Adam was not the first human - says the Bible!

[Armin]

As Genesis 2 is the continuation, the sequel of Genesis 1,
humans must have existed before Adam and Eve:

During the sixth day humans, male and female,
conquered the whole planet:

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth ...
... and it was so ..." Genesis 1:28-31

(This is one more proof for long days in Genesis 1.)

Then, on the seventh day,
which has not ended until today,
(which is another proof for long days ... )
a certain man Adam was formed (jatsar) - not created,
Genesis 2:7.

The Hebrew jatsar always means the forming
of a man or animal in the mothers womb,
as for example the prophet Jeremia:

"Before I formed (jatsar) you in the belly I knew you ..."
Jeremia 1:5

So, Adam was not biologically the "first man",
but in a spiritual sense, which can also be seen
in 1.Corinthians 15:45-47,
where Jesus Christ is called "the second man"
and "the last Adam" -
both can not mean "mankind as a biological species",
but must refer to a spiritual dimension.

Please, pay attention to the fact that in Genesis 1
mankind is created (bara) male and female
(zakar uneqebah),
while Genesis 2 Adam is formed (jatsar)
and his wife is built (banah),
and both were "man and wife", ish and ishah.

Any objections?

[Canuckster1127]

Welcome Armin,

Good to meet you and see you posting here.

Corelating Genesis 1 & 2 certainly is important. How it is done has implications as to how the different postions are defined.

I think what you're presenting here is pretty well established and many competent scholars accept this in varying forms under the general reference of "The Gap Theory." It was more popular in the past however than it is currently. The Scofield Bible included this in the interpretive notes, if I remember correctly.

It's not necessary from the perspective of OEC to accept the gap theory, but it is a significant point of view that bears examination.

My personal opinion is that Gen 1 & 2 are describing the same creation from differing perspectives and that there are significant clues within the text itself to assume longer than 24 hour days.

I appreciate the summary you've put up though and encourage you to continue examining and praying through this very important issue of textual study.

Blessings,

Bart

[Armin]

Hi, Bart,
thank you for your friendly "Welcome"!

May be I found a place here to think and talk about "creation & evolution"
with brothers and sisters on the basis of the Bible
in a friendly and open atmosphere ...


I am dealing with this subject for quite a while,
but it seems not to be easy to discuss it with believers.

I appreciate the godandscience point of view (OEC),
I am also impressed with the arguments for atheists
and the attitude of talk.

Now about the "second creation report".
In Germany this is one of the most used arguments
of critical theology to prove that the Bible is selfcontradictive:
the two reports cannot be reconciled (they say).

Now I wonder:
Which argument in Genesis chapter one and two
indicates that chapter two is not the sequel of chapter one?

I agree with you: the answer to this question
has many implications.
To me this looks like one key to understand Genesis properly.
If we "loose" this key we might be unable to comprehend
important parts of the revelation.

I mentioned already some arguments for the sequel-theory.
Here one more:
In Genesis 1 the God the creator, elohim, is acting
with three creative acts (Hebrew: bara):

1.universe (matter, space and time)
2.animal life (living souls)
3.mankind (spiritual beings)

In Genesis 2 no creative act happens,
but God JHWH, the covenant God
forms a certain man for a special purpose
(same as Jeremia for being a prophet, Jeremia 1:5)
and enters into a covenant-relationship with him:
Eternal life if obedient to the commandment.

This is a logical development.

And again my question:
Where in Genesis or the Bible can we find two chapters
following each other and describing the same event?
This is a sincere question, and perhaps some reader
knows an example which I oversaw.
I've read the whole Bible, but I cannot remember one case.
(Except perhaps the psalms or proverbs.)

If Genesis 2 is the sequel of Genesis 1
this would solve many problems
by just "taking the Bible at its Word" ...

Greetings!

Armin

"I have never denied the existence of God!" (Charles Darwin)

[Canuckster1127]

Armin,

Very good to meet you and I think from what you say that this will be a good place to discuss these things, as that is one of our primary purposes.

Here's a link to an article on our main board that addresses some of these issues.

Why not take a look at it and we can discuss it further if you so desire.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/genesis2.html

Blessings,

Bart

[Armin]

Hi, Bart,

thank you, I've read the page (and links),
and I agree with very much of it -
too much to mention all the "yesses" I have ...


I agree: It's a different perspective, local and so on.
But why does one go back to day six?
Day six is over, day seven is going on.
So, we should be in day seven.

And I propose to pay more attention to the fact,
that not one single creative act happens in Genesis 2.
Adam is "formed = jatsar", also the animals,
Eva is "built = banah".
This IS no creation report.

What hinders to see Genesis 2 as a sequel of Genesis 1?

As far as I can see only the implication then
that Adam was a single person living AFTER mankind of the sixth day
hinders to draw that conclusion.

Am I right?

Armin

[Canuckster1127]

Hi, Bart,

thank you, I've read the page (and links),
and I agree with very much of it -
too much to mention all the "yesses" I have ...


I agree: It's a different perspective, local and so on.
But why does one go back to day six?
Day six is over, day seven is going on.
So, we should be in day seven.

And I propose to pay more attention to the fact,
that not one single creative act happens in Genesis 2.
Adam is "formed = jatsar", also the animals,
Eva is "built = banah".
This IS no creation report.

What hinders to see Genesis 2 as a sequel of Genesis 1?

As far as I can see only the implication then
that Adam was a single person living AFTER mankind of the sixth day
hinders to draw that conclusion.

Am I right?

Armin

Armin,

I think what you are saying makes sense and is consistent with the article. I have to confess than my level of expertise in terms of the Hebrew Language and the Old Testement is far lower than in Greek and the New Testament so I have to work primarily with materials prepared by others to gain insight into these types of issues.

The idea of a distinction between Gen 1 & 2 is somewhat artificial as the original Hebrew text makes no chapter divisions; they have been superimposed upon the text and unfortunately in this case, used to highlight two accounts that may well be intended to compliment each other rather than to be understood as sequential narrative.

When I read the arguments of this article however, I do see how it might be seen as such and allow for a sequential continuation.

The quality of the translation and the commentary surrounding it are critical for someone like me who has some familiarity with the critical forms involved but not the actual Biblical Hebrew language.

Perhaps some others with some stronger skills in those fields could offer some thought. I can certainly look at some different secondary sources from some scholars in this area to better understand the issues as we progress though if you like.

Blessings,

Bart

[Armin]

Hello, Bart,

thank you, if you bump into any information
why Genesis 2 should not be a continuation of Genesis 1
I would be interested to know.

I will "riffle through your files" a bit
and keep in touch ...

Armin

"I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe,
and especially the nature of man, and to conclude,
that everything is the result of brute force."

Charles Darwin

[justme]

As Genesis 2 is the continuation, the sequel of Genesis 1,
humans must have existed before Adam and Eve:

No. Gen 2:1 starts with the fact that the creation was all done, and finished. So no humans existed before that.

[Dominic]

Adam was the first man, and Eve was the first woman. The man in Genesis 1:26, is the same man, Adam, in Genesis 2:7. Genesis 2:7 is elaborating on the story of the Adam created in Genesis 1:26.

"And so it is written, The FIRST MAN Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."-1 Corinthians 15:45

[Gman]

So, Adam was not biologically the "first man",
but in a spiritual sense, which can also be seen
in 1.Corinthians 15:45-47,
where Jesus Christ is called "the second man"
and "the last Adam" -
both can not mean "mankind as a biological species",
but must refer to a spiritual dimension.

Please, pay attention to the fact that in Genesis 1
mankind is created (bara) male and female
(zakar uneqebah),
while Genesis 2 Adam is formed (jatsar)
and his wife is built (banah),
and both were "man and wife", ish and ishah.

Any objections?

Hi Armin, I certainly wouldn't rule out what you are saying.. It could be plausible. In Genesis 1:27 it clearly says that God created man not "a man." This is certainly referring to mankind. If Genesis 1:27 said "a man and a woman" (singular) then we would have a different story referring to Adam and Eve. Now.. During this creation of "mankind" you could certainly fit the Adam and Eve story into it on the sixth day very easily...

But what about 1 Corinthians 15:45? Perhaps we aren't reading it right... Could Adam be the first man among mankind to be made a spiritual being from the rest of mankind? Perhaps were more made spiritual after him? Perhaps... To be honest we really don't know and the text does not say... The Bible says that we are made spiritual (holy) after we accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior. So before that we are not spiritual (holy) like the rest of mankind? There seems to be a spiritual man (natural man) and also a spiritual man (holy man) in Christ in the Bible. Two separate spiritualities.. One carnal and one eternal. Could this also be referred to in Genesis? I don't know...

[jerry]

As Genesis 2 is the continuation, the sequel of Genesis 1,
humans must have existed before Adam and Eve:

During the sixth day humans, male and female,
conquered the whole planet:

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth ...
... and it was so ..." Genesis 1:28-31

(This is one more proof for long days in Genesis 1.)

Then, on the seventh day,
which has not ended until today,
(which is another proof for long days ... )
a certain man Adam was formed (jatsar) - not created,
Genesis 2:7.

The Hebrew jatsar always means the forming
of a man or animal in the mothers womb,
as for example the prophet Jeremia:

"Before I formed (jatsar) you in the belly I knew you ..."
Jeremia 1:5

So, Adam was not biologically the "first man",
but in a spiritual sense, which can also be seen
in 1.Corinthians 15:45-47,
where Jesus Christ is called "the second man"
and "the last Adam" -
both can not mean "mankind as a biological species",
but must refer to a spiritual dimension.

Please, pay attention to the fact that in Genesis 1
mankind is created (bara) male and female
(zakar uneqebah),
while Genesis 2 Adam is formed (jatsar)
and his wife is built (banah),
and both were "man and wife", ish and ishah.

Any objections?

I realize that this comes two years too late, but I just read it.

1. Chapter 2 isn't a sequel to chapter 1 it is a separate account specifically of man's beginnings.
2. Adam was formed of the dust of the ground (2:7).
3. The word for "formed" is the word "yāṣar: A verb meaning to form, to fashion, to shape, to devise. The primary meaning of the word is derived from the idea of cutting or framing. It is used of God's fashioning man from the dust of the ground (Gen_2:7); God's creative works in nature (Psa_95:5; Amo_4:13); and in the womb (Psa_139:16; Jer_1:5; cf. Zec_12:1); the molding of clay (Isa_29:16; Isa_45:9); the framing of seasons (Psa_74:17); the forging of metal (Isa_44:12); the crafting of weapons (Isa_54:17); the making of plans (Psa_94:20; Isa_46:11; Jer_18:11). It also signifies a potter (Psa_2:9; Isa_41:25); a sculptor (Isa_44:9); or the Creator (Isa_43:1; Isa_44:2, Isa_44:24)" (Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword. It does not mean forming in the womb, it just means to form. Jeremiah 1:5 talks about being formed in the womb, but Gen. 2:7 talks about Adam being formed of the dust of the ground.

4. 1 Cor. 15:45 speaks of Adam as being the first man he was made a living soul and the second man Adam was made a quickening spirit. The first was literal Adam from whom we derive our physical lives. Adam was a type of Christ from whom we receive our spiritual lives.

5. Gen. 1:26 says that God said let us make man in our image and God created man in his own image. The point here is that he created man in his image. God is a spirit (Jno. 4:24), thus God does not have a physical body. So what is Gen. 1:26 referring to? It refers to man's characteristics. That is what was created. His body was made from the dust of the ground (2:7).

In Christ Jesus
Jerry McDonald