Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
LucidElement

Adam was NOT the first human

51 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

LucidElement

        I came across an interesting article i would like to share with you all and hear your feedback. I came across this article because I always find it difficult to believe there was no life before Adam and Eve, especially with all the archeological findings popping up. Take a look at this link and let me know what you guys think. They also talk about how there is evidence that the great flood never exsisted and it's been proven. They didnt really explain how it was proven unless i missed it?

HERE IS THE INTRO TO THE ARTICLE.. CLICK THE LINK TO READ IT ALL (ITS NOT TO LONG)

LINK::: https://owlcation.com/humanities/What-Do-Those-First-Few-Chapters-of-Genesis-Really-Say

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

                                 The creation of man in Genesis has always been read to mean that Adam was the first human God created. Why is that exactly? It doesn't state that anywhere. In fact, what it actually says is that God created humans on day 6 of the creation account in chapter 1, then it says God rested on day 7 at the beginning of chapter 2, then comes the story of Adam's creation. It's nothing more than an assumption that these are two tellings of the same event.

For most of recorded human history, it really didn't matter. The events listed in the creation account were of little consequence. Whether God created all the earth in six days or in 4.54 billion years was irrelevant as there was no way of knowing one way or the other. There wasn't any reason to even suspect it was any different than how it read, and the overall message of the Bible didn't hinge on it.

Today it does matter. In these modern times, we now understand more about the history of the earth and humanity than was ever before possible. And that modern understanding has proven to be in direct conflict with traditional interpretations of Genesis. This has resulted in many rejecting the Bible as nothing more than mythology and many others rejecting modern wisdom and scientific progress as false.

The creation versus evolution debate has come to be one of the most divisive topics we face. Many people of faith fight tooth and nail to keep topics like evolution out of the school curriculum and many others don't see why their children must remain in the dark because some people can't let go of their old religious beliefs.

The interpretation that says Adam was the first man in existence is the primary misconception that makes the Bible and modern science seemingly incompatible. Correcting this one small error takes pre-flood Genesis out of the realm of mythology and plants it firmly into known history.

The Mythology of the First Civilization

Civilization first began in Mesopotamia over five thousand years ago and the Sumerians are credited as the inventors. They built the first cities that ever existed, with populations in the tens of thousands, made possible through their development of large-scale year-round agriculture. Throughout the rise of civilization the Sumerians also became talented builders, they created the first government and the first laws. They also invented arithmetic, astronomy/astrology, the wheel, sailboats, frying pans, razors, harps, kilns for firing bricks and pottery, bronze hand tools, and plows, just to name a few.

 
6733233_f520.jpg

Not long after large-scale agriculture first began, a crude form of writing was developed out of the need to keep records of labor and materials. Another first accredited to the Sumerians. Over the centuries that followed, as writing became more advanced, they began to record stories passed down through the generations that explained how their people came up with all of these ideas that would forever change the human race. Funny thing is, these stories didn't give credit to their ancestors. They claim they were taught by immortal human-like gods.

The Sumerian and Akkadian tablets where these Sumerian stories are found predate the oldest books of the bible as we know them today by over a thousand years by our best scholarly estimations. Some of these tablets contain stories that share many very similar components to stories found in early Genesis, including the story of Adam and Eve, the Biblical Flood, and the confusing of a once universal language. Numerous tablets from throughout the latter part of the 3rd Millennium BC containing these stories have been found all around Mesopotamia, suggesting they were very well known in the region during that time. Because of this it has become a more and more common assumption that some of the stories found in early Genesis were actually inspired by these.

There’s no doubt Sumerian mythology had an impact on subsequent civilizations. The Akkadians were definitely inspired considering they basically adopted much of the Sumerian lifestyle, including their mythology. Greek and Roman mythology also contains echoed themes that suggest the roots of their beliefs may have come from the well-known Sumerian beliefs as well. They all speak of multiple immortal gods, human in form, male and female, who were fallible, moody, and often at odds with each other. And they all speak of intermingling between these immortal beings and mortal humans, producing demigods or titans.

If the creation of Adam in Genesis happened in an already populated world, given the time frame and location specified, then the humans who eventually became the Sumerians would have been the people that populated the landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus

Well, in Genesis 1 it says God didn't make the sun and moon, and stars until the 4th day.  So, first he said, let there be light, and seperated day and night, but without the sun.  So, that probably means it wasn't a day by the sun, 24 hours, but however long it was.  It says on the 3rd day he made plants, so apparently he made plants before the Sun.  So, it could have been millions of years according to Genesis 1, because the first few days weren't based on Sun time.

Then, in Genesis 1:26 it says, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the live-stock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So, it says in our image, at first, not his.  So, it says plural.  I guess the common thing to think here, is that when he says our image, he means his angels.  However, it never mentions God making the angels in Genesis.  So, we can assume if it were true, a lot is left out of what happened.  Though, angels are mentioned later in Genesis, it never talks about their creation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gingitsune
22 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

So, it says in our image, at first, not his.  So, it says plural.  I guess the common thing to think here, is that when he says our image, he means his angels.  However, it never mentions God making the angels in Genesis.  So, we can assume if it were true, a lot is left out of what happened.  Though, angels are mentioned later in Genesis, it never talks about their creation.

Isn't it a majestic we? Like the kings and queens say "we" instead of "I"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus
2 minutes ago, Gingitsune said:

Isn't it a majestic we? Like the kings and queens say "we" instead of "I"?

Hmm, idk, maybe.  I've never thought of it before.  I guess, thinking of the Lord's prayer it's all we's and us, not I.  Though, idk if it really makes sense because I don't think there was supposed to be anyone else besides God around at that time.  Because, if they use that, then I think there still has to be a we around, so I don't think it would make sense to apply the we to mankind, since it's being made, but that there were other beings around at that time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gingitsune

I'm not to familiar with bible in English. If we could or could not find other place we God is quoted referring to himself in the third person plural, that would settle it. Or if we could find a modern literal translation, maybe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

But superman is still from Krypton right?

 

More seriously it's not exactly news that the creation myth doesn't correspond to scientific discoveries.

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus
4 minutes ago, Gingitsune said:

I'm not to familiar with bible in English. If we could or could not find other place we God is quoted referring to himself in the third person plural, that would settle it. Or if we could find a modern literal translation, maybe...

Well, this says some other places it's used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Though, quite a few times in the Torah, the first five books, when God was talking to a man, first it would say God, and then it would say it was an angel talking for God.  I'll have to look it up later, the actual verses.  Also, many times in the Bible, when some people were encountered by an angel, at first they would think it was a man, until the angel would do something suspicious like fly up to heaven revealing it was an angel.  Also, in Daniel, it says Gabriel was a man with a countenance of lightning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gingitsune
3 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Well, this says some other places it's used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Thanks for the link!

So it would be an archaism in the Hebrew language, on how they refer to gods before the monotheism religion settle. So these "our" it could be relevant or not. Hard to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opus Magnus

Yeah, it's hard to tell.  Genesis 32 when Jacob wrestles an angel, then he says he saw God face-to-face after he won, and Exodus 3 where Moses sees an angel in the burning bush, then God starts speaking to him when he starts to turn away.  I thought there were other places like that too, but I guess I'll have to keep looking.  I thought it was generally supposed to mean the Heavenly Host though, God and all his angels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

I dont think there really was an old woman who lived in a shoe, either ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HollyDolly

Also, don't forget .In Geneisis , it mentions that the Sons of God looked down from the heavens an dfound the daughters of men pleasing and they mated with them. This is where the Ancient Astronaut theory comes into play. Why because  everyone glosses over these lines in the bible, though if you believe in aliens it does make sense. Some people believe it is due to these Sons of God, or aliens, that humanity advanced as it did. That through breeding or other means humans began to learn record keeping, mathematics, medicine ,science,etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
2 hours ago, Essan said:

I dont think there really was an old woman who lived in a shoe, either ;) 

Do you mean she was not the first old woman or it was not the first shoe?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

One does not even have to invoke science ... even within the Bible itself Adam and Eve were not the only ones 

Where did Lilith come from ?     ;)  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
35 minutes ago, back to earth said:

Where did Lilith come from ?     ;)  

Wasn't she married to Frasier ? :rolleyes:

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8

I always wondered why mark Cane if his family were the first people and what was he hitting to have descendants? :huh:

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

If one traces the Adam story back, it leads to the ruin of Eridu, which bears an embarrassing similarity to Eden.  Eridu had a ruler.  Go back far enough and there will be someone who was its first ruler.  That would be Adam.  Beyond that, Adam is a made-up symbol - even his name means "Mud."  There are lots of ancient stories about Adam and Eve after the Garden of Eden.  Might be fun to compile them into an anthology.

As for The Flood:  au contraire.  During the reign of Semerket, Sixth Pharaoh of the first dynasty, there was a titanic disaster involving water.  The world's first earth-fill dam collapsed - it's ruins are still there.  The Nile cut a new channel at Memphis - part of the modern city is built in the old channel.  That is historical.

The story of The Flood is repeated with variations in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Jor-el and I have been discussing the possibility that a comet strike caused the disturbance known as "Noah's Flood."  The date of this event has been tentatively set at "on or about May 10, 2806 BC."  Jor-el says that ice core data confirms that date, but I have an email from Dallas Abbott (one of the original study authors) that says there is no ice core data to support the idea.  I DO have tree ring evidence:  the Methuselah Walk and two White Mountain chronologies (California) show a major disturbance from 2806 to 2801 BC.  A single tree in the Tornetrask chronology (Sweden) shows one from 2792 to 2797 BC.  The difference could be nothing more than cross-dating errors.  Some day I hope to check this out.  Finding a mistake in the Tornetrask chronology would be a feather in my cap.

Check out the thread:  Newton thought a comet caused Noah's Flood.

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LucidElement

Does anyone have any information or know of any websites that talk about evidence the great flood didnt exist? In that article it says its been proven by scientists, however the site didnt go into much detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
35 minutes ago, LucidElement said:

Does anyone have any information or know of any websites that talk about evidence the great flood didnt exist? In that article it says its been proven by scientists, however the site didnt go into much detail.

You could read this:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Harte

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 hour ago, LucidElement said:

Does anyone have any information or know of any websites that talk about evidence the great flood didnt exist? In that article it says its been proven by scientists, however the site didnt go into much detail.

One cannot prove a negative except to say that after an intensive search, no flood deposits were found.  And that's a problem because under the Arabian marshes at Basra, there is a flood layer about two feet thick.  There are also other flood deposits, apparently caused by localized flooding at Eridu and other locations in the Tigris-Euphrates valley.  The Eridu deposit was initially claimed as proof of Noah's Flood, but further excavations revealed that it did not even cover the entire site.  It is possible that this localized flood got inflated into the Noah's Flood story.

Another problem:  the Tigris-Euphrates valley is underlain by 30,000 feet of sedimentary deposits, mostly flood debris.  Any deposits from "Noah's Flood" would be in the top 30 feet or so.

Doug

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
47 minutes ago, Harte said:

One comment on ship design:  the ark would most-likely have been a whole bunch of scow-shaped barges lashed together as was commonly used by merchants on the Tigris-Euphrates River at the time.  The lashings give during stress of weather so that the barges don't open up.  It would be possible to build and sail a ship the size of the ark IF it were of this design.  But just where in the Tigris-Euphrates valley is there that much wood?

Another problem:  bitumen.  The ark was sealed with bitumen.  There are only a few tar seeps in the valley.  A list of those would provide possible locations for the ark's construction.  That, in turn, would provide a clue to what the hull was made of.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almighty Evan
21 hours ago, LucidElement said:

       

The Mythology of the First Civilization

Civilization first began in Mesopotamia over five thousand years ago and the Sumerians are credited as the inventors.

There is some disagreement with this statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/24/opinion/l-history-didn-t-begin-in-mesopotamia-468190.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Yeah, in a letter to the editor concerning poor language usage by a lazy NYT writer.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

The article amounts to a straw man because it is misusing the word "civilization" throughout.

It's a common tactic used both by the ignorant and those with some stupid agenda

Harte

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.