Adam. The 'first man'?

[MerriestHouse]

Not only does the Bible plainly illustrate 'two separate' creations, science has proven that there were two distinct humanoids in our past. One much more primitive than the other. We not only have the fossilized evidence, but more recently, DNA evidence that supports the fossil evidence. And the amount of evidence is vast to the point that one would be forced to play like the proverbial ostrich to hide themselves from the evidence.

And the funny part is that the only thing that would lead one to discredit or ignore the evidence is the 'silly story' that the Churches have created and passed on from generation to generation.

And it may have made a sort of sense in the beginning. But now that we have the evidence, isn't it time to forgo the fairy tales and limited understanding that once existed?

I don't find the scientific evidence contrary to the Bible. What I do find is the evidence destroying the 'fabricated' story created by the 'Church'. The 'story' does not 'match' what the Bible offers. Nor does the 'story' match the fossilized evidence that we have found in recent history.

Genesis 2:4 says "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1 "This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the day that God created him."

Generations is from the Hebrew word toledoth, which means origin or record of origin. It is an account or record of events. It is used at the end of each section in Genesis and identifies the patriarch Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, and so forth to whom it primarily referred, and may have been responsible for the account. There are ten of these divisions in the book of Genesis.

In Genesis 1, there is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth because it refers to the origin of the whole universe, and not to a particular person. God only knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, maybe to Adam or whoever recorded it.

The book of Genesis was written like other historical accounts with an overview or summary of events that lead up to other events. This is followed by a detailed account which sometimes recaps in greater detail, the more relevant events. The events are in chronological sequence, with days one, two, evening and morning.

Genesis chapter 2, is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation. Chapter 1, is the big picture.

Don't we all do this when we give an account of an event? We tell the big picture, then we follow the big picture with the details. Who knows, God might forgive us silly people for believing the account as it is written.

 

[Imagican]

Genesis 2:4 says "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1 "This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the day that God created him."

Generations is from the Hebrew word toledoth, which means origin or record of origin. It is an account or record of events. It is used at the end of each section in Genesis and identifies the patriarch Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, and so forth to whom it primarily referred, and may have been responsible for the account. There are ten of these divisions in the book of Genesis.

In Genesis 1, there is no person identified with the account of the origin of the heavens and the earth because it refers to the origin of the whole universe, and not to a particular person. God only knew the events of creation, so God had to reveal this, maybe to Adam or whoever recorded it.

The book of Genesis was written like other historical accounts with an overview or summary of events that lead up to other events. This is followed by a detailed account which sometimes recaps in greater detail, the more relevant events. The events are in chronological sequence, with days one, two, evening and morning.

Genesis chapter 2, is a more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and day six of creation. Chapter 1, is the big picture.

Don't we all do this when we give an account of an event? We tell the big picture, then we follow the big picture with the details. Who knows, God might forgive us silly people for believing the account as it is written.

So the 'Churches' have taught you.

But you haven't addressed a single issue I have offered. You are simply trying to explain to me what the 'Churches' teach in error.

And it's perfectly clear that it is error in the fact that the 'story' requires the believer to 'make up' what doesn't exist in the Word.

No mention of 'daughters' until 'after Seth'. Why place a mark to identify someone's deed that the only two people on the planet already know of? How do you explain that in the first chapter, God gave the 'first creation' every tree on the face of the earth that bears fruit to be for food. But then tells Adam that there is 'a' tree he cannot eat from? Contradiction? Not at all. For these are two different commandments offered to two distinct 'creations'.

Where does God tell Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply? The Bible indicates that they knew 'nothing' of procreation until 'after' they sinned. They didn't even know they were naked until after their eyes were opened.

And now, let us take scientific evidence into account. How do 'you' explain that they have genetically PROVEN that there were two distinct forms of prehistoric man? One much older than the other?

Or do you contend that we don't really 'know' about DNA? That the scientific community are simply completely confused or 'making up' something that doesn't really exist?

Who are the 'sons of God'? Who were the 'daughters of men'?

And the clincher: What does it mean when we are offered that Noah was 'Perfect in his generations'?

You see, each of us is offered what we are 'able to bear'. Some 'much', some little. But each has the truth revealed in the manner they are capable of accepting or understand it.

And see if you can wrap your mind around this:

Before there was a 'plant' in the field. There was not a 'man to till the earth'. This isn't a recap of events from the first chapter. For we are told that the herbs and trees were formed 'before' man.

Yet in the second chapter is states that 'before' there were any 'plants of the field'.

First a 'field' is a place 'prepared'. Second, it does not say there was 'no man'. It specifically states that there was 'no man to till the earth'.

And let me ask this: Why does the Bible offer that the 'garden' was East of Eden? Why would there be a place called 'Eden' if there were no other people on the planet at the time? And where do you suppose the names of the rivers came from? Do you suppose that God named places and rivers before creating men? Or did men name these places after their creation?

My point? Every place that we know of that has a name was named by MEN. Even the animals that were brought to Adam were named by Adam, not God. So where did the names of Eden, Nod, the rivers come from.

Which did God create 'first'? Plants or man?

Yet in the second chapter it states 'before there were any plants of the field'.

So if the plants of this earth were 'created before man'. Yet in the second chapter it states that Adam was created 'before' there were any plants, this would be a complete contradiction.

Like I said, to some much is revealed. To others less. Each of us is only capable of understanding what we are limited in ability.

It is perfectly clear to me that the 'story' that the Churches have perpetuated aren't even close to the truth as revealed in scripture. The story of 'Adam' being the 'first' human on the planet doesn't even come close.

The second chapter is 'not' a 'recap' of the first. It is the second chapter completely separate from the first. It begins with God 'resting' on the seventh day. It states that the creation of the heavens and earth were FINISHED. Complete. And all the hosts of them. That means that everything God created in the first 'six days' was 'over'.

Then it goes on to describe the creation of Adam. And Adam was created first, then Eve.

In the day that God created 'man' it states that He created both male and female. Told them to 'be fruitful and replenish the Earth. This was never offered to Adam on the day he was created. It was only after a suitable companion wasn't found that God took from Adam and created Eve.

And then there is what we have discovered about prehistoric man to take into consideration.

Man in the beginning were nomadic gatherers. They lived in a place with clean water and plenty of food. They lived there until they depleted the 'area' of food and polluted their water source, packed up and moved to a new location with plenty of food and clean water.

It may have taken hundreds of thousand of years before men leaned of 'agriculture'. It would only have been discovered when there was a 'need'. And that wouldn't take place until the numbers of 'tribes' became vast enough to warrant a 'need' to discover that one could plant seeds, tend them and then harvest the fruit of their 'labor'.

There are still people today that grow very little. They simply scavenge what they are able to find growing 'naturally'. In small numbers, this is still possible. It's only when the numbers exceed the ability to simply pick what grows naturally that men need to 'grow their own food'.

In the first chapter, it states that God 'gave man' herbs and plants to 'be for food'. Indicating that all they had to do was 'eat' what was growing naturally. It doesn't say a word about 'digging in the dirt' to grow their own food.

And Adam didn't have to 'grow his own food' either until after he sinned by eating the 'fruit' from the forbidden tree. It states that the 'garden' was planted by God. Only after his sin was he cursed to 'till the earth' for the rest of his days in order to produce his 'own food'. Previous to that it is indicated that his food was readily available to simply 'pick and eat'.

Just a tad bit of common sense dictates that Adam was 'not' the 'first human' on the planet. For the 'time' of Adam can be traced through the years offered in the Bible. And we now 'know' that mankind goes back as much as hundreds of thousands of years 'before' Adam.

Not 'all' know this. For traditionalists still insist that the earth is only a few thousand years old. But the evidence is that the earth is as old as 'billions' of years. No, not speculation, evidence. Whether one is able to accept it or not is the question. Some insist that there is no evidence.

But these same people are walking around with cell phones and viewing pictures of the universe thousands of light years away. Getting on jets and flying at 600 miles per hour and taking pills to treat their ailments. Watching flat screen TVs and communicating on computers with terabytes of storage capacity.

All these things created and produced by the 'same science' that many insist is in error because what they have proven doesn't match the 'story' they have come to believe.

Is every instance of 'carbon dating' perfect? Nope. There are circumstances that make it an invalid means of measuring time. But not 'all' instances are in error. It is a viable means of measuring the age of many things.

All I can say is that the more science reveals, the more it is confirmed that the Bible is accurate. Not a single discovery contradicts the Bible. But many 'people', led to believe 'stories' insist upon contradiction. Each discovery made by science proves 'creation'. Proves it because of 'discovery'. Get it? If we discover something, we don't 'create it'. We simply FIND something that was already created.

I am not suggesting anything contrary to the truth. I am simply offering that the 'story' that has existed doesn't match what the Bible offers.

So, is the Bible the inspired 'Word of God'? If so, then let us turn to 'it' to discern the truth and not to wives tales and 'stories' created by men.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[roamer_1]

If ALL working people on Earth is as good (hardworking, enterprising, bold, etc) as you, similar circumstances in life, similar goals and ambitions (and a good Christian), you'll probably end up scrubbing toilets for a living because of the incredible competition you'll face

My mother scrubbed toilets. for a living... with 30 employees in her business before she retired. She made BANK.

And circumstance means nothing. It's ambition and attitude, and outlook. I am 4 years out of a wheelchair. I lost most of my 40's to illness. I lost EVERYTHING, to include my savings, my house, and my family. I started out new at 50, with nothing but my tools and my knowledge, and a body barely capable of 25% output, 4 years ago, barely able to walk.

If I can pull myself out of that circumstance, anyone can do it. And the good Lord willing, with only 20-25 years to go, I will have re-established myself (as I am well on my way to doing), and regained that which was taken. I already own my house, and I am making $50/hr... with my time filling up fast. Likely within this year, I will very likely have to take on my first employee, and I am on my way.

And 'incredible competition' is awesome. Why should you fear others' success? Worry about your own.

That's a fact about Capitalism's pyramid structure

Nonsense. Pure nonsense. Capitalism is the most distributed system there is. Anyone can do it, and it costs nothing to participate. You don't have to have permission, you don't have to know anyone, and nothing stands in your way. Just find something you want to do, and do it. Do a good job, face your challenges, and above all, don't give up. Persevere. You'll be surprised how far you go.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm not accusing you either of believing in a lie. No one lied to you.... You just weren't told of everything there is to know about Capitalism. Sorry If I may have offended you because I see you as innocent in this matter.

*rolls eyes* What are you talking about? Of course you accuse me. I AM capitalism. The backbone of this country is not the fortune 500. It's people just like me.

Under extensive automation, it will be less ideal to employ people anymore. A lot of people will lose their jobs or a new (elite) class of society being born - particularly people with skills relevant to robotics and software development. Anyone else will no longer be "economically viable"

No, what is making people become less and less viable is the incredible demands made upon business owners for the 'privilege' of hiring. My only job is to make my business work. That's the engine that drives the machine. If it doesn't work, it won't employ anyone, including me.

I make 50 bucks an hour on my own back. If I hire an employee, his value (what I can charge for him) is that same 50 bucks an hour. But for every dollar I pay him, I must also pay a dollar for additional insurance costs, taxes, comp, unemp tax, and etc.. WITHOUT giving him health insurance, a paid vacation, baby leave, etc., which are all quickly becoming a requirement.

UNDERSTAND that: The business itself ultimately caps that employee's wage at less than $25/hr, or I am losing money. And that is considering that the employee is capable of my production, and that his work is reasonably error free (I get to pay for his mistakes).

NOW UNDERSTAND that that cap is not even realistic, because the reason I hire is to make more money than I can make with my own back. How much money per hour makes the extra management and bookkeeping and hoop-jumping worth while?

Generally speaking, I will be lucky to make $5-7 / hr on a fully fitted and responsible employee. That caps his final wage somewhere around $20-22.50/hr as a fully vetted and capable employee with no more raises possible.

That's the solid-gold best he will ever do, and for him to get that wage is more a matter of being flawless in his work than it is anything else, because if he's not good at his job, I will be paying more for his lack of production and mistakes, and I will not be able to offer him as much, and still make the same profit margin off of him.

If you do that math, you will soon find out that it is the socialist programs the government imposes that are keeping your wage down, and which are making employment nonviable... Look at how much more room I would have to give my employees more, and make more money myself, if I didn't have to pay the vig to the gvt and insurance companies (that the gvt mandates). GOVERNMENT is the pyramid scheme, not capitalism.

Capitalism requires risk. Without risk, there is no profit. I risk everything, all the time. Regulations are such that the employee takes virtually no risk... How then can he obtain profit?

There's you problem, right there.

 

[timewerx]

and it costs nothing to participate. You don't have to have permission, you don't have to know anyone, and nothing stands in your way. Just find something you want to do, and do it. Do a good job, face your challenges, and above all, don't give up. Persevere. You'll be surprised how far you go.

What if everyone on Earth actually did what you are suggesting?

This will only toughen the competition by a ridiculous amount, not proportionally increase the number of successful stories... And even if every person on Earth managed to attain a middle-class living by USA standards, this will place a massive strain on our resources. Not a pretty picture.

The backbone of this country is not the fortune 500. It's people just like me.

Of course, anyone who is in the lower levels of this "pyramid" supports the upper levels.

Generally speaking, I will be lucky to make $5-7 / hr on a fully fitted and responsible employee. That caps his final wage somewhere around $20-22.50/hr as a fully vetted and capable employee with no more raises possible.

That's the solid-gold best he will ever do, and for him to get that wage is more a matter of being flawless in his work than it is anything else, because if he's not good at his job, I will be paying more for his lack of production and mistakes, and I will not be able to offer him as much, and still make the same profit margin off of him.

If you do that math, you will soon find out that it is the socialist programs the government imposes that are keeping your wage down, and which are making employment nonviable... Look at how much more room I would have to give my employees more, and make more money myself, if I didn't have to pay the vig to the gvt and insurance companies (that the gvt mandates). GOVERNMENT is the pyramid scheme, not capitalism.

Capitalism requires risk. Without risk, there is no profit. I risk everything, all the time. Regulations are such that the employee takes virtually no risk... How then can he obtain profit?

There's you problem, right there.

I'm not a big fan of the Government either. It is crazy what they are doing.

Anyway, your dilemma makes automation a very attractive option.

I used to work for a small company until I was laid off due to automation.

Automation works, the ugly picture with it, is that automation is taking people's jobs and less people with jobs means less people to buy your products.

Automation will only be nice at first, until everyone is doing it, then, you'll have an economic wildfire of epic proportions.

That is where we are headed.

 

[mmksparbud]

What is this thread about--Genesis or Capitalism???

 

[roamer_1]

What is this thread about--Genesis or Capitalism???

You are right.
Sorry, I'll leave it be.

 

[timewerx]

What is this thread about--Genesis or Capitalism???

The OP actually stated the "economic" situation at some time in the Genesis and basically all things are free. I got carried away from that point on, my apologies as well!

 

[MerriestHouse]

So the 'Churches' have taught you.

The Church is the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is made up of God's people. The Church is people. I grew up with some of these people, in a Christian home where we all studied Scripture. My conclusions and opinions are my own.

But you haven't addressed a single issue I have offered. You are simply trying to explain to me what the 'Churches' teach in error.

Give me an example where I did not address one of your issues.

And it's perfectly clear that it is error in the fact that the 'story' requires the believer to 'make up' what doesn't exist in the Word.

I was giving you words from the Bible.

No mention of 'daughters' until 'after Seth'. Why place a mark to identify someone's deed that the only two people on the planet already know of? How do you explain that in the first chapter, God gave the 'first creation' every tree on the face of the earth that bears fruit to be for food. But then tells Adam that there is 'a' tree he cannot eat from? Contradiction? Not at all. For these are two different commandments offered to two distinct 'creations'.

"When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and name his Seth. The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters." Genesis 5:3-4

A man could father a lot of children in 130 years and even more in the 800 years he lived after Seth was born. Adam lived to be 930 years old. The population can really grow in 930 years.

We do not know what kind of mark God put on Cain, but it was to protect him.

Where does God tell Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply? The Bible indicates that they knew 'nothing' of procreation until 'after' they sinned. They didn't even know they were naked until after their eyes were opened.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

This was before they were cast from the garden.
How can you be fruitful without procreating?
How do you multiply without mating?
Who can say how many children were born to them before they were cast from the garden?

Where does the Bible state that Adam and Eve knew nothing about procreation until Eve disobeyed God? Mating between a husband and wife is good and natural. You are not hinting that their mating was a sin, are you? God had a close relationship with them in the garden. Why wouldn't he have taught them all kinds of things.

And now, let us take scientific evidence into account. How do 'you' explain that they have genetically PROVEN that there were two distinct forms of prehistoric man? One much older than the other?

So your college taught you this. I could not resist.

I will leave the scientific evidence to you. You can back that up with evidence.

Or do you contend that we don't really 'know' about DNA? That the scientific community are simply completely confused or 'making up' something that doesn't really exist?

I have close family members that are part of the scientific community. They are not confused at all, in fact, they are very intelligent.

 

[mmksparbud]

The second chapter is 'not' a 'recap' of the first. It is the second chapter completely separate from the first. It begins with God 'resting' on the seventh day. It states that the creation of the heavens and earth were FINISHED. Complete. And all the hosts of them. That means that everything God created in the first 'six days' was 'over'.

I'll just copy what I posted earlier as I don't think you bothered to click the expand button and read--

Gen 2 is obviously just a recap of Gen 1 with added details, a Jewish method of writing found in other areas of the bible. There are no verses or chapters in the Hebrew--it was on a scroll that you rolled out and read right to left and precious little for punctuation. There is no division between Gen 1 and 2 in Hebrew. It is a continuation---first comes the account of what happened each day, and ends with
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
A summary of creation week, followed by a more detailed description of things, but not in chronological order. Gen 1 God makes the whole world--Gen 2 concentrates on what was done in the Garden of Eden , a corner of the world for Adam and Eve--their home--though they were given dominion over the whole earth in Gen 1. All the trees on the planet were theirs, but within their corner, in their own garden, existed one lone tree that they were not to eat of.


The Mechanical Translation from the Hebrew is interesting---much more what it actually says than other versions. They do have the verses and chapters and punctuation for ease of reading.

http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mt/index.html


Genesis 2:5
and all the shrubs of the field before existing in the land, and all the herbs of the field before springing up, given that Yhwh the Elohiym did not make it precipitate upon the land and it was without a human to serve the ground,
Genesis 2:6
and a mist will go up from the land and he made all the face of the ground drink,
Genesis 2:7
and Yhwh the Elohiym molded the human of powder from the ground and he exhaled in his nostrils a breath of life and the human existed for a living being,


Before God created Adam on the 6th day, there was no one to serve the ground--take care if it. No rain--God formed Adam (his name means human)out of that ground--Gen 1 gives the account of creating man on that 6th day---Gen 2 goes back and fills in a little more detail of what happened during that creation.----God breathed life into Adam and took Eve from His rib.
Not 2 creations---2 narratives of the same event. If you read all of Exodus you will see the same thing, several times, the narrative goes back to a certain time to give more information of what happened then during the Exodus.
Genesis 2:19
and Yhwh the Elohiym molded from the ground all the living ones of the field, and all the flyers of the skies, and he brought to the human to see what he will call out to him and all the living beings which the human will call out to him, that is his title,

This is not yet another creation that God made after He formed Adam---just that Adam was the one that named everything God had made.

In the bible, women are seldom mentioned, unless it is for extraordinary circumstances ----female children were never really listed---the males were the thing---there are no female children listed for most of the genealogies---a man traced his family tree from eldest male to eldest male. The bible does not state that Cain was the first child, born of the 1st time Adam "knew" Eve. It states that Cain was the first male to be born,
and the human had known Hhawah his woman and she conceived and she brought forth Qayin, and she said, I purchased a man with Yhwh ,
Genesis 4:2
and she brought forth again his brother Hevel, and Hevel existed as a feeder of the flocks, and Qayin existed as a server of the ground,

Plus an interesting point about Cain and Abel---throughout the bible, when a women gives birth it is--the man "knew" her and she conceived and bore the child---always, she conceived first and then she bore. With Cain and Abel, there is no such division. There is with Seth--but with Cain and Abel it is different--Adam knew Eve, she conceived and bore Cain, then it says--again she bore Abel---not she was known, conceived and bore---it is felt by most Jewish scholars that Cain and Abel were twins---never mentioned by any one else.
Cain bring the first male, and no indication that this was the first time Adam knew Eve, she had could have had many females before Cain and Abel were born. There is no mention of Abel having a wife and children, but more than likely he did as being the 2nd in line, it would not have been mentioned. And seeing that these first people were in perfect health and no genetic flaws to pass on, they married their sisters and they would have had many, many children. Even today, within the ages of 15-45, women are on record as giving birth to over 20 children! These 1st ones lived for several hundred years and just 2 could have spat out a whole town before they stopped producing! By the time Cain killed Abel---and it doesn't say how old they were---there could have been several towns!! And by the time that Adam and Eve died---they were elbow deep in offspring!!
The custom of marrying sisters was continued past Abraham, who was married to his half sister--whose union God certainly blessed. By the time of Moses, genetic flaws are setting in and the custom is now no longer a good thing and God says no more relations with close relatives.

 

[Imagican]

No mmksparbud, I believe that it is you that have failed to read or understand what I offered.

In the second chapter you quoted, it stated that 'before' there were any plants of the field God formed Adam from the dust of the earth.

But in the first chapter it states that God created 'all' the plants on the face of the earth on the third day. Then created men and women on the sixth day.

Let's start with that one first. Instead of trying to repeat the kindergarten story I have heard from traditionalist most of my life, let's deal with what the Bible offers, not a 'Bible story' made up to teach children.

The Bible states in the first chapter that God created 'man and women' on the sixth day.

In the second chapter it says that 'before' God caused it to rain and 'before' there were 'any plants of the field', He created Adam from the dust of this earth. Get it?

That means that Adam was formed 'before' there were any 'plants of the field'.

Now, if you want to continue this conversation, explain this 'first' before trying to repeat the same story I've heard a thousand times already. I don't care about the story you seem insistent upon telling, explain how Adam was formed 'before' the plants of the field and yet was the 'creation' of man explained in the first chapter.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[mmksparbud]

No mmksparbud, I believe that it is you that have failed to read or understand what I offered.

In the second chapter you quoted, it stated that 'before' there were any plants of the field God formed Adam from the dust of the earth.

But in the first chapter it states that God created 'all' the plants on the face of the earth on the third day. Then created men and women on the sixth day.

Let's start with that one first. Instead of trying to repeat the kindergarten story I have heard from traditionalist most of my life, let's deal with what the Bible offers, not a 'Bible story' made up to teach children.

The Bible states in the first chapter that God created 'man and women' on the sixth day.

In the second chapter it says that 'before' God caused it to rain and 'before' there were 'any plants of the field', He created Adam from the dust of this earth. Get it?

That means that Adam was formed 'before' there were any 'plants of the field'.

Now, if you want to continue this conversation, explain this 'first' before trying to repeat the same story I've heard a thousand times already. I don't care about the story you seem insistent upon telling, explain how Adam was formed 'before' the plants of the field and yet was the 'creation' of man explained in the first chapter.

Blessings,

MEC

Genesis 2:4
these are the birthings of the skies and the land in their being fattened in the day Yhwh the Elohiym made land and skies,
and all the shrubs of the field before existing in the land, and all the herbs of the field before springing up, given that Yhwh the Elohiym did not make it precipitate upon the land and it was without a human to serve the ground,
Genesis 2:6
and a mist will go up from the land and he made all the face of the ground drink,
Genesis 2:7
and Yhwh the Elohiym molded the human of powder from the ground and he exhaled in his nostrils a breath of life and the human existed for a living being,


No--it doesn't say God created Adam before He made any plants----it says "these are the birthings of the skies and the land"--before they existed--before the plants existed, before they sprang up, before a man was made to till the ground---before creating any living thing---there went up a mist to water everything--after the misting of the earth than the vegetation sprang up----then He made man. It bypasses that He made the animals first also--after He had made the mist to water the vegetation--He prepared everything for man and beast to eat first--then He made the animals and man last.

 

[Imagican]

I can't help but point out that there is no mention of Cain having any sisters. But we are told that he went to the Land of Nod and there 'knew' his wife. If he had already been wed to one of his sisters before being separated from his family, why isn't it mentioned?

But what 'is' mentioned is that he went to the 'Land of Nod' and there knew his wife.

I find it no more presumptuous to offer that Cain was not married to his sister as you do that he was. Yet there is more evidence that he wasn't than that he was. Your only means of believing it to be his sister is your belief that Adam was the first human created.

It is my belief that at the time of Adam there were people all over the earth. For the fossil evidence points to men being on this continent for between twelve and twenty thousand years ago. That would predate Adam by thousands of years. And that's North America. There is evidence in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa that goes back tens of thousands of years before men arrived upon North America. Some recent evidence suggests that there were humans in existence in the Middle East and Africa as far back as 300,000 years.

But of course, you don't believe that any of this evidence 'really' exists. It's 'all' a mistake. I wonder if you would refuse to drive a car or use a cell phone because of disbelief in the science? Or course not. And the only reason that you would dispute the science of dating ancient artifacts is due to your belief in Adam being the 'first' man. But what if? What if carbon dating, in most circumstances is relatively accurate? What if 'one' instance of carbon dating could be proven beyond any doubt that it was of a human thirty thousand years old? What would you think about my offering then? If God revealed to you in a vision that Adam was 'not' the first human, would you accept the vision or would you still insist upon telling the same 'story'?

I had heard the stories since I can remember. But the first time I read the Bible I realized that the 'stories' do not match was if offered in the Bible. About 60 percent of the 'stories' are 'assumption' and literal imagination without any Biblical backing. Add a speck of 'common sense' to what is offered in the Bible and the 'story' reveals itself to be fabricated by men. Not offered by God through His Word. And it doesn't matter how 'long' men have perpetuated the 'story', it still doesn't match what is offered in the Bible. Heck, for the majority of the history of mankind they believed that diseases and infections were 'curses from God', not bacteria and viruses. It's only in recent history that we have discovered the true cause of such malady. And even when first discovered, most of those considered to be the most 'learned' laughed at the 'idea'. But now we know the truth and that those that denied the truth were completely 'wrong'.

So what about the fossil evidence? Are you one of those that insists that it does not exist? That those that have developed the technology to determine the age of rocks and bones are 'completely wrong'? And for no other reason than the 'story' that would be destroyed were you to accept the truth?

Blessings,

MEC

Are you suggesting that every bit of that evidence is faulty? That carbon dating cannot be accurately used under 'any' circumstances? Or that the rocks and utensils found among the bones of ancient man cannot be accurately dated? Never? That the entire science used to date things is faulty in 'every' instance it's used?

For if just 'one' use of carbon dating the bones of ancient men in existence more than twenty thousand years old is accurate, it clearly proves that Adam wasn't the first human. Just one case in which carbon dating is accurate. The science has become common place now days. And the more it has been used, the more it has been refined to take conditions into account.

 

[mmksparbud]

I can't help but point out that there is no mention of Cain having any sisters. But we are told that he went to the Land of Nod and there 'knew' his wife. If he had already been wed to one of his sisters before being separated from his family, why isn't it mentioned?

That was already addressed---women were simply not mentioned in the geologies --it is from first male to first male--never woman to woman, if you went by how often women are named in the bible you would have to conclude that there were only about 100 women in the whole history of the bible--if that many. No female child is even mentioned as being born, only referenced when a man knows her and she conceives and bears the first son. The dates of marriages aren't mentioned---doesn't say when Cain married--just says that when in Nod, he knew her and she bore him a son--which would of been his firstborn son as only firstborn males are mentioned, except for unusual circumstances where other brothers are needed in the narrative. And it doesn't say that Cain's wife didn't have a bunch of girls first--you have to understand the culture--women were just not mentioned much. Only Cain and Abel are mentioned first, which doesn't mean there were not a bunch of females born first. Seth is mentioned only because Cain was caste out, and Abel was dead so Seth is the next male heir. Doesn't mean a bunch more females weren't born after Cain and Abel and before Seth--or after him. Or that Adam and Eve stopped having children after Seth--just that the rest of the males were not a part of the lineage---firstborn male to firstborn male--and it's still that way.

But of course, you don't believe that any of this evidence 'really' exists. It's 'all' a mistake. I wonder if you would refuse to drive a car or use a cell phone because of disbelief in the science? Or course not. And the only reason that you would dispute the science of dating ancient artifacts is due to your belief in Adam being the 'first' man. But what if? What if carbon dating, in most circumstances is relatively accurate? What if 'one' instance of carbon dating could be proven beyond any doubt that it was of a human thirty thousand years old? What would you think about my offering then? If God revealed to you in a vision that Adam was 'not' the first human, would you accept the vision or would you still insist upon telling the same 'story'?

OK--- I am tired and I hope it's ok for me to just cooy what I wrote on another thread--my fingers get crampy (neuropathy in hands and feet)

what was science a few thousand years ago, no longer is. At this point, I prefer to wait for science to catch up to the power of God. It was stupid to believe that light existed before the sun---not scientific--but eventually science has found many kinds of light, including "invisible light"--invisible to the human eye, not to the eye of God.
The power of sound is just being found out---new science coming out involving sound for the running of machinery. We do not have any idea of the power of sound--the power of the voice of an All powerful God to speak a world into existence, to raise the dead, by the power of His voice. What is the power of sound waves and can we fully, totally know their power?
How old were the first trees, how many rings did they have, were there none at all or were they created with rings for some reason? How old were the rocks and earth---the bible says in the beginning He created the earth--it was empty, and there was water---He separated the water from the land during creation--it doesn't say how long this desolate earth was here, just barren rocks, dirt and water--an asteroid of some sort?-- before He began creation. He could have flung that "core" of earth eons and eons before coming back to start the actual creation week. Doesn't say. Rocks billions of years old?---Yah---so??
If someone today did an autopsy on Adam after his death, what would they find? Would his bones have indicted he was only maybe a 100 years , if that, instead of nearly 1000? Would He have shown his actual age by todays machinery? Would we be able to even measure his age as they aged so much slower? Do we even have truly accurate processes to measure time yet that maybe on down the road will prove our present methods of dating to be inadequate? How far has science come in the last 500 years--even in the last 100--even 50. Was an MRI even a thought about thing 200 years ago?

 

[MerriestHouse]

And the clincher: What does it mean when we are offered that Noah was 'Perfect in his generations'?

Noah is described as a just man, perfect in his generations, who walked with God and who found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Genesis 6 He was also a preacher of righteousness. Noah and his family were the only ones that regarded the wrath of God.

It is perfectly clear to me that the 'story' that the Churches have perpetuated aren't even close to the truth as revealed in scripture. The story of 'Adam' being the 'first' human on the planet doesn't even come close.

If pre-Adamic creatures were living and dying for thousands of years before Adam, then the connection is lost between the first Adam --- and the last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, who brought physical resurrection from the dead.

Christians who sincerely believe this pre-Adamite theory and its history of death before Adam are endangering the very doctrine of Salvation that they subscribe to. Adam was head of the entire creation of humankind so his fall affected everyone else. Romans 8:20.

The Bible tells us that Adam was the first biological man. Genesis 1; Deuteronomy 32; 1 Chronicles 1; Luke 2; Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15; 1 Timothy 2 and Jude 1.

How much of the Bible are you willing to concede as being errant or in need of reinterpreting to accommodate these claims?

Do you believe in miracles? I'm guessing the answer is no.

 

[MerriestHouse]

I'll just copy what I posted earlier as I don't think you bothered to click the expand button and read--

Gen 2 is obviously just a recap of Gen 1 with added details, a Jewish method of writing found in other areas of the bible. There are no verses or chapters in the Hebrew--it was on a scroll that you rolled out and read right to left and precious little for punctuation. There is no division between Gen 1 and 2 in Hebrew. It is a continuation---first comes the account of what happened each day, and ends with
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
A summary of creation week, followed by a more detailed description of things, but not in chronological order. Gen 1 God makes the whole world--Gen 2 concentrates on what was done in the Garden of Eden , a corner of the world for Adam and Eve--their home--though they were given dominion over the whole earth in Gen 1. All the trees on the planet were theirs, but within their corner, in their own garden, existed one lone tree that they were not to eat of.


The Mechanical Translation from the Hebrew is interesting---much more what it actually says than other versions. They do have the verses and chapters and punctuation for ease of reading.

http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mt/index.html


Genesis 2:5
and all the shrubs of the field before existing in the land, and all the herbs of the field before springing up, given that Yhwh the Elohiym did not make it precipitate upon the land and it was without a human to serve the ground,
Genesis 2:6
and a mist will go up from the land and he made all the face of the ground drink,
Genesis 2:7
and Yhwh the Elohiym molded the human of powder from the ground and he exhaled in his nostrils a breath of life and the human existed for a living being,


Before God created Adam on the 6th day, there was no one to serve the ground--take care if it. No rain--God formed Adam (his name means human)out of that ground--Gen 1 gives the account of creating man on that 6th day---Gen 2 goes back and fills in a little more detail of what happened during that creation.----God breathed life into Adam and took Eve from His rib.
Not 2 creations---2 narratives of the same event. If you read all of Exodus you will see the same thing, several times, the narrative goes back to a certain time to give more information of what happened then during the Exodus.
Genesis 2:19
and Yhwh the Elohiym molded from the ground all the living ones of the field, and all the flyers of the skies, and he brought to the human to see what he will call out to him and all the living beings which the human will call out to him, that is his title,

This is not yet another creation that God made after He formed Adam---just that Adam was the one that named everything God had made.

In the bible, women are seldom mentioned, unless it is for extraordinary circumstances ----female children were never really listed---the males were the thing---there are no female children listed for most of the genealogies---a man traced his family tree from eldest male to eldest male. The bible does not state that Cain was the first child, born of the 1st time Adam "knew" Eve. It states that Cain was the first male to be born,
and the human had known Hhawah his woman and she conceived and she brought forth Qayin, and she said, I purchased a man with Yhwh ,
Genesis 4:2
and she brought forth again his brother Hevel, and Hevel existed as a feeder of the flocks, and Qayin existed as a server of the ground,

Plus an interesting point about Cain and Abel---throughout the bible, when a women gives birth it is--the man "knew" her and she conceived and bore the child---always, she conceived first and then she bore. With Cain and Abel, there is no such division. There is with Seth--but with Cain and Abel it is different--Adam knew Eve, she conceived and bore Cain, then it says--again she bore Abel---not she was known, conceived and bore---it is felt by most Jewish scholars that Cain and Abel were twins---never mentioned by any one else.
Cain bring the first male, and no indication that this was the first time Adam knew Eve, she had could have had many females before Cain and Abel were born. There is no mention of Abel having a wife and children, but more than likely he did as being the 2nd in line, it would not have been mentioned. And seeing that these first people were in perfect health and no genetic flaws to pass on, they married their sisters and they would have had many, many children. Even today, within the ages of 15-45, women are on record as giving birth to over 20 children! These 1st ones lived for several hundred years and just 2 could have spat out a whole town before they stopped producing! By the time Cain killed Abel---and it doesn't say how old they were---there could have been several towns!! And by the time that Adam and Eve died---they were elbow deep in offspring!!
The custom of marrying sisters was continued past Abraham, who was married to his half sister--whose union God certainly blessed. By the time of Moses, genetic flaws are setting in and the custom is now no longer a good thing and God says no more relations with close relatives.

Very thorough and very well said. Earlier this evening, I was reading the writings of a Jewish Rabbi who said that Adam and Eve had 33 sons and 23 daughters.

 

[mmksparbud]

Very thorough and very well said. Earlier this evening, I was reading the writings of a Jewish Rabbi who said that Adam and Eve had 33 sons and 23 daughters.

Very interesting, wonder how thy got that number--- women today between the ages of 15-45 have been known to give birth to up to 22 and at least one even 24 children!! 56 children over hundreds of years I think is very , very low--Eve was in perfect health and had a long period of fruitfulness. Pardon me if you've heard this before but I was dialyzing an old man and was talking to his wife--he was in his 80's, she in her 70's. She had given birth to 22 children! She was a sweet little Mexican lady and I asked her--Didn't you know what was causing it?? ( I have a sense of humor that can be reckless at times!)---She blushed 20 shades of red and said, ---Yes, we know, but, what can you do---no TV!!!!--Adam and Eve didn't have TV either, and didn't have to work quite as hard as we do now for their food. The ground was cursed after the fall, but not as much as after the flood. Comparing Eve to women today---I think she could have easily popped out a couple hundred --at least--I mean if she started even at 200 years and went on to over 700 years, even at one every 2 years------If this little Mexican popped out 22 in 40 years--the command to be fruitful and multiply back then was fulfilled in astonishing numbers!!! And then, there were multiple births more than likely--as Cain and Abel were considered twins, I wonder about triplets and even more--they didn't need fertility drugs!!!

 

[MerriestHouse]

Very interesting, wonder how thy got that number--- women today between the ages of 15-45 have been known to give birth to up to 22 and at least one even 24 children!! 56 children over hundreds of years I think is very , very low--Eve was in perfect health and had a long period of fruitfulness. Pardon me if you've heard this before but I was dialyzing an old man and was talking to his wife--he was in his 80's, she in her 70's. She had given birth to 22 children! She was a sweet little Mexican lady and I asked her--Didn't you know what was causing it?? ( I have a sense of humor that can be reckless at times!)---She blushed 20 shades of red and said, ---Yes, we know, but, what can you do---no TV!!!!--Adam and Eve didn't have TV either, and didn't have to work quite as hard as we do now for their food. The ground was cursed after the fall, but not as much as after the flood. Comparing Eve to women today---I think she could have easily popped out a couple hundred --at least--I mean if she started even at 200 years and went on to over 700 years, even at one every 2 years------If this little Mexican popped out 22 in 40 years--the command to be fruitful and multiply back then was fulfilled in astonishing numbers!!! And then, there were multiple births more than likely--as Cain and Abel were considered twins, I wonder about triplets and even more--they didn't need fertility drugs!!!

I don't know where he got the number. Sarah laughed when God said she would have a child because she was ninety.

 

[Imagican]

Noah is described as a just man, perfect in his generations, who walked with God and who found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Genesis 6 He was also a preacher of righteousness. Noah and his family were the only ones that regarded the wrath of God.



If pre-Adamic creatures were living and dying for thousands of years before Adam, then the connection is lost between the first Adam --- and the last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, who brought physical resurrection from the dead.

Christians who sincerely believe this pre-Adamite theory and its history of death before Adam are endangering the very doctrine of Salvation that they subscribe to. Adam was head of the entire creation of humankind so his fall affected everyone else. Romans 8:20.

The Bible tells us that Adam was the first biological man. Genesis 1; Deuteronomy 32; 1 Chronicles 1; Luke 2; Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15; 1 Timothy 2 and Jude 1.

How much of the Bible are you willing to concede as being errant or in need of reinterpreting to accommodate these claims?

Do you believe in miracles? I'm guessing the answer is no.

What I believe is that Adam was the first 'Spiritual' man. Perhaps the inbreeding between that which was purely 'flesh' and that which was 'spirit' may very well be the 'reason' that men's hearts became evil continually.

I don't need to reinterpret anything. I believe what the Bible offers is clear. And after the destruction of the time of Noah, God decided that He would 'put up' with man's flesh for a 'time' in the hopes of obtaining those that remain Spiritual.

You know, it's hard to conceive of certain things until one's mind can 'get around it'. There are still people that don't believe we've been to the moon. But I believe that the majority of mankind accepts the 'fact'.

Science has 'proven' that there were once two distinct forms of human on this planet. I can't deny the obvious evidence.

So where do we go from there?

Some insist that the days of creation were literal. Yet in the NT it states that to God a day can be like a thousand years or a thousand years as a day. Doesn't that offer indication that the 'days' of creation weren't literal? That time to God is non existent in that He is not confined by time.

So the use of the term 'day' is nothing more than a 'symbolic' use of a term that defines a 'beginning' and an 'end' to a 'time period'. Something that Moses could understand.

If God had stated that: "For the first twenty million years.................". As far as we know these numbers were impossible for Moses to even grasp. The important issue was that creation was formed in 'order' and over 'time'. It's ludicrous to think that all that was accomplished was done so in six days. Regardless of the use of the term 'day'.

Back then, it makes sense that men believed it was literal days. But we have come a long way in understanding since Moses. We have explored and discovered many things pertaining to God's creation. Should we ignore what we have learned for the sake of 'fairy tales'? Or do we see how what we have learned 'fits' with God's Word? I choose understanding over 'blind faith' or 'fairy tales'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[MerriestHouse]

What I believe is that Adam was the first 'Spiritual' man. Perhaps the inbreeding between that which was purely 'flesh' and that which was 'spirit' may very well be the 'reason' that men's hearts became evil continually.

I don't need to reinterpret anything. I believe what the Bible offers is clear. And after the destruction of the time of Noah, God decided that He would 'put up' with man's flesh for a 'time' in the hopes of obtaining those that remain Spiritual.

You know, it's hard to conceive of certain things until one's mind can 'get around it'. There are still people that don't believe we've been to the moon. But I believe that the majority of mankind accepts the 'fact'.

Science has 'proven' that there were once two distinct forms of human on this planet. I can't deny the obvious evidence.

So where do we go from there?

Some insist that the days of creation were literal. Yet in the NT it states that to God a day can be like a thousand years or a thousand years as a day. Doesn't that offer indication that the 'days' of creation weren't literal? That time to God is non existent in that He is not confined by time.

So the use of the term 'day' is nothing more than a 'symbolic' use of a term that defines a 'beginning' and an 'end' to a 'time period'. Something that Moses could understand.

If God had stated that: "For the first twenty million years.................". As far as we know these numbers were impossible for Moses to even grasp. The important issue was that creation was formed in 'order' and over 'time'. It's ludicrous to think that all that was accomplished was done so in six days. Regardless of the use of the term 'day'.

Back then, it makes sense that men believed it was literal days. But we have come a long way in understanding since Moses. We have explored and discovered many things pertaining to God's creation. Should we ignore what we have learned for the sake of 'fairy tales'? Or do we see how what we have learned 'fits' with God's Word? I choose understanding over 'blind faith' or 'fairy tales'.

Blessings,

MEC

Yeah, "the evening and the morning was the first day" is hard for all of us to understand the 24 hour day.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yeah, "the evening and the morning was the first day" is hard for all of us to understand the 24 hour day.

Now,, now--let's see if that way makes more sense--1 day is as a 1000 years means that each day of creation took at least 1000 years--That right? or 20 million--So, on day 3, grass and other vegetation were created--and then 1000 years later (or 20 million), the sun is made. All that time without sun--I just don't think that would work out too well.
Plus there is that evening and morning--sooooo---each 1000 year segment was divided into evening and morning---500 years of evening and 500 years of morning.(10 million and 10 million)I don't think that works out too well either.

Now, it is just possible that Moses was way too stupid for God to tell Him---"It took Me many, many years to make each part of this world. More years than you can imagine."
I'm afraid he'd have needed a college education for that one. Best to have come up with the "it only took 6 days for Me to make all this."
And then there is that Sabbath issue---after all those eons it took to make this world, God takes a rest of 1000 years--or more--so now we take 1 day a week to remember that it Him took eons to make this world. A 20 million year Sabbath to commemorate His work---that doesn't work out too well either.