What People?

[aspen]

I think they were Lilith's children - first wife of Adam. I am kidding of course, but at least I am referencing ancient Jewish apocrypha rather than making up stuff like satan sleeping with eve.

 

[veteran]

Cain killed Abel.
As punishment, Cain was forced to live with other people.
What people?
Either Adam and Eve had alot more children than the Bible states or there were other species of human beings around. Were these the Neanderthals or some other species that we don't know about?
If Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens (MY conjecture), while other species of humans roamed the Earth, like the history books tell us, then that would be BIBLICAL PROOF that the idea that God created the universe in 6 literal days is wrong.
Of course, you can always claim that the story of Adam and Eve is just a story. I don't but some of you might.

Who were these other people?

Read Bristowe's Sargon The Magnificent. She documented translations from Assyriologists in her day that had made translations from the ancient Babylonian tablets, which a lot of the tablets contain history of the first peoples in the area of Sumer (which later became Babylon).

Sargon the First was of Semitic birth per his death mask (still in British Museum). He migrated to the land of ancient Sumer among a different people there and gave them knowledge of agriculture and the sciences. He also started the very first pagan worship of Bel (which later was known as Baal worship).

The Assyriologist (Sayce if I recall) originally dated Sargon appearing in ancient Sumer at 3800 B.C. from his translation in the tablets. He later changed that original translation date because it did not align with the theories of the Assyriologists of his day. Why is that important? It's because God formed the man Adam in His Garden in 4004 B.C., so 3800 B.C. is only a 204 years difference. It is pointing to Sargon I as likely being Cain, and the ancient people and land of Sumer being the "land of Nod" where Cain was cast out to.

Bristowe draws many other direct parallels with Sargon which points to him as probably being Cain.

 

[John S]

Adam and Eve are MUCH older than 4000 B.C.

Historians KNOW that the first civilization was at Ur around 4000 B.C.
Mankind is hundreds of thousands, and possibly, 1 to 2 billions of years older than that.

 

[Rex]

Adam and Eve are MUCH older than 4000 B.C.

Historians KNOW that the first civilization was at Ur around 4000 B.C.
Mankind is hundreds of thousands, and possibly, 1 to 2 billions of years older than that.

If you have ever looked at the evidence they provide, one its as rare as hens teeth and second bones are always questionably human, and the dwelling places are just the same, a pile of rocks, a cave, a pole buried in the ground? The truth is man suddenly appeared less than 10,000 years age, the evidence for anything before that time is like finding a drop in a swimming pool.

 

[Dodo_David]

Have any of you ever heard/read the expression "Missing the forest for the trees"?

Modern-day Westerners have a bad habit of engaging in ethnocentric thinking when it comes to the genre of ancient Eastern literature, which is what the book of Genesis is.

The ancient Hebrews didn't consider it necessary to examine every minute detail of the stories that are recorded in the book of Genesis. What mattered to them was the big picture. Where Cain got his wife is something that we don't need to know in order to understand the lesson of Cain's story.

 

[veteran]

The real fossil evidence points to flesh man not existing any farther back than around 11,000 years ago. Darwinist scientist's confusion comes from the evidence of man's works existing much father back than that, even to the time of dinosaurs.

There has been more than one discovery of perfect human footprints fossilized within footprints of dinosaurs, placing the existence of both at the same time. Yet no human fossil remains have ever been found dating back to the time of the dinosaurs. Because most don't understand about the time when Satan was perfect in his ways with following God, they don't understand there was an angelic existence living on the ancient earth prior to Gen.1:2, prior to Satan's rebelion. The bodies of angels are not of flesh, but apparently have some kind of mass to be able to eat our food and manifest with the image of man upon this earth (like Gen.18 & 19 reveals).

So those ancient footprints with dinosaurs, and ancient artifacts found from men's works dating back to that time have no relation to God's creation of flesh man later with Adam. Because modern science has no clue about this, and many of God's people are also ignorant of it, that's where all the confusion about how old this earth really is comes from.

 

[John S]

The dinosaurs lived MANY tens and hundreds of millions of years BEFORE man.



The "Mona Lisa" wasn't painted by itself. It took an artist. The same thing happened with evolution. It was God's "painting" which took many millions of years.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

Genesis DOES mention that Cain went to live with other people. Since no one has ever brought the subject up before, it, apparently, isn't part of the "main message".

Suppose an antheist asked you this question, what would be your reply to him? - "Go away, it's not important enough".


MAYBE a minister will answer the question?

Hi John,

Many people have taken a deeper look into Genesis, not only to answer your question but also about dinosaurs and other animals that can be dated back hundred of thousands of years.

The answer that seems to be the clearest is this:

The bible is not about the creation of planet earth or stars in the sky. The bible is about God's covenant with mankind, that started with Adam, which really means a covenant with a man. Genesis is about that covenant and the decedents of that man. The Jews kept track of the decedents of Adam right up to the time of Jesus. That is how important it was to them, God's chosen or in reality the decedents of Adam. By accepting that we can understand the bible better and still believe that God created everything, but not in a fixed number of years.

Hope that helps.

 

[Rex]

. The Jews kept track of the decedents of Adam right up to the time of Jesus. That is how important it was to them, God's chosen or in reality the decedents of Adam. By accepting that we can understand the bible better and still believe that God created everything, but not in a fixed number of years.

Hope that helps.

To add to what Rocky Wiley is saying is the creation of man "Adam" happened roughly 6000 years ago. That's what the line of decedents shows.

Have you ever read this http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html
I have posted and commented on it in several creation account threads.

 

[Rocky Wiley]

To add to what Rocky Wiley is saying is the creation of man "Adam" happened roughly 6000 years ago. That's what the line of decedents shows.

Have you ever read this http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html
I have posted and commented on it in several creation account threads.

Hi Rex,

What I understand is, Man, many of them, had already been created thousands of years ago, but the covenant was made approximately 6000 years ago with one of them, Adam.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

TVOT - You seem to be saying that you are a native American.
Just so you don't misunderstand me, I'm NOT claiming that the white race is superior.
In fact, it's rather doubtful that Adam and Eve were white.

This is off topic, but I believe that the natives of the Americas, along with all of the immigrants, including those who were forced to come here, were adopted into the Tribes of Israel, just like the sons of Joseph were adopted by Jacob.

I'm sorry, that sounds like a very Mormon belief, that we descended from the Lamanites, one of the "lost tribes of Israel". Adam and Eve were likely white if my theory holds true that the most natural rendering of Genesis is that human civilizations existed when Adam and Eve were created. But it becomes moot when you consider that all of humanity today came from Noah and his sons and it's clear that racial divergences still sprang forth from that generation. I don't buy into the nonsense that the flood was a local event because any flood that surpasses even the peaks of the Ararat mountains certainly affected the entire globe. But those who support the idea of an Adamic race (whites) claim the flood was local to solve that problem. It's the reason I don't really know what to believe and haven't committed myself either way.

 

[Rex]

Hi Rex,

What I understand is, Man, many of them, had already been created thousands of years ago, but the covenant was made approximately 6000 years ago with one of them, Adam.

Well I haven't found anything that agrees with the spirit with-in me to that effect.

Like I mentioned the evidence for man is older than 10,000 years is practically non exsistant, but you could factor in the flood destroying it, but where does that lead? In IMO wild speculation and imagination that's taken as the truth, this will effect the way you interpret the rest of scripture. Case in point the earth ages thing and the reading of Gen 1:27 as an actual creation of men and women before Adam, or as I read it a thumbnail sketch, then the greater detail in the Adam and Eve account.

The only thing that satisfies and doesn't compromise or change the way I read Gen is the link I provided on the other page. It takes into account the millions of years but leaves the creation of man as the genealogy suggest, at 6000 years. Could man and dinosaurs lived at the same time in recent history I believe there is also evidence that indicates yes it's quite possible. But they were here long before the creation of "man"

What the creation of man prior to Adam and Eve leads to is a form of segregation, and some have even fostered that same equation with the account of Noah. If this is true then what creation being taught by these people amounts to, is a genealogy of the damned vs the genealogy of the saved. And need less to say it is full of holes that forces the believer in scripture to make many compromises. Paul uses Esue and Jacob to make a point the the promise given to Abraham was not automatically given to the bloodline decedents in Romans CH 9. I'll use that same equation to bring to your attention that Isaac and Rebbecca were the parents of both. Just as Adan and Eve were parents of Cain and Able. One received the promise the other didn't. So a literal reading of both of these stories renders the theory that the earth is populated with those born of Cain and those born of Seth is nothing but twisting scripture to foster a master race to quote Hitler. To close just a casual reading of the OT will revel that the bloodline from Abraham was comprised of both, those the Lord was pleased with, and those he wasn't.

 

[Dodo_David]

Contrary to what someone here has claimed, there is plenty of archaeological evidence that mankind has existed for more than 10,000 years. The ancient city of Jericho alone dates back to 9000 BCE. The artwork in France's Chauvet Cave dates back to about 30,000 BCE.


Yet, some people reject that evidence because it doesn't pass a religious litmus test.

 

[John S]

DD - Thank You. I was beginning to think that I was the only one on this site who didn't believe that 6000 year nonsense.
I can agree that the history of human civilization is 6000 years, with the founding of Ur around 4000 B.C. but Adam wasn't around then - and neither were the dinosaurs.


TVOT - Since I'm not Mormon, I have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about.
Who are the Lamanites? At no time have I even mentioned Noah's Ark.
I can agree with you that Neanderthal Man MAY have been around during the time of Adam. That MAY have been who Cain went to live with or he went to live with his children - but I don't understand why he wouldn't have been living with them to begin with.
I sincerely doubt that Adam and Eve were white because they didn't live in the northern climates.

 

[Dodo_David]

The literature contained in the Old Testament was not originally written for people who think the way that modern-day Westerners think. That is why it is sometimes difficult for modern-day Westerners to figure out the correct interpretation of verses in the Old Testament.

As I stated earlier, whenever the ancient Hebrews listened to a story, they didn't analyze every little detail in the story. Instead, they listened for the "big picture" or the "main idea" of the story. Thus, to the ancient Hebrews, the ancestry of Cain's wife didn't matter.

By the way, I find it amusing that some people still conform their Bible interpretation to something that is not a part of Scripture, namely Ussher's Chronology, which is based on Western thinking about the Old Testament.

 

[Rex]

Contrary to what someone here has claimed, there is plenty of archaeological evidence that mankind has existed for more than 10,000 years. The ancient city of Jericho alone dates back to 9000 BCE. The artwork in France's Chauvet Cave dates back to about 30,000 BCE.


Yet, some people reject that evidence because it doesn't pass a religious litmus test.

No, it's quite all right, like I said the evidence is rare

In your Jericho like it says perhaps as old as 9000 years

and the cave you mentioned is still being debated because of the 30,000 year claim, like I said it rare and you have to dig out what is known to make a desision for yourself. Once you start digging into it in many cases you find its rather embellished.

In my mind it's like OK humans were every where for a long time, i'll consider it. But the indisputable evidence is that at some point about 6000 years ago they were building everywhere building things we can't really reproduce. The question is why is their so little evidence for humans before this time?

In any case this is about as far as I go on the subject. I usually remember that science unlike the bible is always changing, its in a constant state of reexamination. On top of that, scientist that have much to gain or lose if there papers are found to be in error, the same could be said for pasters as well, they have a lot riding on there findings as well.

The only real difference is, the bible doesn't change only the interpretation.

 

[Dodo_David]

No, it's quite all right, like I said the evidence is rare

Rex, you say that the evidence is rare, but archaeologists say something else.

 

[Rex]

If you would like to continue what evidence are you suggesting?
BTW I applied that statement to human evidence alone.

The question is why is their so little evidence for humans before this time?

So, go on I'm listening

So were on the same page I don't believe in a young earth, and maybe you should read this first, I always find it best to fully understand someone position before questioning what they believe.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18573-6-days-of-creation/page-2#entry202579
From the 6 day creation thread.

 

[Dodo_David]

If you would like to continue what evidence are you suggesting?
BTW I applied that statement to human evidence alone.


So, go on I'm listening

So were on the same page I don't believe in a young earth, and maybe you should read this first, I always find it best to fully understand someone position before questioning what they believe.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18573-6-days-of-creation/page-2#entry202579
From the 6 day creation thread.

If you want to keep up with the findings of archaeology, then I suggest that you read Archaeology magazine and Biblical Archaeology Review magazine.

 

[Rex]

If you want to keep up with the findings of archaeology, then I suggest that you read Archaeology magazine and Biblical Archaeology Review magazine.

OK then, your not prepared. I'm hardly going to do your leg work by reading stacks of magazines, I've done my own thank you.

Being prepared is a biblical principle 1 Peter 3:15

Maybe latter you can find what it is your referring to in this post.

Rex, you say that the evidence is rare, but archaeologists say something else.