Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Christianity (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=421)
-   -   Man and Adam (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=370637)

  • Jun 30, 2009, 12:53 PM
    Triund
    Man and Adam
    Today, I read the following passage:

    Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (KJV)


    I understand that the Bible only tells us stories of Adam & Eve and their descendents.

    Did anybody read any commentary or any book on males and females created before Adam? Who were these man and woman? Is there any mention of these people, other than when Cain was given a mark to protect him from that "every one that findeth me shall slay me"(Genesis 4:14)?
  • Jun 30, 2009, 01:03 PM
    jenniepepsi

    This passage has always confused me too.

    I take it to mean that he created all the races, black, asian, spaniard, white, indian etc. and placed them thruought the world.

    However, adam and eve were in the garden of eden to keep the garden and care for it. Then when they were disobedient, they were sent out from the garden.


    Later, it says that adam and eves children took husbands and wives from the population around them. Which means they could not have been the only people there...
  • Jun 30, 2009, 10:56 PM
    arcura
    Triund,
    It is believed by many if not most people that Adam and Eve were the first and only humans with a soul.
    Also that Adam and Eve had many children and they married each other.
    They were born with no genetic defects, Those came along much later.
    That is what I believe.
    Others believe that there were some cave man type peoples who were there who some of Adam's and Eve's children did mate with.
    Walking down the streets in many cities a person often see people who look like cavemen which may be one of the reasons such a believe came to be.
    Peace and kindness,
    Fred
  • Jul 1, 2009, 04:51 AM
    homesell
    The Bible is clear that we are all descended from Adam and Eve - why we all have sinful blood in us - why Jesus was born of a virgin woman where his sinless blood came from God the Father.
    Genesis 5:4 says that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. This is where Cain got his wife and also where his fear of the "others" killing him would come. At the time Adam and Eve had perfect genetics with all the variations contained in them. Just like when a person makes a copy of that copy of that copy of a document, things get worse and worse. The same thing happens genetically. Finally, dna got so corrupted that close relations were forbidden to marry because it doubles the odds of birth defect. Even with this prohibition birth defects are always increasing. In dog breeds, the "purebreds" are the least healthy and defects are destroying entire breeds. Everyone knows that so-called "mongrels" are usually much healthier than "purebreds."
    This is due to the second Law of thermodynamics - entropy - things are decaying, winding down, getting worse on a universal scale.
    Scientists know and believe this Law but ignore that evolution teaches the opposite. Stars grow dim and go out, comets disappear, orbits decay. Unless acted upon by an intelligent force, everything dies or decays. (Life - plants, animals, humans, do grow and thrive for a time but all then decay and/or die. Our ancestors were extremely intelligent. Despite the jokes about so-called cave men there is a green movement to make our houses more like caves for energy savings. Drive through Missouri sometime on the interstate. In winter, the billboards say, "visit our caves - they are always a warm 62-65 degrees." In summer, the same billboards say, "visit our caves - they are always a cool 65-68 degrees."
  • Jul 1, 2009, 08:55 AM
    jenniepepsi

    I'm sorry jeff, but you are wrong... cain did not take a wife from any sisters he had...


    Genesis 4 11-17

    And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength; you shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth." 13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me." 15 Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.




    I looked from genesis 1 to these verses and found nothing about cain getting married before this... he must have taken his wife from Nod.
  • Jul 1, 2009, 11:09 AM
    homesell
    If I'm wrong then the Bible is wrong because it clearly states there were only 2 people on earth, Adam and Eve and Eve, being the "mother of all living" gave birth to many children. Yes Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod. The Bible just does not mention that he took his wife with him nor does it mention when he is in Nod acquiring a wife at that time. You are reading something into scripture that it isn't clear on. Living in the land of Nod was certainly possible for one of his sisters to be there before him since no time frame is given and living to be quite old, the bible mentions some not taking a wife till they were over 100. Even if your conclusion is correct that he took his wife from when he arrived in Nod, that doesn't mean the woman wasn't his sister. When giving the genealogies in genesis, the Bible doesn't mention the woman at all in many places. For example "When seth lived 105 years he became the father of Enosh... when Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. Of course, you don't conclude that since no woman or marriage is mentioned that these men gave birth themselves!
    I'm amazed you tell me I'm wrong when you have no proof you are right and if you are right then the Bible is wrong. The Bible is clear that all humans descended from Adam and Eve.
  • Jul 1, 2009, 11:25 AM
    N0help4u

    I understood that he went to a different land to take his wife but as you said they could have just arrived years before.
    Incest was not a law until much later in the Bible.
  • Jul 1, 2009, 12:34 PM
    sndbay

    Still on vacation but I have dropped in once or twice to view the threads.So I will offer a short answer to this thread.

    The idea that Adam and Eve were the first created, whould make void the Word of God.. It clearly states in (Genesis 1:27) male and female were created. KJV

    In (Genesis 1:31) God looked back on what He created and was pleased, and this was the sixth day..

    There after begins the single hertiage of life in what Adam and Eve represent as one family hertiage leading to Christ, the King of Kings on earth. And because it is important for us to acknolwedge Christ as a man, yet begotten of God who did walk on this earth. The fulfillment of Christ depended on all that was written in scripture telling of the generations, that lead to HIS throne on earth being King of Kings yet also LORD of LORDS. The fact in the description of Eve (mother of all living) is a direct relation to the generation and hertiage of Christ the living bread that brought us all life.
  • Jul 1, 2009, 03:13 PM
    jenniepepsi

    I believe that adam and eve were the FIRST created, but not the ONLY. As sndbay said, it clearly says before he made adam and eve, he created the human male and female.

    Adam and eve were chosen to keep his garden.
  • Jul 1, 2009, 03:45 PM
    N0help4u

    Exactly which verses prove God made others before Adam and Eve?

    He created male and female does not prove a plural of more than the two.

    If you are saying that he created male and female before Adam and Eve that doesn't make sense because in the beginning of Genesis they reiterate the creation.
    Otherwise you are saying he created Adam and Eve from the dirt AFTER the seven day creation after he created others.
    Why would have created them later?
    I can understand it to a degree but it doesn't add up to me.
  • Jul 1, 2009, 04:22 PM
    hheath541
    I think the original poster is only asking if anyone has heard of or read any sources that speak of people before adam and eve. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

    this is what I've dug up with a quick search. Most speak only of lilith, adam's first wife.


    The Lilith Myth

    Were There People Before Adam and Eve?

    "Hey" There Were People on Earth before Adam and Eve: The Creation before Adam and Eve



    while this one has no seeming basis in provable facts, I do find it amusing ^_^

    We are the other people
  • Jul 1, 2009, 04:30 PM
    N0help4u

    I believe in the gap theory and I have heard of the stuff on the links you gave but it still doesn't add up to me. Like people were created on the 5th? Day but then he created Adam and Eve 11 verses later after the 7th day?
  • Jul 1, 2009, 05:16 PM
    paraclete
    One of the things people have difficulty with in the Bible is there is no sense of time, we see only a dim picture of a few points in time with no explanation of how much time has passed in these early days. Adam is counted as living a thousand years so we have no idea where some of the events are on the time line but much can happen in a thousand years or fifty generations and certainly a family population can become huge in that time.

    Just because something happened once doesn't make it a rule, so a man took a wife at one hundred, it doesn't mean all men waited that long or that that was his only wife. That Cain took a wife from another group doesn't mean they were not related and when they speak of a city they are not talking of a metropolis but something a little better established than a village. Consider how large a town of a few thousand people is, in the light of those ancient days it is huge.

    The point of the Story of Adam and Eve is to provide context for the human condition.
    1. God treated man, man did not create God
    2. Man transgressed and the consequence of sin is the need for redemption, to restore the relationship between God and man
    3. Man is easily deceived into thinking he can be like God, knowing all things
  • Jul 1, 2009, 05:16 PM
    hheath541

    It basically boils down to a matter of opinion. There will never be conclusive proof in any direction that will convince either science or religion that they're wrong.
  • Jul 1, 2009, 05:25 PM
    jenniepepsi

    See, the problem I have with the idea that adam and eve were the ONLY humans... is that if this were true, we would all be the same color... where did the africans come from? The spanish? The asian? And any number of other races and ethnicitys...
  • Jul 1, 2009, 05:38 PM
    N0help4u

    Some people say there is proof that the first race was African. I believe they were darker skin middle eastern Jews.

    I remember yrs ago reading in the OT Genesis 4 that Ham was the first man of the black race. I haven't see it in any newer Bibles I have read.
  • Jul 1, 2009, 08:58 PM
    321543

    Before anyone can come to the full understanding of the answer , One must first ask them self, What was the forbidden fruit?
    Why was Adam and Eve commanded not to partake of it? ( Even though their actions was necessary for the fall to take place). Who in there right minds would want to leave a perfect garden , where they actually talked to God and all the animals?
    There were beings among the new world, Only they were not man. Fallen Angels,
    Who were jealous of us , because they thought God loved us more. The leader of those few Angels is called, Lucifer. (Who was band from the Grand Council of Heaven for his own sins ).
    Remember we are created in his ( the Creators image) We choose to leave our home with him and come here too this Temporal world to be tried and tested as he (God) sees fit. The ultimate goal being found worthy to resurrect back onto him just as his true Son our saviour Jesus Christ taught us. By his Example.

    Tried to keep it as simple as I could. But for those of you who think the fruit is still an Apple and the tempter was a snake , good luck and stay wonderful.
  • Jul 1, 2009, 10:29 PM
    arcura
    I must agree with homesell.
    Fred
  • Jul 2, 2009, 04:17 AM
    homesell
    Thanks Fred.
    Every time a number is used with the word "day" in the bible, it means an ordinary day. Every time evening or morning is mentioned, it means an ordinary day, so when the Bible says "there was evening and there was morning, the first day..." etc. the second the third and so on it is saying it is an ordinary day. If one isn't sure God meant an ordinary day he numbers it so that they understand, and if they still don't believe it he makes it plain by adding evening and morning. The only place in the entire Bible that people question the meaning of the word "day" is in Genesis 1. You never hear people say, "I wonder if Jonah was in the belly of the great fish 3 days or 3 thousand years?" The only reason people question the 6 days is because fallible man has brought in the idea that the earth is billions of years old. Even non-believers and bible scholars say that the meaning of day in Genesis is clear.
    In Exodus, God wrote with his own finger into a rock that He(God) created in six days and that is why the seventh day is a day of rest.
    Jesus said in Matthew, "In the beginning, the Creator made them male and female..."
    I'm not going to contradict the Bible or what Jesus says.
    Knowledge from "operational science" - things that are observable, testable, and repeatable are what brought us cars, and cellphones and all the wondrous devices that we have and I fully embrace all of it.
    "Origin science" is not science at all but pure speculation based on assumptions starting with the worldview assumption that the earth is billions of years old.
  • Jul 2, 2009, 09:29 PM
    arcura
    Thanks Jeff,
    But...
    I still believe that the universe is billions of years old.
    God may have made it that way, but that is the way I see it.
    Fred
  • Jul 2, 2009, 09:57 PM
    paraclete
    Hey Guys you won't like this but there is room for both views. You have heard of the Gap between Gen 1 and Gen 2 If the Earth was formless and void, did it exist or not?
    I suggest that it existed but perhaps not as we know today. I also suggest there is not much evidence for human beings as modern man more than 6,000 years ago, irrespective of what my aboriginal neighbours might say. The sudden change in circumstance doesn't wash without the intervention of God. So the scientific view and the Biblical view may be reconcilable without the mental gynmastics. Truly it isn't about such things but about why we need Jesus Christ
  • Jul 2, 2009, 10:05 PM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Hey Guys you won't like this but there is room for both views. You have heard of the Gap between Gen 1 and Gen 2 If the Earth was formless and void, did it exist or not?
    I suggest that it existed but perhaps not as we know today. I also suggest there is not much evidence for human beings as modern man more than 6,000 years ago, irrespective of what my aboriginal neighbours might say. The sudden change in circumstance doesn't wash without the intervention of God. So the scientifc view and the Biblical view may be reconcilable without the mental gynmastics. Truely it isn't about such things but about why we need Jesus Christ

    There is enormous evidence for modern man more than 6 thousand years ago. Jericho, a city in the Bible, has been dated to 9 thousand years ago. "Modern" man is variously dated from 200,000 years ago to one million years ago. Are you aware of the cave paintings in Lascaux, France from 35,000 years ago? Please research on the net - it's very simple.

    What do you mean by "modern man"? And what do you mean by your "aboriginal neighbours"?
  • Jul 2, 2009, 10:14 PM
    arcura
    paraclete and athos,
    I agree.
    Evidence that mankind has existed fir many, many thousands of years is found in many places on this planet.
    Fred
  • Jul 3, 2009, 04:06 AM
    homesell

    Again, these rocks and artifacts didn't come with a tag saying "X" number of years old. The dating methods are dubious at best and every dating method relies on underlying assumptions about the sample before the testing begins. For example, testing labs "dated" rocks found at Mt. St. Helens just months after they were formed in that volcanic explosion as over 1 million years old. Why? Because the testers weren't told the KNOWN age of the rocks which was just a few months. Don't get me wrong, it isn't that I think creation should be taught in the classroom because I don't. I just don't think there is any need at all to teach evolution in our classroom either since neither belief system has any direct input or affect on true science(observable, repeatable, testable.) Speculation based on assumptions should be left to the philosophy class.
    Why some scientist say some things are facts when they aren't anywhere near provable is just wrong. Yes, science can test a rock and find out what elements are in it and what it is made up of. That is true science. To determine the age though, they rely on certain assumptions like how much of the mother elements were in the original rock formation(which they can't be know) if the rate of decay has been constant(since many things effect the rate of decay) and if surrounding rocks influence. One of dirty little secrets of "science" is that they use surrounding fossils to determine the age of rocks and also use the age of rocks to determine the age of fossils. Ask any geologist or Paleontologist how they date the fossil or rock aside from the actual testing assumptions. Send any rock off to a lab to be tested for its age. They ask for the money upfront, ask you what age range you are looking for and surprise! Your rock comes back as having tested out in that very age range or slightly older. Older is always better for a scientists rep. If they dig up an entire automobile and say wow! This car dates all the way back to 1953 no one cares, but if they found an automobile inside one of the tombs of egypt, that persons career would be made.
  • Jul 3, 2009, 09:20 PM
    arcura
    homesell,
    That'
    ;s very interesting.
    Thanks much. Fred
  • Jul 7, 2009, 10:56 AM
    321543

    Revelations (12: 7-12) John sees the war that actually took place in Heaven in the Beginning when Satan and his followers was cast out. Telling us were he was cast too.
    The name Satan may not be used in the book of Genesis because he is a deceiver and wants to remain that way as long as he can. Unknown to the new inhabitants of the earth. This I thought was seminary Bible study 101 basics.

    The problem here is man.

    For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be forever and ever. Unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a Saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord and becometh as a child , submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him , even as a child doth submit to his father.
  • Jul 7, 2009, 11:31 AM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by homesell View Post
    The dating methods are dubious at best and every dating method relies on underlying assumptions about the sample before the testing begins. For example, testing labs "dated" rocks found at Mt. St. Helens just months after they were formed in that volcanic explosion as over 1 million years old. Why? because the testers weren't told the KNOWN age of the rocks which was just a few months.

    Homesell, this is very disingenuous of you. The Mt. St. Helens samples/results have long since been discarded as bad science. The lab itself admitted its faulty methodology and has stopped testing of this sort. Anyone can research this for himself by a simple Google.

    When you post stuff like this as though it were the truth, everything else you say comes into question. You claim to be a "scientist" (or, at least, have claimed a scientific background, and a "genius" IQ), but, in these days, people like yourself who so casually make statements about science to support creationism are increasingly being challenged - and rightly so.

    You seem like a nice guy, sincere, but posting false science does you and your position no good. Sorry.
  • Jul 7, 2009, 07:23 PM
    321543

    In our image simply means Father ( Elohim) God and (Jehovah) Son of man.
  • Jul 7, 2009, 07:37 PM
    N0help4u
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Athos View Post
    Homesell, this is very disingenuous of you. The Mt. St. Helens samples/results have long since been discarded as bad science. The lab itself admitted its faulty methodology and has stopped testing of this sort. Anyone can research this for himself by a simple google.

    When you post stuff like this as though it were the truth, everything else you say comes into question. You claim to be a "scientist" (or, at least, have claimed a scientific background, and a "genius" IQ), but, in these days, people like yourself who so casually make statements about science to support creationism are increasingly being challenged - and rightly so.

    You seem like a nice guy, sincere, but posting false science does you and your position no good. Sorry.


    So what methods do you support that prove the age of the earth?
    And how do you know they are accurate?
  • Jul 7, 2009, 10:13 PM
    arcura
    I must agree with Athos on that.
    Posting bad science is bad news.
    Fred
  • Jul 8, 2009, 03:30 AM
    N0help4u

    BUT is what Homesell said 'bad science'?
  • Jul 8, 2009, 09:28 PM
    arcura
    N0help4u,
    That's a good question.
    Obviously some folks think it is.
    Fred
  • Jul 9, 2009, 10:38 AM
    homesell

    I'm not the one that tested the rocks. Am I to be blamed that their testing methods were faulty? If they used faulty testing methods how am I using bad science?
    So they no longer do testing like that - how do we know the testing they are doing now is accurate?
    All that testing - regardless of what they tell you - and regardless of how accurate it is, depends on a lot of assumptions. My final answer. Thank you, those that have found my answers throughout AHMD thought provoking. The worst thing anyone can do is blindly accept what the public school system and the media spout. I know my detractors say the worst thing I do is blindly accept the absolute word of my Creator God. Guilty. Farewell.
  • Jul 9, 2009, 11:56 AM
    Athos
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by homesell View Post
    I'm not the one that tested the rocks. Am I to be blamed that their testing methods were faulty? If they used faulty testing methods how am I using bad science?
    So they no longer do testing like that - how do we know the testing they are doing now is accurate?
    All that testing - regardless of what they tell you - and regardless of how accurate it is, depends on a lot of assumptions. My final answer. Thank you, those that have found my answers throughout AHMD thought provoking. The worst thing anyone can do is blindly accept what the public school system and the media spout. I know my detractors say the worst thing I do is blindly accept the absolute word of my Creator God. Guilty. Farewell.

    No, of course you are not to be blamed for their testing methods. The fault is in using them (bad science) to support your position. Surely, you see the difference.

    The testing they are doing now is irrelevant. You cited them re the Mt. St. Helen's rocks, and that testing is the issue, not any other testing.

    I don't know what your "detractors" say or not say, nor does the public school system or the media have anything to do with my post. But I certainly respect your right to blindly accept what you perceive as the absolute word of your Creator God - my only objection is offering faulty science to support that position.
  • Jul 9, 2009, 12:54 PM
    Wondergirl

    My Lutheran minister father was as conservative as they come. He believed that God, after creating Adam and Eve, went on to create more people. My father did not believe the woman Cain married was a relative.
  • Jul 9, 2009, 02:35 PM
    N0help4u

    I posted a post in religious discussions on why I do not believe God created other humans.
    Basically the Bible says we all decended from Adam AND Eve. If there were other humans there would have been people on the earth without sin because they would not have the blood of Adam and Eve. If there were others that were put here after Adam and Eve they would have had to have had a sin nature and God can not create sin.

    https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ve-373109.html
  • Jul 9, 2009, 03:15 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    If there were other humans there would have been people on the earth without sin because they would not have the blood of Adam and Eve.

    Of course, that assumes one believes the Garden story.

    Quote:

    If there were others that were put here after Adam and Eve they would have had to have had a sin nature and God can not create sin.
    My father died in 1994, so he isn't available right now. Otherwise, I'd ask him if that was something he had considered.
  • Jul 9, 2009, 10:07 PM
    arcura
    I do now believe that Cain marries a relative, probably a sister.
    Peace and kindness,
    Fred
  • Jul 10, 2009, 03:39 AM
    N0help4u
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Of course, that assumes one believes the Garden story.


    My father died in 1994, so he isn't available right now. Otherwise, I'd ask him if that was something he had considered.

    Assuming I don't believe there really isn't oxygen because I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't real.
  • Jul 10, 2009, 08:53 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    Assuming I don't believe there really isn't oxygen because I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't real.

    You can't see your breath in the wintertime?

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:21 PM.