free will was given to us to make choices right or wrong because God does not want Mankind to be robots. He wants his creation to love Him of their own volition. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was given as a test to test the free will God had bestowed on his creation.

      I believe while God already knew that they would disobey, i.e. foreknowledge, I also believe that God has sovereignty over his own mind/intellect. An example of this is God telling us that if we ask for forgiveness of our sins, He will cast them as far as the east is from the west.. Meaning, God will cast them out of his mind never to be remembered again.

      God is called the Father and like any father, he sets rules. If you disobey those rules, there are consequences. I know when I disobeyed my earthly father, I got spanked or sent to my room. etc. Not because he didn't love me, but because he did love me. He wanted me to learn where I was wrong, the error of my ways.

      Ultimately, because Adam and Eve disobeyed God, all future human generations paid the price. Is that a bum deal? Sure, but whatever the creator decides to do with his creation, that is his prerogative. We can ask questions and we can challenge it, but in the end, whatever he has decided is the end result and we just need to understand what his will is. Just like the Bible verse, Philippians 4:19 - My God shall supply my needs, according to His riches and glory. Key word is "His" riches and glory, not our own. Anything that Mankind creates, we use it to serve ourselves for our purposes, not the creations purposes. We are absolutely more complex than a car, computer or airplane because we have consciousness, emotions and can have our life extinguished.

      So, you say, what would be the point of Free Will if there is a God that isn't all love all the time where everything that we experience is cup cakes and candy candy canes from now till eternity.

      The point is, God loved his creation, he set rules for Adam and Eve, they disobeyed because of Lucifer. Satan is subtle and the most cunning of all. The great deceiver. Remember, he was kicked out of heaven for sitting on the throne of God and pretending to be God. He wanted the heavenly hosts to worship him as though he was God. So, for Lucifer to take on the appearance of a snake, something subtle and use that subtlety to trick God's creation to disobey him shows you that Satan will do everything in his limited power to fight God and take as many of his creation to hell with him because Satan already knows his fate.

      God is Love because he put a fail safe in place before the foundation of the world was put in place... That is Jesus coming to die for our sins in the event that we disobeyed our heavenly Father.

      We have the free will to be able to choose and accept or deny Him and what his Son Jesus did. If we choose to believe, i.e Faith in a promise, we know what our reward will be, but if we choose not to believe and deny, then we know what the punishment is. Does it feel like we are being forced to believe or suffer. Yes, but ultimately, we still get to choose. Just like we can accept to obey or disobey what our earthly father's tell us to do.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      Luke 3:23-37 shows that the Jewish people of that time considered the bloodline through David, back to Noah, back to Adam were all considered 'sons of God'. In the NT, those who believe in Jesus are said to be 'sons of God'.

      Angels don't have free will, so they can't rebel, and their not biological beings so they're not able to procreate.

      Angels are never referred to as 'sons of God'....

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

    • profile image

      thapelo1 4 months ago

      Thank you for a well thought article.

      After re-reading Gen 1 and making reference to Gen 2: 4, it seems as if the writer , with Gen 2:4, is elaborating on items listed on Gen 1 ( maybe summary or intro). The creation of man is expanded in Gen 2:7, rather than a new account.

      The Son of God, in most old testament, refers to angels (the book of Job). The concept of sons of God coming in to the daughter of men is not hard to understand as Jesus Christ was conceived in that manner.

      let's look at the Canaan Gods Baal, Baalzibub and so on in relation to the appearance of the Nephilim. It seems that these gaints and so called fallen angels go together.

      Let us look into these concepts a lot more and come to an understanding we could share with the rest of the world for the better delivery of the word.

      Thank you.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      Yes, I think that's exactly right that the purpose is for us to all willfully return to oneness with nature/God. We're components in a complex system, but each of us make willful decisions that are often selfish and self-centered, rather than being a healthy contributing factor in the system. To wield free will we must learn the damage we do when we make decisions in our own interest rather than in the interest of the system we all are a part of.

    • profile image

      Alexandra 4 months ago

      Thank you for acknowledging my comment Jeremy. And first I want you to know light, love and support are being sent to Texas for the 'Harvey' devastation, that all may be healed and restored.

      I agree with what you said, our "actions and decisions" add or dilute the power of Love. Choices of Love or of Ego. One expands the other reduces the power of love. For me today, I still have sticky stuff around the word 'evil'. I am finding the more I love the more I recognize that what I once called 'evil' is probably more like thoughts and choices that are not consciously chosen with love, ergo, we are witnessing it's (love's) absence. So the more we align with Love it emanates outward and assists in filling the voids. Perhaps that is the action that renews the face of the earth.

      And the 'stepping back to 'allow' doubt....never looked at it in quite that way, but isn't it brilliant that perhaps it is divinity giving us an opportunity to go deep within to find, remember and reclaim that truth, our 'source connection' within and thereby return us to our true nature of Oneness with all that is, was and will ever be. AND...perhaps the biggest trick of the ego is rendering us (our minds) into a spiral of questionings the logistics of the 'beginnings' when in fact, if we ourselves believe in the 'eternalness' then eternity implicitly shows, the beginning is here right now and there will NEVER be a time when it will not be now. Eternal is a 'now' forever. So we begin again and again. Maybe, perhaps. The truth of the 'Present being the Present' . The eternal gift of now. Where we go in the now is determine by ourselves as in right use of the conscious mind connected to the Creators love within and without. Thanks and blessings.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 months ago from Texas

      Thank you for the comment, Alexandria

      I believe you're right. Free will makes us creators who add to this universe actions and decisions that are not 'of God', but are 'of us'. It's a big responsibility. Everything else behaves according to natural law. We're the one and only exception.

      And I think God purposefully stepped back out of site to allow us to actually doubt He's even there. So people will be free to be whoever they will to be. Think whatever they choose to think.

    • profile image

      Alexandra 4 months ago

      Intriguing and everyone's input is thought provoking. Thank you for this article and threads. I personally have loosed the binds of organized religion, for the most part, in my endeavors to make 'sense' of life and God. Now, I am more inclined to believe that God, at this point in history (I loved your St. Augustine's quote) is everything, we are part of everything, therefore the creator power is within. We, today, are still creating with those powers within, through the breathe of our words and the power of our thoughts. It how we spread our love or evil thoughts onto the globe. That is how it was all created in the beginning, or so 'they' say. Our part, for me, is use of these gifts and powers to maintain and expand our conscious awareness of the power of unconditional Love, i.e. 'under no circumstances will love judge, fail or leave.' IT is the constant. Irregardless of the ancient myths and such, does it make sense that if God is Love (which can only mean the purest sense), that power would be used to punish anyone or thing, even IF it was for 'breaking a rule'? Do we really believe at this point in evolution, that a creator can be vengeful? Or, is it US? If the garden of eden story is truth, for me, it show's the decent was due to personal mis-use of free will. Why would a God create us but 'dominate' with rules, what would be the point of 'free-will'. There is a difference between domination (forced laws) and good dominion. Good dominion, allows and guides to change our direction, but would NEVER impose restrictions that are counter productive and counter intuitive to expansion of Love. Fear of retribution is the 'evil' counter part to this philosophy. How can one know love and be afraid? It's false. That, for me, was most likely the beginning of the decent. After the fruit from the 'Knowledge of Good and Evil' tree, God said, where are you. They said, over here. Why are you hiding? Because we are naked. Who told you you were naked? And there it is. They 'thought' they were going to be punished because of what they did. Shame was born in that garden because prior too, naked was natural. What and who tempted at this point is irrelevant. What ever they did 'shifted their perception of their relationship to the Creator'. God did not do this, they did it in their thoughts about it all. Now, is that misuse of power? Free will really says, "We get to decide what is 'true' or not and it is we who give any of it power over us. As to what came first, the chicken or the egg, what if....all the accounts and myths are post creation, as in, after the interference. (sons of God and daughters of men) What were we prior to this interference) Some sacred texts imply, it was this interference that caused the separation, due to these 'beings' interfering with 'procreation' natural laws and that THEN is when enslavement started. We were created/improved for ulterior motives (gold mining for these Gods) If we believe there was ever a 'Garden of Eden', which to me was a time of perfect harmony, and we know on some level, our separation from it was due to some form of misuse of the power of free will or tricked (whatever) then it is WE who have yet allowed ourselves to remember, we are still one with the creator, but millennia of stories and myths keep us locked in shame and guilt, holding us back from being safe and naked with the presence of Love, so to speak. All of these things we push and pull at to make sense, actually holds us in a vortex of confusion. It makes my hair hurt trying to understand the wars and smiting of men, land gobbling, gold digging, wrath type scenarios. And all the different 'entities' that seem to have played some historical roll make it so wrong in my heart. I do not believe the Creator of the Beginnings has much to do with the written accounts. Those are all mans' interpretation from their time. God is pure love, God is in us. There is where we are One with All that is. The answers are inside, in the secret chambers of our hearts. And if God is anything like the texts, "this one did that, and that one did this, and then they did this and that'...blah blah. I cannot believe in a God or God's that would create beings to be slaves of a Master or Masters. We are created. And now, we create. What are we creating is where we find our hearts. Science has proven that form follows thought. That's what the creator did and we do the same. That is the evolutionary process of creation. It's both. All of these accounts and stories are based on what the societies believed and felt at that time. Maybe all the 'Gods' were aspects of the 'One' and they each adopted their own relationships to different aspects. But what I do know is, I can no longer relate to the 'GODS' of the past. I can only relate to the God of my understanding, with the use of my heart, mind and free will. I get to relate to the Creator of Beginnings personally, in my heart. Here and now. Not yesterday or tomorrow. We only have right now. I put away the old wine skin. The new wine is ripe. And in the end, Only Love is real. The rest is us believing more in it's absence. Which is why chaos creates dilemmas. God brings order. I will no longer have take part of numerous beings in and out of 'recorded' history. I will only part take in the richness and Glory of the pure love that I call the One True God. If we are one with God and God always was and will always be, then 'NOW' will always be the 'beginning'. Just where I AM at right now. lol I enjoy and love all of this. Pure Love is un-contaminatable' Thanks again.

    • profile image

      Michael 5 months ago

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 months ago from Texas

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

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

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

      Re: Sons of God/Gen6

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

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

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

      Re: Science

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

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

      Science is the understanding of what has been made.

    • profile image

      Psalm37 6 months ago

      Sorry, keep forgetting stuff...

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

    • profile image

      Psalm37 6 months ago

      In addition...

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

    • profile image

      Psalm37 6 months ago

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

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 months ago from Texas

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 months ago from Texas

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

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

    • profile image

      Felipe Gutierrez 6 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 months ago from Texas

      Hi Raymond,

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

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

    • profile image

      Raymond 6 months ago

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

    • profile image

      Keith 7 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 8 months ago from Texas

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

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

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 8 months ago from Texas

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

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

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

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

    • profile image

      Isikeli 8 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 8 months ago from Texas

      Isikeli,

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

    • profile image

      Isikeli 8 months ago

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

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

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

    • profile image

      Isikeli 8 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 9 months ago from Texas

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 9 months ago from Texas

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

    • profile image

      Anonymous 9 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 9 months ago from Texas

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 months ago from Texas

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

    • Green-TZM profile image

      Green-TZM 11 months ago

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

    • Mageswaran Shalom profile image

      Mageswaran Shalom 11 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 months ago from Texas

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

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

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

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 11 months ago from Houston, TX USA

      I seem to be behind here.

      "Yes, but created by whom?

      How?"

      Describe this "God of Creation."

      Created How? by evolution? manipulation? thin air?

      Did God materialize on earth to do this?

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 months ago from Texas

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

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 11 months ago from Houston, TX USA

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

      Yes, but created by whom?

      How?

      Stated simply, what is your theory?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 months ago from Texas

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

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

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

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

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 11 months ago from Houston, TX USA

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

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

      an alien race coming to earth and

      Planet X?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 months ago from Texas

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

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

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

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 11 months ago from Houston, TX USA

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

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 months ago from Texas

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

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

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

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 11 months ago from Houston, TX USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 months ago from Texas

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 11 months ago from Texas

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

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

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 11 months ago from Houston, TX USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • profile image

      Magesh 11 months ago

      who was the serpent ? what is the the fruit ?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 19 months ago from Texas

      Hey IM,

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

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

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

    • Insane Mundane profile image

      Insane Mundane 19 months ago from Earth

      At least Neil sounded like he had some good sense.

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

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 19 months ago from Texas

      Neil,

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

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

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

    • profile image

      Neil 19 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 21 months ago from Texas

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

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

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

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

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 21 months ago from California

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 21 months ago from Texas

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

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 21 months ago from California

      Jeremy, will humans ever cease to have free will?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 21 months ago from Texas

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

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 21 months ago from California

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 21 months ago from Texas

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

    • moneymindit profile image

      Money Man 21 months ago from California

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

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 21 months ago from Texas

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

    • profile image

      Jennifer 21 months ago

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Looks like I have more research to do.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 2 years ago from Houston, TX USA

      The sites to which I refer are:

      Underwater Dwaka (not the one on land)

      Puma Punku and

      Baalbek

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      I just looked up each site on Wikipedia.

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 2 years ago from Houston, TX USA

      To what sites do you refer?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Hi Jay,

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

    • Jay C OBrien profile image

      Jay C OBrien 2 years ago from Houston, TX USA

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

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

    • colorfulone profile image

      Susie Lehto 2 years ago from Minnesota

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

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Jay C,

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