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

Updated on January 24, 2017

God Created Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mythology of the First Civilization

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

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

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

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

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

The Books of Moses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden

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

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

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

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

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

The 'Others' that Cain feared

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

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

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

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

The Flood wasn't global

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

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

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

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

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

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

... and one after...

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

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

In Conclusion

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

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

© 2012 Jeremy Christian

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 days ago from Texas

      I appreciate the concern, Tim, but what makes you so certain you've got it right? You were just told what it says like I was. You sure they were right?

    • profile image

      Tim 2 days ago

      Jeremy, you are sadly deceived and blind. I pray that God will open your eyes and understanding to the truth, not your fantasies. Brother, you are way, way off and missing the truth of the Scriptures. In your place, I would speak (write) less and pray a whole lot more. May God bless you!

    • profile image

      GJHS 13 days ago

      The bible talks about using other biblical scripture, prayer, and the Holy Spirit to discern things, it says nothing about using anything else. If God says that's all I need, that is all I will use. You do what you will. May God bless you and keep you

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 13 days ago from Texas

      GJHS,

      When you interpret scripture with other scripture you're still depending on your own interpretation of the words. Without the context of the environment, the politics of the place these stories are set in, interpretation is sure to be inaccurate.

      But when lined up against history as it's been determined by physical evidence you've got true context. It reveals the truth in the stories being told.

    • profile image

      GJHS 13 days ago

      I was saying it is dangerous to seek truth and interpret scripture with anything but, other scripture, not that seeking truth is bad. Many blessings to you

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 13 days ago from Texas

      GJHS,

      "When you follow the things of the world and things of satan, and not solely God and his Word"

      When you or I read God's word, our interpretations of God's word are the thoughts of a man. Fallible.

      Seeking to understand isn't a lack of faith. There's nothing wrong with questioning the traditional interpretations of God's word. If there is a lie that derails God's people it's the lie that you cannot seek to understand because it shows a lack of faith. That fear only keeps you in the dark.

      Modern science is not to be distrusted. It's simply an observation of God's creation. This physical world. It seeks to understand. It's insight into a better understanding of God because it shows us how God's laws and God's creation work. It shows us how God works.

      Adam and Eve both demonstrated right from the outset that they were willing and able to behave according to their own will even when it was in direct contrast to God's will. There wasn't a richeous and unricheous side of the family. All were capable of free will and all were capable of wickedness. None were able to live a life wholly within God's will. That is what made Jesus significant. He was the only one who could. And did.

      The 'daughters of humans' were not Cain's family. They were the humans created on 'day 6' in the same image. The humans it later says God "regretted" putting on the Earth because Adam's kin began interbreeding with them, passing on their free willed ability to behave on their own accord. Which is what made them 'wicked'.

      I have not ripped anything out of context. It is the context of the rest of the story that makes this clear.

    • profile image

      Gregg Dewater 13 days ago

      just finished reading,The Science Of God, by Gerald Schroeder, for the fourth time in about ten years. I'm still gaining insights from the book concerning harmony between the Bible and scientific discoveries and understandings. While surfing for additional input I happened onto Jeremey's article and these comments, and I think y'all would find the above book very interesting concerning every issue raised in these comments and much more like the law of relativity and creation of the universe etc.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 13 days ago from Texas

      Oyeteju,

      Cain's statement concerning others who may harm him is an indication that there are others beyond Adam and Eve and their offspring.

      God created humans in Gen1 that He commanded to be fruitful and multiply and to fill and subdue the Earth. After creating Adam God gave them one specific command, and they both broke it. How could God call the humans He created in Gen1 "good" if they broke the one and only command He gave them? How could these humans be expected to follow the commands to populate the Earth if they immediately disobeyed? The humans created in Gen1 are not Adam and Eve. They are the 'others' that Cain feared.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 13 days ago from Texas

      Sorry I overlooked your comment, Oyeteju.

      First I'd like to say I don't think you should worry about offending God. The process of seeking to understand God isn't something likely to offend. The bible is man made. Chronicles of a time when God interacted with man.

      My claiming the flood wasn't global isn't me doubting God's work. It's me doubting how man has interpreted the stories of God's work. Noah lived just 10 generations after Adam's creation. How much of the Earth could they have occupied by that point? If wickedness in man was the reason to send the flood, why flood the whole planet when the wickedness only existed in such a small space?

      Re: No man, no shrub, etc

      Gen2:8 - Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden;

      In the east. East of where? For there to be an 'east' you must be in a specific location. Genesis 2 is speaking of a specific location. Near specifically named rivers. Mesopotamia. A region that is dry and primarily desert. No rain. No shrubs. And with there being no vegetation, there's no life, no men. So even if humans existed on the Earth at this point, they didn't exist here in this desert.

      This I believe is God choosing a suitable place to create the garden and to create Adam. In the middle of a desert region where there are no humans. Isolated.

      It isn't that Adam was the first man to exist or the first man to know how to till the ground. Adam was the first of any of God's creation able to behave of his own free will and not of God's will.

    • profile image

      GJHS 13 days ago

      To start, you appear to have ripped Gen 6:1-4 out of context. When you do that you can get the Bible to get whatever you want to say.

      When looking at the context, the simplicity of these verses is so clear, the only way to get around it is by making false assumptions, which have no validity here or in any Scriptural context.

      Starting from Chapter 4, the story of Cain and Abel, the first murder occurs, Cain is banished and had rejected God and his offer of forgiveness. His side of the story continues with his descendants, chief among them is Lamech, who being not a God follower does things contrary to God's design: he marries two women. God's clear vision and desire for marriage was one man and one woman. (Gen 2:24). The Hebrew is quite clear on the singularity of man and woman. Which is the exact same way Jesus used the verse in Mark 10:7 and Matt 19:5 on what marriage should be in God’s eyes. It is quite clear that deviating from one man and one woman in marriage is contrary to God's design and therefore a sin. Cain's story follows this path of rejecting God and doing whatever they want whether Cain and his descendants think it's good or bad. They do what they want to do ignoring God’s designs.

      Then in Chapter 5 we pick up with Adam's descendants through Seth. These are and can appropriately be called "sons of God", not only because they followed God's overall laws, but more importantly because through this line would come the Savior of the World, Jesus Christ. (Luke 3:23-38-Luke’s record of Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam and ultimately to God). What’s more is that, we read in Chapter 5 about Enoch, he walked with God. Then God took him away. (Gen 5:21-24). This is an incredibly unique story, and profoundly about those who followed God, not man and their own sinful desires. At the end of Chapter 5 we read about Noah and the story continues through him in Chapter 6

      In chapter 6, before Noah's story continues (who descended from Seth and those who followed God), we read about the sons of God (descendants of Seth), and daughters of men (descendants of Cain) having relations. God punishes this sinful behavior by limiting the age of man (all mankind) to 120 years. People after the flood for several generations live beyond that limit, because Gen 6:3 is talking about a countdown until God gets rid of all mankind with the flood. It fits the context of the rest of the chapter and following chapters in Genesis (For more information see https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/how-lo... So this 120 years has absolutely nothing to with another race of people aside from Adam and Eve and their children. Meanwhile, back to the larger context of Genesis, After the sons of God and daughters of men have relations the wickedness increases and God wipes it out, but only saving Noah, a descendant of Seth, finding favor in God's eyes (Gen 6:8).

      On just another point about your localized flood theory; What are fossils? Billions of dead things laid down by water all over the earth. Secondly you state how many generations and years occur between Adam and Noah. You are quite faithful to God's word here. However, how fast do human populations grow? Through Genesis 5 we read who begat who, and that they had “other sons and daughters.” Given the lifespans of the people pre-flood, there were billions of people on earth by the time of the flood. This can be shown with reasonable mathematical calculations. How fast do human populations grow? Only 57 people survived the first winter in Plymouth Colony in 1621, how many descendants in the US are there of those people? It is in the tens of millions. That is only in 400 years’ time, when people were living way way way shorter lifespans. I don't have the calculations in front of me for Adam and the pre-flood generations in front of me at the moment, but I can get them to you if you'd like to see them. This is a matter that should be considered without presuppositions and assumptions other than looking at the data in God's Word.

      One final thing, it is imperative that we take the first 11 chapters of Genesis at face value and not cut copy and paste from modern science or anything else, when a lot of modern science is wrong and from the minds of men, and not from the mind of God which is absolute truth. There is so much more that can be said on this, but this post is already long. However, once one begins to chip away at God's foundation laid there, one begins to doubt and deny what is really written and if it really happened and it opens a door that leads to more doubt and denial. Doing this shows a lack of faith. When you follow the things of the world and things of satan, and not solely God and his Word, that will inevitably happen. That then leads them to question the virgin birth, the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus. And before long they doubt the entire Bible as God's very Word because they are using men's sinful thoughts (men are naturally children of satan, the 'father of lies') and not truth of the Word of God (God cannot lie). This is a dangerous path to go down. Many blessings

    • profile image

      Oyeteju 13 days ago

      However, if anyone will answer me this time, who were people Cain was afraid would kill him? And how the hell did he build a city?? Also, the land of Nod, where he married his wife, where was it?was it only his wife that lived there or she just fell from heaven?

    • profile image

      Oyeteju 13 days ago

      Well, no one replied to my comment

    • profile image

      D.M. 2 weeks ago

      Jennifer Mugrage

      Many people point to the book of Enoch for this idea.

      The book of Enoch was not written by Enoch. It was written just before the time of Christ, and is not scripture.It is basically a bunch of nonsense

      It plagiarized the prophecy of Enoch (an oral tradition passed down from the time of Enoch) at the beginning of the book, and the rest from there just gets weird.

      People will also point to the book of Jude and claim it references the book of Enoch, it does not. It references the prophecy of Enoch.

    • profile image

      D.M. 2 weeks ago

      I read somewhere that the english translators were mostly futurist or a futurist theology dominated the translation. Futurist apparently have a worldwide bent to theology.

      They also believe that the antichrist kingdom will be worldwide. I believe it will be like the flood, large but limited. But it will have worldwide influence.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Jennifer,

      The problem I have with this theory is the bit about spiritual beings impregnating mortal women. Procreation is a biological/physical process. Spiritual beings would have no need to have the capability to procreate. Procreation is all about propagating life when life is finite and temporary. This is not an issue for something spiritual.

    • Jennifer Mugrage profile image

      Jennifer Mugrage 2 weeks ago from Columbus, Ohio

      Alternative theory: the godlike beings living among humans, who are found in mythologies all over the world, are humanity's memory of the very scary era when human women were regularly abducted by spiritual beings and became the mothers of hybrid heroes, giants, or monsters.

      Things were in such chaos that a reset was needed. Hence, the Flood.

      For more of this theory, including exegesis on the Nephilim and many of the other exegetical questions you raise in this article, see the book I recommended before: Giants: sons of the gods.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Thank you for sharing this information D.M.

      I don't think incest was an issue early on. Adam and Eve were basically twins.

      In going through the original Hebrew I find it interesting that the bible translators chose wording so obviously leaning towards a global flood when, as you pointed out, the text is very much not worded that way.

    • profile image

      D.M. 2 weeks ago

      Proof for the flood being localized is right there in the story.

      The hebrew word translated earth is ERETS. Some 1300 times it is used in hebrew scripture it is speaking about a specific geographical location, not the whole earth. The land of noah suffered a flood, not the earth of noah.

      Other proofs:

      Limited Space

      The exact size dimensions are given for the ark. It was a large but limited vessel, and nothing in the story claims it to be some magical ship that could contain all the animals on the earth.

      Limited space = Limited space available for animals and other supplies = Limited area affected by the flood.

      Limited Time

      God tells noah to get all the animals on board the ark because the flood will begin in 7 days. That means noah had only 6 days to get every animal on board, plus any supplies not already on board (the animals also had to be housed outside the ark before boarding the ark)

      Limited time = Limited time available to get the animals and other supplies on board = Limited area affected by the flood.

      The mountains covered over.

      It is estimated that because of the curvature of the earth (the horizon effect) no mountain tops could have been seen by noah while on the ark from a distance more than about 25 miles out. This would give the appearance that the mountains were covered over as well.

      Seaworthiness of the ark.

      The ark was not an ocean going vessel. It simply had to float from point A to point B. The ark was made of Gopher Wood. There is no Gopher Tree in the Bible or anywhere else in recorded history.

      This was not a tree but a process of lamination. A layering of the wood that made it many times stronger, with pitch as the binding glue.

      Psalm 104

      In Psalm 104 it says that once the water and land were separated at the beginning of creation, never again would water completely cover the face of the earth. For the flood of noah to completely cover the earth would be a direct violation of what God said would never happen again.

      Those looking for the ark may be out of luck.

      Noah and his sons would probably have broken down most of the ark, and used it to build other structures needed after the flood. Why let a ready supplied lumber yard go to waste? Especially with access to trees being limited after the flood.

      Others over the years would have scavenged much of what was left. If the ark is found it would probably be only a remnant.

    • profile image

      D.M. 2 weeks ago

      I arrived at this same understanding before I heard about it here or anywhere else.

      Other clues.

      Lamech tells his wives that if Cain would be avenged 7 times he would be avenged 77 times. This could be because his wives came from the same people as Cain's, and he wanted them to relay that information to them. The same people Cain was afraid might kill him.

      Lamech would have known about Cain's mark and the significance of it.

      Someone had to help Cain build his city, and also occupy it as well.

      Also, I don't think God would have been the author of the biggest action of incest in recorded history.

      People will claim that inbreeding would not matter because they would have been genetically pure, but there is no reason this claim would be correct. Inbreeding would most certainly have the same effect as it would today.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi GJHS,

      Other scripture is what led me to this conclusion. Take this for example ...

      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.”

      This is clearly talking about two different groups. One group it refers to as the 'daughters of humans', the other the 'sons of God'. One group it says is "mortal" and only lives 120 years. The chapter before this says Adam and his family live for centuries.

    • profile image

      GJHS 2 weeks ago

      The only godly and true way to interpret scripture is with other scripture, not by guessing with naturally sinful minds, (which would naturally come to sinful lies that are not of God, which is why the only way to interpret scripture is with other scripture, since scripture is God's word and the ONLY thing that will ever be holy and true. God cannot lie, since he cannot sin. Satan is the "father of lies", and the bible says that man without God are naturally children of satan, so men will naturally lie without God's truth), or by adding what the human minds call 'facts'. There was a time the 'greatest minds' thought the earth was flat. They were wrong. You are wrong. The bible says God is love, God's character never changes. God ONLY ever created humans WITH free will out of love. Creating humans without freewill before Adam and Eve would not be loving. God also created angels before humans with free will out of love.

      Chapter 1 of Genesis does say God created mankind on the 6th day. In chapter 2 God does rest on day 7. Then right after that in chapter 2 it begins a new section that says, "Adam and Eve; 4This is the account of the heavens and the earth WHEN THEY WERE CREATED (it is re-telling God's creation in further detail. You are telling the lie that Adam and Eve were created AFTER creation, when the bible is clearly stating here that this is still the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth), WHEN the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Genesis 2:4 NIV.

      Chapter 1 in Genesis starts out with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1 NIV. so we know these are both the same accounts.

      It then goes on to say in Chapter 2 "Now NO SHRUB had yet appeared on the earth and NO PLANT had yet sprung up (it would be pretty hard for these 'people' before Adam and Eve to eat, wouldn't it, when there was not yet any food, and God had not yet permitted man to eat meat?), for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was NO ONE TO WORK THE GROUND...

      Genesis 2:5 NIV

      THEN it says God made Adam, and then right after that, and only after Adam's creation, did food start to grow. Then God said, "...It is not good for the man to be ALONE (no other humans were yet made, besides Adam)..." Genesis 2:18 NIV. Then God made Eve (and then the word 'woman' was created. The word wouldn't have been created then if women already existed)

      “...45 The first man Adam became a living being.. (he's the first man, that's pretty clear)" 1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV (again, interpreting scripture [i.e. truth], with other scripture, is the only way to interpret scripture correctly and find truth)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Pofarmer,

      I have no need here I'm trying to fulfill. I'm simply following what the text and the evidence says.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi John,

      I chose my words carefully. Confirmation in each of these cases has been achieved. For example, if there had been a global flood there would be consistent flood evidence across the board all throughout the world, and there simply isn't.

      As for human origins, we know genetically that homo sapiens originate in Eastern Africa nearly 200,000 years ago.

    • profile image

      Pofarmer 2 weeks ago

      It's quite handy when you can bend your theology to say anything you need it to.

    • profile image

      John Bollinger 2 weeks ago

      I love how you use the word “confirmed” like it is fact as in “we’ve confirmed geologically that there has never been a global flood.” 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.”

      Tell me how this is confirmed? The science is based on methodology that is assumed based on current data and extrapolated to the past based on theory. There is no certainty, and saying so is irresponsible.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Matthew,

      "My question is you argue that Adam and Eve we're not the first;man and woman yet you state the ones before couldn't follow directions etc.suggesting that those people were not really like Adam and Eve but last on evolution chart before man modern day man."

      Actually, I'm saying the ones before Adam and Eve could and did follow directions. Gen1 describes God commanding them to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill and subdue the Earth". Historically that's exactly what homo sapiens did. And God deeming all He created "good" suggests all creation did just as He willed.

      I'm not attacking believers. I am challenging believers. I believer myself, but I don't believe the story as told by organized religion. If I'm "attacking" anyone it's religion.

    • profile image

      Matthew 3 weeks ago

      My question is you argue that Adam and Eve we're not the first;man and woman yet you state the ones before couldn't follow directions etc.suggesting that those people were not really like Adam and Eve but last on evolution chart before man modern day man. That would make Adam and Eve the first of modern day as we know men and women to exist..it's doesn't say he did create more it doesn't say he didn't create more what it does is explain the set up for or the begging of immorality,sin how simple disobedience can shape things. We waste our monies that which most men and women have made their new god on ludictis things. you write and say science has proven for a fact that. Sir alot of those so called facts are based on there's that some man deemed to be correct so then others latch on and dogma.Your carbon dating (disproven) that how much economical resiurce has been used to study these things that are millions of years old all just lies or theroy. Arguments like yours are a purposeful attack on believers in many ways. But let's say Adam and Eve weren't first what does it do to try and what discredit God for anyone other than waste money and cause yet eventurbulance in a turbulant wirld . Remember our faith in in the being who inspired the book the Creator,his words in the flesh for men and women to see hear feel what God's love is. We have a hard time hearing it this day and age for the ones who don't believe.who sits around and tries to disprove your life.. the UN deniable is this was created which means this Creator did it for a reason not for me to question cause he did a damn good job you know there are so many beautiful things amazing places. This is just one more attempt to disrail a would be Christian. For me it's easy go to the edge of a pond look at an old tree you can see that he's everywhere ingenious and beautiful loving but for those if us who chose to stand against him cat see it that way can't look into Forrest and that that is God he is what he is and I'm glad that I am what I am a child of god born born into a world that can't change what I love and believe for the sake of shock attention self worship and arrogance. It's never to late to get go of that. That's why Jesus but we know you'll deny make fun of what I wrote dare that I'm just a simple yes your right ignorant and simple thank uou

    • profile image

      Oyeteju 3 weeks ago

      Great work. About Adam not being the first man I have two views about that. The first(he wasn't the first man): in Gen 1:27 " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them " clearly states that God created plenty people In the beginning and Adam was 'special' or 'chosen' so God created him out of a mist (which brought about my second view) in Gen 2:5 "... for the lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was NO MAN to till the ground" which states that he was the first man or the first man to know how to till the ground which was why God placed him in the garden of Eden. So is it that he was the first skilled man(and special man)? OR was Gen 1 just the summary of creation? (sorry my comment is clumpsy) But then again, in the end of the Gen1 is "and there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day"(God created people on the sixth day) which supports my first view (he isn't the first man) which is also supported by Cain saying "... and whoever finds me will slay me" in Gen 4:14. HOWEVER, in Gen 2:7 "... and man became a living being " which makes it seem like the people God created on the sixth day were not on the earth at that time (they were probably spirits of men awaiting to be sent to earth, but they were already blessed by God) so Adam was probably the first man but then Cain's statement(mentioned above) tackles this view again (why the hell did Cain utter that statement, he should have just left without complaining) I'm really confused; 75% agreeing that Adam wasn't the first man and 25% agreeing that he was, but sometimes I just ignore these things and worship God since I have proof of his existence and I also try not to say the things that are not in the Bible (which I just did) to avoid offending God. And About the flood, It was Global, don't doubt God's work (I'm not saying you are). May God forgive us all. Salaam or Shalom

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Jennifer,

      There's too much of the story that correlates with the ages given in Genesis 5 to think they mean anything other than the ages they give.

      In fact, there are two correlations. First, the events. According to the ages given in Gen5 the flood happened 1656 years after Adam was created. Genesis then says the city of Uruk was established not long after the flood. So the flood would have been around 4000 BC.

      The other correlation is all the cultures that existed in that age, they all wrote of god like beings who existed among them. Beings like Adam and his family are described existing among naturally evolved humans line up well with those stories.

      And yes, civilization did bounce back rather quickly after the flood. The flood ended the Ubaid culture (5500-4000BC) and that's when the Uruk culture began in Sumer. Uruk was very similar to the Ubaid.

    • Jennifer Mugrage profile image

      Jennifer Mugrage 3 weeks ago from Columbus, Ohio

      Interesting. I, too, am interested in the very ancient world.

      While I definitely don't agree with everything you write in this Hub, I love the seriousness with which you take the Bible.

      Perhaps another commenter has already made this point (my internet is a little slow and I don't have time to read all the comments before commenting), but ...

      The Genesis genealogies are probably not meant to be complete. That is, they trace names in a family line, but may skip one or more generations at a time. "Father" in Hebrew can mean father, grandfather, or ancestor. Thus, there could have been tens or hundreds of thousands of years of human civilization before the Flood. People would have had time to populate the entire Earth, build cities, and develop all kinds of technology. If they were living into their 900s but still reaching maturity at 20 or 30, that would also mean that Cain could have had plenty of "others" to fear: brothers, sisters, nephews, and nieces. We are not given a lot of factual context in Genesis about the timing of Cain's murder of Abel.

      After the Flood, people would have remembered the cities and technology from before, but it would have taken them a while to repopulate and get their act together before they could try to rebuild. The result could look like civilizations, such as Sumer and Egypt, "suddenly" springing up. Other groups, that chose to scatter rather than stay, would have stayed at a hunter-gatherer level of societal organization in order to facilitate their nomadic lifestyle.

      About the Nephilim, have you seen the book Giants: Sons of the Gods, by Douglas Van Dorn? I can't recommend it heartily enough.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Terron,

      Adam was the first man with free will. Not the first man to ever exist. Adam was significant. I'm not saying he wasn't.

      Second, Paul, who of course wrote the letter to the Corinthians, was not imbued with some other-worldly level of knowledge. He was reading the same text we are. That's what he knew.

      We now know through science what actually happened. So yeah, I'll take the title of heretic. It's clear the traditional religions of the world are very wrong in a lot of ways.

      Galileo was called a heretic too. In fact, he was imprisoned the rest of his life as a heretic. All he did was re-interpret the bible based on the new knowledge he had that the Earth was not the center of our planetary system.

      It's time to wake up, Terron.

    • profile image

      Terron 3 weeks ago

      Typical heresy from an unbeliever who claims to be a believer.

      1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Michael,

      Thank you for the comment. For a detailed answer to your question, please refer to one of my other hubs ... https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Creat...

      Be sure to comment and let me know what you think.

    • profile image

      MikeFru 3 weeks ago

      Hi, Jeremy!

      Such enlightening facts and words from you. Truly awesome and a blessing to stumble upon. I have read a good portion of the comments on this article, and there are many earnest responses that come up.

      Personally, your words and responses to the blog's comments have been very thorough and polite; so first and foremost I wanted to commend you on that.

      I did have a question for you in regards to a abbreviated response you made on this article(as you were addressing multiple questions/concerns at once)

      "The story beyond the garden makes little sense without the presence of other humans. The 'others' Cain feared, the wife he eventually found after being banished from the garden, the fact that Genesis 6 is speaking about two groups; the "sons of God" and the "daughters of humans".

      All of this, at the end of creation, it says God created humans male and female. Afterwards He deemed all He had created, including those humans, "good". Given the story of Adam and Eve, generation 1, failed to follow His commands, and generation 2 as well, it's highly unlikely that these are the humans God deemed "good".

      So as a beginning response, I do agree that there were more people on this earth besides, Cain, Abel, Adam, Eve. Like you mentioned, the actual sentence, and also the logic is not there. Who are these other people that could interact with Cain?

      The of God through the Bible is still there with all reverence, but is also there to be studied, and examined.

      How could Christians claim that they have the true word if there was no science to back there declaration?

      Side tangents, sorry!

      Back to my original question I had: What is a further interpretation of your knowledge of the difference between "sons of God" & "daughters of humans?"

      Is it that the "sons of God" were a species(Nephilims perhaps?) before humankind(Adam and Eve) . ? Or were you indicating something different?

      Thank you so much for your time and your role in starting wonderful conversations with the world.

      -Michael Freuler

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      Haha... yeah, great right? My name is Jeremy Christian, but a different Jeremy Christian than the one making news a little while back.

      You can find more of my articles here ... https://hubpages.com/@headlyvonnoggin

    • profile image

      Maggie Cat 4 weeks ago

      Is the author's name Jeremy A. Walker ? Because on looking you up to see more of your writings (couldn't figure out how to do it on this site) "Jeremy Christian" this is the first thing that came up ... "Aggravated murder suspect Jeremy Christian shouted frightening insults, spoke of “decapitating heads” and shoved fellow passengers before plunging a knife into the necks of three men on a MAX train, according to a newly released prosecution memo."

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      Hosea,

      Does the bible say God created Adam first? Because when I read it it says God created humans on day 6, then Adam and Eve. And the humans He created on day 6 He called "good" along with the rest of creation. Would He have called Adam and Eve and Cain good?

      The humans He created on day 6 He gave specific commands to populate the Earth. He gave a specific command to Adam and they didn't follow it.

      If there was no creation and no population before Adam then who were the others that Cain feared when he was forced to leave the garden?

      I am not an atheist. I believe in God. I believe the bible. You've been told all your life that the bible says Adam was first, but is that really what it says?

      Genesis 1 is talking about All land and All creation. But Genesis 2 is talking about a specific region in Mesopotamia between the rivers it specifically names.

    • profile image

      Hosea Pierce 4 weeks ago

      Atheists. If the Bible says God crested Adam first then He did. There was no creation and no population before Adam and Eve. The words be fruitful and multiply happened. God gave wisdom and seems as He gave non-believers something to play around with called evolution. It’s obvious you guys don’t believe in God, or have no belief in Christ. Genesis is taking about ALL land ALL creation. Not one specific area.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Eddie,

      Genesis 2 is clearly talking about a specific region of land. And in that region it's true that it was desolate and dry during that portion of history. In fact, I think this region was chosen because it was all but clear of any other living creatures, specifically humans. But the rest of the story makes it clear that once you leave this specific region there are other humans.

      The story beyond the garden makes little sense without the presence of other humans. The 'others' Cain feared, the wife he eventually found after being banished from the garden, the fact that Genesis 6 is speaking about two groups; the "sons of God" and the "daughters of humans".

      Besides all of this, at the end of creation, it says God created humans male and female. Afterwards He deemed all He had created, including those humans, "good". Given the story of Adam and Eve, generation 1, failed to follow His commands, and generation 2 as well, it's highly unlikely that these are the humans God deemed "good".

    • profile image

      Eddie 4 weeks ago

      "Now 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, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” Genesis 2:5‭-‬7‭, ‬18‭, ‬20‭-‬23 NIV

      There are a few problems trying to "theorise" the idea that "animals" of human form pre-existed Adam, because Genesis clearly says that prior to Adam there were no one to work the ground and women weren't created until after Adam. When all the animals that had been created were brought before Adam, no suitable helper was found for him, so God created a woman, out of the flesh of man. If animals in human form already existed, in order for them to reproduce there would also have been females, but none was found suitable for Adam.

      This all theory expressed in this article, is nothing but an attempt to marry the theory of evolution to the Biblical creation, because in recent years, the advance in science and technology has disproved the theory of evolution in that it has proven that the odds for random evolution of the universe and life on earth, are so astronomically small, that in mathematical terms the odds are zero, pointing therefore for creation by design, with the Biblical account of creation the most probable scientific fact. But of course, evolutionists will not take this laying down, so they will now attempt to mix their theory with some Biblical truths, in order to make the theory of evolution more scientifically acceptable. Much like the history of the Roman Catholic Church.. after centuries of persecuting the Christian religion, Constantine eventually realised that the Roman empire was falling apart and in an attempt to save the empire he declared Christianity the new religion of Rome, but this only resulted in a mix of paganism, practiced by the Romans for many centuries, to be mixed with Christianity, that ended up with a form of false Christian doctrines, bearing no resemblance to the true Christianity taught in the Bible. This mix of false theory of evolution with the Biblical truth of creation, only produces the same kind of false creation story...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      Thank you Robby. The Fall is a good read. I think you'll enjoy it.

    • profile image

      Robby 4 weeks ago

      Thanks for the response. Saharasia by James DeMeo is widely discredited (it was based on outdated data set, that even the analyst that gathered the data back in the 1930s - 50s said is flawed). However, The Fall looks incredibly reliable, and I'm looking forward to checking it out. (also worth noting pre-Adamite understanding began in 180 AD., but you've begun pulling together a lot of great evidence). I greatly appreciate efforts to reconcile the Bible, our understand of God and our ever-growing body of scientific information.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      The Annunaki and the things they gave humanity, there is some truth to that I think. If there were actually a being like Adam created in the environment where the people who eventually became the Sumerians, then the Annunaki as described is very much what you would expect to see.

      And there is physical evidence that lines up with those inventions, or gifts. Like the wheel. But those times line up not with the timeline you've given, but with Sumer existing after 5500BC.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Kieran,

      By these dates I can only assume you're going by the amounts of time given in the Sumerian King's List. These times were translated assuming the base-60, or sexagesimal as you mentioned, numbering system the Sumerian's were known to have used. But by those timese the events described and the lengths of the rules of the kings does not line up with what we know about the Sumerians. But if those same numbers are translated base-10, it's a very different story.

    • profile image

      kieran 5 weeks ago

      shivers didnt finish what i was writing there. im not sure if the post went through but the 12th planet by zecharia sitchin will give evidence about the flood and timeline of it.

      also it explains how sumer and Mesopotamia were both around 10,000 years ago with as a civilization.

      and there is so much more if you wanted to have a look at it.

      theres a book called dark emu by bruce pascoe which gives conclusive evidence about farming and agriculture and laws and more about the indigenous Australian aborigines..

      that is one thing that is truly wrong not all humanity traces back to africa, firstly homo sapiens and so on is just a theory because there are missing links all over the place, just like the Darwinian theory of evolution which has holes in it left right and center. i do believe evolution is real things do evolve, but we did not evolve from single celled organisms. now mainstream science and archaeology and history go on the out of africa theory because it was the first theory and also because those groups are controlled and it what the mainstream want you to believe.

      if you look up online now you will find that the out of Australia theory is starting to make some noise and so it should because every tribe in australia has there story of creation from the land to the trees and the animals and to the people and this has been passed down from generation to generation. its actually scientifically and dna proven that there is a gene in the Australian aborigines brain pacifically for remembering and passing down stores from one gen to the next. also proven that Australian aborigines carry dna and genes that no other people or species carry.

      there is a book voices of the first day which will give a lot of insight.

    • profile image

      kieran 5 weeks ago

      hey Jeremy, i posted in a comment just before just some of the writings talking about the deluge and when it was and how it was created and also about sumer and Mesopotamia and

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Kieran, I'm glad to let you have your say. And when we're talking about factual evidence there's no chance of offending anyone. It's either true or it isn't. But, on that note, I'm afraid I'll need to correct you on a few things. If there's anything you feel I have in error, please show me the evidence that contradicts it.

      While there was certainly human occupation in areas along river banks long before the establishment of civilization, what qualifies as "Sumerian Culture" only goes back to the building of Eridu, the first city, in 5500BC.

      There is a much more recent flood that happened between the Ubaid and Uruk periods of Sumer about 4000BC. Archaeological evidence, Sumerian texts, and Genesis all agree that the city of Uruk was established not long after the flood, making this 4000BC flood the likely flood of the story.

      All humanity traces back to Africa. There's no second occurrence of homo sapiens originating in Australia.

      There's no evidence of farming prior to what's found in Northern Mesopotamia around 8000BC. And there's no evidence of any of the other things you mentioned, laws, borders, diverted waterways, etc, prior to Sumer, closer to 4500BC.

    • profile image

      kieran 5 weeks ago

      So i am truly sorry if this offends anyone but firstly sumerian culture dates back over 10,000 years easily. You have a picture of a sumerian tablet which shows the god enki the son of the god anu which are a race called the annunaki..

      Secondly the great flood did happen and its been proven scientifically, its just the time line is way out the flood occurred between 13,000 to 15,000 years ago. The story of the flood is also in every ancient culture around the world from the indigenous Australian aborigines to the native American Indians to the south American indigenous tribes to africa and so on. Also noahs ark sits upon mt ararat, which it states in the bible and guess what its there because you can go to turkey and see it, its a tourist attraction now and also the fact that really close to the ark they have excavated the first city of noah.

      Civilization did not begin in Mesopotamia full stop.

      The indigenous Australian aborigines are the oldest continuous living culture on the planet/oldest culture ever, we had laws, tribal borders, agriculture, farming, dams, canoes, diverted waterways, systems in place so tribes and clans did not interbreed so no incest. We used astrology and the constellations and laylines to guide us well lets just say easily 50,000 yeas before the sumerians or any other culture. indigenous Australians did not migrate from africa we came straight out of the metaphysical ancestral creator's and have looked after the land as it was from the first day of creation, and please before anybody goes on about africa, do your research on indigenous Australians and just how far back we truly go. They found in the Kimberlys bones that date back over 150,000 thousand years. Or go spend some time with elders and tribes and you will clearly see what i am talking about.

      In conclusion basically the majority of things in Christianity come from sumerian tablets, from adam and eve to the flood and the story of gilgamesh and so on.

      Anu, enki, enlil, ninhursag, and the list goes on, are gods/deities from the race known as the annunaki and at some point in history anywhere between 100,000 thousand to 450,000 years ago spliced/manipulated human dna to create slave workers for them to use and this is depicted on sumerian, akkadian, babylonian, assyrian, hurrian and hittite tablets and cylinders, carvings in all ancient structures. The african tribes especially the zulu all talk about the star people coming to earth to mine for gold and minerals and there is countless evidence throughout all of africa of what i am talking about.

      Now none of what i have said disproves an almighty god.

      I 100% believe in God and a universal spirit/ heavenly father but i truly also believe in an almighty goddess/mother nature, i mean it takes two to tango, Ying and yang and dark and light and good and bad

      Thank you for allowing me to have my say☺

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Robby,

      Those are great questions and both have what I view to be fascinating answers.

      Re: Existence of free will on other continents

      There are a couple of recent books I refer to often. One is called Saharasia by James DeMeo. The other is called The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and The Dawning of a New Era by Steve Taylor. Both deal with the progression of a psychological change in humans starting first in Sumer around 5500BC (in Mesopotamia) and how and where it spread from there.

      The spread of this psychological change, which the above authors see as the emergence of the modern human ego and which I view to be free will, can be traced from where and when the stories of early Genesis took place all the way through to today. Even across oceans into Australia and eventually the Americas before Columbus.

      Taylor's book refers often back to DeMeo's book as they're both talking about the same thing, but Taylor's book is much more readable. DeMeo's is more a catalogue of evidence. I highly recommend it.

      Re: Purpose of an ark

      If Adam's descendants, Noah and his family, had not built an ark and had simply traveled from the region being flooded, then they still would have been among naturally evolved humans. The whole problem before was that these two blood lines were mixing with one another.

      But with an ark and a flood, the whole region is wiped clean of any other inhabitants, so when the flood waters subsided, Noah and his family found themselves in a region of the world where it was only them and the animals they brought with them. A clean slate, so to speak.

    • profile image

      Robby 5 weeks ago

      Hi Jeremy, I found your examination enlightening. Can you help me reconcile this explanation with two potentially incompatible elements? First, the apparent existence of free will on other continents predating any influence from the Mesopotamia region? And two, what would be the purpose of an ark (and to that end saving all the animals) if Adam and his family simply had to leave the Mesopotamia region (and all the animal species still existed outside the region)? These questions are a simple pursuit of truth; nothing more or less. Thanks

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Matthew,

      God was creating an environment to introduce free will into. He made the Earth and populated it with animals and humans. In fact, in Genesis 6 it goes on to say He regretted putting these humans here because His humans with free will began to marry and have children by those other humans, introducing free will into naturally evolved humans. This is what made them 'wicked'. Before free will they simply weren't capable of being wicked.

      The difference between Eve and the humans who came before is one, they didn't live nearly as long. They only lived lives around 120 years where Adam and Eve lived for centuries. Second, they did not have free will as Eve did.

      I've had this conversation many times with many who thought has you did, that there many holes. I think you'll find the further we go that this is quite solid.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi John,

      I did read Genesis. In fact, it was Genesis where I got what I wrote here. The story Genesis is telling doesn't make a whole lot of sense if in the context of Adam being the first human.

      For example, the beginning of Genesis 6 is talking about two different groups. One group is Adam and his family, the other group it refers to as 'daughters of humans' and refers to them as 'mortal' stating that they live only 120 years in comparison to the other group. Another example, the others that Cain feared when he was banished from the garden.

      Just be open to the possibility and read it again. I think you'll find it makes a whole lot more sense in that context.

    • profile image

      John 5 weeks ago

      Adam was the first human. This article is false. Just read Genesis.

    • profile image

      Matthew (again lol) 5 weeks ago

      Oh yeah I forgot to mention. When you mean that "Eve was created as a more suitable mate as a mortal human would not be a suitable mate for him" are you saying that females are different from what God eventually called a "woman" when He made her? I'm kind of confused about this, since that's an awfully big time gap for God to finally name one of his creations if others so called "females" were made before Eve

    • profile image

      Matthew 5 weeks ago

      Thank you for answering my reply Jeremy. I have a reply back to what you have given me.

      The main reason why God would create humans is to have a relationship with them, there's no reason why he would create humans without giving them the free will to obey what God gives them. Then they're not humans in which Adam would be in fact the first human God created. Also, please tell me why God would even bother making humans with no free will, there is no reason to do that if He intentionally wanted humans to be intelligent enough to pursue a higher being which is He.

      You still have many holes in your conspiracy and I would love to hear back from you just to find even more holes in your explanations :)

      PS this convo is fun i really hope that you keep replying!!!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Thank you Gail. Hearing you're inspired to look deeper makes me happy. More than anything that's what I hope for.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts Matthew.

      Genesis 1 says humans were created male and female. Then Adam, who lived centuries compared to the century or so mortal humans live (Gen 6). So Eve was created as a more suitable mate as a mortal human would not be a suitable mate for him. He was very different.

      No humans before Adam sinned because they did not have free will. Adam was the introduction of free will and the introduction of the capability of behaving contrary to God's will, AKA sin. It's humans with free will that the stories of the bible center around.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Thanks for the comment V. Anthony.

      Corinthians, as I'm sure you're aware, are the letters that Paul wrote to the Corinthians. In that passage he's referring back to the Tanakh, or the same verses you and I are reading.

      While Paul was a devoted follower of Jesus he was not in any way imbued with any kind of higher knowledge of what he was reading. He was simply reading the story as it was written.

      Back in Paul's age they knew very little about the history of the world. What Paul is saying here is totally relevant in regards to Adam (the first human able to make his own decisions apart from God's will) and the second Adam (Jesus).

      The humans who came before did not have free will and are therefore irrelevant to what he's speaking about.

    • profile image

      Gail 5 weeks ago

      I just had to leave a comment here. I am a pretty conservative Christian in many regards, but like many, I have had questions about our origins due to all of the wonderful discoveries modern science. I also dislike putting God in a box, for I believe His power is not even fathomable to our minds. I’ve found some Christians that are both creationists and evolutionists, but none use scripture to back their beliefs. That is dangerous, in my opinion. This is the first article that made me want to look deeper. Thank you for writing this piece and for doing so without dismissing the validity of scriptures. I look forward to reading more of your research.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Thanks for sharing, Anonymous. Could you be more specific as to what exactly you find stupid?

    • profile image

      Matthew 5 weeks ago

      Genesis 2

      21 So the Lord God caused him to fall into a deep sleep. While the man was sleeping, the Lord God took out one of the man’s ribs. Then the Lord God closed the opening in the man’s side.

      22 Then the Lord God made a woman. He made her from the rib he had taken out of the man. And the Lord God brought her to the man.

      23 The man said, “Her bones have come from my bones. Her body has come from my body. She will be named 'woman‘ because she was taken out of a man.”

      If you think that Adam wasn't the first man ever, then how can you explain the fact that God explicitely said this new being should be called a woman? If he just named something a woman, that clearly shows the first woman, meaning there was no way for a being before Adam to even bore Adam in the first place.

      Also please tell me why the heck God would even bother making other beings before Adam and not even mention it in the Bible. Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", meaning that all humans have sinned, no exception to anyone or else the Bible would've explicitely said. In this, it was not possible for God to leave out other humans he created that sinned before Adam, or else it would've definitely been in the Bible to further emphasize this point.

      Please do your research before giving information as ridiculous as you have just given.

    • profile image

      V. Anthony D'anjou 5 weeks ago

      I am one of those Christians who believes and say that Adam was the FIRST man a.k.a. First Human. I received my knowledge from the Holy Bible in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 and Genesis 2:4 that you can read here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genes...

    • profile image

      Abdul Hannan Adil 5 weeks ago

      Earth was made for two creations human and jhins.

      Humans were second creation, so jhins we're leaving on Earth and have lived many years before Adam was created.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Thank you, Michael.

      I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think it's important to not just swallow the traditional ideas and go into it with an open mind. We know more now than any of those who first formulated the traditional views of religion.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Thank you Johun.

      So tell me, how could people of that age have known and reported on the status of the whole planet? We today know there's a whole planet. They didn't. All the world to them wasn't what we think of today.

      There was no reason to flood all the planet. The only 'wicked' humans were right in that small region. The flood only came 10 generations after Adam. Why flood the whole planet?

    • profile image

      Johun green 5 weeks ago

      there was a preflood which was a warning, also a global flood due to not taking heed! the book of jasher, the book of Jubilee's and the book of the cave of treasures volume 1-6 is the witnesses to what actually happened

    • profile image

      Michael-59 5 weeks ago

      Very interesting! I have gone to church most of my life and have often wondered about some of these things. Most answers were not satisfactory. As you read God's word for yourself more things become apparent but if you listen to traditional explanation they only make sense sometimes. I have an interest in ancient civilization since I was a kid and now I am in my fifties and see a lot of information come out about the world's megalithic sites. It seems at this point they are much older than originally thought and were created with a high degree of engineering not usually associated with early man. I think this would fit in with what you have studied that there was a civilization that predated Adam. God still created Adam special as the ancestor of Jesus but he did not have to be the first person created. Good article, I enjoyed it!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Godssoldier777,

      I appreciate your taking interest and challenging what you read. To be clear, I didn't say there's no evidence of a major flood. In fact, I believe the story of the Genesis flood is based on an actual major flood.

      What I said is that there's no evidence of a global flood. The flood of the bible was regional. It's been translated in such a way as to sound global. The translators obviously thought it was global by their choices made in wording.

    • profile image

      Godssoldier777 6 weeks ago

      You did mention a lot of interesting points. But I have to state the obvious here and say that you are extremely misinformed about the beginning of Genesis being proved in accurate your biggest argument was the fact that there has not been any evidence of a major flood . I am on unaware where you are getting this information. But I am aware that is a bold statement to say it just didn’t happen and there’s no evidence pointing to it scientifically? What university gave you this information

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Hi Aaron,

      I assure you I haven't lied about anything. Everything I've said here the Holy bible told me. That's what the words say. If you think I have something wrong, show me it's wrong.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Hi Jack,

      It's not just Cain and his family who were "corrupt". Adam/Eve sinned too. They too had free will and could behave contrary to God's will.

      The wickedness wasn't a curse. Just a capability made possible through free will. Not everything done through free will is wicked, but you are not capable of wicked behavior without it.

      Cain and Adam and all those who had free will were in a sense "unnatural". They didn't behave within the context of God's material world according to His rules. They had their own wills and minds.

      This, I think, is why God could ensure Cain wouldn't be harmed by marking him. Because none of the rest of humanity had free will so if God's will was that Cain not be harmed then no harm would come to him, unless it was through free will.

    • profile image

      Jack Isaiah 2 months ago

      dear Mr Jeremy you wrote

      1..."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 Go "regretted" putting humans on the Earth."

      2..." Free will was introduced int 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."

      and the bible says... 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.

      Cain and his family were the corrupted ones and the ones to be feared (via the curse of wickedness that now fell upon their blood)... so why was he afraid of the world outside if such was the case?

      wasn't it the world outside that was supposed to fear him, he who had committed murder because of his FREE WILL?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Odon,

      I'm sorry, I can't get onboard with the whole flat Earth thing. I've flown in planes and I've seen the curvature of the Earth. I've seen satellites and time zones in action. I've seen live video shown from the other side of the planet that shows dark of night while we're still illuminated by the sun.

      As for the garden, Genesis describing it as "east of Eden" doesn't necessarily mean it was a pre-existing place. You have to remember that Genesis was written down long after the events. Eden was most likely a place that existed during the time of the writers/readers, who would have been familiar with it. That doesn't mean Eden existed before the garden.

      As for gap theory, considering it includes the idea that the 'days' of creation were six literal 24 hour days, it seems the most obvious flaw in that idea is animal life. Animals were commanded to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the Earth and the seas. Considering life perpetuates through procreation this could not have happened within 24 hours. This is a process that would take an age.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      I did know Muslims came from Ishmael while the Jews came from Isaac.

      Blood moons. This is no mystery. When the Earth is between the sun and the moon, the sun's light is stripped of it's blue when it shines throughout atmosphere, leaving primarily red. It's the same reason a sunset appears red.

      Science is not the enemy. Science does not have an agenda. Yes, science can and does explain a great many things about the natural world.

      The bible's purpose isn't to explain the natural world to us. It's telling a specific story. If you've read my hubs then you know I see no conflict between the bible and science.

      Re: Monkeys

      There are still monkeys today because only select bloodlines evolved into humans. There are other bloodlines that remained monkeys. They evolved. Slowly. Incrimentally. Over time.

      Which is the same reason some diseases are difficult to determine where they came from or how to stop the spreading. Because living things evolve and adapt.

      I am already saved, have been a Christian for most of my life, and I am not brain washing anybody. Traditional religion has held onto old ideas without ever reconsidering those things in light of what we know now. We've learned a lot because of science. That information can be used to gain a better understanding of God, as nature is God's work and science explains how nature works. And the information gained through science can help us better understand what's being described in the bible.

      Not trying to brainwash anyone. Only want to encourage people to use the brains God gave them.

    • profile image

      Jireh Jireh 2 months ago

      Some scientists are contradicting the Word of God. You better read the whole book of Old Testament so you'll understand how people scattered around the world. Did you know that Ishmael (Isaac's half brother and Abraham's son to Hagar), his seed is now in the Arab nations. Ishmael is the father of Arab nations and you can read the story in Genesis. Lot's daughter slept with their father not knowingly, because Lot's daughter made their father drunk and one of Lot's daughter after becaming pregnant their seeds became the people of Moabites. There are lots of stories in the Old Testament especially Genesis on how the people scattered around the world. Also read the story of Tower of Babel. Anyways, for your information Scientist and even Historians actually ALL OF US we cannot explain everything that are happening today in our world. Can Science and History explain why there are Blood Moon? Why does it happen? Yes, they'll tell us why it occurs with their scientific explana, but they couldn't tell us why it occured in the first place. Other diseases that blew the world because they (scientists, researchers, doctors, etc.) do not know where it came from and how to stop the spreading, can Science actually explain to you why it had happened? No. Only the Word of God can and it has something to do with fulfilling God's prophecy. Everything even the nature itself is preparing itself for the second coming of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Scientist manipulates people they are leading people astray by their scientific explanations. One of the most ridiculous theory I've ever heard was the Theory of Evolution and theory means it is not yet approved to be true. This theory claims that monkeys evolved to people so really, how come there are still a lot of monkeys? How come the monkeys we see today doesn't evolve to human by nature?? And if monkey evolve to people we should have the genes as well of the monkeys! So how come when we were born in this world we are already a human and not monkey? Hum. Anyways, have a good day and stop brainwashing us and I pray that you'll see and have encounter with our Lord Jesus Christ. I will pray for your salvation.

    • profile image

      Odon Sabo 2 months ago

      Thank you Jeremy Christian for your thoughts, because about a year ago I stopped and took another look at these Flat Earthers claims, got a 10" Celestron telescope, .. and the rest is history, for now I am a full blown Flat Earther.

      I don't know how much of the Flat Earth you looked into (we have to be careful what's out there, everyone seems to be a YouTube sensation!?) but there is the Mud Fossils, mountains that look like fossilized giants, mountain sized machinery, mountains that look like they were cities etc. Something that you should look into for sure.

      But evolution, .. are you serious? What's next, the Big Bang?

      Now about Cain being marked, I agree, there were others here on earth that he was afraid of, and they did not come from Adam and Eve!

      Look at this, where did God plant the Garden that He put Adam (and later Eve) in?

      In the "East of Eden", which means Eden was a preexisting place.

      I love that you have stepped out of the box, which is Organized Religion, specifically the Christian Religion and their claim on the interpretation of the Bible.

      I would love to converse with you, so I will "sign up" and see where we can 'grow'.

      I would love to talk to you about the Gap theory, meaning the difference between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 because I found some amazing revelations in the Bible (not based on evolution) but the Bible to build a more solid foundation of what you're referring to here.

      God is real, and He can be proven both scientifically and philosophically, all according to the Bible.

      We now know how God created all things, we have reached that point in these Last Days; "wisdom shall increase"

      until next time - God bless you!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      I appreciate you point that out to me. A lot of interesting things said. Definitely up my alley of interest.

    • profile image

      CeCe West 2 months ago

      You should really see this slide show that a scientist wrote about the 6 days of creation. I think that you would find it very interesting, since you obviously put a lot of thought into your supposition. Also, in the Bible, God uses the 1000 years equal a day principle. Here is the link:

      Six Days

      Was the universe created and developed in just six days? Is it possible to reconcile a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 with a billions-year-old universe? We address these questions in the following presentation. The material presented is inspired by The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a book we highly recommend.

      https://sixdayscience.com/six-days-2/

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      I think it most definitely correlates with the whole world. It's the story of a God going through a lot of trouble to make it possible for us humans to exist for eternity with free will.

      Look at Luke 3. It's a list of Jesus' ancestors starting with his father, Joseph, and going all the way back to Adam. In it is listed Noah, Abraham, David, all the people the story of the bible follows. These were people chosen by God because this was the line of descent that Jesus was born.

      God was breeding a human who could do what Adam could not. He bred Jesus. He's what makes living with free will for all eternity possible.

      That's my take, anyway.

    • profile image

      James hawley 2 months ago

      Do you think the Bible correlates with the whole world or just a select people. Is this the history of people that god himself chose?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 3 months 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... 3 months 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 3 months 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 3 months 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 3 months 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 3 months 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 4 months ago from Texas

      sentinalshogun,

      Half right? Which half is wrong?

    • profile image

      sentinalshogun 4 months 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 4 months 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 5 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 5 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 5 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 5 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 5 months ago from Utopia, Oz, You Decide

      An interesting article. Thanks for sharing this information.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 5 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 5 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 5 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 5 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 5 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 5 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?

    working