Was Adam the first or was there people created in Gen 1 and then Adam was created specifically for a purpose in Gen 2? Also, if Adam was the first man, how do you reconcile that they intermarried with their families when it seems apparent (at least to me) that YHWH had already established some kind of rules (law?) from the very beginning with His separation of Shabbat?
Thanks in advance for replies and I am not trying to ruffle any feathers.
Interesting you should bring up the topic you did. Awhile ago, I was hanging out with my sister recently and we had a really good conversation on the ways that man developed...specifically on the many differing interpretations of creation and how secular evolution has never made any sense about the origins of man. At one point, however, it was brought up by her that it could be possible Adam/Eve were not the only creatures on the planet at one point --and it really had me pondering how possible this may be. As said
best elsewhere:
In Romans 5 (and somewhat in 1 Corinthians 15), Paul draws an analogy between Adam and Jesus, both of whom are representative of humanity. Since Jesus is a historical figure, it is argued that Adam, too, must be a historical figure in the very same sense. The difficulty with this understanding of Paul, however, is that it is difficult to reconcile with the scientific data.
Historical Views
Another view sees humanlike creatures evolving as the scientific evidence indicates. But at a certain point in history, it is possible that God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil—an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences.
This view can fit whether the humans in question constituted a group or a specific male-female pair. In the case of a group, we can imagine that God interacted with all members of the group and essentially initiated the relationship that exists today. If the initiative was with a single human couple, then that relationship could spread to and through their offspring as that subset of the existing population came to dominate.... It is argued that bearing God’s image is not a matter of our physical appearance but a matter of our capacity to love both God and others, to have dominion over the earth, and to have moral consciousness. We are to image God (see our question on the "Image of God"). In this way we might distinguish between Homo sapiens and the image-bearing creatures that we might call Homo divinus..
For a better description, one can go here to the following:
Some are of the mindset that man evolved, to the point where the Lord bestowed upon him the image of God---thus making it possible for him to share links with others in the Primate family and yet be distinct when his intelligence underwent RADICAL changes. And on the issue of man being related to apes, there'd be nothing wrong with this (In my opinion).
Secifically, Under the Scientific classification of Anthropoids:
Sub-Order: Anthropoidea,
Infra-Order: Catarrhine,
Super-family: Homonoidea,
Subfamily: Homininae,
Tribe: Hominini,
Species: Human.
The other "tribe" under Homininae is: Panini, Species: Chimpanzees. Humans are different for other primates in that we don't have an insulating layer of hair - allowing us to control body temperature through sweating. AND Our females go through a menopause sometime quite early in life, while other primates don't.And this wouldn't be an issue for "Creationists" in any way. Dr. Porsche built the original "Bebe" Renault, and the Economy models of the early Mercedes rear engine vehicles - AND the Volkswagens (in 1939). When one looks at the "guts" of the three (and of others he did) one can see a distinctive commonality of design, and similar features among all three - making it clear that the same "thought process" produced all three vehicles. BUT Nobody would try to prove that a Volkswagen was a "Bebe Renault" - but could easily demonstrate that the same "creator" was involved in both of 'em.
Some Christians think belief in evolution undermines the uniqueness of humankind and the reality of evil and the fall....but I disagree. For the Genesis account portrays Adam and Eve as Neolithic farmers. It is perfectly feasible that God bestowed His image on representative Homo sapiens already living in the Near East to generate what John Stott has called Homo divinus, those who first enjoyed personal fellowship with God but who then fell most terribly from their close walk with God (Genesis 3.8). All those who disobey God and trust in their own wisdom in place of God’s law reiterate the historical fall in their own being (Ezekiel 28.11-19). I don't see anything wrong with advocating that God may've made two species that have similarities and may've indeed come from the same stock while choosing to impart one aspect of Himself into one of the groups to make them far superior/advanced than all others in creation.
There was an article from BIO Logos I came across..and I thought it was intriguing when it came to discussing what's seen in Genesis and renconcilling that with Anthroplogy. For more:
What they offered seemed insightful and, IMHO, it does bring up an entirely different realm of conversation when considering Genesis and how God described the role of Man (as well as the Devil) and the story of creation all the way up to Genesis 6/the Flood.
Although I think the story of Adam/Eve is literal, I think the interpretation of it often gets missed. Where scripture says "God made man from the Dust of the Ground", I've always been curious as to why many say its somehow impossible for the Lord to have made other species similar to man (i.e. apes, primates, etc) and then with man, breath his spirit into man....with the Gift of God's Spirit imparted being what set man apart.
The text doesn't say that only having 4 fingers/thumbs is what makes man in the "Image of God"...as other creatures share similar genetic make-up on some parts & have the same body parts. Yet that doesn't mean that we're the same fully. If apes /other species and humans were 100% the same in all things, it'd definately place an entirely different spin on the film "
Rise of the Planet of the Apes."
Seeing the Film puts an enitrely DIFFERENT spin on what it means to be in a Zoo---and makes one wonder what would happen if indeed was the case that something was naturally able to develop that'd be against man. For animals have learned to use tools, as well as to communicate on high levels of intelligence/network...even using tools to do things. Though never on the level as man, there's no saying that it could not happen where intelligence/development grew enough where a threat to man's survival occurred. Of course, if that happened like in "Planet of the Apes, they I'd say Apes would be seen as another creation of the "Beasts of the Field" (Genesis 1:24-25)...and having to fight against other species evolving would be an extension of the mandate from God to "Have Dominion" (Genesis 1:26-31). ..with both connected and what's seen in anthropology with "common links"/similar actions kept in place...
Concerning the theory of men being related to "beasts", there's actually another theory that says one of the beasts of the field would be the Nephilim from
Genesis 6:3-5/
Numbers 13:32-33 ......and that the Nephilim were a species of primate or humanoid creatures not made in the "Image of God." It may sound wild to others that other creatures could be made with human like features - but in light of the fact that even angelic beings/divine creatures in the heavenlies share similarities with humans (i.e. hands, feet, arms, legs, eyes, etc.) and yet have been shown to have distinct traits in addition to that, I'd not see why there needs to be an issue.
For more, one can go here to the following:
Other creatures being made outside of the Image of God as man was wouldn't mean that they don't have value or worth in the eyes of the Lord, as discussed more in-depth in #
91 AND #
92. For some articles discussing
how men/apes are similar and yet distinct:
