• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pre-adamites decision

*sigh*

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I used that same expression to my seven year old granddaughter just days ago and she had no idea what it meant - so I explained its origins - glad we don't live that way any more.

And so was she. ;)
 
*sigh*

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There is actual history in the Bible. One doesn't have to accept that the writers were correct about their interpretations of God's involvement to accept that. Denying the historical foundations of the work is ... well ... it's anti-scientific.

Quote some of this actual history, please. I bet that it does not include the myth of Adam and Eve.
 
Bible history. Sir Isaac Newton once said: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” (Two Apologies, by R. Watson, London, 1820, p. 57) Its integrity to truth proves sound on any point that might be tested. Its history is accurate and can be relied upon. For example, what it says about the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians cannot be successfully contradicted (Jer 51:11, 12, 28; Da 5:28), neither can what it says about people like Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:20; Da 1:1); Egyptian King Shishak (1Ki 14:25; 2Ch 12:2); Assyrians Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib (2Ki 15:29; 16:7; 18:13); the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius (Lu 2:1; 3:1; Ac 18:2); Romans such as Pilate, Felix, and Festus (Ac 4:27; 23:26; 24:27); nor what it says about the temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the Areopagus at Athens (Ac 19:35; 17:19-34). What the Bible says about these or any other places, people, or events is historically accurate in every detail.​

History — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 
I just came across a theory about pre-adamites. I have never studied this theory. But it looks interesting. Has anyone studied it and what are your thoughts on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The theory of pre-adamic race is inconsistent with the Scriptures. Adam was the first man.

1 Cor 15
45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.




Before God created Adam, there was no man to till the earth.

Genesis 2
4 This is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.




When Adam was created, he was outside of Eden.

Genesis 2
15 Then the Lord God took [d]the man and put him in the garden of Eden to [e]tend and keep it.




There were no other humans besides Adam. He was alone.
There were no other creatures comparable to him - there were no other humans.

Genesis 2
18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to [g]Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.




Therefore, God created Eve. She was the first woman.

Genesis 3
20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve,[g] because she was the mother of all living.
 
Last edited:
When Cain was kicked out of the home of Adam and Eve, he went to a city full of people. If Cain was very young, like 16, then the question would be who were those people. Genesis doesn't say how old Cain and Able were at the time of Cain's murdering his brother Abel. They could have been 500 years old. If that is the case, there could have been many cities full of people. So, that would shoot down that theory.

We know from the Scriptures that Adam was 130 years old around the time Cain killed Abel. Therefore, Cain and Abel couldn't have been more than that. Adam had another son after that, Seth.
He had other sons and daughters.



Genesis 5
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.





By the time he was 130 years old, Adam must've had many grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

The Bible does not indicate that the Land of Nod was a city, nor that it was full of people.

"Knew," is a biblical term for sexual relations. This line from
Gen 4, "17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch........," is given in that context.
It doesn't mean he met his wife in Nod.




Here is a good explanation:


After Cain killed Abel and was declared a “fugitive and vagabond” by God (Genesis 4:12), the Bible says that he “went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod” (4:16). It was in this land that “Cain knew his wife” (4:17), and it was here that his son, Enoch, was born.

When a person reads about Nod in Genesis 4, he often pictures a land where a large group of people already were dwelling by the time Cain arrived. Because the Bible gives this land a name (“Nod”), many assume it was called such before Cain went there. Furthermore, many believe that it was in this land that Cain found his wife. Based upon these assumptions, some even claim that God must have specially created other humans besides Adam and Eve, otherwise there would not have been a land of Nod, nor would Cain have been able to find a wife there. Are these assumptions and conclusions correct? What can be said about these matters?

It is very likely that when Moses wrote the name “Nod” (Genesis 4:16), he was using a figure of speech called “prolepsis” (the assignment of something, such as an event or name, to a time that precedes it). People often use prolepsis for the sake of convenience, so that the reader or audience can better understand what is being communicated. For example, I might say, “My wife and I dated two years before we got married,” when actually she was not my wife when we were dating, but a very dear friend.

When Moses used the name Nod in Genesis 4, the reader must understand the land probably was not given that name until sometime after Cain moved there. This is consistent with the meaning of the name Nod (“wandering”), which in all probability was given because God told Cain he was to be a wanderer upon the Earth (Genesis 4:12). Thus, the land of Nod almost certainly was not an area filled with people whom Cain would eventually befriend. It would become that in time; nevertheless, it probably was not such a place upon his arrival.

But, someone might ask, did Cain not find his wife in the land of Nod?
Actually, the Bible never tells us that Cain’s wife came from Nod. The text simply says that Cain “dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch” (Genesis 4:16-17).
Apologetics Press - The Land of Nod
 
Last edited:
Please tell me where in the Bible that is stated since Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and continues on with the entire creation account, ending with man on the 6th day, namely Adam....Genesis 5"1,2, which you mentioned, states, "This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day that God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them. On the day they were created, he blessed them and named them Man."...that certainly infers Adam was the 1st man created, ever, before any other man...

I don't think Amelia is contradicting what the Scriptures says.

She is making a logical point that even though science claims that there were people before Adam and Eve - even if proven true, science still doesn't negate or debunk the fact about the genealogical record of Christ!

That's how I understand what she's saying.
 
There is a contradiction if humans not created by God existed before God created the first human named Adam.

No contradiction!

How do you know the humans (whom you say were not created by God), were indeed, not God-created? And, that they didn't come from the first humans?

because of fossils?

It is not set in stone that the days of the creation event were man days as we know it
(24 hour-days).

What is a "God day?"
Surely, we can't say it's EXACTLY equivalent to 1,000 human years?
The biblical number given (a thousand years), is a metaphor to indicate that a God day is unlike
a human day
!

Lol. For all we know, 1 God day is like a million human years or more!


We do know that the creation event was a set of miraculous event - therefore since it's a miraculous event, it does not have to be how we conceive it to be, nor has it have to conform to, or with anything!
 
Last edited:
Science does not contradict the genealogical records in the Lord Of The Rings.

It doesn't have to contradict it! :lol:

Science - and the AUTHOR - knows the Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction!
Everyone knows - EXCEPT YOU - that it's a work of fiction! :lol:
 
No contradiction!

How do you know the humans (whom you say were not created by God), were indeed, not God-created? And, that they didn't come from the first humans?

because of fossils?

It is not set in stone that the days of the creation event were man days as we know it
(24 hour-days).

What is a "God day?"
Surely, we can't say it's EXACTLY equivalent to 1,000 human years?
The biblical number given (a thousand years), is a metaphor to indicate that a God day is unlike
a human day
!

Lol. For all we know, 1 God day is like a million human years or more!


We do know that the creation event was a set of miraculous event - therefore since it's a miraculous event, it does not have to be how we conceive it to be, nor has it have to conform to, or with anything!

Terms like "first" and "before" have no conventional meaning than why assign conventional meanings to any words (terms?) used in the bible? The bottom line is that if Adam was the first human created by god then no pre-adamites are possible unless they were not created by (that?) god.
 
Terms like "first" and "before" have no conventional meaning than why assign conventional meanings to any words (terms?) used in the bible? The bottom line is that if Adam was the first human created by god then no pre-adamites are possible unless they were not created by (that?) god.

Lol. That's why I asked you, "How do you know the humans (whom you say were not created by God), were indeed, not God-created?
And, that they didn't come from the first humans?"
The first humans referred to are Adam and Eve.

Of course, you're sticking to the literal Creation day account - and I'm saying, the creation days doesn't have to be taken literally!


The term, "first," is given in the context as we know it! Adam, is the first man!
There are no pre-Adamite people, as explained in my previous post.
It would be inconsistent with the Scriptures.



Furthermore, the creation account in Genesis is a MIRACULOUS series of event (if you take it literally) - meaning, SUPERNATURAL - well, that's beyond the realm of science!
Or, anyone's, for that matter!

Whether it's a literal 7-human days event, or not - the message of Genesis doesn't change!
God is the Creator. Don't lose the forest for the trees!
 
Last edited:
Terms like "first" and "before" have no conventional meaning than why assign conventional meanings to any words (terms?) used in the bible? The bottom line is that if Adam was the first human created by god then no pre-adamites are possible unless they were not created by (that?) god.

Or, conversely, Adam was the first man with a soul.
 
Or, conversely, Adam was the first man with a soul.

You, of all people, should be aware what the word soul means...
 
We know from the Scriptures that Adam was 130 years old around the time Cain killed Abel. Therefore, Cain and Abel couldn't have been more than that. Adam had another son after that, Seth.
He had other sons and daughters.



Genesis 5
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.





By the time he was 130 years old, Adam must've had many grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

The Bible does not indicate that the Land of Nod was a city, nor that it was full of people.

"Knew," is a biblical term for sexual relations. This line from
Gen 4, "17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch........," is given in that context.
It doesn't mean he met his wife in Nod.

Here is a good explanation:
Apologetics Press - The Land of Nod

You make good points. Cain's son, Enoch, did build a city. So, I think possibly there were a good number of people in the Land of Nod. Even when Cain got there. And, while we don't know when Cain met his wife specifically, it is also reasonable to conclude he met her in the Land of Nod. What he did do is bring his murderous heart to the Land of Nod and I'm sure continued his evil ways infecting the people of Nod.
 
No contradiction!

How do you know the humans (whom you say were not created by God), were indeed, not God-created? And, that they didn't come from the first humans?

because of fossils?

It is not set in stone that the days of the creation event were man days as we know it
(24 hour-days).

What is a "God day?"
Surely, we can't say it's EXACTLY equivalent to 1,000 human years?
The biblical number given (a thousand years), is a metaphor to indicate that a God day is unlike
a human day
!

Lol. For all we know, 1 God day is like a million human years or more!


We do know that the creation event was a set of miraculous event - therefore since it's a miraculous event, it does not have to be how we conceive it to be, nor has it have to conform to, or with anything!

And yet, there are PhD scientists that have concluded scientifically that the things thought to be millions of years in the making like canyons could be made in hundreds less years. And, that much of the Geologists assumptions are wrong along with carbon dating methodologies. I'm glad my testimony of the eternal Godhead, Father, Son and the Holy Ghost aren't because of science.
 
It's about humans who maybe have existed before Adam and Eve, therefore, it has nothing to do with reality.

Why not post whatever you came across? I've never heard of a preadamite.
 
Science does not contradict the genealogical records of the Bible.

It doesn't give any reason that a couple named Adam and Eve couldn't have had the posterity claimed in the Bible.


It just says that there were other humans around a long time before the Abrahamic history says Adam and Eve were around.

History doesn't say Adam and Eve have been around since the beginning. That would be the Bible, or somebodies interpretation of the bible.
 
*sigh*

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There is actual history in the Bible. One doesn't have to accept that the writers were correct about their interpretations of God's involvement to accept that. Denying the historical foundations of the work is ... well ... it's anti-scientific.

So what? There is history in many works of fiction, that doesn't make the story true. There are tons of historical fiction out there that talk aboutr real places, but have fictional characters. Having some real life places in a book does not make it true just because there is some historical facts.

The Da Vinci Code has historical facts, doesn't make that true
 
And yet, there are PhD scientists that have concluded scientifically that the things thought to be millions of years in the making like canyons could be made in hundreds less years. And, that much of the Geologists assumptions are wrong along with carbon dating methodologies. I'm glad my testimony of the eternal Godhead, Father, Son and the Holy Ghost aren't because of science.

Why do you people think you can get away with posting such complete nonsense. No scientist concluded such a thing, except maybe some religious quack with a PhD in theology or some other unrelated, non scientific discipline
 
Why do you people think you can get away with posting such complete nonsense. No scientist concluded such a thing, except maybe some religious quack with a PhD in theology or some other unrelated, non scientific discipline

You need to be careful since their data is published in scientific literature. And, why would you limit science at all unless you have some other devious agenda in mind? I thought scientists were supposed to be open minded and just go where the facts lead? But, for some reason, if the facts lead away from proving God doesn't exist, then those PhD's who got their degrees from the same places like MIT that the old universe PhD's do, are somehow quacks??? And, religious quacks at that? Instead of assuming this, why don't you do some actually study on the subject.
 
So what? There is history in many works of fiction, that doesn't make the story true. There are tons of historical fiction out there that talk aboutr real places, but have fictional characters. Having some real life places in a book does not make it true just because there is some historical facts.

The Da Vinci Code has historical facts, doesn't make that true

You are correct. However, many of the Young Earth scientists received their degrees from the same universities as the Old Earth scientists have. So, perhaps having an open enough mind to at least look into the Young Earth science is by far more mature minded than just denouncing it based on prejudice. Have some inclination of investigative desires before you throw out the science that is published in reputable science literature.
 
Why do you people think you can get away with posting such complete nonsense. No scientist concluded such a thing, except maybe some religious quack with a PhD in theology or some other unrelated, non scientific discipline

And yet, there are PhD scientists that have concluded scientifically that the things thought to be millions of years in the making like canyons could be made in hundreds less years. And, that much of the Geologists assumptions are wrong along with carbon dating methodologies. I'm glad my testimony of the eternal Godhead, Father, Son and the Holy Ghost aren't because of science.
 
So what? There is history in many works of fiction, that doesn't make the story true. There are tons of historical fiction out there that talk aboutr real places, but have fictional characters. Having some real life places in a book does not make it true just because there is some historical facts.

The Da Vinci Code has historical facts, doesn't make that true


Please note, I never said the Bible was "true". I said that science didn't contradict the genealogical records of the Bible.

I grew up Mormon. I went to BYU. At BYU I was taught by the good Mormon biology professor that all of us good little Mormon boys and girls needed to accept that there were humans on the earth thousands of years before the Bible said that Adam and Eve lived.

The existence of humans on the earth before Adam and Eve does not contradict the existence of Adam and Eve or of them having a God-given destiny. Naturally there are some parts of the Bible which are quite awkward thanks to science, but science does not contradict the existence of these progenitors of the Abrahamic line known to us as Adam and Eve.


I am ambivalent about both the Bible and Mormonism now, but Abraham did have ancestors. There is no scientific reason that among Abraham's ancestors there couldn't have been a couple known by some variation on the names Adam and Eve who went off to their own part of the wilderness and started a famous line of descendants.
 
You, of all people, should be aware what the word soul means...

Yes.. that is the main definition.The 'breath of life' could very well be symbolic.

There are many arguments about it.
 
Yes.. that is the main definition.The 'breath of life' could very well be symbolic.

There are many arguments about it.

The main definition according to who? Original manuscripts or hearsay/false doctrine?
 
Back
Top Bottom