Passage Genesis 1:26-27:

    26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

    27 So God created man in his own image,
       in the image of God he created him;
      male and female he created them.
Passage Genesis 2:7-8:
the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
    8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.


From the above quoted scriptures( genesis 1:26-27), it is obviously that God had already created other human beings outside the garden of eden before he created Adam. The difference is that Adam was the first man to have a personal relationship with God. I now wonder why we have been made to believe that Adam was the first man when it is clear in the bible that other people had been created before him. That apart if you read genesis 4 :14-15 which says  (14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
    15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [a] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.)
this was a conversation between cain and God after he had killed Abel. The other people being refered to there is another pointer to the fact that God created other people apart from Adam and Eve.

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

Let me correctly interprete this for you sir. If you recall, God took a rib out of Adam to create Eve (female). Hence, what the passage is essentially saying is that the resource(s) for creating both male and female were created once God created Adam. Eve was inherent in Adam.

Passage Genesis 2:7-8:
the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah)

Just because two words sound alike in any language does not make them synonyms. So in this case Im afraid youre wrong.

15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [a] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.)
this was a conversation between cain and God after he had killed Abel. The other people being refered to there is another pointer to the fact that God created other people apart from Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve had other children after this incident, right?

@AKO
obviously you have not read the post very well neither do you understand it, you have a mind set. you need to read it with an open mind before you can see reason in the post. The other children Adam and eve had were long after abel died. they couldn't have been the ones that could have killed cain that was being refered to in genesis 4 : 14-15. The point being you even failed to address the first submission being : it was stated clearly in genesis 1:27  that God created man and woman before God created Adam and eve in Genesis 2: 7

Passage Genesis 1:26-27:

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

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

Jagoon: I am in agreement with your header, but disagree with your explanation. The hint that Adam was not the first man was conspicuously stated in the phrase "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, " In light of other biblical accounts, God seemed to be saying: "come, let us make man but this time around, we are going to make him in our image, after our likeness, "

My reason for the statement above is that the phrases "in our image" and "in our likeness" suggest that the concept or idea of man was not new to God. He used the phrases to differentiate between the soon-to-be-created-man from the concept of man known ONLY to Him.

A little probings of the scripture are highly suggestive of a pre-adamic world that probably became extinct before God said "let there be light, " in Genesis 1:1-3.

@multioption
are you saying there were other men that were not in God's image and likeness before Genesis May be they looked like monkeys ( theory of evolution) i i think not maybe you should explain yourself better.

Speaking of having a fixed mindset, this is part of what the new testament has to say about Adam:

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
If there were creatures before Adam,they could not have been men or human beings.

Incidentally, the Greek word for man is Adam. That's probably why God refers to both male and female in the bible as 'men' because it's about biological make up not gender.

KunleOshob:

@AKO
The other children Adam and eve had were long after abel died. they couldn't have been the ones that could have killed cain that was being refered to in genesis 4 : 14-15.

Adam and Eve were still alive, right? Could,nt they have been the ones? I really dont know.

Please I need help on how to quote comments by respondents, thanks.

Now to your question, Jagoon: I lack the knowledge and revelation to tell you what the original idea of man was; but Genesis 1:26 is clear as daylight. God said: "come let us make man in our own image, after our likeness, and, " If not in God's image and likeness, what other image or likeness would man have been created? Perhaps there was a period in time when humans were created but not in the image and likeness of God.

Bible is highly suggestive of a pre-adamic world, and I will not attempt to speculate on what humans looked like at the time.

Multioption:


Bible is highly suggestive of a pre-adamic world, and I will not attempt to speculate on what humans lookid like at the time.

Yeah, I agree with you although the bible doesnt say so in black and white. Some theologians believe that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, there is a massive time lapse. The sense behind it is that if God created the "heavens and the earth", how can the earth all of a sudden become without form and void"? There must have been a time lapse between the first and second creations.

They also argue that it (Gen.1:1 and Gen 1:2) cannot be the same creation because immediately after the 2nd, God saw that it was good. Why would God who is the same yesterday, today and forever make a void earth and immediately after make a good one?

Like I said this is not written in black and white in the bible, its sort of in between the lines.

@kunle, the creation was done by faith, thats why the bible recorded that he created man before he made adam and eve.if you read that passage further you will get this. and the bible is not what you just read and understand just like that, u need the holy spirit to teach you.
anywayy this is an interesting topic, and definately not something that can be discused herein. if u need to know, i will meet u anywhere so we can study the bible together,and believe me i dont have a particular mind set, i am a broad minded person and ready to learn and accept a new way,but believe me you wont win this one, because i know the truth.
advice read your bible often.

@multioption
to quote a person, after you click on the reply option and the reply page comes up, scroll down you would see recent posts on the topic, at the top right corner of the post you want to quote you would see the option insert quote, use this option. I still don't understand what the pre Adamic man would look like , another question, if God is spirit, how can he have an image. Image sugggests something physical, butGod does not exist in a physical form like you and i, he exists in a spiritual form.

@fineguy
I did not post this post to win an argument, i posted it because i made an observation in the bible which contradicts what i have always heard. At least if i discuss it on nairaland i would be able to share the views of fellow christians (and non christians) on the topic. On the issue of understanding the bible, the bible was written by men for the understanding of men, even though some of the books were written under the inspiration of the holy spirit, i do not subscribe to the school of thought that one cannot understand the bible without spiritual guidiance since the bible was written by men for men. That is a notion normally used by preachers to manipulate christians into believing they cannot understand the word of God without them.

@ jagoon the ways of God are not the ways of Men. isaiah 55. and believe me all the books of the bible was written under the inspiration of the holy spirit and it is written that heaven and earth shall pass away but his word will remain,and you must know that God uses men to do his will. anyway its a good thing that you are studying to know, for at the end you will receive light, because the holy spirit will come and teach you. (jesus clearly states that) i started like you too, and i dont subscribe that one should learn from pastors only, it has been given unto all to search the deep things of God.

you are called, thats why you have those thoughts. i encourage to search further.
cheers

. I still don't understand what the pre Adamic man would look like , another question, if God is spirit, how can he have an image. Image sugggests something physical, butGod does not exist in a physical form like you and i, he exists in a spiritual form.
`
the only living creation that the bible tells us God breathed his breath of life into was man, no any of the living animals, that tells you that the true nature of God was the breath of life in man(spirit of god) that is the image of God, for the real man is inside and not the physical form you see.that is what tells you good from evil. the body is just a house that man leaves in,its just like a means to operate here on earth, that is why when jesus came he had to come in a human body,
the likeness of God is sinless, and pure,that is why the bible said when adam knew his wife he had a son in his own image(sinful image).but thank god for jesus for he came that we might we might regain that image back. that is why it is written that to they that belive, gave h power to be SONS of god.
so you can be born again, that is what the concept means.
anyway good luck.

Interesting exchanges. However, the ideas advanced for humans before Adam are not solidly founded on the Bible. The question is how to read the Genesis account of the creation of man - the first man, Adam; and then to observe what are the implications of highlighting something different.

Genesis 1 gives us a summary; but Genesis 2 gives us the details - both are pointing to the same account of the creation of Adam. In ch.1, it simply states what God did - "So God created man in his own image" (v. 27); but in ch. 2, we learn of how He did it - "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (v.7).

So, what happens to Gen. 1:26-27 suggesting the idea initially proposed about Adam not being the first man? That is logically flawed by what was stated in Gen. 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them". Here we see that "man" (singular) was mentioned before "them" (plural) at the end of the verse. The same thing happens in Genesis 5:1-2, which is stating the same thing without hinting that it was another creation of man. You see, we need to carefully understand how to read these chapters in Genesis without reading thing into them which were never intended!

When we go to ch. 2, we see the details again about how Eve was created - "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man" (v.22). This is elaborating on Genesis 1 and 5, which simply state what God did. These various chapters were not intended to be read in confusing the HOW with the WHAT on the creation narratives.


Does Scripture elsewhere corroborate this?

I believe so. Let's look at a few texts:

(a) Turn for a moment to 1 Corinthians 11 - there we read this statement: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man" [v. 8 ]; meaning that Adam did not come from Eve, but rather, the other way round.

(b) and again: " For Adam was first formed, then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13).

(c) further, the Bible calls Adam "the first man" (as someone already hinted - 1 Cor. 15:45).

(d) also interesting to note is that Adam is said to be the "figure of him that was to come" - Rom. 5:14 (which hints that no human was pre-figuring Adam, and others are traced back to him).

(e) and then turn to the genealogy of Christ in Luke 3, and you will find that man is traced back to Adam, and back of him was no human mentioned as preceding him (v.38).

Back to the OT, one line might help us here: in Deut. 4:32 when Moses said, "ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth", we can be certain he was pointing back to Adam and not some others before him. Humanity traces his descent from Adam and not to some others preceding him.


What about CAIN?

Cain's complaints in Genesis 4:14 do not suppose that some other humans were created before Adam. As was the case with the flow of the narratives expressed between chs. 1, 2 and 5, we see that those chapters are pointing emphatically back to the same account - but chapter 4 takes a break to bring us to note Cain's lineage (vs. 17-24). Did Cain marry his sister? Certainly he did - and this is what we understand from such texts as -


(a) both Genesis 4:12 and 5:3 tell us the very same thing about Adam's siring Seth - one account mentioned twice.

(b) however, Gen. 5:4, Adam lived for 800 "after he had begotten Seth"

(c) now, dear friends, what was Adam doing for 800 years after seth was born - was he sterile?

(d) No, we understand from Genesis 5:4 summarily states that Adam begat other sons and daughters!

The connecting dots and inferences

What all this leads to is simple: Adam had other children although we are not told when he begat them. Cain certainly must have married one of his sisters (which was not a strange phenomenon in such early cultures - see the case of Abraham who married his sister Sarah: "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife" - Gen. 20:12).

Cain knew that he had other brothers and sisters - these population were his concern in his complaints in Genesis 4:14. The account does not suggest that people were created before Adam. If that was the case, it would help to see strong deductions from the collective body of both OT and NT.

syrup:

Interesting exchanges. However, the ideas advanced for humans before Adam are not solidly founded on the Bible. The question is how to read the Genesis account of the creation of man - the first man, Adam; and then to observe what are the implications of highlighting something different.

Genesis 1 gives us a summary; but Genesis 2 gives us the details - both are pointing to the same account of the creation of Adam. In ch.1, it simply states what God did - "So God created man in his own image" (v. 27); but in ch. 2, we learn of how He did it - "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (v.7).

So, what happens to Gen. 1:26-27 suggesting the idea initially proposed about Adam not being the first man? That is logically flawed by what was stated in Gen. 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them". Here we see that "man" (singular) was mentioned before "them" (plural) at the end of the verse. The same thing happens in Genesis 5:1-2, which is stating the same

thing without hinting that it was another creation of man. You see, we need to carefully understand how to read these chapters in Genesis without reading thing into them which were never intended!

When we go to ch. 2, we see the details again about how Eve was created - "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man" (v.22). This is elaborating on Genesis 1 and 5, which simply state what God did. These various chapters were not intended to be read in confusing the HOW with the WHAT on the creation narratives.


Does Scripture elsewhere corroborate this?

I believe so. Let's look at a few texts:

(a) Turn for a moment to 1 Corinthians 11 - there we read this statement: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man" [v. 8 ]; meaning that Adam did not come from Eve, but rather, the other way round.

(b) and again: " For Adam was first formed, then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13).

(c) further, the Bible calls Adam "the first man" (as someone already hinted - 1 Cor. 15:45).

(d) also interesting to note is that Adam is said to be the "figure of him that was to come" - Rom. 5:14 (which hints that no human was pre-figuring Adam, and others are traced back to him).

(e) and then turn to the genealogy of Christ in Luke 3, and you will find that man is traced back to Adam, and back of him was no human mentioned as preceding him (v.38).

Back to the OT, one line might help us here: in Deut. 4:32 when Moses said, "ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth", we can be certain he was pointing back to Adam and not some others before him. Humanity traces his descent from Adam and not to some others preceding him.


What about CAIN?

Cain's complaints in Genesis 4:14 do not suppose that some other humans were created before Adam. As was the case with the flow of the narratives expressed between chs. 1, 2 and 5, we see that those chapters are pointing emphatically back to the same account - but chapter 4 takes a break to bring us to note Cain's lineage (vs. 17-24). Did Cain marry his sister? Certainly he did - and this is what we understand from such texts as -


(a) both Genesis 4:12 and 5:3 tell us the very same thing about Adam's siring Seth - one account mentioned twice.

(b) however, Gen. 5:4, Adam lived for 800 "after he had begotten Seth"

(c) now, dear friends, what was Adam doing for 800 years after seth was born - was he sterile?

(d) No, we understand from Genesis 5:4 summarily states that Adam begat other sons and daughters!

The connecting dots and inferences

What all this leads to is simple: Adam had other children although we are not told when he begat them. Cain certainly must have married one of his sisters (which was not a strange phenomenon in such early cultures - see the case of Abraham who married his sister Sarah: "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife" - Gen. 20:12).

Cain knew that he had other brothers and sisters - these population were his concern in his complaints in Genesis 4:14. The account does not suggest that people were created before Adam. If that was the case, it would help to see strong deductions from the collective body of both OT and NT.

So how long ago did god create Adam&Eve? How long ago did he create the earth?

huxley:

So how long ago did god create Adam&Eve? How long ago did he create the earth?

It's impossible for me to give an exact time with a figure. The answers I gave were actually what I have come to understand from the Bible on the topic of the thread.

Syrup, i dont agree that Adam was the first created being for two reasons:

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Why would God add the qualifier in highlights? Could it be because some other men had previously existed who were NOT created after the likeness of God?

Jeremiah 4: 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

- This sounds eeriely like Genesis 1:2 so clearly the author was giving us a tiny insight into what actually happened that was not explained in Genesis.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

- Ah, there was no man or birds on the earth? This occured only TWICE in biblical history - before the creation in Genesis 1 and after the flood of Noah. Now it could not have been after the flood since there were birds on the earth and there were men too . . . so it is obvious this prophet is talking of a pre-adamic age were men and birds did once exist.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

So there were once frutiful places and cities before Adam was created?

4 Him:

Syrup, i don't agree that Adam was the first created being for two reasons:

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Who was god speaking with? Was it with some pre-humans (on earth or in heaven). If so, did these pre-human have the same likeness as us?

How did god's conversation come to be recorded in the bible?

huxley:

Who was god speaking with? Was it with some pre-humans (on earth or in heaven). If so, did these pre-human have the same likeness as us?

How did god's conversation come to be recorded in the bible?

Ques 1 - There are angels in heaven. God is not alone there.

Ques 2 - Moses was a prophet who had an intimate relationship with God.

4 Him:

Ques 1 - There are angels in heaven. God is not alone there.

How does this support the view the Adam&Eve were not the first human?

huxley:

How does this support the view the Adam&Eve were not the first human?

Read my earlier post, i put a semi-detailed analysis of why i think Adam and Eve were not the first humans.
You seem to be more interested in posing silly questions that actually looking for answers.

4 Him:

Read my earlier post, i put a semi-detailed analysis of why i think Adam and Eve were not the first humans.
You seem to be more interested in posing silly questions that actually looking for answers.

Far from that charge. I am interested in uncovering the truth of reality by questioning all going worldviews that claim to possess such truth, in the hope of separating the sheep from the goat.

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Why would God add the qualifier in highlights? Could it be because some other men had previously existed who were NOT created after the likeness of God?

From that statement as given, you cannot draw a link from that phrase to the existence of pre-Adamite humans. You seem to have made an adhoc connection.

Would it be right to postulate that photographic imaging technology was in existence in Adam's time, based on the above phrase?

If there existed pre-Adamite "man", would they have been called "men".

BTW, what purpose is served by having pre-Adamite men?

huxley:

Far from that charge. I am interested in uncovering the truth of reality by questioning all going worldviews that claim to possess such truth, in the hope of separating the sheep from the goat.

difficult to do that when you already have a pre-conceived notion of what is sheep and what is goat.

huxley:

From that statement as given, you cannot draw a link from that phrase to the existence of pre-Adamite humans. You seem to have made an adhoc connection.

You havent undertaken a detailed study of the bible to come to that conclusion.

huxley:

You it be right to postulate that photographic imaging technology was in existence in Adam's time, based on the above phrase?

how is this relevant to the question?

huxley:

If there existed pre-Adamite "man", would they have been called "men".

why do you assume they wouldnt have been called men?

huxley:

BTW, what purpose is served by having pre-Adamite men?

what purpose is served by having Adamite men?

@4Him,

4 Him:

Syrup, i don't agree that Adam was the first created being for two reasons:

Very much appreciated. It's interesting to be challenged by the views of other people.

4 Him:

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Why would God add the qualifier in highlights? Could it be because some other men had previously existed who were NOT created after the likeness of God?

I don't think Genesis 1:26 supposes that, and my reasons are thus:

(a) that verse is a pointing to God's prerogative in creation - He was not speaking to other men when He stated "Let US make man", because that would be inferring that such men could also be creators themselves.

(b) the highlighted part of that verse ("in our image, after our likeness" qualifies the first part ("Let us make man". The question now is who were involved in the "us" and "our" in that verse? It could be none other than a pointer to the Holy Trinity manifesting His creative and redemptive prerogative.

(c) that God was not speaking to other men is clear and self-evident in that verse - because when He said "Let us make man", He wished us to understand that He alone (as the Trinity) was solely involved in that divine act. No "other men" are said anywhere to have also created anything - and God was not enlisting or recruiting any so-called pre-Adamic men.

(d) this point is further corroborated by other verses; a few would be helpful to quote --


Isaiah 44:24 -  
"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb,
I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone;
that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself"


Isaiah 45:12 -
"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched
out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."

Jeremiah 27:5 -
"I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground,
by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto
whom it seemed meet unto me."

These are just a few of those verses demonstrating that God alone created all things - nowhere we do read that He solicited the help of others. If there were any such inferences, perhaps we could all consider them? I'm open to learn.

(e) Further, we find that this holy discourse in the Trinity is not perculiar to Genesis. Several centuries later we find Isaiah the prophet recording such divine discourse - "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me" (Isa. 6:8 ). As far as we know, no angel sends out men on divine commision - and no other created being (if there were any such pre-Adamic men) could have arrogated that prerogative to themselves as well.

(f) Now, in the quote "Let us make man", it is clear that God could not be speaking of creating "men" if there were already "men" who were existing before that statement! It is illogical to intone that He was going to create something that already existed - would that not have raised the question of the same "men" wondering what the new injunction was about? If I were a carpenter, how could I (for instance) say that I wanted to make a chair when I had already made one?

These are some of the reasons why I'm not persuaded at all by the argument to see some pre-Adamic men in Genesis.

But then, what about Jeremiah's prophecy?

Let's look at it for a moment:

4 Him:

Jeremiah 4: 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

- This sounds eeriely like Genesis 1:2 so clearly the author was giving us a tiny insight into what actually happened that was not explained in Genesis.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

- Ah, there was no man or birds on the earth? This occured only TWICE in biblical history - before the creation in Genesis 1 and after the flood of Noah. Now it could not have been after the flood since there were birds on the earth and there were men too . . . so it is obvious this prophet is talking of a pre-adamic age were men and birds did once exist.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

So there were once frutiful places and cities before Adam was created?

Lol. . . that sounds interesting. But I implore you to read the whole chapter - there you will find that God was alluding to a futuristic prophecy, and not something that occured in the past!

In order to connect this thought contextually, let's apply the same principle of corroborating Scripture with scripture. And what do we find? Simply that Isaiah also spoke of such apocalyptic world devastation. Reference - and then compare:

What is the picture in Jeremiah's prophecy?

It was simply alluding to the judgement of the nations - not in the past in Genesis, but rather a futuristic one. Let's compare them:

Jeremiah 4:20-23
"Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled:
suddenly are my tents spoiled, and my curtains in a moment.
How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?
For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children,
and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good
they have no knowledge. I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form,
and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains,
and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo,
there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Okay, now please carefully consider this with Isaiah's prophecy:

Isaiah 24:18-23
"And it shall come to pass, that he who fleeth from the noise of the fear
shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit
shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open,
and the foundations of the earth do shake. The earth is utterly broken down,
the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.
The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like
a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall,
and not rise again. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD
shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth
upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered
in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be
visited. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed,
when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem,
and before his ancients gloriously."

What this portray is a declaration of apocalyptic judgements - especially by the reference to "And it shall come to pass" . . "and in that day". . . "then. . ".

At best, what I see are presumptions for pre-Adamic men; I do not see such theories espoused in Scripture.

Syrup, i never alluded that God was speaking to pre-adamite men in Gen 1:26.

- There is one thing we need to understand, the bible is not written in a particular order so verse 20 could actually be talking of a time period ver distinct from verse 24 (for example).

The key for me was Jer 4: 23. It is no coincidence that the author of this verse used EXACTLY the same expression as was used in Genesis 1:2.
However let us assume that there were no pre-adamite men . . . read Gen 1:2 again - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

If the earth was truly empty before the creation in Genesis, why would the author qualify it as being WITHOUT FORM? What form?

Why would he say the earth was VOID?

Darkness? How did he know what darkness was since darkness is simply the absence of light?

@4Him,

4 Him:

Syrup, i never alluded that God was speaking to pre-adamite men in Gen 1:26.

Point taken; otherwise I was wondering what you meant by this:

4 Him:

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Why would God add the qualifier in highlights? Could it be because some other men had previously existed who were NOT created after the likeness of God?

. . . it would make one wonder if the highlighted part of the verse and your questions following was drawing that inference. Another way of seeing the question would be: "who was he speaking to?"

However, I understand now where you might have been pointing me to: there supposedly might have been a class of men who were not in God's image - and in the Genesis 1:26 quote, He was embarking on another class of men who should be in His image and likeness.

If that was the inference, the one thing that would support that view is to corroborate it with other verses in Scripture. Do we have such?

However, if that was not the inference, where did I miss it again?

4 Him:

- Ah, there was no man or birds on the earth? This occured only TWICE in biblical history - before the creation in Genesis 1 and after the flood of Noah. Now it could not have been after the flood since there were birds on the earth and there were men too . . . so it is obvious this prophet is talking of a pre-adamic age were men and birds did once exist.

I am not particularly sure that this is only a "twice" occuring event. Another good reference to look up is Zephaniah 1:2-3, where God explicitly says:

I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the LORD.
I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven,
and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked;
and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the LORD.

Now, was Zephaniah pointing back to Genesis, or rather to some future even beyond his time (more in correspondence to apocalyptic judgements)? I'm sure the case is made.

Again, it is hard to concieve your point when we see the context of Jer. 4 and simply ask: what time or epoch could the prophet have been alluding to - the past or the future?

From Jer. 4:20, we see it was a futuristic event. . . the whole scenario points positively to that epoch by the very inference to "Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled" - it was a coming destruction by apocalyptic judgements. The whole picture bloc dovetails into verse 27 where the implication of that vision which Jeremiah beheld is given: "For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end."

I also appreciate the allusion to the descriptive words and constructs. True, there is a semblance between Genesis 1 and Jeremiah 4 wording of those verses; but that does not establish the inference you drew. We know of other events that are not so connected but have been expressed precisely with similar wording.

An example? Take for instance a hotly debated issue among many Christians - the baptism with the Holy Ghost. Some view this as only meaning an experience of speaking in toungues (as in Acts 2); others allude to the Body of Christ bonding together as in 1 Cor. 12:13. Now we know these are not speaking of the same thing, but they are both called the baptism with the Holy Ghost.

In the same way, we have to be careful to not just go by the wording and therefore make the faulty conclusion that Gen. 1 and Jer. 4 are speaking of the very same thing in the same epoch. I have two objections to offer here:

(a) the Hebrew for both verses might have been worded differently, but the translators used precisely the same wording in English. If we consult both texts in other English versions, they are not the same (see JPS as an example - Gen. 1:2 says "the earth was unformed and void", while Jer. 4:23 says "the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void" - not precisely worded as same).

(b) a better understanding would be to look at the context of the naratives - in Genesis 1, we find creation, whereas in Jeremiah 4 we read of apocalyptic judgements. This was made clear by reading from Isaiah's prophecy - and when we turn to Daniel and the Revelation, we see similar inferences.

4 Him:

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

So there were once frutiful places and cities before Adam was created?

I'm not so sure that was what was being pointed to. That was why I offered other texts from Isaiah and Zephaniah to help us here. Most Bible commentators who start out interpreting Jeremiah 4 as alluding to Genesis suddenly switch at this verse and speak of the fruitful places as "Carmel". This is quite funny, because I still don't understand how they flew from Genesis to Carmel in such a woosh and leaving no clues (example, see A. Barnes; otherwise see K& who correctly and more lucidly see the chapter as prophesied jugdments pronounced upon Jerusalem).

4 Him:

- There is one thing we need to understand, the bible is not written in a particular order so verse 20 could actually be talking of a time period ver distinct from verse 24 (for example).

I agree; however, we can't have private interpretations of particular verses by failing to see other verses as well.

4 Him:

The key for me was Jer 4: 23. It is no coincidence that the author of this verse used EXACTLY the same expression as was used in Genesis 1:2.

As far as the KJV goes, yes, the authors translators of the KJV used exactly the same wording. But check other versions like the JPS as referenced above - it is not EXACTLY the same.

4 Him:

However let us assume that there were no pre-adamite men . . . read Gen 1:2 again - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

If the earth was truly empty before the creation in Genesis, why would the author qualify it as being WITHOUT FORM? What form?

I hardly know why he did so; I could only offer my thoughts on that. My thinking is an allusion to an epoch between Gen. 1:1 and 2 - many argue and amke such inference, and in due course I'll offer you why I am inclined towards that. However, Jer. 4 would not be my butressing text - because I would have a hard time reconciling those inferences that are not warranted by that text. . . and then fall guilty as those who make the sudden switch to Carmel!

4 Him:

Why would he say the earth was VOID?

For the same reason as above.

4 Him:

Darkness? How did he know what darkness was since darkness is simply the absence of light?

I don't know how he knew - rather, I'd rather follow the lead that the writer (Moses) was not there when creation occured, he only recorded what God inspired him to pen down.

4HIM and Syrup,

You guys are doing bible-verses lashing again, slapping your favourite bible verses on each other's faces in the hope of converting the other side to your point of view.

Do you guys think there might be an independent source, extrabiblical, to verify your various side of the story? Might the scientific method have something to say about origins;

1) Might it be possible to use the successful track record of genetic investigation to resolve the questions definitively? Could genetic tell us where the first humans lived, how long ago, and the average longevity of humans then?

2) Might geology, astronomy, cosmology and physics be able to cast some light into the question of the formation of the earth, its age and its evolution.

3) Might archeology and paleonotology cast some light on these?


If yes, why are you not appealing to these for succor for your points of view?

Hi huxley,

Having gone through your concerns (good questions, nonetheless), it struck me that perhaps you are missing the vital link on a topic as suggested by the thread. What is that topic?

Adam was not the First Man

Great. However, rather than narrow the interractions between just two contributors (myself and 4Him), I think it would be fair to have also considered others as well - including yourself. What this implies is that it should be plain to us that the basis of this question is the BIBLE - it has been more a theological discussion (and has remained so for quite a while) than a teleological one. Those who have made contributions so far have been concerned with what the verses quoted might suggest. They have not been concerned presently with other considerations - and there are myriads of them (another thread where I have enjoyed a similar discussion is the one on EVOLUTION and CREATION).

Certainly, a teleological response is welcome anytime. However, those who would follow that line of thought should also make informed and seasoned contributions rather than merely pose questions and stand aloof and non-committal. Nonetheless, it would be a pleasant exercise to offer some answers to the points you raised.

huxley:

4HIM and Syrup,

You guys are doing bible-verses lashing again, slapping your favourite bible verses on each other's faces in the hope of converting the other side to your point of view.

Well, not exactly - we are not doing a Bible-verse lashing at each other, much less at anyone. It is clear that our view points (whether as answers or questions) would be more meaningful by referencing those verses than making assumptions without any such quotes. I am reminded in another thread that humbled me graciously that there are other readers that visit our threads and we should always carry them along by making our points accessible (thank you, D-reloaded ).

huxley:

Do you guys think there might be an independent source, extrabiblical, to verify your various side of the story? Might the scientific method have something to say about origins;

Talking about "independent, extrabiblical sources" would go beyond what many people call the "scientific method" - that's why the reference to teleological (philosophical) enquiries. What does this entail? It would require us to examine what is usually called the "scientific method" - and which "science" would that be? The "natural" sciences (such as chemistry, mathematics and physics)? Or to a broader range of what is actually "science"?

When we carefully examine this point, we find that what many people claim or otherwise discredit as "science" may be surprisingly off the mark and prejudiced. Upfront, I would say that there are quite a number of leading scientists who are not plain honest in their assumptions.

huxley:

1) Might it be possible to use the successful track record of genetic investigation to resolve the questions definitively?

Possibly - but what "genetic investigative methods" would we be looking at? Let's take evolutionary biology, for instance - there again, we might ask what model of evolution would be most suitable for this enquiry - Lamarkian, Darwinian, or Neo-Evolutionary? To choose any of these or others not mentioned would require regorous justification as to why that particular model over the others. This was why I stated that we should not lose sight of the "model" employed so far in this enquiry - theology. If we go on from there to another model (say, the teleological one), then we should further scrutinize it before applying it.

huxley:

Could genetic tell us where the first humans lived, how long ago, and the average longevity of humans then?

Genetics could offer some explanations (based on any of the afore-mentioned models) to some of the enquiries; but let us not be so self-assuming as to adopt a jaundiced idea that it would offer the most satisfactory answers to the whole range of queries on this topic. Infact, I risk the guilt of stating upfront that definitelyy would not (because I have certain queries which are not within the range of genetics investigative models).

huxley:

2) Might geology, astronomy, cosmology and physics be able to cast some light into the question of the formation of the earth, its age and its evolution.

Possibly; but as stated earlier, these all would have immense contributions to offer in certain aspects of our queries (whatever they might be). However, I am not sure that any one of these (or even in combination) would be able to sufficiently account for thr very origin of life and matter - they may offer explanatory models for understanding the transformations of geological, paleontoligical, astronomical, and physical changes - but all these are looking at the "aftermath", not at the very first cause of existence.

huxley:

3) Might archeology and paleonotology cast some light on these?

Again, possibly - and yet again, these models of investigation would not be able to tell you with a higher degree of certainty WHO Adam actually was. When you look at the Genesis account, for instance, you find certain things mentioned there that archeology and paleontology would simply not be adequate models of enquiry into those things. Example? How do those models account for origin of the soul and spirit of man?

huxley:

If yes, why are you not appealing to these for succor for your points of view?

Like I said, the reason is basically that the thread so far was created more for theological enquiries than for a teleological one. As you can see, no one model of investigation has a concensus - creationists are not all agreed as to a single model of investigating "creation" (is it young-earth or old-earth, for instance). So it is with any teleological investigation - they are not all having a concensus on ths and other questions of this nature.

The question now is: what would you rather offer as a more satisfying model - and how can your readers be sure that you would not lead them with some measure of hubris? As a reknowned thinker once said - "Hubris is a sin - whether in religion or science". Words on marbel.

Many blessings.

So how long ago did god create Adam&Eve? How long ago did he create the earth?

Using this simple formula:

First 5 days of creation = 24hrs x 5 = 5 days
Adam on day 6 to Abraham = 2000 years
Abraham to Jesus Christ = 2000 years
Jesus Christ until today = 2000 years
Total numbers of years = 6000 years (aproximately)
QED

Therefore, God created Adam within 24 hours while He created the universe and the earth 6000 years (aprox.) ago.

I hope you note that all the years before the incarnation of the Son of God (Jesus Christ) is BC while we are living in the present day 2008 AD

That is, all the years before Christ is BC and all the years after the incarnation, earthly ministry, death and resurrection of Christ is AD unless you don't believe today's date. 

Jesus is the most remarkable man who ever lived. He is the centrepiece of our civilisation. After all, we call what happened before Him 'BC' and what happened after Him 'AD'