Adam and Eve: Not the first humans?

[98cwitr]

It is commonly accepted that Genesis 1 and 2 are iterations of the same story, where Genesis 2 is a more specific and detailed account that is covered in Genesis 1. This then does leave the question of where Cain and Abel got their wives from and how the land of Nod was populated. The mainstream explanation is that Cain and Abel married either a sister or niece that were obviously younger than them, and that since there was a genetically pure bloodline, the normal genetic abnormalities simply did not occur from incest.

This said, another, possibly more plausible explanation is that Genesis 1 gives account of the creation of heaven and earth and people, Genesis 2 gives the creation account of the Garden of Eden (more specifically) and the starting line of the Hebrew people through which the covenant would come.

It seems that this idea can also be found in 15-17th century theology of the time. See paintings:

Lucas Cranach (I) - Adam and Eve-Paradise

The Creation of Adam and Eve - Isaak van Oosten



Any thoughts on this? Could Genesis 2 be a separate creation story?

 

[-57]

It is commonly accepted that Genesis 1 and 2 are iterations of the same story, where Genesis 2 is a more specific and detailed account that is covered in Genesis 1. This then does leave the question of where Cain and Abel got their wives from and how the land of Nod was populated. The mainstream explanation is that Cain and Abel married either a sister or niece that were obviously younger than them, and that since there was a genetically pure bloodline, the normal genetic abnormalities simply did not occur from incest.

This said, another, possibly more plausible explanation is that Genesis 1 gives account of the creation of heaven and earth and people, Genesis 2 gives the creation account of the Garden of Eden (more specifically) and the starting line of the Hebrew people through which the covenant would come.

It seems that this idea can also be found in 15-17th century theology of the time. See paintings:

Lucas Cranach (I) - Adam and Eve-Paradise

The Creation of Adam and Eve - Isaak van Oosten



Any thoughts on this? Could Genesis 2 be a separate creation story?

If Adam wasn't the first...then the following is false

1 st Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

In you post you said"Genesis 1 gives account of the creation of heaven and earth and people"....It's the "people" where I have a problem. Genesis tells us God created man and women...Adam and then formed Eve...not a population of people.

 

[98cwitr]

Not to contradict Paul or even the original texts (but maybe those who put the quotes around the phrase “The first man Adam became a living being”,) but if indeed this is quoting Genesis 2:7, the word "first" does not appear in the Hebrew verse:

Genesis 2:7 Hebrew Text Analysis

Looking for the word ראשון, but it is not found.

This would seem like a non-literal, inaccurate translation from Hebrew to Greek. The word "first" seems to be injected...is it possible that it's simply because the common and accepted belief was that Adam was the first human?

 

[-57]

Not to contradict Paul or even the original texts (but maybe those who put the quotes around the phrase “The first man Adam became a living being”,) but if indeed this is quoting Genesis 2:7, the word "first" does not appear in the Hebrew verse:

Genesis 2:7 Hebrew Text Analysis

Looking for the word ראשון, but it is not found.

This would seem like a non-literal, inaccurate translation from Hebrew to Greek. The word "first" seems to be injected...is it possible that it's simply because the common and accepted belief was that Adam was the first human?

From what I read and have come to understand......This is quoted exactly from the translation by the Septuagint, except that the apostle has added the words "first" and "Adam." This is done to designate whom he meant. Barnes notes on the bible.

Paul was speaking of Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 

[SeventyOne]

This said, another, possibly more plausible explanation is that Genesis 1 gives account of the creation of heaven and earth and people, Genesis 2 gives the creation account of the Garden of Eden (more specifically) and the starting line of the Hebrew people through which the covenant would come.

It seems that this idea can also be found in 15-17th century theology of the time. See paintings:

Lucas Cranach (I) - Adam and Eve-Paradise

The Creation of Adam and Eve - Isaak van Oosten



Any thoughts on this? Could Genesis 2 be a separate creation story?

Seeing chapter 2 as some account to start tracing the Jews is a bit extreme considering there was a condensing of the population to 8 people in the time of the flood, then an expansion to 70 nations formed and dispersed after the tower. Yea, the story explains more later on concerning the Hebrew patriarch, but I could just as easily say Genesis 2 gives an account of the beginning of the Irish people (where I come from), as well as any other people group currently residing on Earth.

 

[MWood]

What saith the Scripture? Without adding to or taking from it. We can all put in a shoulda, coulda, woulda, and make it say what will fit our beliefs. But what saith the Scripture? In chapter one the scripture says God CREATED man AND women. In chapter two the scripture says God FORMED man from the dust of the ground. Then He brought before him all the animals and fowl etc. to see what he would name them. Then God MADE woman from the flesh of the man. There is a huge difference in CREATED, FORMED and MADE. There is also a time span between FORMED and MADE.
In chapter one God CREATED man AND woman at the same time. He gave them only one command, 'be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth.' I gonna add in a 'shoulda, coulda, wouldas here, to give you some further thought. These are the people that populated the earth before Adam and Eve. These were the people that Cain was afraid would kill him. These are the people from where Cain got his wife.

 

[SeventyOne]

What saith the Scripture? Without adding to or taking from it. We can all put in a shoulda, coulda, woulda, and make it say what will fit our beliefs. But what saith the Scripture? In chapter one the scripture says God CREATED man AND women. In chapter two the scripture says God FORMED man from the dust of the ground. Then He brought before him all the animals and fowl etc. to see what he would name them. Then God MADE woman from the flesh of the man. There is a huge difference in CREATED, FORMED and MADE. There is also a time span between FORMED and MADE.
In chapter one God CREATED man AND woman at the same time. He gave them only one command, 'be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth.' I gonna add in a 'shoulda, coulda, wouldas here, to give you some further thought. These are the people that populated the earth before Adam and Eve. These were the people that Cain was afraid would kill him. These are the people from where Cain got his wife.

What in chapter 1 gives you the idea man and woman were created at the same time? The only time frame you are given are evening and morning of the 6th day.

If I were to do some woodworking and made two items the same day, and I showed them to you while saying, "look what I created yesterday", would you assume I made them at the same time or just within the time frame of yesterday?

 

[SkyWriting]

If Adam wasn't the first...then the following is false

1 st Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

In you post you said"Genesis 1 gives account of the creation of heaven and earth and people"....It's the "people" where I have a problem. Genesis tells us God created man and women...Adam and then formed Eve...not a population of people.

Death only follow knowledge of the law.
So “The first man Adam became a living being”
likely refers to his ability to die.

Romans 7:9 For apart from the Law, sin is dead.
9Once I was alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
10 So I discovered that the very commandment that was meant to bring life actually brought death

 

[1213]

...
Any thoughts on this? Could Genesis 2 be a separate creation story?

Actually Genesis 2 seems to be formation story, not creation story, because it tells Yahweh formed things, not created.

Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Genesis 2:7-8

Also, Genesis 1 has Elohim creating, while Genesis 2 speaks about Yahweh.

 

[-57]

Death only follow knowledge of the law.
So “The first man Adam became a living being”
likely refers to his ability to die.

Romans 7:9 For apart from the Law, sin is dead.
9Once I was alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
10 So I discovered that the very commandment that was meant to bring life actually brought death

God is a living being. God can't die. I doubt it refers to the ability to die. You'll need to do better.

 

[JackRT]

Most modern bible scholars believe that Moses did not write the Torah. Based on their quite different writing styles and use of vocabulary, at least five authors (J,E,P,D and R) have been tentatively identified . "J" used Jehovah exclusively for God and may have been a person, perhaps a woman, in the court of Solomon about 950 BC. "E" used Elohim for God and wrote in the Northern Kingdom about 200 years later. "P" was concerned primarily with ritual and were probably priests writing during the Exile. "D" wrote the entire book of Deuteronomy about 625 BC. "R" were the redactors or editors who cobbled it all together. This whole process took place over some 500 years.

Genesis 2ff is from the "J" author and Genesis 1 is from "P" some 400 years later. The difference in the level of sophistication between the two is quite remarkable. Depending on who was writing God is referred to either as Yah or El.

 

[SkyWriting]

God is a living being. God can't die. I doubt it refers to the ability to die. You'll need to do better.

Adam is human. God is Spirit.
Adam did die but cannot die without
first knowing the Law. So Adam living
would first come from knowing the Law
in the Garden.

So the story of Adam may be about
the first Hebrew learning of the Law
not the first human animal on earth.

Which would explain the genealogy.
There is also the issue of Eve
coming from Adams side. This is
unusual. Many stories have branches from
the root or the head, but out from the side
suggests equality.

 

[Shempster]

I tend to side with the gap theory. This suggests that there was an entire era of time after the creation and then it was destroyed in the great rebellion. Gen 1:2 is a description of the renewal or recreation of the world including new animals and the new kid on the block...humans. However, that does not mean there were any humans before Adam.

All of this is of course speculative and there exists no conclusive proof of anything. The only problem with a young earth theory is that there is no room for the dinosaurs that we find buried in the earth. As far as what is "commonly accepted", well that doesn't mean much to me. The world is filled with commonly accepted gibberish.

 

[sparow]

Most modern bible scholars believe that Moses did not write the Torah. Based on their quite different writing styles and use of vocabulary, at least five authors (J,E,P,D and R) have been tentatively identified . "J" used Jehovah exclusively for God and may have been a person, perhaps a woman, in the court of Solomon about 950 BC. "E" used Elohim for God and wrote in the Northern Kingdom about 200 years later. "P" was concerned primarily with ritual and were probably priests writing during the Exile. "D" wrote the entire book of Deuteronomy about 625 BC. "R" were the redactors or editors who cobbled it all together. This whole process took place over some 500 years.

Genesis 2ff is from the "J" author and Genesis 1 is from "P" some 400 years later. The level of sophistication between the two is quite remarkable. Depending on who was writing God is referred to either as Yah or El.

I am not speaking from knowledge but what I have heard is that the script we know as Hebrew (Chaldean) was adopted by the Jew during the Babylonian captivity; from here I assume the scriptures had to be translated possibly by teams of scribes.

 

[sparow]

It is commonly accepted that Genesis 1 and 2 are iterations of the same story, where Genesis 2 is a more specific and detailed account that is covered in Genesis 1. This then does leave the question of where Cain and Abel got their wives from and how the land of Nod was populated. The mainstream explanation is that Cain and Abel married either a sister or niece that were obviously younger than them, and that since there was a genetically pure bloodline, the normal genetic abnormalities simply did not occur from incest.

This said, another, possibly more plausible explanation is that Genesis 1 gives account of the creation of heaven and earth and people, Genesis 2 gives the creation account of the Garden of Eden (more specifically) and the starting line of the Hebrew people through which the covenant would come.

It seems that this idea can also be found in 15-17th century theology of the time. See paintings:

Lucas Cranach (I) - Adam and Eve-Paradise

The Creation of Adam and Eve - Isaak van Oosten



Any thoughts on this? Could Genesis 2 be a separate creation story?

The creation story does not tell us much; but a God who could do it could do anything. the scripture gives mainly male genealogy; for all we know Adam may have had 200 daughters whom may have had immaculate conceptions; all we can do is speculate and never know.

 

[JackRT]

I am not speaking from knowledge but what I have heard is that the script we know as Hebrew (Chaldean) was adopted by the Jew during the Babylonian captivity; from here I assume the scriptures had to be translated possibly by teams of scribes.

The Hebrew alphabet dates to around 1800 BC and is a very clever development of Egyptian hieroglyphics into an alphabet. This was over a millennium before the Exile.

 

[Tolworth John]

It is a radicle and unusual idea, but couldn't the babylonion creation story and other creation stories be distorted memories of what their ancestors saw/experienced and the bible is a more accurate telling of those stories.
Why is the default always to suspect that the bible is wrong?

 

[sparow]

The Hebrew alphabet dates to around 1800 BC and is a very clever development of Egyptian hieroglyphics into an alphabet. This was over a millennium before the Exile.

I don't even remember where I got my info from; I probably got my wires crossed; I remember hearing that an early copy of Daniel, the first half of it was in Assyriac and the last half in Hebrew.

 

[sparow]

It is a radicle and unusual idea, but couldn't the babylonion creation story and other creation stories be distorted memories of what their ancestors saw/experienced and the bible is a more accurate telling of those stories.
Why is the default always to suspect that the bible is wrong?

It is a game and some are better at it than others; any attempt to explain God's work with a few sentences will always fail; one would have to use as many words as God has used at least; why not simply use God's word. With scripture God creates a reality for us to use; it has nothing to do with accuracy it is to do with our minds being comfortable with it; our Judeo/Christian reality is the middle of a continuum where each end of the continuum become increasingly irrational as the continuum moves away from our reality; of course men prefer to create their own realities which are not certain; the Bible is abstract; fine detail is provided by men; men are wrong.

 

[Tolworth John]

It is more than a game, Sparrow. Christianity is built on genesis, if there was no Adam there was no fall and no need for a saviour. What then is left of Christianity.