(If He existed) He probably spent a lot of time outside; He probably looked at some rocks; He probably would have concluded that it would take a long time for rocks to happen. He wouldn't have had any proper scientific idea of the real age.
Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
And those stories conflict, if read as factual biological accounts of human origin.
Your point?
And so we are.
Your point?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
I agree. Why would he care? I wonder when this age of the earth argument began? Pointless.
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
Case closed.
I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible describes Adam and Eve to be the first humans. There's no way y
“Man” meaning mankind.
The word which translates as “him” is the Hebrew word “zakar”.
This’s the biblical usage of the word...
Zakar -
- to remember, recall, call to mind
- (Qal) to remember, recall
- (Niphal) to be brought to remembrance, be remembered, be thought of, be brought to mind
- (Hiphil)
- to cause to remember, remind
- to cause to be remembered, keep in remembrance
- to mention
- to record
- to make a memorial, make remembrance
- to cause to remember, remind
- (Qal) to remember, recall
zâkar, zaw-kar'; a primitive root; also as denominative from H2145 properly, to mark (so as to be recognized), i.e. to remember; by implication, to mention; to be male:—× burn (incense), × earnestly, be male, (make) mention (of), be mindful, recount, record(-er), remember, make to be remembered, bring (call, come, keep, put) to (in) remembrance, × still, think on, ×well.
As you can see, there is one account that relates to gender which is “to be male”.
The bible states that on the sixth day God created mankind, both male and female, simultaneously, in that day.
Why do you insist on accepting a personal belief, which makes no sense?
Why do you accept Cain married his sister, when it doesn’t say that?
Jan.
Did you purposely leave out the end of the sentence? Sorry if I do, but it is not intentional.
I write the full sentences, but for some reason they sometimes gets chopped when I post.
You haven’t shown anything. You’re just going along with the belief, because you know it makes no sense, and you’re okay with that.
Why are you ok with that?
Jan.
I neither accept your belief (that God created three kinds of people) nor the Biblical claim (that God created Adam and Eve on the sixth day, and they were the first humans.)
I don't accept that. It easily could have been his mother. The Bible has other accounts of children having sex with their parents, so clearly it's something that's done in the Bible.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
No it doesn't.
Genesis 19:
=========
Then Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters were with him; for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar. And he and his two daughters dwelt in a cave. Now the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the [g]lineage of our father.” 35 Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the people of Ammon to this day.
==========
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
I didn't recall that one, but I do now. This happens today no doubt.
Are you kidding me?
You think daughters ply their fathers with drinks, then rape him so they can become pregnant, “no doubt” happens today?
Why would you agree with that nonsense?
He’s desperately trying to defend a lie. Don’t throw him a line, until he explains why he’s doing that.
Unless of course, you want to perpetuate that lie.
Jan.
I do not believe the Bible is a repository of historical facts. I believe it is a collection of stories meant to teach people moral lessons. To my knowledge there is no archaeological or anthropological evidence to suggest the Bible is historical fact.
I do not personally believe the Book of Genesis and the Story or Adam and Eve are accurate accounts on the creation of the universe and humankind. I believe that the Big Bang Theory and Theory of Evolution are far more scientifically supported theories.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree.
And importantly, this does not necessarily negate the utility of scripture as a philosopical instrument for advancing social morality. IMO, this is what it was designed to do. A willful God was and is a convenient enforcer, just like in days of old. But like Santa Claus, God rewards those who have been good, not bad. Really?
However, I totally agree that scripture correctly identified the seven mortal sins as well as the seven virtues. But that's about personal behavior, not about implacable cosmological functional constants.
Yes. (Sadly.)
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
Based on what you've posted, the "him" is still ambiguous. From your word "zakar", we only get the ideal of maleness. So, either God created a man in his own image and made him male, or God created more than one man in his own image and made at least one of them male.
In the second half of the verse, is the same word, "Zakar" used for "male"?
And in the first half, what word is translated as "man"? Is it a different word from the one translated as "him", or the same word?
It turns out that there's a word for religious people who believe, like Jan Ardena, that there were plenty of men around before Adam. People who hold the belief are called "pre-Adamites". The view is regarded as a non-conventional Judeo-Christian belief. Inevitably, there's a wikipedia article on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Adamite
Turns out that historically the idea has been particularly attractive to racists, because they can use it to argue that the preferred race(s) were specially singled out from the rabble of pre-existing degenerate misfits, by God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Adamite
Turns out that historically the idea has been particularly attractive to racists, because they can use it to argue that the preferred race(s) were specially singled out from the rabble of pre-existing degenerate misfits, by God.
Last edited:
Also interesting is that Jan Ardena's Creationist friends don't much like the pre-Adamites. For example:
---
The pre-Adamite view also conflicts with the word of Paul, later in the bible:
See that? Adam is identified by Paul as the first man.
(Interpret your way out of that, Ardena!)
---
Here's some more advice from a theist:
"The Bible says nothing about the existence and death of any pre-Adamite creatures, either spirited or spiritless. Some Christians say that Adam was the first man to be made in the image of God, though there were also human-like creatures before him. But they have assumed that the alleged Pre-Adamic fossils constitute a reliable record; i.e. the fossils have been interpreted correctly in both anatomy and age. They are also, in effect, saying:
[Source: https://creation.com/pre-adamic-man-were-there-human-beings-on-earth-before-adam]- that the first land animals and man were not created by God at the same time, namely during the 24 hours of Day Six of Creation Week, as Genesis 1 clearly states;
- that the short age timescale in Genesis (obtained from the genealogies and other parts of the Bible, e.g. Mark 10:6) is not correct;
- that the Curse of death in the created world was not the result of Adam’s sin, as Genesis 3 states. If pre-Adamite creatures were living and dying for hundreds of thousands/millions of years before Adam, then the connection is lost between the first Adam, who brought physical death into the world, and the last Adam (the Lord Jesus Christ), who brought physical resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45). Romans 8:20–22). The fact is that, Biblically, all physical death has occurred since Adam’s Fall, not before. “As sincere as they may be, those [Christians] who espouse the pre-Adamite theory and its history of death before Adam are actually endangering the very doctrine of salvation they hold dear."
---
The pre-Adamite view also conflicts with the word of Paul, later in the bible:
"And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being" (1 Corinthians 15:45).
See that? Adam is identified by Paul as the first man.
(Interpret your way out of that, Ardena!)
---
Here's some more advice from a theist:
"Many Questions
If there were a race of people created before Adam and Eve, then numerous questions would have to be answered such as: What did they look like? Did these people have a soul? Did Christ die for their sins? What happened to them when they died? Why isn't there any specific information in Scripture about them? All these questions have no answer for those who believe there was some pre-Adamic race.
Summary
We conclude that the Bible gives no evidence of any race having been created before Adam. All the evidence points to him as being the first human. To argue for a race of Pre-Adamic humanity causes all sorts of problems from a biblical perspective."
[Source: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_697.cfm]If there were a race of people created before Adam and Eve, then numerous questions would have to be answered such as: What did they look like? Did these people have a soul? Did Christ die for their sins? What happened to them when they died? Why isn't there any specific information in Scripture about them? All these questions have no answer for those who believe there was some pre-Adamic race.
Summary
We conclude that the Bible gives no evidence of any race having been created before Adam. All the evidence points to him as being the first human. To argue for a race of Pre-Adamic humanity causes all sorts of problems from a biblical perspective."
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
All very interesting. Thanks for the link.
But of course the whole issue only arises among those benighted Christians that take the Genesis story literally. For most educated Christians all this is merely of historical interest.
That's the bottom line. It's an argument that has some interest from a Biblical study perspective, but is ultimately pointless - because it's mythological to begin with.