Was Adam the first human?

[RickD]

I know this has been discussed many times before. If there were humans pre-existing before God created Adam, would the existence of those humans, make the atonement of Christ meaningless? Is it possible to make a case BIBLICALLY that people(maybe with or without a spiritual part to them)may have been in different parts of the globe before Adam was created? Keep in mind how pre-existing humans would fit into a local flood theory.

[Seraph]

Who did Cain marry?

As for if it makes the atonement of Christ meaningless, I would say not. Even if the first generation fo humans somehow didn't sin, it wouldn't be long before one eventually did. Regardless of when or how sin got started, all of humanity from that point onward would have a corruptable nature that needed to be fixed.

[Maytan]

I don't think there were any humans prior to Adam anywhere on the globe. Though by that, I mean a spiritually-capable being. A non-spiritual humanoid shouldn't posses any Biblical problems, I would think.

Even if there were, I don't see how it'd ruin God's salvation plan in any way.

[beka12]

Yes, he was the first human. Genesis 1:1-2 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." - There was no other life form existing in the world besides God Himself. Then in Genesis 1:27 is says "So God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." - This is the first time in the Bible that humans are mentioned; when God created Adam, which is described in detail later on in Genesis 2:7.

Also, John 1:3 says "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made." Therefore, since Adam must have been the first human because God created him before He created Eve or any other people, and God is the only one who can "make", Adam was the first human in existence.

[neo-x]

I know this has been discussed many times before. If there were humans pre-existing before God created Adam, would the existence of those humans, make the atonement of Christ meaningless? Is it possible to make a case BIBLICALLY that people(maybe with or without a spiritual part to them)may have been in different parts of the globe before Adam was created? Keep in mind how pre-existing humans would fit into a local flood theory.

I would think that no, Adam was not the first human, he may have been the first human in the Bible. But there are findings of humanoids dating as far back as 10000 B.C, in some cases even prior to that.

by beka12 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:50 am

Yes, he was the first human. Genesis 1:1-2 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." - There was no other life form existing in the world besides God Himsel

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

I cant imagine God making an earth formless and empty. now consider this, the word used for earth in the verse first onfen is mistaken to be as planet earth. however it is not. earth in the original context would mean land and not the planet since at the time of moses, no space shots of galaxies or planets were available, Egyptians did know about the stars and they even named some constellations. still no way to know they were living on a planet and that it would be called earth.

so God creates the heavens and the land, and it is empty and void. and suddenly in verse 2 it is filled with water. It may sound painfully dumb or straight forward, but God never created water. he creates everything in the first chapter of genesis except water. some how is it already there. and if water is everywhere than i assume it was previously created by God, in between the period of verse1 and 2. Since in verse 2 earth is filled with water it could be because an ice age ended and the water is receding. or a type of Noah's flood swept over the land either way resulting in the pre-historic humanoids die and we find there remains today. be it nature or God's fury that fell on the prehistoric man, it doesn't hamper the biblical truth because whatever happened prior to the 2nd verse is perhaps not relevant to us and may never have been prophetically disclosed to Moses.

I do not think it would utterly matter if Adam was the first human or not. It doesn't change anything in the Bible.

[PaulSacramento]

Adam means "Man" so it could quite possibly be a parable/story of "Man's fall from grace" in which ONE person is symbolic of the whole race.
The again perhaps Adam was indeed the firs Man to find God and of course, the first one to "shun" God, LOL !
When Cain was sent out he found others so it seems that there were certainly other people.
It may be the Dam was the first "evolved" Man and that he, one day said, " Hi there, anybody up there" and God replied.
There are many ways to take both creation accounts in Genesis, but I don't think that either of them are to be take 100% literally.

[jlay]

Adam does mean man. My name means Jehovah is Lord. I can't see any reason as to why anyone would view Adam as anything less than a real man. Perhaps I can see why one might see symbolism in God making Adam from the dust of the ground and breathing life into his nostrils.
1 Corinthians 15:45-49 state, “The Scriptures tell us, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living person.’

Luke 3:38 "Kenan was the son of Enosh.* Enosh was the son of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam. Adam was the son of God."
If Adam is symbolic, then what about Seth? Enosh? David? Jesus?

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

[PaulSacramento]

The issue of taking ALL of Genesis as literal AND concrete has been discused and debated for ages, even the likes of Origen, Augustine and Aquinas expressed their views on it.
Here NT Wright express some views:

http://biologos.org/resources/nt-wright ... y-literal/

http://biologos.org/resources/nt-wright ... m-and-eve/

[neo-x]

hmm guys...i thought "Adam" meant ""red earth"?

And I do agree that Adam is not symbolic alone.

“The Scriptures tell us, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living person.’

I think if Adam is the first man, he would be the first man in recorded history of the Bible.

[DannyM]

Adam does mean man. My name means Jehovah is Lord. I can't see any reason as to why anyone would view Adam as anything less than a real man.

Adam was certainly a real man, but his name might've been John.

[FearlessLlearsy]

It is totally possible that Cain met other people and Adam still being the first Man. Look at it this way: God gave the order to Adam and Eve to be fruitful and reproduce. Cain and Abel were certainly the first kids of Adam and Eve, but considering Adam was the first man, we can infer that he had much MOREthan just two kids. We all know also that humans are capable to reproduce in their teen years. So, it is possible that other tribes may have been formed while Cain wondered alone. Notice also that the Bible does not mention an amount of time before Cain met with other clans of people. For all we know, he could have spent 40 yrs alone before coming into contact with an other human. Keep in mind also Cain would have had a pretty long life span.

Seraph wrote:
Who did Cain marry?

Cain would have married his sister. Notice that this would have not been an abomination since this would have preceded the time when God gave rules to the elders on the DO's and DONT's in the O.T

neo-x wrote:
I would think that no, Adam was not the first human, he may have been the first human in the Bible. But there are findings of humanoids dating as far back as 10000 B.C, in some cases even prior to that.

I do hope my dear neo-x you are questioning directly the validity of the Bible, without realising it.Jlay has proven it clearly that Adam WAS the first man according to the Bible

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 state, “The Scriptures tell us, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living person.’

Luke 3:38 "Kenan was the son of Enosh.* Enosh was the son of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam. Adam was the son of God."
If Adam is symbolic, then what about Seth? Enosh? David? Jesus?

May i ask you what would be your Biblical references or evidence to show otherwise that Adam was not the first Man?
So, one must remember that a Christian should always put the Bible before science's evidence or, how i like to call it: Man's evidence. I hope as Christians we put the Bible before any data that is shown by Man, for the Bible is the Living Word of God, who is all knowing and perfect in all his ways. Also, neo-x, should i kindly remind you that when we are talking about the Bible,"I think" is not enough?

[neo-x]

neo-x wrote:
I would think that no, Adam was not the first human, he may have been the first human in the Bible. But there are findings of humanoids dating as far back as 10000 B.C, in some cases even prior to that.


I do hope my dear neo-x you are questioning directly the validity of the Bible, without realising it.Jlay has proven it clearly that Adam WAS the first man according to the Bible
1 Corinthians 15:45-49 state, “The Scriptures tell us, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living person.’

Luke 3:38 "Kenan was the son of Enosh.* Enosh was the son of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam. Adam was the son of God."
If Adam is symbolic, then what about Seth? Enosh? David? Jesus?

May i ask you what would be your Biblical references or evidence to show otherwise that Adam was not the first Man?
So, one must remember that a Christian should always put the Bible before science's evidence or, how i like to call it: Man's evidence. I hope as Christians we put the Bible before any data that is shown by Man, for the Bible is the Living Word of God, who is all knowing and perfect in all his ways. Also, neo-x, should i kindly remind you that when we are talking about the Bible,"I think" is not enough?

That is exactly my point, when the Bible says, that Adam was the first man, it does rightly because he is the first man in recorded history. I am not questioning the validity of the Bible. Jilay has only proven that in biblical recorded history, Adam is the first man. Also when moses wrote the genesis account or Luke wrote the gospel, they thought that the earth was probably flat. Those people wrote what they wrote in the context of the then known principles of nature and universe. Please, I do not mean offense to scriptures, I am simply saying that we do not mix science and religion like this. They problem arises when we do. The problem we face today is based on the assumptions the church held on science, that earth was central to the cosmos etc etc. Religion is not the highway to science and it should not be the measuring tape to analyze scientific findings. science has its blunders, I do not disagree with that.

On the subject of biblical authority, I suppose that my "I think" or for that matter any one whatever he or she may say, could never be above the Bible, anyways. I could always be wrong but God can not.

[jlay]

Also when moses wrote the genesis account or Luke wrote the gospel, they thought that the earth was probably flat. Those people wrote what they wrote in the context of the then known principles of nature and universe.

You don't know this. This is just a form of chronological snobbery. In fact it sounds like something an atheists would say to tear down scritpure. Many ancient cultures viewed the earth as a sphere. But it doesn't matter what shape they thought the earth was. We are told that the scritpures are given by inspiration of God. That Moses was carried along by the Holy Spirit. This isn't mixing science and religion.

Question: Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ scientifically plausible?

[PaulSacramento]

So, one must remember that a Christian should always put the Bible before science's evidence or, how i like to call it: Man's evidence.

Since the bible is NOT a science book, why would any christian do that?
Science serves us to understand the bible better, not dismiss it if something APPEARS to be contridictory.
A christian reconciles what science PROVES to be in NATURE and reconciles that with what is written.
Nature is God revealed to us, as God is revealed to us in words in the bible, Nature reveals God to Us also.

[FearlessLlearsy]

neo-x wrote: science has its blunders, I do not disagree with that.
On the subject of biblical authority, I suppose that my "I think" or for that matter any one whatever he or she may say, could never be above the Bible, anyways. I could always be wrong but God can not.

Neo-x, i would like to very much applaud you for stating that statement. It is wonderful to see a fellow brother in Christ say it.

PaulSacramento wrote: Since the bible is NOT a science book, why would any christian do that?

Well, Paul(your screename) may i, with all respect ask you how you came with that conclusion? The Bible is a pretty big compilation of books, and therefore i understand why it would be hard to make connections to Science, when most often when we read our Bible, our main focus is not on this subject. Since, we are talking about that specifically, would you mind if i share some Bible verses who bare Scientific truths in them?
1. The Bible said the earth is round and is suspended in space:
Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Isaiah 40:22, Amos 9:6. Today, we chuckle at the people of the fifteenth century who feared sailing because they thought they would fall over the edge of the flat earth. Yet the Bible revealed the truth in 1000 B.C. 2500 years before man discovered it for himself!

In various verses, the Bible says the earth is round and hangs in space. It took a long time for science to catch up and reach the same conclusions. Copernicus made the discovery in 1475. But the Bible always knew. Here are two related Bible verses that were written more than 2500 years ago, and more than 1000 years before Copernicus:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")

"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).

"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents.
The Bible described the Hydrologic Cycle:
Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C. The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late.

In various passages, the Bible describes a hydrologic cycle, the process by which clouds are formed, rain is produced and ground water is replenished. Science made the same discovery in the 1600s, long after the Bible passages were written. Here are the related Bible verses:

"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).

"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).

"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).

3. The Bible stated that the stars cannot be counted: For centuries, scientists and astronomers thought they could count the precise number of stars in the universe. Brahe, for example, said there were 777. Kepler claimed the total was 1,005. Hipparchus said there were 1,022 stars. Ptolemy raised the number to 1,056. Eventually, scientists, including the great Galileo, concluded that the stars could not be numbered, just as the Bible had always claimed:

"I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jeremiah 33:22, NIV).

He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." (Genesis 15:5, NIV).
These are a few verses that demonstrate that the Bible can bare a source of Scientifc truth if we really look for it.