Genesis Chapters 1-14 Theological Foundations

[shernren]

Correction: 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

The author does not declare that there were no plants yet, just that there were no plants of the field. He could have wrote 'plants on the earth' or 'plants of the earth' but instead used 'of the field', leaving open the possibility for a garden.

Now, is God going to create Adam, the first man, and make him wait years for the trees in the garden to grow?

Sure, why not? He can do aaaaanything, right?

However, would you agree that the Bible presents the lack of rain as a cause of the lack of plants?

If that is so, would you agree that the Bible is presenting a natural cycle (i.e. it's the dry season, nothing can grow without a human farmer watering the land) as a cause of the lack of plants?

And if that is so, would you agree that the Bible is assuming that these natural cycles had been established and had started to run their course?

And if that is so, how can the universe possibly be only six days old at this point?

As an aside, is the geographic description of the rivers, including Euphrates, running off from the garden just there to elaborate upon a myth or parable, or are the descriptions of the riverheads there for the understanding of the garden of Eden as a literal place?

Sure, the garden of Eden was actually somewhere in Iraq. I see your four rivers, though, and raise you the Flood: if these are not the same rivers we know today, why would God give them the same names, but if these are the same rivers we know today, how could the Flood have possibly been so kind and gentle as to leave them where they are?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Would you agree that the Bible presents the lack of rain as a cause of the lack of plants? If that is so, would you agree that the Bible is presenting a natural cycle (i.e. it's the dry season, nothing can grow without a human farmer watering the land) as a cause of the lack of plants? And if that is so, would you agree that the Bible is assuming that these natural cycles had been established and had started to run their course? And if that is so, how can the universe possibly be only six days old at this point?

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
[snip]
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

First question: at first, probably. However, were are then told the mist went up from the earth and watered the ground. Also, we are told that God made every tree good for food including the tree of life grow. If Jesus touched a fig tree and withered it within a day's time, the LORD could just as easily cause plants to grow to maturity in a day's time.

Sure, the garden of Eden was actually somewhere in Iraq. I see your four rivers, though, and raise you the Flood: if these are not the same rivers we know today, why would God give them the same names, but if these are the same rivers we know today, how could the Flood have possibly been so kind and gentle as to leave them where they are?

I'm not saying they are in the same place they were before, or even of the same size and shape. A lot of Genesis 2 is past tense, but the description of the rivers is in present tense, that is, from the time Genesis was written by revelation of the Holy Spirit through Moses. See: The LORD formed... the first river is... there is the bdellium stone and onyx...

So the original river of Eden may not even be there anymore, but it was revealed that the four rivers splitting off from it are in existence, but not necessarily in the same form. Otherwise we could find the place of the garden!

I think a quick glance at Euphrates on the map lets us know it used to be part of a four-river split described in Genesis 2, and I do think the opening of the passage "These are the generations of" as well as the detailed descriptions of those four rivers in their (at the time) present state all attest to the historic validity of Genesis.

Luke 16:29
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

John 5
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

[Mallon]

Finding the Garden of Eden should be a cinch. There's a cherubim and a flaming sword guarding the entrance.

 

[Jase]

Finding the Garden of Eden should be a cinch. There's a cherubim and a flaming sword guarding the entrance.

Duh, the flood washed away the garden! No need to guard it anymore.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Finding the Garden of Eden should be a cinch. There's a cherubim and a flaming sword guarding the entrance.

Ha.

Duh, the flood washed away the garden! No need to guard it anymore.

That is indeed the case.

 

[Mallon]

Duh, the flood washed away the garden! No need to guard it anymore.

How convenient! And yet the rivers remain.

Can someone please remind me what the cherubim and sword were doing there in the first place?

 

[ivebeenshown]

How convenient! And yet the rivers remain.

Can someone please remind me what the cherubim and sword were doing there in the first place?

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Keep, as in, guard -- so that no man may approach and eat from the fruit of it.

And this is what Ezekiel says:

Ezekiel 31
9I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

 

[Mallon]

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Keep, as in, guard -- so that no man may approach and eat from the fruit of it.

And this is what Ezekiel says:

Ezekiel 31
9I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

So does that mean that anything outside the Garden of Eden could not eat from the Tree of Life, and would therefore die?

 

[Assyrian]

What composes this likely on-the-spot number of 00.1%?

Would you argue that it is better to assume that the cardinal number ordering of the periods of time in Genesis 1 is easier to bend than to assume the form of the verbs in Genesis 2:18,19 could in fact be pluperfect, as found in Numbers 1:48 and in the NIV translation of Genesis 2, given the fact that Hebrew does not have a particular way of expressing the pluperfect (though they do occur) and such interpretation is reliant on certain assumptions about the timing of specific events?

In Numbers 1:47, Moses does not number the Levites.
In Numbers 1:48, we are told why: because God had said not to. It is the same verb form found in Genesis 2:8,19.

Did Moses choose to not number the Levites on a whim, and then receive the command or had God given the command earlier?

I think this is the reason you get bible translators using the pluperfect, not because of the grammar but the passage raises this question. But if you look at the beginning of the chapter, when God tells Moses to do the census, he gives him assistants to carry out the task, not just random dogs bodies to do the bean counting and scribble the numbers down on clay tablets, the assistants were the leaders of each tribe, men with the authority to carry out the census of their tribe. Num 1:4 And there shall be with you a man from each tribe, each man being the head of the house of his fathers. The leader of every tribe, except Levi. That is why Moses didn't count the tribe of Levi. And it was after Moses carried out the census of al the other tribes that God explained his plans for the tribe of Levi.
Num 1:48 JPS And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 49 'Howbeit the tribe of Levi thou shalt not number, neither shalt thou take the sum of them among the children of Israel; 50 but appoint thou the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony.
The Jewish Publication society translation translates the passage properly.

I had I look for the Hebrew word used [FONT=&quot]וַ[/FONT][FONT=&quot]יְדַבֵּ֥ר[/FONT] it occurs 87 times in the AV every other time it is translated as a proper waw consecutive, and God spake, and God talked, and Pharaoh said, only in Num 1:48 is it translated as a pluperfect. This is a bad translation ignoring the plain meaning of the text to try to solve a non existent problem.

It is also very bad exegesis for Creationists to scour scripture for obscure passages like this to avoid the plain meaning of Genesis. You should base your interpretation of scripture on what it says, not change what it says to fit your interpretation.

Genesis 1 and 2 both use ELOHIM as the name for God. I just checked it to confirm. Is there something else I am missing?

Genesis 1:1-2:3 uses Elohiym, God, but from Genesis 2:4 the term used is Yahweh Elohiym, LORD God

Correction: 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

The author does not declare that there were no plants yet, just that there were no plants of the field. He could have wrote 'plants on the earth' or 'plants of the earth' but instead used 'of the field', leaving open the possibility for a garden.

This is another difference in vocabulary between Gen 1 & 2.
Genesis 1 uses 'beasts of the earth' 'fish of the sea' and 'birds of the heavens'.
Genesis 2&3 uses the 'bush' of the field', 'plant of the field', 'beast of the field', though it also uses 'birds of the heavens'.
It is best not to read too much into a simple difference in vocabulary.

It is worth looking at what Genesis 2 says. It is more than a string of unconnected events.

Gen 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground,
Notice that there are two reasons given for there not being any plants. Not just that there wasn't any rain, there were no plants of the field because the ground was dry and there wasn't a man to till the ground

Before we see God planting vegetation, we see two events happening, perhaps you can see them as unrelated, but they provide the answer to the reasons we are told there were no plants: there is water for the ground and God making a farmer to till it.
6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground--
7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Then God plants the garden.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Now, is God going to create Adam, the first man, and make him wait years for the trees in the garden to grow?

If you want to go for a literal interpretation, then go for God creating an instant miracle, the problem is the order in which God created plants.

As an aside, is the geographic description of the rivers, including Euphrates, running off from the garden just there to elaborate upon a myth or parable, or are the descriptions of the riverheads there for the understanding of the garden of Eden as a literal place?

Given the one of the rivers goes around Cush, in Africa, I would say this is a metaphorical landscape, but one that is declaring the creation account to be relevant for the whole world, not just a local Mesopotamian myth.

Correction: God formed the animals. He made the woman.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19And 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. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

God didn't say he would 'form' an help meet for Adam. Likewise, God 'made' and did not 'form' the woman. Why is this? God formed every living creature and Adam from the dust of the earth, but Eve was made from Adam's rib, not the dust.

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds.

But I guess I really just want to stray from the "Do Genesis 1 and 2 align chronologically" debate and get into "Is Genesis 2 a true historic account as evidenced by verse 4?"

It is certainly one of the implication of Gen 1 & 2 having different orders of creation. It means either the creation accounts are wrong, or they are not meant literally. But the question of the order should be based on what the text actually says, not our desires to take them literally or metaphorically.

Incidentally with reference to Gen 2:4, as I pointed out in another thread this means a genealogy who begat whom, which cannot be taken literally for the genealogy of the heavens and the earth. Moses seems to pick up on this in his highly allegorical interpretation of Genesis in Psalm 90.
Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world... Brought forth is the word 'beget'.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Assyrian, do you believe Adam was the first man, and lived to be 930 years of age?

23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

19These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

What do you think? Are we or are we not descendants of these eight people who survived a global flood?

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian, do you believe Adam was the first man,

The bible certainly says so,

1Co 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

But seeing as it describes Jesus as the second man (wouldn't the second man have been Cain?), I don't think Paul can have been speaking literally here.

and lived to be 930 years of age?

I think Moses shows us the long lifespans of the patriarchs should be taken figurative. Psalm 90:10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty. Moses himself is one of the last of the long lifespans and is described as living to 120, Moses' father lived to 137, Moses himself is said to have lived to 120, and Joshua 110, not the 70 or 80 years Moses describes in the psalm.

23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

19These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

What do you think? Are we or are we not descendants of these eight people who survived a global flood?

Could you include the full reference to your quotes? It save having to search for them. Have a look at the word earth I have highlighted in blue, it is the Hebrew erets,
is more often translated 'the land' elsewhere in scripture. The text is simply saying the flood killed everything in the land Noah was living in. After the flood, they spread throughout the land they settled in. Bear in mind, the bible doesn't say the Incas or Lacota, Australian Aborigines or Maori, Japanese or Koreans are descended from Noah and his sons.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The bible certainly says so,

1Co 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

But seeing as it describes Jesus as the second man (wouldn't the second man have been Cain?), I don't think Paul can have been speaking literally here.

1 Corinthians 15
45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Firstly, thank you for inspiring me to start posting scriptures in an off blue color to further distinguish them from the text which is mine.

Verse 47 is supposed to be taken in its context, which is to read it in light of verse 45. "The first man" in verse 47 refers to "The first man Adam" from verse 45. Likewise, "the second man" refers to "the last Adam". 'The first man' and 'the second man' are merely calling upon the first man that was just written of, and the second man that was just written of.

If we view verse 47 in light of the preceding verse 45, we can see that "The first man Adam" is Adam, the first living man, who was the human son (lowercase s) of God (as evidenced in the genealogical account of Luke 3.) "The last Adam" is Jesus, who was the last human son (lowercase s) of God but also the Son of God in whom dwells the fulness of the Godhead.

He wrote 'the first man Adam' and not just 'the first Adam' to further convey Adam's status as the first living man.

In summary, Adam is indeed the first living man, thus we are all offspring of his kind, and he was the first of his kind.

I think Moses shows us the long lifespans of the patriarchs should be taken figurative. Psalm 90:10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty. Moses himself is one of the last of the long lifespans and is described as living to 120, Moses' father lived to 137, Moses himself is said to have lived to 120, and Joshua 110, not the 70 or 80 years Moses describes in the psalm.

What Moses wrote was truth, and we also know our life expectancy can extend far beyond seventy or eighty in many cases. One woman is recorded who was 122 or 123 by the time of her death, confirmed with records. Many live into their nineties and hundreds. The average expectancy (in his time and in our time) does seem to lie around 70 or 80 though. What Moses prayed does not restrict our ages to merely 70 or 80. This is not valid evidence against the ages recorded in Moses' writings.

Have a look at the word earth I have highlighted in blue, it is the Hebrew erets, is more often translated 'the land' elsewhere in scripture. The text is simply saying the flood killed everything in the land Noah was living in. After the flood, they spread throughout the land they settled in. Bear in mind, the bible doesn't say the Incas or Lacota, Australian Aborigines or Maori, Japanese or Koreans are descended from Noah and his sons.

Genesis 6
17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
21And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
22Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

God said he was going to send water upon the land (meaning the earth) to destroy all flesh under the heaven wherein is the breath of life (that is, all the flesh dwelling on the the land or the earth.)

He sent water upon the land, and it killed all the flesh of the land (not all of the flesh in the waters) except for Noah, who God made a covenant with, to not destroy him and also seven other humans and many animals of the land and the air, by means of the ark.

 

[Jadis40]

Assyrian makes some good points, not to mention the probability, based on the fact that it's recorded that Noah planted a vineyard after he left the ark, that he took grape seeds on the ark with him. Still, if the flood was global, and the tomato was not introduced into the middle east until the 18th century, then where did the seeds come from? In fact, in 1881, they said it was not cultivated in the region until 40 years prior to that. Look it up on wiki, and follow the references listed below the article. Even more than that, the tomato is native to South America, as is the potato.

When confronted with these facts, and others along the way, I had no choice but to abandon the idea that the flood was global, an idea I freely held until overwhelming evidence in the realms of geology, linguistics, history eliminated that as being accurate. Ironically, YECs hold up the Grand Canyon as proof of the global flood. After I studied things that they stated, versus what's actually been observed in the various layers, that only served to cement my belief that those who hold to a massive localized flood are correct.

 

[Jase]

So I saw an interesting documentary on the history channel today called "Banned from the Bible". It discussed books and stories that were left out of the canon for various reason.

One point they made is that of the woman Lilith. She is mentioned in Isaiah, but has no backstory in the Bible. According to these lost texts and the Midrash - the creation account in Genesis one where God says "and male and female he created them", Lilith was actually the first woman. Lilith, however, feeling equal to Adam refused to be subservient too him, so she left the Garden and became cursed - becoming the first demon. Then God made Eve in Genesis 2, and made her from Adam to make sure she would be lesser than him.

I'm not really explaining it as well as the documentary, but it was a quite interesting topic about the differing creation stories and the origin of Lilith. She is found throughout all cultures, even dating to pre-historic days.

 

[ivebeenshown]

So I saw an interesting documentary on the history channel today called "Banned from the Bible". It discussed books and stories that were left out of the canon for various reason.

One point they made is that of the woman Lilith. She is mentioned in Isaiah, but has no backstory in the Bible. According to these lost texts and the Midrash - the creation account in Genesis one where God says "and male and female he created them", Lilith was actually the first woman. Lilith, however, feeling equal to Adam refused to be subservient too him, so she left the Garden and became cursed - becoming the first demon. Then God made Eve in Genesis 2, and made her from Adam to make sure she would be lesser than him.

I'm not really explaining it as well as the documentary, but it was a quite interesting topic about the differing creation stories and the origin of Lilith. She is found throughout all cultures, even dating to pre-historic days.

"Moses and the prophets"/"The law and prophets"...

In the prologue to the Greek translation of Ben Sira's work, his grandson, dated at 132 BCE, mentions both the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Nevi'im),
Source: Development of the Jewish Bible canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AnswersInHovind]

How come nobody is discussing the passages Mark mentioned in the opening post? People seem to have derailed the thread into other topics and neglected to address it.

 

[Mallon]

How come nobody is discussing the passages Mark mentioned in the opening post? People seem to have derailed the thread into other topics and neglected to address it.

Probably because they've been addressed dozens of times before and nobody feels like beating a dead horse.

 

[laconicstudent]

Probably because they've been addressed dozens of times before and nobody feels like beating a dead horse.

​

 

[shernren]

Sorry I took a while - been away at camp.

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
[snip]
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

First question: at first, probably. However, were are then told the mist went up from the earth and watered the ground. Also, we are told that God made every tree good for food including the tree of life grow. If Jesus touched a fig tree and withered it within a day's time, the LORD could just as easily cause plants to grow to maturity in a day's time.

I have no doubt that God can poof plants from nowhere. However, the text presents a very specific reason for the plants' non-existence in v5. Genesis does not say "No bush had sprung up, because God was going to create them later", it attributes the plants' non-existence to a specific, natural cause.

As for the mist, it can be equally well translated rain-clouds. That gives a remarkably clear picture of the weather at the point of time of Genesis 2:5-6: "in some land, at the end of the dry season, when the 'mist' (or rain cloud) was rising to begin the rains, God formed the first man; He then planted a garden in Eden and moved the man there." (C. John Collins) Here it is, a completely literal interpretation of that chunk, not a metaphor in sight, and completely incompatible with YECism. Can you believe it?

I'm not saying they are in the same place they were before, or even of the same size and shape. A lot of Genesis 2 is past tense, but the description of the rivers is in present tense, that is, from the time Genesis was written by revelation of the Holy Spirit through Moses. See: The LORD formed... the first river is... there is the bdellium stone and onyx...

So the original river of Eden may not even be there anymore, but it was revealed that the four rivers splitting off from it are in existence, but not necessarily in the same form. Otherwise we could find the place of the garden!

I think a quick glance at Euphrates on the map lets us know it used to be part of a four-river split described in Genesis 2, and I do think the opening of the passage "These are the generations of" as well as the detailed descriptions of those four rivers in their (at the time) present state all attest to the historic validity of Genesis.

The rivers' names are given in the present tense (I suppose - no way to know if it's simply translators' choice), but their activity is given in the past tense:

A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah ...
​

To take that literally would mean that Moses' readers would have been aware of rivers, in their era named the Pishon etc., and that these rivers were in fact the ones that flowed through Eden. But then the point I made stands: how does a flood strong enough to destroy the whole world preserve four rivers?

Luke 16:29
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

John 5
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

But the TEs here believe both Jesus' Messiahship (the subject of John 5) and the resurrection and judgment of the dead (the subject of Luke 16). If anything, these verses then show that these TEs do, in fact, believe Moses and the prophets. The question, of course, is not whether we should believe Moses and the prophets, but what exactly it is that we are being told to believe.

When Florence says something I don't understand (as women are wont to do, occasionally), I work hard to figure out what she means - not because I don't take her seriously, but precisely because I take her seriously. In the same way, the book of Genesis is a book that we TEs find hard to understand, and we are working hard to understand it because we believe that what it says is of paramount importance. Now you may find Genesis easier to understand than we do, in your literal interpretation, and therefore you may not understand the difficulties we see. Fair enough: but don't confuse our smallness of mind (if that is what it is) for a lack of belief.

AnswersInHovind: If you read my earlier post you will see that mark himself has said (as recently as a month or two ago) that he does not consider either taking the six days literally or taking the timelines of the genealogies literally as a vital Christian truth. As such, I think we're entirely entitled to sit aside and wait for mark himself to go address the verses he raised in his OP before we (as usual) start doing his work for him.

 

[Assyrian]

1 Corinthians 15
45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Firstly, thank you for inspiring me to start posting scriptures in an off blue color to further distinguish them from the text which is mine.

Verse 47 is supposed to be taken in its context, which is to read it in light of verse 45. "The first man" in verse 47 refers to "The first man Adam" from verse 45. Likewise, "the second man" refers to "the last Adam". 'The first man' and 'the second man' are merely calling upon the first man that was just written of, and the second man that was just written of.

You mean when Paul calls Adam the first man in verse 45, he means Adam is the first man ever to have existed, but when he continues his comparison in verse 47 and again refers to Adam as 'the first man', he only means first man in the previous list? Paul went to a lot of trouble setting up this comparison between Adam and Christ, adding the words 'first' and 'Adam' into what was otherwise a direct quote from the LXX.
Gen 2:7(LXX) the man became a living soul.
1Cor 15:45 The first man Adam became a living soul.
If Paul was simply going to compare Adam and Christ as the first and last Adam, then Paul did not need to put the word 'man' into his quote, he could have transliterated the Hebrew directly, because the word translated 'man' in the quote is the Hebrew adam. Paul could simply have said 'the first Adam became a living soul'. This would not have satisfied creationists who like Paul calling Adam the first man, but this isn't a point Paul is actually making. He is talking about Adam and Christ as the two Adams, not teaching special creation. We get to the reason Paul uses both the translation and transliteration, 'man' and 'Adam' when we get to verse 47, because Paul continues his comparison of Adam and Christ calling them the 'the first man' and 'the second man'.

If we view verse 47 in light of the preceding verse 45, we can see that "The first man Adam" is Adam, the first living man, who was the human son (lowercase s) of God (as evidenced in the genealogical account of Luke 3.) "The last Adam" is Jesus, who was the last human son (lowercase s) of God but also the Son of God in whom dwells the fulness of the Godhead.

The supposed genealogy as Luke describes it Luke 3:23?

He wrote 'the first man Adam' and not just 'the first Adam' to further convey Adam's status as the first living man.

And Jesus is the last living man? The last man called Adam? What about Adam Smith, Adam Faith, Adam and the Ants? No, it is not about Adam being the first man, but about Christ being the last Adam. Paul is comparing Adam and Christ figuratively like he did in Romans 5:14 Adam is a figure of the one who was to come. In 1Cor Paul is saying Christ is figuratively the last Adam.

In summary, Adam is indeed the first living man, thus we are all offspring of his kind, and he was the first of his kind.

Paul does not mention any of that.

What Moses wrote was truth, and we also know our life expectancy can extend far beyond seventy or eighty in many cases. One woman is recorded who was 122 or 123 by the time of her death, confirmed with records. Many live into their nineties and hundreds. The average expectancy (in his time and in our time) does seem to lie around 70 or 80 though. What Moses prayed does not restrict our ages to merely 70 or 80. This is not valid evidence against the ages recorded in Moses' writings.

I agree there isn't a contradiction between the odd person living to 122 today and Psalm 90 which is talking about normal lifespans. The thing is, if the ages of the patriarchs were literal, 70 or 80 wasn't a normal lifespan when Moses wrote the psalm, Moses lived to 120 his father lived to 137, previous generations in Moses family lived to 133, 137 and 175. It is not like Moses was talking about other people only living to 70 or 80. He includes himself as having a lifespan of 70 or 80, Psalm 90:10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty... Of course Moses spoke the truth here. It is just that not all truth in the bible is literal. If Moses wrote about the ages of the patriarchs in the Torah, he did not take them literally.

Genesis 6
17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
21And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
22Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

God said he was going to send water upon the land (meaning the earth) to destroy all flesh under the heaven wherein is the breath of life (that is, all the flesh dwelling on the the land or the earth.)He sent water upon the land, and it killed all the flesh of the land (not all of the flesh in the waters) except for Noah, who God made a covenant with, to not destroy him and also seven other humans and many animals of the land and the air, by means of the ark.

Or God was going to send water on the land Noah lived in, not the entire planet, just Noah's own land which was filled with violence. That is how erets is normally used in the bible.