What human species was Adam and Eve?

[DamianWarS]

Maybe start with verse one

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Here is how it works....when something is finished, that is after!

unless there are two accounts. you start and finished one, then start and finished the other. But regardless of how you think it unfolds Gen 1 clearly has acts of creation repeated in Gen 2 and this is undeniable. To reject it would just be silly. I'm not interested in silly conversation and if you are you might as well state your agenda now so we can save ourselves both a lot of time.

 

[DamianWarS]

Well, Jesus loved it and so did the apostles. The prophets loved it. It works. It will outlast the heavens and earth. So any dumbness, sorry to say, is not on His part or His word's!

Ok, you've established the words are valued but you haven't established that the words are the exact unabridged version of the aforementioned "God's record". Perhaps "dumbed down" is the wrong language but don't get stuck on the semantics as the point and question are still there and still unanswered.

We could go on and on about how we don't like each other words but this doesn't really answer anything does it. Let's be more productive in our dialogue. A question still hangs, you may choose to pick apart the words used to frame the question or answer the question so far you've only chosen the former.

 

[dcalling]

please try and maintain civil conversation. I have brought up the inconsistencies of Gen 1 and 2 well before ViaCrucis's post, I never took the time to systematically take it apart as he did, so I linked to his post because he took the time and did it. I don't need to rephrase it all over again, the inconsistencies are clear and it doesn't matter who said it, they are still there and the order of creation is different.

I never said if something is old it means it is inconsistent. they are not inconsistent because they are old, they are inconsistent because they don't follow the same order. read the text yourself, they differ in order and this makes them inconsistent. it's in plain sight, I don't know why it's so difficult to see.

I am simply point out the truth, you always said Gen 1 and Gen 2 are inconsistent but failed to offer any evidence (other than "they are old"," look at it yourself" etc, those are not evidences)

I read the account a lot of times and they are consistent. Which part of the order is different?

It is one thing to say "order is different" and another to actually point them out, as in viacuris' case what he think is different is not at all. And that is why I keep pressing you to present evidence.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Maybe start with verse one

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Here is how it works....when something is finished, that is after!

The texts of the Bible weren't written with chapter and verse divisions. Genesis 2:1 is still part of the first creation story.

The second creation story begins in verse 4.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

I am simply point out the truth, you always said Gen 1 and Gen 2 are inconsistent but failed to offer any evidence (other than "they are old"," look at it yourself" etc, those are not evidences)

I read the account a lot of times and they are consistent. Which part of the order is different?

It is one thing to say "order is different" and another to actually point them out, as in viacuris' case what he think is different is not at all. And that is why I keep pressing you to present evidence.

Gen 1, third day, God says "Let the land produce vegetation" the vegetation is inclusive shrubs and trees and all kinds of plants as the text itself reveals. Later, Day 6 man is created. this order is irrefutable.

Gen 2, "no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up ... then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground..."

I don't see why this is so complicated. Gen 1 plants come before man, Gen 2 man comes b before plants thus they are inconsistent. this doesn't matter if you understand how ancient Hebrew think but that's not how you're approaching the text. Some like to say Gen 2 is the 6th day of creation however it doesn't fit but no one like to admit this for some reason.

 

[dcalling]

Gen 1, third day, God says "Let the land produce vegetation" the vegetation is inclusive shrubs and trees and all kinds of plants as the text itself reveals. Later, Day 6 man is created. this order is irrefutable.

Gen 2, "no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up ... then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground..."

I don't see why this is so complicated. Gen 1 plants come before man, Gen 2 man comes b before plants thus they are inconsistent. this doesn't matter if you understand how ancient Hebrew think but that's not how you're approaching the text. Some like to say Gen 2 is the 6th day of creation however it doesn't fit but no one like to admit this for some reason.

Finally something substantial in your argument.

Gen 1, God created vegetation (vegetation/trees before Adam).

Gen 2, man created, and man work the garden to have trees that needs man's work and rain to spurn up.

That is why most translations (I will quote KJV) says "shrub of the field": And 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

If you read it in hebrew, Gen 1:12 shrub is a different word then Gen 2:5 shrub.

If you trust God then you trust His creation accounts. No conflicts.

 

[DamianWarS]

Finally something substantial in your argument.

Gen 1, God created vegetation (vegetation/trees before Adam).

Gen 2, man created, and man work the garden to have trees that needs man's work and rain to spurn up.

That is why most translations (I will quote KJV) says "shrub of the field": And 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

If you read it in hebrew, Gen 1:12 shrub is a different word then Gen 2:5 shrub.

If you trust God then you trust His creation accounts. No conflicts.

This is not what the text says and perhaps 1:12 uses a different word but 1:11 doesn't. The text is clearly saying in Gen 1 creation account that plants are created and grew and were fruitful, then later on the 6th day man is created. In Gen 2, the text tells us the no plant had yet sprung up or had any sort of multiplication (fruit, seed, etc..), the KJV says "before it was in the earth". You may ride off of this idea that the plants just needed to be cultivated by man but in doing this you reject what the text is clearly saying that in Gen 1 plants were thriving before man and in Gen 2 plants needed man to thrive.

Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:1-3 are bookends to an account of creation. Gen 2:4 is another bookend opening up a different account on a different shelf. There's no intention of these agreeing with each other as Gen 1 has a focus of God behind the origins of life and Gen 2 has a focus of the start and fall of man. The details used within these accounts are there to build a goal and so are told in a way to best reach this goal even if it disagrees with another account since the other account is not the focus it doesn't matter.

This is a pattern seen in Hebraic block logic where ideas are written in blocks that do not have to agree with each other or be reconciled but left in a sort of tension. You're trying to reconcile the accounts even though the details are telling you they don't fit, you're ignoring them, and just keep on going. But the accounts are not supposed to match and when you force them you turn the accounts into one piece displacing their messages into some sort of continuous storyline and miss the point. One tells us the story of creation, the other tells us a different story.

Please be more careful how you phrase things suggesting that because I do not agree with you I do not trust God. Don't suggest I don't trust God, I do, and I trust his storyline. I have on multiple times had to correct these sort of passive accusations from you and this has caused me to question your character which I don't like, let's assume from each other the best rather than pointing out the worst.

 

[dad]

unless there are two accounts. you start and finished one, then start and finished the other.

One is the created order, and then, in chapter two AFTER that is all done and finished, THEN we revisit some of what already happened, wit some new details.

But regardless of how you think it unfolds Gen 1 clearly has acts of creation repeated in Gen 2 and this is undeniable.

Since chapter two is after it is all finished and over with, and it goes back and covers some details of what was done, of course the same events are covered, but not in order for chapter two.

 

[DamianWarS]

Since chapter two is after it is all finished and over with, and it goes back and covers some details of what was done, of course the same events are covered, but not in order for chapter two.

there are no chapters and verses. There is an account that open and closes, then another account that open and closes. They overlap on some aspects but are not the same accounts which is explicit in the accounts, nor do they have the same goals as such the details have conflicts because they have different goals and because they are different accounts.

You're just broadly saying they are the same accounts without addressing the conflicts directly and so are actually ignoring them. It's like stepping in bubble gum and calling it elephant dung because you're in Africa. Why not just look at what's stuck to your shoe to see if it's something else first?

 

[dad]

there are no chapters and verses. There is an account that open and closes, then another account that open and closes.

The creation is talked about in many verses and chapters actually. Speaking of closed, by Gen 2 it was all over and finished.

They overlap on some aspects but are not the same accounts which is explicit in the accounts, nor do they have the same goals as such the details have conflicts because they have different goals and because they are different accounts.

When God goes back and gives details of what was already said and done, why would we have identical info? He does not waste our time with nonsense.

You're just broadly saying they are the same accounts without addressing the conflicts directly and so are actually ignoring them.

There are NO conflicts except inside the confused heads of people who assume God gave some extra and contradictory creation order. When chap 2 for example talks of how Eve was actually made from a bone from the man, that does not contradict chap one where we see He made them male and female. We simply get details of what He already did, and not necessarily in order of creation.

 

[dcalling]

This is not what the text says and perhaps 1:12 uses a different word but 1:11 doesn't. The text is clearly saying in Gen 1 creation account that plants are created and grew and were fruitful, then later on the 6th day man is created. In Gen 2, the text tells us the no plant had yet sprung up or had any sort of multiplication (fruit, seed, etc..), the KJV says "before it was in the earth". You may ride off of this idea that the plants just needed to be cultivated by man but in doing this you reject what the text is clearly saying that in Gen 1 plants were thriving before man and in Gen 2 plants needed man to thrive.

Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:1-3 are bookends to an account of creation. Gen 2:4 is another bookend opening up a different account on a different shelf. There's no intention of these agreeing with each other as Gen 1 has a focus of God behind the origins of life and Gen 2 has a focus of the start and fall of man. The details used within these accounts are there to build a goal and so are told in a way to best reach this goal even if it disagrees with another account since the other account is not the focus it doesn't matter.

This is a pattern seen in Hebraic block logic where ideas are written in blocks that do not have to agree with each other or be reconciled but left in a sort of tension. You're trying to reconcile the accounts even though the details are telling you they don't fit, you're ignoring them, and just keep on going. But the accounts are not supposed to match and when you force them you turn the accounts into one piece displacing their messages into some sort of continuous storyline and miss the point. One tells us the story of creation, the other tells us a different story.

Please be more careful how you phrase things suggesting that because I do not agree with you I do not trust God. Don't suggest I don't trust God, I do, and I trust his storyline. I have on multiple times had to correct these sort of passive accusations from you and this has caused me to question your character which I don't like, let's assume from each other the best rather than pointing out the worst.

The text of Genesis 2:5 speaks of two types of plants that were not mentioned during Day Three of Genesis 1: ha-sadeh siyach(‘shrub of the field’) and ha-sadehbc ‘èseb (‘plant/herb of the field’). from the context of the verses it is clear that these two plants require both rain and human cultivation.

Do you see how if you check the verses carefully they actually review more information (and fits the context) without the need to say the verses are not literal?

Gen 1 and 2 are just God telling us how things happened, has no connection to Hebrew block logic or what so ever. You can see a clear picture of God created heaven/earth, light, plants, fish/animals in water, land then humans, and later humans are able to take care plants in fields with help of rain. Hebrew block logic does not matter here (just because it seems blunt does not make it wrong).

Edit: after careful look, the words from 1:11 is the same, but still, they are different due to the prefix ha-sadeh).

 

[DamianWarS]

The text of Genesis 2:5 speaks of two types of plants that were not mentioned during Day Three of Genesis 1: ha-sadeh siyach(‘shrub of the field’) and ha-sadehbc ‘èseb (‘plant/herb of the field’). from the context of the verses it is clear that these two plants require both rain and human cultivation.

Do you see how if you check the verses carefully they actually review more information (and fits the context) without the need to say the verses are not literal?

Gen 1 and 2 are just God telling us how things happened, has no connection to Hebrew block logic or what so ever. You can see a clear picture of God created heaven/earth, light, plants, fish/animals in water, land then humans, and later humans are able to take care plants in fields with help of rain. Hebrew block logic does not matter here (just because it seems blunt does not make it wrong).

Edit: after careful look, the words from 1:11 is the same, but still, they are different due to the prefix ha-sadeh).

so you think because it says "that yields seed" in Gen 1 and "of the field" in Gen 2 that they are talking about different plants? Do you believe the herb of the field yields seed? if so Gen 1:11 is inclusive the herb of the field (Gen 2:5). This is a very weak argument and it just appears desperate on your part, even after you determine that they use the same word which is your original argument you still cling to it. They are different accounts so they tell the details differently, one is not intended to fix or cover the other and they are independent.

 

[DamianWarS]

The creation is talked about in many verses and chapters actually. Speaking of closed, by Gen 2 it was all over and finished.

When God goes back and gives details of what was already said and done, why would we have identical info? He does not waste our time with nonsense.
There are NO conflicts except inside the confused heads of people who assume God gave some extra and contradictory creation order. When chap 2 for example talks of how Eve was actually made from a bone from the man, that does not contradict chap one where we see He made them male and female. We simply get details of what He already did, and not necessarily in order of creation.

Gen 1, plants created on day 3 they thrive, seed and are fruitful, Man is created on day 6.
Gen 2 plants haven't sprouted yet, they have are not thriving or in seed and need man to cultivate them, Man is created and then God plants the garden.

Gen 1. plants-man
Gen 2. man-plants
conflict

open 1:1 in the beginning...
close 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed...
goal: to show God created all things

open 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created...
close 2:24-25 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother...
goal: to show the creation of man and woman

the two have different focuses and the details help build a goal. when the account is done a new one starts with different details that's building a different goal. It may or may not overlap with other accounts but its purpose is only to build its goal even if it conflicts other accounts. This is classic Hebraic block logic and it may exist in unanswered tension (that's not supposed to be answered). You're either trying to answer them or ignore them but the product of both appears a little desperate.

 

[dad]

Gen 1, plants created on day 3 they thrive, seed and are fruitful, Man is created on day 6.
Gen 2 plants haven't sprouted yet, they have are not thriving or in seed and need man to cultivate them, Man is created and then God plants the garden.

If plants were not yet here guess what day of creation that would be, since we KNOW when plants were created? Not sure where your problem lies.

Gen 1. plants-man
Gen 2. man-plants
conflict

No conflict outside your mind. There is no order in chapter two! That was already given. IF we believed it, we would not see such confused statements.

open 1:1 in the beginning...
close 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed...
goal: to show God created all things

You made that goal up. Since it was finished by chapter two we are not looking for a created order anymore, we know that already!

open 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created...
close 2:24-25 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother...
goal: to show the creation of man and woman

Not sure why you jump from heavens and earth being created to relationships of man, and then insert another so called goal in there as if it even related or made sense or was in the bible!

the two have different focuses and the details help build a goal.

Forget your confused little supposed invented goal! God is telling us what went down.

when the account is done a new one starts with different details that's building a different goal.

Utter nonsense. There is no new account, only a filling in of what was done.

It may or may not overlap with other accounts but its purpose is only to build its goal even if it conflicts other accounts.

Sorry, this is almost incoherent babble using the words conflicts and goal!.

This is classic Hebraic block logic and it may exist in unanswered tension (that's not supposed to be answered).

Insane contradictions are actually not any such thing. That is GOD telling us in Hebrew how He created things. Any so called Hebrew logic is way after the fact and does not apply to the Almighty.

 

[DamianWarS]

If plants were not yet here guess what day of creation that would be, since we KNOW when plants were created? Not sure where your problem lies.
No conflict outside your mind. There is no order in chapter two! That was already given. IF we believed it, we would not see such confused statements.
You made that goal up. Since it was finished by chapter two we are not looking for a created order anymore, we know that already!


Not sure why you jump from heavens and earth being created to relationships of man, and then insert another so called goal in there as if it even related or made sense or was in the bible!
Forget your confused little supposed invented goal! God is telling us what went down.
Utter nonsense. There is no new account, only a filling in of what was done.

Sorry, this is almost incoherent babble using the words conflicts and goal!.


Insane contradictions are actually not any such thing. That is GOD telling us in Hebrew how He created things. Any so called Hebrew logic is way after the fact and does not apply to the Almighty.

so everything is in my mind, I'm confused, saying incoherent babble, utter nonsesne and made up things to quote a few words you use to describe what I said. Now that you have gotten the accusations out of the way can you prove them? Right now all they are is a bunch of words thrown toward me with no evidence to support what you're saying. Hey, I can call your posts "incoherent babble" too but it doesn't mean anything does it unless you can say why its incoherent babble. you have yet to show me the why and without the support to back it up, this is actually what incoherent babble is.

 

[dad]

so everything is in my mind, I'm confused, saying incoherent babble, utter nonsesne and made up things to quote a few words you use to describe what I said.

There was one bit I quoted that seemed like rambling, yes. Rather than get touchy feely about it you could have made your attempted point in a clear fashion.

Everything is not in your mind, no. There really is a Genesis! But as far as taking prophetic chapters dealing with things clearly long after creation, as pointed out in detail, and trying to claim it refers to some never neverland limbo time before creation, sorry. You do not get to make stuff up and call it Scripture or Scriptural.

As for your imagined contradictions of the Almighty in the very first things He wrote to ma, well, sorry, the rest of the bible shows us that He actually was not a confused contradictory Author of confusion!

 

[DamianWarS]

There was one bit I quoted that seemed like rambling, yes. Rather than get touchy feely about it you could have made your attempted point in a clear fashion.

Everything is not in your mind, no. There really is a Genesis! But as far as taking prophetic chapters dealing with things clearly long after creation, as pointed out in detail, and trying to claim it refers to some never neverland limbo time before creation, sorry. You do not get to make stuff up and call it Scripture or Scriptural.

As for your imagined contradictions of the Almighty in the very first things He wrote to ma, well, sorry, the rest of the bible shows us that He actually was not a confused contradictory Author of confusion!

this is closer... well that last part you briefly touch on some scriptural backing. I'm not saying God is the author of confusion, nor have I ever claimed that. I'm saying an in a literal vacuum there are inconsistencies which would suggest a position built on some uncertainty.

This and other reasons contribute to why I see it as a non-literal account. a non-literal account preserves the texts as non-contraindicatory as they act on their own and do not need to be affirmed or supported by other accounts. together they build a consistent message of salvation. Every word is immensely important but words not used or in-between the lines rationalizing takes away from its message s should be completely avoided as they cannot be responsibly supported.

Gen 1, plants before man. Gen 2 man before plants. I have no problem with this and no need to connect the dots or explain why they differ; they are both perfect exactly as they are as they both problem the message of God and it's the message I'm interested in.

 

[dad]

This and other reasons contribute to why I see it as a non-literal account. a non-literal account preserves the texts as non-contraindicatory as they act on their own and do not need to be affirmed or supported by other accounts.

There is no contradiction whatsoever.

together they build a consistent message of salvation.

Genesis is a book on beginnings, and although it includes salvation, primarily it is God telling us He created it all and how.

Every word is immensely important but words not used or in-between the lines rationalizing takes away from its message s should be completely avoided as they cannot be responsibly supported.

This is why I do not insert millions of years, evolution, or some pre Adam world.

Gen 1, plants before man. Gen 2 man before plants.

There is no before or after in chapter two since it is not about created order.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

The easy answer is Homo sapiens because God made man on the "sixth day" and sapiens (our species) were the last humans to be created. Sapiens are also the only surviving humans, so it is very hard for people to picture Adam and Eve being more like chimpanzees than Jesus.

However, the first humans who could stand on two feet were Homo erectus and very similar to chimps. Neanderthals came before Homo sapiens, who literally married them into extinction. It is even possible some people living today had Neanderthal amcestors. I learned all this stuff at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum in Washington, DC.

So were Adam and Eve really Homo sapiens or literally the first male and female humans? And if they were the same species we are, did Adam look like Jesus?

My short answer is that the humans you describe were separate from Adam and Eve (who God created after the events of Gen 1). Then the descendants of Adam and Eve mixed with the first "evolved" men.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

There was a book I read before trying to pitch an idea that Adam and Eve originally where spiritual in nature, however after sin they not only fell but devolved. Which means they physically became the "ape-looking/first man" and all of man's time from Adam to now is evolving back to what we once where during the garden. I forgot most of the details about, it is an interesting idea but lacks evidence to be considered a theory.

I suggest that the disintegration of the physical human body has come from two causes:
1. the mixing of the Adamic man of Gen 2 with the evolved man of Gen 1. Think in terms of the evidence of Neanderthal in our genes.
2. the alteration of human genes by the fallen angels prior to the flood. The wives of Noah's children carried the genes of these altered men. I think humans carry "giant" genes.
These mixing and alterations account for much of the genetic disease and weaknesses of the human body.
IMHO