Adam Was Not The First Man - Religion (2) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Adam Was Not The First Man (4927 Views)
Eve Was Deceived. Adam Was Not. / Was Adam Truly The First Man On Earth? / If God Sees All, He Know Adam Was Going To Sin So Why Did He Create Man? (2) (3) (4)
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by chiegemba(f): 11:34am On May 26, 2008 |
@ poster. . . u really got enough time on ur hands . . . . interestin post  |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Nobody: 11:54am On May 26, 2008 |
@multioption Thanx for your response on this topic your statement that the bible is highly suggestive of a pre-adamic world might actually answer the question of (evolution or creation), much as i beleive the bible as a christian, there is too much archaeological evidence that supports other views, in this stead i would like to assume that the bible didn't give us complete information on this creation topic, even science is not conclusive as there is still this "MISSING LINK" between man and the supposed ancestors that the scientists have not been able to establish to finally verify there evolution claim. @ all I am yet to see any posts which diproves the fact that there were other people in existence at the time of Adam/EVe/Cain/Abel. Although some people have tried to explain otherwise i would submit they are just trying to defend what they have always assummed to be true becos the bible infered their were other people who could have killed Cain. Also who did cain marry?? he couldn't have married his sister as some people try to suggest. After abel died the other child adam and eve had was Seth and he was a man, the other children came several years later after cain had married. The bible also said that Cain built a city. Obviously there must have been more than one family for them to have a city at that time or was the city built for him and his family alone?? The truth is that even if Adam was the first man, other men and women were created simultaneosly which the bible wasn't explicit on. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Nobody: 11:57am On May 26, 2008 |
OLAADEGBU:Yet there is enough evidence that the earth is much much older than that, there must be some missing information somewhere. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by syrup(f): 12:18pm On May 26, 2008 |
@Jagoon, Interesting points you may be suggesting, but again they are seriously flawed. Let's look at them: Jagoon: There are answers that disprove the " This is what one one would expect when doing studies of this nature: (a) state the propblem or hypothesis (b) offer reasons for your inferences (c) Since this is rather a theological exercise, it is wise to also apply the rule of Scripture to arrive at a good understanding - this is called "exegesis" (the opposite, which is reading one's bias into scripture, is called "eisegesis" - big difference). Please see 2 Pet. 1:20 where we are cautioned that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" - meaning that one cannot just take a verse and arrive at an inference without looking at other verses on the same subject! This is why I often gave verses to show that other verses are corroborating what conclusions I might have. If you had an alternative model, could you proffer such so that we may follow your train of thought? To assume out of hand that Genesis 1 suggests pre-Adamic men and fail to build your assumptions by Scriptural rule (exegesis) is to play the match and score your own goal as the referee!  Jagoon: Infact, that is precisely what you did. You assumed a position, are still holding to that, and yet have been unable to afford us rigorous discussions to buttress your point. Now you just hope to 'convert' your readers by appeal to emotion. Not so cool. Jagoon: The Bible does not teach that such "other people" existed before Adam. If it does, where is it? Second, in what image did those men exist? Did they have human spirits of souls? Are they mentioned anywhere else in the Bible? Jagoon: Why not so? Strange that a man at that time could have married his sister? Jagoon: The Bible does not teach that the other children of Adam came "several years later" - that is an assumption that fails to follow the context of the verses. I asked what Adam was doing for 800 years after he begot Seth - it would be interesting to read a good response from you. Besides, even if the children came several years later, were they too young to have married their brethren and relations? Jagoon: The Bible demonstrates that the "city" did not just arise out of hand - that is why Genesis 4 carefully pointed out the lineage of Cain! After Cain married, he had children - his generation built the city mentioned. Jagoon: This is meaningless without cogent pointers for your assumptions. Help us see why you hold this view - present well reasoned answers to help us follow your thoughts rather than just assuming things and claiming the "non-explicit" idea. Blessings. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by KunleOshob(m): 12:52pm On May 26, 2008 |
So Cain married his sister  , that brings us back to the topic of incest in the bible again. But the question of who would have killed cain if God didn't put a mark on his head as not been answered. Maybe it could have been aliens visitng the earth at that time  or wild animals that didn't like the fact that he killed his brother |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Nobody: 1:11pm On May 26, 2008 |
@syrup You mis-understand the topic, perhaps becuase of the title of this thread. but the real reason i posted it was to stimulate dicussion so that i can learn from it and probably establish the real truth. I am bieng open minded about it. however despite your detailed response, you have said nothing all your responses are based on assumptions. The statement that God could have created other people apart from Adam and Eve still holds water even if it wasn't stated expressly in the bible the bible did not say any thing to the contrary, the bible actually suggests there may have been other people. I would appreciate factual statements not just assumptions and opinions please, as i said this is a quest for true knowledge |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by OLAADEGBU(m): 1:24pm On May 26, 2008 |
KunleOshob: Jagoon: I can smell some diabolical double talk here, could both posters above be one and the same? Your guess is as good as mine For someone to seek vegeance on the life on Cain will only make sense if that person or persons are related to Abel by birth. It makes no sense at all for a stranger to seek to take revenge for someone he does not know. I believe syrup has dealt conclusively with your question except that your mind is already made up and you don't want us to confuse you with the facts  |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by syrup(f): 1:25pm On May 26, 2008 |
@Jagoon, If one were making assumptions and theorizing, it would be plain - because such a thinker would only be making out-of-hand statements and not being able to establish their presuppositions fairly by Scriptural principles. The basic principle I offered was a reminder to "exegesis" - which is what I applied. At least, you have not faulted that, other than rejecting it summarily without proffering something alternatively that may be more substantial. Now, let's apply that to the basic concerns: the statement that "God could have created other people apart from Adam and Eve" may appear on the surface to still hold water - infact it might catch so many people out of the blues - but the direct question is: WHEN did that happen? If your view is that it happened before Adam and Eve arrived, then certainly you are inclined to take the "pre-Adamic man (or 'men')" theory. If that is the case, we are asking you to present your theory more cogently other than alluding to "highly suggestive" . . "non-explicit" ideologies. How do I gain any confidence in your presumption when you haven't proffered the substance from Scripture itself to substantiate your ideas? May I remind you that "eisegesis" holds no water - none whatsoever. Infact, when you build your theory on eisegesis, such a theory always finds itself backed up the wall - 10 times out of 10! That is why it does not come across as a surprise (at least to me) that you have only been making the "non-explicit" and "highly suggestive" paradigm without a solid pointer for your thoughts. I appreciate the idea in its own right - but I have also presented why it is deeply flawed. It fails to hold itself cogently under scrutiny. More than that, I also proffered reasons why an alternative view could be more satisfactory - the view that the collective verses both from OT and NT say that Adam was indeed the first man. Can you find where it states otherwise without eisegesis? |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by syrup(f): 1:29pm On May 26, 2008 |
@OLAADEGBU, OLAADEGBU: Lol. . . I am not sure that is the case. I have also been mistaken for someone else in the past, though. They might as well mistake us to be one and the same! |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Nobody: 1:51pm On May 26, 2008 |
@syrup exegesis  eisegesis genesis , aunty i am getting a bit more confused here o! my theology no reach that one. infact you have suceeded in confuing me further  |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by OLAADEGBU(m): 2:11pm On May 26, 2008 |
@syrup, God bless you my sister. The fictitious posters that I was referring to are Jagoon and KunleOshob whom I feel is the same person. I have been blessed reading your contributions and the way you patiently explain your answers using scriptures appropriately. Keep it up and remain blessed. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Gamine(f): 2:16pm On May 26, 2008 |
LOL. LOL The first man was apparently called Jagoon |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by syrup(f): 2:16pm On May 26, 2008 |
@OLAADEGBU, I have been blessed each time I visit this motherboard to read contributions from many people. Nigerians are wonderful people - and I thank God for the fortune of having married one! God bless you much. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by syrup(f): 2:19pm On May 26, 2008 |
@Jagoon, Jagoon: Okay, I aplogise - deeply sorry to have risked confusing my reader more than settling the issue simply. I'll try to watch out for my use of diction in future. I do hope that the words used my my repostes could have benefitted you where I explained the terms (exegesis and eisegesis)? God bless you. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Nobody: 2:41pm On May 26, 2008 |
@OLAADEGBU if you don't have any meaninful contribution to make, i suggest that you buzz off my thread, just becos someone is of an opposing view to you is not enough reason to be posting hallucinations that two people who oppose your views are the same person, of what relevance it that to the thread anyway |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by syrup(f): 2:43pm On May 26, 2008 |
Jagoon, Please calm down. . . we are very interested in your views.  |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by kolaoloye(m): 2:47pm On May 26, 2008 |
@topic, As long as there was no single proof from either the archaeologists (archaeological evidence) or Scientists(scientific evidence), even the Book of Mammon had nothing against the fact that Adam was the first man, i'm of the opinion that ADAM WAS THE FIRST MAN but if you have any other proof you can present it. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Image123(m): 5:25pm On May 27, 2008 |
syrup syrup syrup syrup well done sister,I dey feel you from here.Keep it up please |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by syrup(f): 5:50pm On May 27, 2008 |
I'm blushing. But I'm open to other views would are quite as challenging. Many blessings |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Nobody: 8:57am On May 28, 2008 |
syrup:@syrup you are very obviously not open to other views, as i said in the other thread we are haggling in, you are soooo stereotype, you don't want to tolerate other views at all. you always stick to a preconceived view and back it up with several irrelevant scriptures just to bambuzu your way through and impose your opinion on others without any sound basis. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by syrup(f): 9:01am On May 28, 2008 |
@Jagoon, Jagoon: Again, I'm blushing - I really needed such criticism to enable me be more challenged in my studies. No, I do not take offence at your honest remark - and I'm as thankful as it made me more humble. This again keeps me open to other people's views - good or bad. God bless you. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Nobody: 9:25am On May 28, 2008 |
@syrup God bless you  |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by LoveKing(m): 10:39pm On May 28, 2008 |
Jagoon, sounds like Lagoon. Anyway it seems u guys really don't understand whats beneath the genesis. science is compatible with genesis . Earth wasnt created in just literal days. It took great expanse of time for things to work out apparently thousands of years. 'remember a thousand year is like a day to God'. Reason about the circulation of nitrogen to the soil and the air,the atmoshere, they had to work hand in hand and plants had to grow, it wasnt 'one day' all happened. Adam was the first man. Now God created or conceived Man at first, then went ahead to 'FORM' Him out of dust. Created meaning he conceived man in His thoughts and make the Inner man and the organs before Forming him out of dust. Then He gave Man life.Hope u understand the simple english. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Nobody: 10:46pm On May 28, 2008 |
jagoon pls read the bible with more understanding.if possibly refer to other bibl versions. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by readbible: 5:01am On May 29, 2008 |
chapter 1 summery, chapters 2 and 3 reveal more details as already mentioned, Now about "Let Us" here are 2 verses that answer that and point to Jesus God's Son as a co-creator (Colossians 1:13-17) 13" He delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist. . ." (Proverbs 8:22-31) 22 “Jehovah God himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. 25 Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, 26 when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. 27 When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, 28 when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, 29 when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, 30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men." The verses from Proverbs have a first application to the quality of wisdom, and are also acknowledged by many scholers as pictorial of Gods Son Jesus Christ, as they are coaberated by the first verse quoted from Colosians. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Nobody: 11:48am On May 29, 2008 |
@loveking your statement is working to a pre conceived anwser without any sound logic or scriptural backing. @olrotimi i really can't stick it when peole post for the sake of poting without any substance in there posts. If you don't have any thing to contribute, i sugest you post your comments else where. @readbible how is the sermon you just posted relevant to the topic of this thread |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by readbible: 9:41pm On May 29, 2008 |
I agreeded with a pervious poster who pointed out that there was just a single creation of man, chapter 1 was a summery and chapters 2 and 3 simple give more details. The question was raised, who was "lets us" in this thread, and some thought it was proof that God was talking to a previously created man, thus giving a man co-creative power, so By pointing out who the co-creator is it helps to see that Adam was indeed the first man Created by God and his Son Jesus. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by olabowale(m): 10:20pm On May 29, 2008 |
I was not going to contribute to "christian" motif of a thread, until I thought that the continued silence, from the m.usl.ims may be construed as seceding "Father Adam" to them. First it should be noted that Adam is physiologically, both internally and externally like everyone of us, "The Children of Adam." As I have stated in another thread that Adam was created after rainfall was created. And also being the last of all things, both living and nonliving things created. The time he was created was between the late afternoon (after the third prayer of the M.usl.ims) and before the sunset (before the fourth pray of the M.us.lims). He was created on Friday. Now therefore, if God was capable of creating diverse groups of cattles, cats/felines, etc, then it is not surprising that God created manlike species (what the evolutionist, erronously thought modern man evolved from) and then Man (Adam), distinct and separate and apart. |
| Re: Adam Was Not The First Man by Davidobi255(m): 4:01am On Dec 15, 2023 |
AKO1: |
Have You Ever Seen A Vision? / Diego Simeone; Torres And The Big Lesson. / Pastor Okotie Dies Of Covid-19
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 75 |