Did God create other humans before Adam and Eve?
It states in the Bible God created them male and female in reference to creating man. The Bible then states that God created Adam, Eve and the "animals" AFTER creating man. When Cain was banished he replied "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.".
Who exactly would slay Cain if the only people on Earth were Adam, Eve and himself? Cain later got a wife. Where did she come from, who is she? Is she a sister? Surely she's not Eve?
This website gives an interesting perspective:
Namely that God created different races of man and that these different peoples were simple hunter-gatherers, who did not have the mental aptitude which Adam posessed necessary for farming. So maybe it's an ancient persons way of telling an origin story.
It is universally known that Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman. It is therefore generally accepted that Cain married Eve (after Adam died) or a (partial) sister. The old testament is full of incest so it's not all that bizarre in the overall narrative.
Most likely Cain's brothers were set on revenge for Abel's murder. However the bible says Cain was marked so he would not be killed.
>Did God create other humans before Adam and Eve?
Yes, Adam and Eve were only considered to be the ultimate ancestors of Abraham, and thus the Hebrew people by its original authors. "Adam was DA FIRST PERSON EVAR" came later.
No, the word used for the Earth that god will destroy with the flood is the same word used when god created the Earth. Otherwise the opening line of the bible would read "In the beginning god created a very large size of land" or something to that effect.
>It states in the Bible God created them male and female in reference to creating man. The Bible then states that God created Adam, Eve and the "animals" AFTER creating man
The Alphabet of Ben Sira explores this particular point, before Eve, Lilith was the first woman. This is the story of Lilith it tells:
Soon afterward the young son of the king took ill. Said Nebuchadnezzar, "Heal my son. If you don't, I will kill you." Ben Sira immediately sat down and wrote an amulet with the Holy Name, and he inscribed on it the angels in charge of medicine by their names, forms, and images, and by their wings, hands, and feet. Nebuchadnezzar looked at the amulet. "Who are these?"
"The angels who are in charge of medicine: Snvi, Snsnvi, and Smnglof [סנוי סנסנוי וסמנגלוף] (in English: Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof). While God created Adam, who was alone, He said, 'It is not good for man to be alone' (Genesis 2:18). He also created a woman, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.' At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angels to bring her back.
"Said the Holy One to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, what is made is good. If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' The angels left God and pursued Lilith, whom they overtook in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians were destined to drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.'
"'Leave me!' she said. 'I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days.'
"When the angels heard Lilith's words, they insisted she go back. But she swore to them by the name of the living and eternal God: 'Whenever I see you or your names or your forms in an amulet, I will have no power over that infant.' She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day. Accordingly, every day one hundred demons perish, and for the same reason, we write the angels names on the amulets of young children. When Lilith sees their names, she remembers her oath, and the child recovers."
>Cain later got a wife. Where did she come from, who is she? Is she a sister? Surely she's not Eve?
This is explored in the Book of Jubilees, here's the text of chapter 4:
1 And in the third week in the second jubilee she gave birth to Cain, and in the fourth she gave birth to Abel, and in the fifth she gave birth to her daughter Awan. And in the first (year) of the third jubilee, Cain slew Abel because (God) accepted the sacrifice of Abel, and did not accept 3 the offering of Cain. And he slew him in the field: and his blood cried from the ground to heaven, 4 complaining because he had slain him. And the Lord reproved Cain because of Abel, because he had slain him, and he made him a fugitive on the earth because of the blood of his brother, and he 5 cursed him upon the earth. And on this account it is written on the heavenly tables, 'Cursed is ,he who smites his neighbour treacherously, and let all who have seen and heard say, So be it; and 6 the man who has seen and not declared (it), let him be accursed as the other.' And for this reason we announce when we come before the Lord our God all the sin which is committed in heaven and 7 on earth, and in light and in darkness, and everywhere. And Adam and his wife mourned for Abel four weeks of years, [99-127 A.M] and in the fourth year of the fifth week [130 A.M.] they became joyful, and Adam knew his wife again, and she bare him a son, and he called his name Seth; for he said 'GOD has 8 raised up a second seed unto us on the earth instead of Abel; for Cain slew him.' And in the sixth 9 week [134-40 A.M.] he begat his daughter Azura. And Cain took Awan his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee. [190-196 A.M.] And in the first year of the first week of the fifth jubilee, [197 A.M.] houses were built on the earth, and Cain built a city, and called its name after the name of 10,
11 his son Enoch. And Adam knew Eve his wife and she bare yet nine sons. And in the fifth week of the fifth jubilee [225-31 A.M.] Seth took Azura his sister to be his wife, and in the fourth (year of the sixth 12,13 week) [235 A.M.] she bare him Enos. He began to call on the name of the Lord on the earth. And in the seventh jubilee in the third week [309-15 A.M.] Enos took Noam his sister to be his wife, and she bare him a son 14 in the third year of the fifth week, and he called his name Kenan. And at the close of the eighth jubilee [325, 386-3992 A.M.] Kenan took Mualeleth his sister to be his wife, and she bare him a son in the ninth jubilee, 15 in the first week in the third year of this week, [395 A.M] and he called his name Mahalalel. And in the second week of the tenth jubilee [449-55 A.M.] Mahalalel took unto him to wife DinaH, the daughter of Barakiel the daughter of his father's brother, and she bare him a son in the third week in the sixth year, [461 A.M.] and he called his name Jared, for in his days the angels of the Lord descended on the earth, those who are named the Watchers, that they should instruct the children of men, and that they should do 16 judgment and uprightness on the earth. And in the eleventh jubilee [512-18 A.M.] Jared took to himself a wife, and her name was Baraka, the daughter of Rasujal, a daughter of his father's brother, in the fourth week of this jubilee, [522 A.M.] and she bare him a son in the fifth week, in the fourth year of the jubilee, and 17 he called his name Enoch. And he was the first among men that are born on earth who learnt writing and knowledge and wisdom and who wrote down the signs of heaven according to the order of their months in a book, that men might know the seasons of the years according to the order of
20 the children of men and for their generations. And in the twelfth jubilee, [582-88] in the seventh week thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Edna, the daughter of Danel, the daughter of his father's brother, and in the sixth year in this week [587 A.M.] she bare him a son and he called his name 21 Methuselah. And he was moreover with the angels of God these six jubilees of years, and they showed him everything which is on earth and in the heavens, the rule of the sun, and he wrote down 22 everything. And he testified to the Watchers, who had sinned with the daughters of men; for these had begun to unite themselves, so as to be defiled, with the daughters of men, and Enoch 23 testified against (them) all. And he was taken from amongst the children of men, and we conducted him into the Garden of Eden in majesty and honour, and behold there he writes down the con- 24 demnation and judgment of the world, and all the wickedness of the children of men. And on account of it (God) brought the waters of the flood upon all the land of Eden; for there he was set as a sign and that he should testify against all the children of men, that he should recount all the 25 deeds of the generations until the day of condemnation. And he burnt the incense of the sanctuary, 26 (even) sweet spices acceptable before the Lord on the Mount. For the Lord has four places on the earth, the Garden of Eden, and the Mount of the East, and this mountain on which thou art this day, Mount Sinai, and Mount Zion (which) will be sanctified in the new creation for a sanctification of the earth; through it will the earth be sanctified from all (its) guilt and its uncleanness through- 27 out the generations of the world. And in the fourteenth jubilee [652 A.M.] Methuselah took unto himself a wife, Edna the daughter of Azrial, the daughter of his father's brother, in the third week, in the
28 first year of this week, [701-7 A.M.] and he begat a son and called his name Lamech. And in the fifteenth jubilee in the third week Lamech took to himself a wife, and her name was Betenos the daughter of Baraki'il, the daughter of his father's brother, and in this week she bare him a son and he called his name Noah, saying, 'This one will comfort me for my trouble and all my work, and for the ground 29 which the Lord hath cursed.' And at the close of the nineteenth jubilee, in the seventh week in the sixth year [930 A.M.] thereof, Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, and he 30 was the first to be buried in the earth. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die.' For this reason he 31 did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it. At the close of this jubilee Cain was killed after him in the same year; for his house fell upon him and he died in the midst of his house, and he was killed by its stones; for with a stone he had killed Abel, and by a stone was he killed in 32 righteous judgment. For this reason it was ordained on the heavenly tablets: With the instrument with which a man kills his neighbour with the same shall he be killed; after the manner that 33 he wounded him, in like manner shall they deal with him.' And in the twenty-fifth [1205 A.M.] jubilee Noah took to himself a wife, and her name was Emzara, the daughter of Rake'el, the daughter of his father's brother, in the first year in the fifth week [1207 A.M.]: and in the third year thereof she bare him Shem, in the fifth year thereof [1209 A.M.] she bare him Ham, and in the first year in the sixth week [1212 A.M.] she bare him Japheth.
Not really. It is forbidden to hold that there are humans who are not descended from "Adam and Eve", which could mean that there might either be humans who have no souls, or who are free from original sin.
The story itself is figurative though.
>How to read the account of the fall
>390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
>It is forbidden to hold that there are humans who are not descended from "Adam and Eve
And the Catholics love to boast how their religion is completely compatible with people pursuing scientific knowledge.
I did. I'm sorry but even once you are fucking having to worry about making claims that some people have no souls, based on what is supposed to be a pursuit of pure scientific knowledge then this is already causing a problem, clearly.
No I am not. I am right.
And don't tell me that no Catholic ever trashed the notion of evolution because they thought it conflicted with the Catholic dogma of Ex Nihilo either, because they did.
No, you are clearly missing the point and are obfuscating the conversation by including the church's stance on science as important. While this would be a fascinating debate, it is not what is being discussed.
Well technically there had to be a first "human" right? Where that point is, I don't know but it probably occurs after a uniquely important genetic mutation. Or after a specific sequences of genetic mutations evolved.
Anyway, the important part of the Old Testament is the Law (as viewed properly through the lens of the Gospel).
>Well technically there had to be a first "human" right?
There is not a single animal that has ever been born a different species from its parents. These changes happend gradually over thousands and millions of years. An entire population evolved slowly into what we call humans, however we define human.
There wasn't any point at which "tada" there were the first two male and female members of the species of Homo Erectus or Homo Sapiens.
>Namely that God created different races of man and that these different peoples were simple hunter-gatherers, who did not have the mental aptitude which Adam posessed necessary for farming. So maybe it's an ancient persons way of telling an origin story.
This is incorrect, but not far from what the writers of Genesis had in mind when they wrote the story of Cain and Abel (who represented farmer and nomad/hunter gatherer respectively). They intended to portray the transition to agriculture as something negative rather than positive, hence why Cain ended up killing his brother.
>There wasn't any point at which "tada" there were the first
Yes but there was a genetic mutation (that probably worked in conjunction with existing genetic traits) that increased cognitive capacity to an extent that allowed its first bearer to recognize God (or at least a divine entity or entities) and be able to worship it.
>Can you reread my comment please, and make note how do not make mention of "homo sapiens" or any other species of hominid.
>Human does not necessarily mean Homo sapiens.
It makes no difference to what I said and without being rude it is not clear you read what I said.
I specifically said "however you define human" i.e. literally however far you want to go back before you call it 'human', which is subjective in itself. I used Homo Sapiens AND Homo Erectus as the latest two species of human as examples.
I specifically said "There is not a single animal that has ever been born a different species from its parents." i.e. any animals of any species ever, ever, ever.
I honestly apologise if I did not communicate this accurately.
But still nomadic. 'Farmers' were considered settled city-men. The name Cain is usually taken to mean "smith". It was the farmers who multiplied and spread civilization, eventually winning against the nomadic lifestyle completely
I doubt that was one specific mutation.
There are arguments chimps have religions Note: I'm not comparing anyone to chimps or trying to insult anyone, I'm just saying religions probabaly developed over time, not that any animal was suddenly born with the "I believe in God" mutation.
I know how speciation works. And while what you said is correct, there HAVE been children who, due to a specific genetic mutation, have had a novel gene that their parents did not have.
Chimps don't have religion, but they can have a sense of wonder. For example, if there is a particularly scenic view of the event, chimps have been known to gather to watch the sun rise. This indicates a sense of wonder, which is a just ONE of many required characteristics presumably needed by a rational mind in order for it to perceive and worship the Divine.
It's more than abstract thought, I presume
>no denomination teaches this
There probably are. I'm not sure but the CCC clearly says the story of Adam and Eve are figurative.
That's not going to make them a different species though. And it is a quite incredible piece of speculation to start claiming there was a male and female born with a specific mutation at one point and those = Adam and Eve.
If that is what you are saying and I apologise in advance if I have misunderstood you, that is an excellent example of what I was talking about earlier in the thread, when I said theology, even Catholic theology, does fuck with scientific understanding.
I didn't say species.
Honestly are you too dense to understand that an offspring can have a genetically endowed capacity that none of its ancestors had due to a certain genetic mutation?
Okay, if you say so, but you are going to have to start defining "sense of wonder" and "understanding of divine" before you even go down this route and start making claims about how they are linked to specific genetic mutations.
Then you are going to need to get relevant qualifications and get some studies going.
>Honestly are you too dense to understand that an offspring can have a genetically endowed capacity that none of its ancestors had due to a certain genetic mutation?
Like a soul? Or the ability to eat an apple of knowledge? Even defined metaphorically?
>But it could set them out on the path to diverge and eventually become a distinct species.
Their offspring would interbreed with other members of the population.
Sorry, but there is not at any point going to be an Adam and Eve moment.
>, but you are going to have to start defining "sense of wonder" and "understanding of divine"
I'm on my phone so no, but can't you inherently grasp what these abstract terms mean in someway?
But here's the thing, have you ever felt a sense of wonder after seeing a beautiful vista? You had that sensation because you had the neurological machinery to produce it.
>Their offspring would interbreed with other members of the population.
Yes and pass on that gene. And assuming said gene proved to be more advantageous then their offspring who inherited said gene would be more fit than those without.
And yes I understand I'm getting hypothetical but the very nature of the thread is to discuss the hypothetical.
>I'm on my phone so no, but can't you inherently grasp what these abstract terms mean in someway?
Of course I can but they are far too ill-defined to be using as distinct terms about differences between species.
>Yes and pass on that gene. And assuming said gene proved to be more advantageous then their offspring who inherited said gene would be more fit than those without.
Yes but that happens all the time. I'm not buying there is a specific "believe in god" single mutation or a single "have a soul" mutation or an "eat the apple of mutation" (even defined metaphorically).
The process is far too gradual involving huge numbers of mutation.
>I'm not buying there is a specific "believe in god" single mutation or a single "have a soul" mutation or an "eat the apple of mutation" (even defined metaphorically).
Hmmmm I didn't mean "single gene" necessarily, in fact I stated here: >>542527 "Or after a specific sequences of genetic mutations evolved" and please pay attention to the related point I made here: >>542657 "there was a genetic mutation (that probably worked in conjunction with existing genetic traits)"
I'm sorry I just don't understand what you are talking about.
I have already replied to the posts you are linking to and, genuinely without being intentionally rude, you just seem to be creating a word salad out of genes and mutations and then chucking "specific sequence of genetic mutations" and then implying that would happen in one specific pair of male and females of a specific species.
If you don't understand genetics then the conversation was pointless. I have a bachelors degree in Biology and could see how my language might confuse someone who doesn't have a background in the biological sciences.
Right. Okay. So long as you have a "degree in Biology" from the school of the Old Testament.
Thanks for the discussion, anon. Clearly the problem here is I don't quite grasp your expertise on Biology and ability to communicate it!
Lilith famiglia. She didn't want to be with fuccboi Adam and decided to give Eve the apple to fuck humanity's shit up. Later on she created demons by raping Adam every night for weeks on end. Read the Zohar sometime.
>The old testament is full of incest so it's not all that bizarre in the overall narrative.
This desu. Having sex with your family is an old Christian tradition. Why do you think the south looks like it does?
Renowned genetics expert proves existence of Adam and Eve through DNA research
2/10 for making me reply.
I know. That really pisses me off. I don't give a shit about the thread but I want to see want to see the fucking study and they haven't even told me who it is by so I can look the damn thing up.
Nothing similar to this appears to be in the journal Science, from Aug 2013.
Stupid bitch such utterly shit journalism.
Well it is false. It's like historical fiction. Some people and places exist but shit did not go down quite as they claim.
No one denies that it was important I don't know where you got that from.
Just because the message was important does not make it true.
>It is universally known that Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman
I think that Adam and Eve were really the founding fathers of some tribe or civilization like Egypt. This seems consistent with how old the people in the bible lived. Adam lived for like 930 years.
We know that people lived in caves 10,000 years ago or more so even if the bible is literally meaning that Adam and Eve were the first humans, the statement goes against science.
So why would the bible cover up or hide the truth?
I think the answer is plain to see if you look at the bible as merely a work of literature and not literal truth. After all it is just a book.
My mom taught me about christianity and the bible and I loved spending time with my mum. One thing she use to ask is why would people in the old times worship a statue made by the hands of men as a god?
I ask my mom now why would men worship a book written by the hands of men as the words of god?
That's my entire point, actually. If you trace the quotes, you'll see that I originally responded to somebody who asked how the Bible is relevant to /his/, when it is self evident that the single more important book of all time is singularly important to /his/.
The OT is a collection of different texts which tell the same basic stories. They are mashed together which is why stories repeat themselves. For example, Moses goes up a mountain and receives ten commandments from YHWH, twice (and both lists of commandments are completely different).
Referring to Genesis...
>It states in the Bible God created them male and female in reference to creating man. The Bible then states that God created Adam, Eve and the "animals" AFTER creating man.
The first part is from one text. The second part is from another text. They are literally incompatible and different accounts of creation and the compilers of the OT knew it.
Off memory, the first one is actually the newer text. The second one (Adam and Eve) is the older text.
The evidence of this mashing together of separate texts is pretty much indisputable because the texts use completely different styles of writing and even different terms for the same thing. One calls god by his name YHWH, another calls him god, for example, and the former talks of gods (plural) because it is a polytheistic text, whereas the latter (later) text is monotheistic and so doesn't use any polytheistic language, etc.
TL;DR: try reading a non-fiction book sometime
Corpus Juris Civilis or perhaps even the magna carta. You something tangible like the thing that is the basis for western law. You will have to forgive people for not being clear on a message board.
The bible itself is not very important. If it were more Christians would read it. The faith is the thing and can exist without the book
The Qur'an may also be more important since muslims are far more legalistic.
The Magna Carta and the Code of Hammurabi (while not exactly a book) would be the only writings I would accept as more important, so yeah, you nailed that. However, it is ridiculous to think that just because in the last 70 years people stopped reading their Bible that the book is unimportant and hadn't been read (or listened to) zealously for centuries before that.
Neither are particularly important outside their own time and place.
A more important book than the bible is On the Origin of Species. Another is Principia Mathematica. Another is Elements by Euclid. The Organon is another.
The bible has never been as important as people think it is. It wasn't even that important in christianity until the 1500s. It's not particularly important now.
Adam and Eve existing as historical figures is an unassailable point of Catholic dogma. This does not mean that they existed like in Genesis, but it does mean they had to be the first humans
If you're so ignorant that you can't see that the first codified law, or the first specific constitution are not extremely important books, then I can rest easy knowing that your arguments are ignorant, or at the very least bait. The Bible is an important book because it is where the doctrine and theology of the dominant culture of the last 2000 years came from. On the Origin of Species, or other books specific to particular disciplines come nowhere close to being as important as the foundation of half the world's culture.
>the first codified law
>first specific constitution
Neither things are true. Hamm's Code is the first *we know of*. It was forgotten for thousands of years and the consensus is that it was a codification of already existing law/practice. The Magna Carta isn't a constitution and if you bothered to read the text isn't particularly impressive in what it does, being just a written document of a power relationship that was already in effect and only applied to a small percentage of the population, it's something britbongs have latched onto for nationalistic reasons. Also if we're being anal here neither of those things are books.
>On the Origin of Species
>books specific to particular disciplines
You make it sound like Origin of Species or Mathematica are just minor papers in a specialised field when they were in fact world-changing works by two of the greatest minds in all history, particularly Mathematica which is arguably the single greatest intellectual achievement by any human being that has ever lived, certainly any since the Greeks.
>the foundation of half the world's culture
It isn't. It's a book of Hebrew history and law and spells. Christianity predated the additions to it and mostly dismissed the original texts anyway. And as I said it has never been as important even to christianity as has been made out. Even if I grant that it was important at one point in time, and I do, I do not grant that it was ever as important as Origin of Species or Elements and so on, and certainly not now in current year.
My ideas? The Catechism seems to agree with me
"390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."
Yeah pretty much. The argument made was that the human race was "genetically pure" at that point so incest wasn't too risky. The chance of causing terrible recessive genetic diseases was nearly nonexistent.
Similar to the argument that there just weren't that many STIs back in the day as there are today to make sex with many people safe.