Is Adam the first man?

by truthseeker 9 Replies latest jw friends

  • truthseeker
    truthseeker

    I just read yet another account of a grave that is older than Adam.

    Earliest known shaman grave site found

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081104/sc_nm/us_shaman_israel

    LONDON (Reuters) – An ancient grave unearthed in modern-day Israel containing 50 tortoise shells, a human foot and body parts from numerous animals is likely one of the earliest known shaman burial sites, researchers said on Monday.

    The 12,000-year-old grave dates back to the Natufian people who were the first society to adopt a sedentary lifestyle , Hebrew University of Jerusalem researcher Leore Grosman and colleagues said.

    Now this has always bothered me - how can people be older than Adam?

    I did some searching on the web and found this article, what do you think?

    http://www.edofolks.com/html/adam.htm

    Bible and Scientific Reasoning: Is Adam the First man?
    By: Ehimwenma E. Aimiuwu
    2006

    As a Christian, I often got angry at science for trying to prove that Adam was not the first man when I was much younger. Science claimed that the first man, Adam, was too young to be considered the first man on planet earth. They claimed that the oldest upright man looking creature was a female called Lucy and that she was about 4.2 million years old. They also discovered another human fossil older than Lucy about two years ago that was about 4.4 million years old. If this is true, then how do we justify Adam as the first man, when he is not more than 10,000 years old according to Biblical calculations in Genesis 5?

    Another contradiction between Biblical or creation interpretation and science is that the preachers of the word believe that mankind originated from Mesopotamia in Iraq, but science says that the original man must have been an African from between Upper Egypt (bottom of Egypt), Sudan and Ethiopian region, also knows as Cush / Kush, and Tanzania. The last area of conflict on this issue is that science claims that the Biblical records are wrong and must be updated, but the creationist says that the word of God is a solid fact. To find out if Adam is really the first man, we must be able to investigate the age of the oldest man, the origins of the oldest man, and any evidence if the Bible has some flaws in its writings. As a Christian who believes in the purpose of science, I believe I should be one of the best incorruptible and unbiased judges in this matter.

    First let us tackle the issue of age. One of the best things ever invented by science in the areas of geology and archaeology is carbon dating. Carbon dating is used to estimate the age of fossils and layers of rocks in the earth. So far, it has been very reliable. Also, in investigating or forensic science, investigators can analyze the state of a dead body and give a close estimate of the time of dead, how the person was killed, location of death if the body was moved, and who the murderer might be based on raw materials present on the dead body and bodily fluids and body parts left by the murderer. These results are even admissible in the United States court of law, and are found to be more reliable than eye witnesses or a photograph. It is based on the reliability and credibility of carbon dating and forensic science that I will take sides with science on this issue. I maintain that the oldest man should be older than the Biblical Adam, who should be about 8,000 years old, according to the book titled, “The political and Spiritual Purpose of the Holy Land”.

    Secondly, we must tackle the origins of the oldest man. If carbon dating and forensic science says that the over 4 million years old human fossils are in Africa, why does the Bible even talk about Mesopotamia and a man who is just 8,000 years old? Well, a close look at the Bible reveals to all that the Holy Book never placed man in Mesopotamia until after the great flood in Genesis 11. This was when mankind migrated eastward and settled in Babylon. The problem all along with the Bible or creationism was never the words in it, but the interpretation by a powerful few to lead their audience towards their political agendas. If man got to Mesopotamia in Genesis 11 and they were moving eastward, then where were they in Genesis 1-10 in the west?

    A look at the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2, talks about four rivers that flowed through it. The Tigris and the Euphrates are rivers still in the Mesopotamia, while Gihon (The Nile) is still in Cush (Upper Egypt (bottom of Egypt), Sudan, and Ethiopia) till this day. Some old Bibles subtitled Cush as simply Upper Nile (Lower Egypt). In Genesis 4, after God punishes Cain, he too went to the east of Eden. It appears that in earlier time there was a habit of moving eastward and science has proven that human migration went eastward from Africa, to the Middle East, into Euro-Asia, and then, the Americas. Eastern migration must have become a solution to over-population or yawning for a new beginning. This must be the reason why mankind decided to build a tower to reach heaven immediately after the great flood to alleviate over-population problems and to prevent them from spreading around the earth, like they said in Genesis 11. Considering the fact that Cush is to the west of Mesopotamia, it has the oldest human fossils, it has the Nile or Gihon River, and humanity did not get to Mesopotamia until after the great flood in Genesis 11, I conclude that the Man of God’s creation was in Cush no matter how long the rivers flowed before the continental drifts.

    Lastly, is the Biblical account wrong about creation? So far the Bible agrees with science that the land of creation and the Garden of Eden is in Cush. So the disagreement is the age of the original man. Let us see if the Bible can speak for itself, instead of relying on its preachers to do so. In Genesis 4, After God tells Cain that he was banished from Eden, Cain pleads with God that anyone who finds him will kill him. Who are these people? It should only be his parents left since Abel is dead, but his parents never touched him. God never tells Cain that he is being dramatic; he agrees with Cain that his life will be in danger, so he gives him a mark of protection. According to “The Political and Spiritual Purpose of the Holy Land”, it claims that in that part of Africa, like they still do today, tribal marks of identity is very important. It serves as a form of visa and passport to identify citizens and those of have the right to belong there. This was the mark Cain received and was now at peace to move on away from God and Eden. Cain in the land of Nod marries a wife and has a son. It is true that Adam had many children, but Cain could not have married his sister because by the time Cain left, Adam was childless. This is why Eve testified that her new child (not son) was going to replace Abel.

    In the land of Nod, the people were already building cities, making musical instruments, making tools out of iron and bronze, marrying two wives, and naming inheritance after their children. So when Cain got to Nod from Eden, people were already collecting rent or money for homes, they were already playing music for entertainment, polygamy was already a trend, and they were already preventing other from encroaching on one’s inheritance. This means that the Bible speaking for itself agrees with science that the original man is older than Adam in Genesis 4, and that the original man has nothing to do with Mesopotamia in Genesis 11. According to “The Political and Spiritual Purpose of the Holy Land”, Adam must have been the first prophet or person mankind could record in Cush. It appears that there is a period of 4 millions years between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

  • truthseeker
    truthseeker

    Another interesting comment

    http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/comparet/comp5a.html

    The Fourth chapter of Genesis records the birth of Cain and Abel; in the Hebrew, the wording suggests that they were twins. No other child of Eve is mentioned until the birth of Seth, when Adam was 130 years old, certainly long after the birth of Cain and Abel, which most scholars say was over 100 years earlier. Yet, when Cain killed Abel, and in punishment was driven out of the land, he complained to God that "any one that findeth me shall slay me." Genesis 4:14. Upon being sent away, Cain found many other people, for Genesis 4:17 records that Cain not only married a wife, but built a city. You don't build a city for just two people. These were the pre-Adamite races, mentioned in the latter part of Genesis 1.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    Adam is the first man in Semitic mythology. In reality modern humans have been around some 200,000 years and are a product of a gradual process of evolution. It is sometimes possible to reconcile the observable facts with the best guesses of primitive nomads although I can't think of a good reason for doing so.

  • jaguarbass
    jaguarbass

    First let us tackle the issue of age. One of the best things ever invented by science in the areas of geology and archaeology is carbon dating. Carbon dating is used to estimate the age of fossils and layers of rocks in the earth. So far, it has been very reliable.

    I dont believe in the bible.

    I just gather information and weigh it.

    Carbon, radiometric dating is anything but reliable below will explain why.

    I am not working an agenda to prove the bible.

    If I'm leaning toward any angle its that our education, university system has flaws and that our collective history of the world is flawed.

    I suspect there is a good chance we were planted here by aliens to be workers for them and they benefit from us being ignorant to reality.

    I suspect we are like a heard of cattle.

    Perhaps creatures evolved over time but when the aliens came to Sumeria they did some genetic engenering and excellerated things.

    from the Secret History of the World and How to get out alive by Laura Knight-Jadczyk page 119&120


    A few words about radiometric dating .

    If we are going to investigate time, we will be confronted with the issues of dates, those markers of time, and how these dates are established.

    The most widely used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the "known age" of the fossils they contain. In this "circular dating" method, all ages are based on uniformitarian assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved. Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock. The so called "absolute" methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens- not their age. These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an "age" determination.

    The problem with all radiometric"clocks" is that their accuracy critically depends on several starting assumptions, which are largely unknowable. To date a specimen by radiometric means, one must first know the starting amount of the parent isotope at the beginning of the specimens existence. Second, one must be certain that there were no daughter isotopes in the beginning. Third, one must be certain that neither parent nor daughter isotopes have ever been added or removed from the specimen. Fourth, one must be certain that the decay rate of parent isotope to daughter isotope has always been the same. That one or more of these assumptions are often invalid is obvious from the published radiometric "dates"( to say nothing of the "rejected" dates) found in the literature.

    One of the most obvious problems is that several samples from the same location often give widely divergent ages. Apollo moon samples, for example, were dated by both uranium-thorium-lead and potassium-argon methods, giving results, which varied from 2 million to 28 billion years. Lava flows from volcanoes on the north rim of the Grand, Canyon (which erupted after its formation) show potassium-argon dates a billion years older than the most ancient basement rocks at the bottom of the canyon. Lava from underwater volcanoes near Hawaii (that are known to have erupted in 1801 AD) has been "dated" by the potassium-argon method with results varying from 160 million to nearly 3 billion years. It's really no wonder that all of the laboratories that "date" rocks insist on knowing in advance the "evolutionary age" of the strata from which the samples were taken- this way, they know which dates to accept as "reasonable" and which to ignore.

  • Octarine Prince
    Octarine Prince

    I don't believe any of stuff I have read in this thread.

    No one knows for sure. Yet.

    Keep learning and gathering evidence.

  • PrimateDave
    PrimateDave

    "the creationist says that the word of God is a solid fact. To find out if Adam is really the first man, we must be able to investigate the age of the oldest man, the origins of the oldest man, and any evidence if the Bible has some flaws in its writings. As a Christian who believes in the purpose of science, I believe I should be one of the best incorruptible and unbiased judges in this matter."

    Anyone who says that the Bible is a "solid fact" obviously hasn't really read the book. This guy is about as unbiased as Rush Limbaugh.

    Dave

  • cameo-d
    cameo-d

    Now this has always bothered me - how can people be older than Adam?

    I have heard that some people are older than dirt, and some of them are still living.

  • Octarine Prince
    Octarine Prince

    And Jesus (or Moses) is in their yearbook.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    A more informed explanation of radiometric dating than the one provided by Laura Knight Jadczyk:

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    moshe....Yeah, there is also the genetic and molecular DNA "clocks" as well -- which embrace different data sets (Y-chromosomal, mitochondrial) that together point to a time depth greater than 60,000 years and less than 140,000 years. These are just a few out of many independent indicators (tree rings, ice cores, 14C radiometric dating, thermoluminescence dating, geomagnetic dating, potassium-argon dating, faunal dating, fission track dating, electron spin resonance, amino acid dating, glottochronology, etc.) of a time depth far exceeding the 6,000 years required by fundamentalism.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit