Adam is not man of ch.1

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

6miker88

Junior Member
Mar 19, 2018
9
1
0
#1
The dating of the forming or beginning of Adam can’t be reduced to an exact year because as you will see, there are too many variables involved but all result in the same answer.
All of Christianity can be grouped into two classifications, 1. Young – Earth creationists and 2. Old – Earth creationists.
All Young – Earth Creationist put Adam at 4004 BC while all Old – Earth Creationist put Adam at 10,000 BC or older and consider Adam as man in chapter 1 and that we are all descendants of Adam.
The following claim is based completely on seven generations through the lineage of Seth-Genesis ch5 and Cain- Genesis chapter 4,v17 thru v22.
In the generations through Seth, the age of the father at the birth of his first son is given while the ages are not given through the generations of Cain.
This method requires the assumption that seven generations of two brothers will be approximately the same number of years, but it could be hundreds of years off and still have the same result.

Generations through Seth and age at birth Generations through Cain
1) Adam to Seth 130 years 1) Adam to Cain
2) Seth to Enos 105 years 2) Cain to Enoch
3) Enos to Cainan 90 years 3) Enoch to Irad
4) Cainan to Mahalaleel 70 years 4) Irad to Mehujel
5) Mahalaleel to Jared 65 years 5) Mehujel to Methusael
6) Jared to Enoch 162 years 6) Methusael to Lamech
7) Enoch to Methuselah 65 years 7) Lamech to Tubalcain

Adding all the years from Adam to Methuselah equal 687 years.
Tubalcain (the seventh generation thru Cain) has an odd”smoking gun” fact added. “He was an instructor of every artificier in brass and iron:”
This has to mean that he lived at some time during the Iron Age.
Depending on the specific area of the Middle East, these are the generally accepted four ages of man:
Iron Age- 1200 BC to 600 BC
Bronze Age- 3500 BC to 1200 BC
Copper Age- 5500 BC to 3500 BC
Stone Age- 2.6 million to 3500 BC

We don't know when in the iron age Tubalcain lived but:
if we add the seven generations from Adam which equals 687 years to the beginning of the Iron Age and to the end of the Iron Age we get this:
687 687
+1200 BC +600 BC
1887 BC 1287 BC

No matter which number you go by, you come up with Adam being formed in the Bronze Age and nowhere even close to the beginning of mankind.
These two partial chapters of Genesis bring up some questions worth some thought:
1. Seth hadn't been born yet. Who was Cain afraid of that would kill him when no one else existed except for Adam and Eve according to creationism??
2. Who did Cain marry when no one else was around to marry and why did he build a city for himself, his wife, and Enoch??
3. Who did Cain and Seth Mary? A sister???
4. Would it have been God's plan and intention that the descendents of Adam would practice incest and inbreeding??
The most logical answer to all of these questions is that we need to leave Genesis chronologically correct, Adam wasn't man of chapter 1, mankind of chapter 1 was in the existence before Adam was formed and the women of chapter 1 are who Adams descendants married..
This would also mean that not all men are descended from Adam.
This book is evidence that:
All men aren’t direct descendants of Adam.
Adam wasn’t the first man.
Adam of chapter 2 is not man of chapter 1.
This interpretation also leaves Genesis chronologically correct as is all the other books of the Bible.
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
#2
You are the only one being disturbed by simple questions like these, the rest of us are just fine.
The bible starts out wide but then quickly narrows down to persons of interest according to the general theme which is man fell and is to be reconciled back to God- so the story line would be maintained to narrowly to allow for Israel nation and eventually Jesus.
Adam and Eve definitely had daughters who got married to their brothers and incest was not a thing then. Sin is only sin whenever there's law.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#3
...4. Would it have been God's plan and intention that the descendents of Adam would practice incest and inbreeding??
The most logical answer to all of these questions is that we need to leave Genesis chronologically correct, Adam wasn't man of chapter 1, mankind of chapter 1 was in the existence before Adam was formed and the women of chapter 1 are who Adams descendants married..
This would also mean that not all men are descended from Adam.
This book is evidence that:
All men aren’t direct descendants of Adam.
Adam wasn’t the first man.
Adam of chapter 2 is not man of chapter 1.
This interpretation also leaves Genesis chronologically correct as is all the other books of the Bible.
If "not all men are descendants of Adam" then the blood of Christ cannot atone for them. Scripture clearly states, "In Adam, all died".

Scripture also states that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Calling intermarrying among the first family "inbreeding and incest" is anachronistic because God did not forbid it until Leviticus... several thousand years later. Genetic study confirms that the load of genetic mutations builds up over time, but early in the process it is not a concern.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#4
Where do all of the nut jobs come from???????
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#6
so your second thread about the same thing

you have 2 posts and both are threads you created...about the same thing

agenda much?

what is circulating behind these threads?
 

6miker88

Junior Member
Mar 19, 2018
9
1
0
#7
It's called reading with an open mind and going by the words and their meanings without skipping words that disagree with what you believe
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
#8
It's called reading with an open mind and going by the words and their meanings without skipping words that disagree with what you believe
Nope, this is not an open mind, whether you read all the words and understand their meanings or skip, all men came from Adam and Eve and sin entered the world through Adam (not Eve or any other man) and therefore death affects all men. If there were any other men not from the line of Adam, they'd still be alive today.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#9
It's called reading with an open mind and going by the words and their meanings without skipping words that disagree with what you believe

actually I would consider reading with no knowledge and believing whatever leads you astray, to be the actual cause here

I would say you are prejudiced in your own ability to be superior in your own thoughts

I believe what I read...study...and have for years...considering I have changed what I believe through the Bible, it is safe to say while I believe we don't have the whole story, your particular presentation is not THE story

you are not the first person to log on with the idea you are going to set the rest of us straight

it gets old
 
Last edited by a moderator:

6miker88

Junior Member
Mar 19, 2018
9
1
0
#11
"your particular presentation is not THE story"

Just words and opinions, that is unless you can give the scriptures that prove your points WELL??????
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#12
logical thought here...what else is under revisions according to the op?
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#13
"your particular presentation is not THE story"

Just words and opinions, that is unless you can give the scriptures that prove your points WELL??????

I insist you go first.

and by the way? I have not made any points. I have only commented on yours but I have to say they look more like an agenda and wondering what else you think everyone but you has wrong
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#14
you do state that you are unsure of your spiritual status, so perhaps you wish to discuss Christianity? salvation?

one would hope you don't desire to show that Christians are just plain stupid and don't understand the Bible they say they believe is the written word of God

you know, I'm not a muslim...I would not take on muslims telling them they don't undestand the koran
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,763
113
#15
All men aren’t direct descendants of Adam. Adam wasn’t the first man. Adam of chapter 2 is not man of chapter 1.
So you have come along (with four posts to your credit) to CONTRADICT the Word of God and are promoting lies (and you should know who is the Father of lies).

Let's take your first lie: All men aren’t direct descendants of Adam.

This is in direct contravention of several Scriptures:

ROMANS 5

12 Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one [Adam] many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16
And not as it was by one that sinned [Adam], so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17
For if by one man's offence [Adam] death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18
Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift cameupon all men unto justification of life.

19
For as by one man's disobedience [Adam] many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21
That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

As to your second lie: Adam wasn’t the first man. Adam of chapter 2 is not man of chapter 1, this has already been addressed in another thread but you have chosen to deliberately continue promoting this nonsense.

So what is your agenda, and where did you learn this nonsense? Or are you here simply to promote spiritual confusion and discord?
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
12,170
4,000
113
#16
The dating of the forming or beginning of Adam can’t be reduced to an exact year because as you will see, there are too many variables involved but all result in the same answer.
All of Christianity can be grouped into two classifications, 1. Young – Earth creationists and 2. Old – Earth creationists.
All Young – Earth Creationist put Adam at 4004 BC while all Old – Earth Creationist put Adam at 10,000 BC or older and consider Adam as man in chapter 1 and that we are all descendants of Adam.
The following claim is based completely on seven generations through the lineage of Seth-Genesis ch5 and Cain- Genesis chapter 4,v17 thru v22.
In the generations through Seth, the age of the father at the birth of his first son is given while the ages are not given through the generations of Cain.
This method requires the assumption that seven generations of two brothers will be approximately the same number of years, but it could be hundreds of years off and still have the same result.

Generations through Seth and age at birth Generations through Cain
1) Adam to Seth 130 years 1) Adam to Cain
2) Seth to Enos 105 years 2) Cain to Enoch
3) Enos to Cainan 90 years 3) Enoch to Irad
4) Cainan to Mahalaleel 70 years 4) Irad to Mehujel
5) Mahalaleel to Jared 65 years 5) Mehujel to Methusael
6) Jared to Enoch 162 years 6) Methusael to Lamech
7) Enoch to Methuselah 65 years 7) Lamech to Tubalcain

Adding all the years from Adam to Methuselah equal 687 years.
Tubalcain (the seventh generation thru Cain) has an odd”smoking gun” fact added. “He was an instructor of every artificier in brass and iron:”
This has to mean that he lived at some time during the Iron Age.
Depending on the specific area of the Middle East, these are the generally accepted four ages of man:
Iron Age- 1200 BC to 600 BC
Bronze Age- 3500 BC to 1200 BC
Copper Age- 5500 BC to 3500 BC
Stone Age- 2.6 million to 3500 BC

We don't know when in the iron age Tubalcain lived but:
if we add the seven generations from Adam which equals 687 years to the beginning of the Iron Age and to the end of the Iron Age we get this:
687 687
+1200 BC +600 BC
1887 BC 1287 BC

No matter which number you go by, you come up with Adam being formed in the Bronze Age and nowhere even close to the beginning of mankind.
These two partial chapters of Genesis bring up some questions worth some thought:
1. Seth hadn't been born yet. Who was Cain afraid of that would kill him when no one else existed except for Adam and Eve according to creationism??
2. Who did Cain marry when no one else was around to marry and why did he build a city for himself, his wife, and Enoch??
3. Who did Cain and Seth Mary? A sister???
4. Would it have been God's plan and intention that the descendents of Adam would practice incest and inbreeding??
The most logical answer to all of these questions is that we need to leave Genesis chronologically correct, Adam wasn't man of chapter 1, mankind of chapter 1 was in the existence before Adam was formed and the women of chapter 1 are who Adams descendants married..
This would also mean that not all men are descended from Adam.
This book is evidence that:
All men aren’t direct descendants of Adam.
Adam wasn’t the first man.
Adam of chapter 2 is not man of chapter 1.
This interpretation also leaves Genesis chronologically correct as is all the other books of the Bible.
some sure sign of wrong understanding of scriptures . 1.only one person can make any sense to it. 2. not in line with orthodox Christianity. 3. Not supported by the bible it's self.

Adam was a Man because God Called him " Man" .
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#17
Some mixing of homo sapiens sapiens with other beings is recorded in our DNA and also in Genesis.

I think that last time it ended with world wide flood.
 

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
64
48
#19
Some mixing of homo sapiens sapiens with other beings is recorded in our DNA and also in Genesis.

I think that last time it ended with world wide flood.

Really? I hope you are not basing that on this verse “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” The flood was because of man's wickedness
and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

Do you go to a Church that teaches/preaches topically? Back to the verse, this verse is clear that the nephilim were on the earth in and after those days, which days? The days when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they had children, who's children did they have? They had the children of the sons of God and who were those children? They were mighty men of old, the men of renown, not the men of the nephilim.

This verse is so easy to follow, but if (not saying you are) you are taught the Bible using verse from here and there to make a teaching seem Biblical, it is the reason people can read this verse out of context. Reading chapter 4-5 gives the context that interprets chapter 6, there is no mention of any other geneology or generations other then Adam and Cain. If you read Genesis 4:17-24 you the mention of only only daughter being born to Cain's geneology, then with a reading of 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30, the mention of many daughters and sons born to the geneology of Adam. With these and verses 4:17-24 helps make sense of 6:1, this is the first test from the Lord in the reading of the Bible, it is a contextual test.

The context shows Cain's geneology with only 8 sons and one daughter being born to his geneology and she is not even mentioned as a daughter, she is mentioned as "
The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Then you read chapter 5 and there's nine verses with the mention of daughters being born to Adam's geneology, you do not need to be a detective to understand the context only has one geneology that did not have an abundance of daughters being born to them, to understand chapter 6 verse 1 to understand that, "when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them," is talking about Cain and his geneology is in the context.

Something to think about.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#20

Really? I hope you are not basing that on this verse “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” The flood was because of man's wickedness
[FONT=&]“and [/FONT]that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

Do you go to a Church that teaches/preaches topically? Back to the verse, this verse is clear that the nephilim were on the earth in and after those days, which days? The days when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they had children, who's children did they have? They had the children of the sons of God and who were those children? They were mighty men of old, the men of renown, not the men of the nephilim.

This verse is so easy to follow, but if (not saying you are) you are taught the Bible using verse from here and there to make a teaching seem Biblical, it is the reason people can read this verse out of context. Reading chapter 4-5 gives the context that interprets chapter 6, there is no mention of any other geneology or generations other then Adam and Cain. If you read Genesis 4:17-24 you the mention of only only daughter being born to Cain's geneology, then with a reading of 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30, the mention of many daughters and sons born to the geneology of Adam. With these and verses 4:17-24 helps make sense of 6:1, this is the first test from the Lord in the reading of the Bible, it is a contextual test.

The context shows Cain's geneology with only 8 sons and one daughter being born to his geneology and she is not even mentioned as a daughter, she is mentioned as "
The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Then you read chapter 5 and there's nine verses with the mention of daughters being born to Adam's geneology, you do not need to be a detective to understand the context only has one geneology that did not have an abundance of daughters being born to them, to understand chapter 6 verse 1 to understand that, "when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them," is talking about Cain and his geneology is in the context.

Something to think about.
"ΚΑΙ ἐγένετο ἡνίκα ἤρξαντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ θυγατέρες ἐγεννήθησαν αὐτοῖς. 2 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν, ὧν ἐξελέξαντο...
οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις· καὶ μετ᾿ ἐκεῖνο, ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῖς· ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες οἱ ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος, οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί. "

"AND it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose...
Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of ancient days, the men of renown. "



I do not see anything about Cain there. I also think that "sons of God" was an ancient term for beings different from humans.
 
Last edited: