Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Adam and Eve

Was Adam and Eve the first people


  • Total voters
    15
Exactly my point, thanks.
If your point is that things are possible with God, why say it is impossible, why not just state what the verses show, how all is possible with God, raising the dead, which is the testimony we are commanded to believe in and speak.
 
Hi gordon777


Sorry, but I beg to differ with you. If God created this realm of existence as He has explained it to us. Within the time constraints that He gives us in the Scriptures, then scientists who try to convince us that this created realm has existed for millions or billions of years are 'given to oppose' what God has pretty clearly explained.

God bless,
Ted


Scientists cannot prove anything past carbon dating, that is why that carbon wears off in time, so they had nothing to say as actual proof.

When scientists claim billions of years, that makes sense, as they have to have answers and have to have theories as big bangs and life suddenly springing up.

But, when you preach the cross( this is where Gods power is) the scientist has to listen, because even though he is discussing about creation, God has created a new thing in the earth, the woman having a man( God) and God then with us, so that we can not rely on the scientific answers that yet have missing answer, of how to stop us dying, and that is why we have Jesus Christ, in the hope of everlasting life, which a scientist, who would love their family, would have to harden their hart not to listen to the answer for them to never see death. ( as the Spirit in man will answer all for that scientist if he listens, and cant you believe that ?)
 
Scientists have to give honesty, or they would discover nothing in that way, nor have great funds for the discoveries they are allowed( by God) to make.

They rightly show carbon dating is limited, to a certain number of thousands of years, a little more than the 14000 years I added up the creation to be( from adding everybody's births in the bible)

Being against science and scientists wont be a wise move, as they are no thread to the faith, they need the faith and the faith is the POWER OF GOD, in DEMONSTRATION OF THE SPIRIT, but those who pretend to have faith, deny the power thereof.




2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1 Corinthians 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
I am just trying to help you sort truth from unreality. ignore it of you wish.
 
Cooper is very correct that people lived long before 6000bc, 6000 years before that.

Carbon dating has people older than people come up with, that date of 6000bc, and who says it is such a date ?

What vain people to not bother reading in scriptures as I did to add up all the years, and it took me a long time to acxhieve it, but clearly, had its purpose without me knowing at the time.
Are you a Christian Cooper?
 
This is about Adam and Eve, but that is looking back, to the first man of the earth, and we are to look forward to the new man, Jesus Christ. ( last Adam)



Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
 
I don't know where you get this idea from but there is no evidence for it. The bit that we do know took six days.
The bit we don't know we have no idea how long it took.
Trees take 3 million years to become coal. It took billions of years for water to carve the Grand Canyon out of solid rock, and it takes even longer for light to reach earth from the nearest stars. Creation days are different from earth days.
.
 
The earth was without form and void. Nothing there.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Genesis 1:1-2 NIV

"When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:1-2, NRSVue

or whatever translation you choose...

Formless and empty chaos,, but there was "the deep" and "waters", so the oceans were there.
 
Trees take 3 million years to become coal. It took billions of years for water to carve the Grand Canyon out of solid rock, and it takes even longer for light to reach earth from the nearest stars. Creation days are different from earth days.
.
Hi Cooper

That's old antiquated science. Now, many think that our coal and oil reserves are vestiges of all the vegetation covered up in the flood event...but there isn't anyway to prove that. Do you believe that God knows the end from the beginning? If so, do you believe that God created this realm of existence for man to live? If so, do you have any proof that when God spoke the earth into existence that coal and oil were not just a part of what He knew would be needed for mankind on the earth? Why do we think to assume that all of the minerals contained in the earth formed of their own natural processes? Why can it not be true that when God spoke the earth into existence some 6,000 years ago, there were not deposits of coal and oil and diamonds and lithium and all of the many, many other minerals found in the ground of the earth.

Now, I'm not saying that's how all the minerals got where they are in the earth, but I am saying that there isn't a soul upon the earth that can prove either hypothesis.

Further, who sat around for the million years to prove that it takes a million years for coal to form from vegetative matter? It's really just as possible that on the day God commanded the earth to exist, had there been an earth mover to dig miles down into the crust of that newly formed planet, coal may well have been right where we find it today. We cannot prove either hypothesis because it cannot be replicated. True science must be able to repeat its hypothesis, in order to prove that the hypothesis is correct.

Next question: If it took billions of years for water to carve out the grand canyon, and we have rivers all over the face of the earth, why don't we have grand canyons with rivers running at the bottom of them all over the earth. Why? What made the water of the Colorado River so special, or the formation of the earth over the 277 mile length of the Grand Canyon so susceptible to this carving effect that no other river of water was able to duplicate anywhere else on the face of the earth? Why is the Grand Canyon only 277 miles long? The Colorado River is some 1,400 miles long. What was so special about the 1/6th length of the Colorado River that it only carved out that limited area of its total length?

These are valid questions for which we should have answers, if we are to believe that there are only a couple of places on the earth where canyons have been claimed to have been formed by millions of years of erosion. Science tells us that the Ohio River was formed about 2-3 million years ago. Why is it only a few feet below the top surface of the surrounding land if millions of years of constant water erosion is what formed the Grand Canyon. Even if the Ohio River is younger than the Colorado, certainly after 2 million years it would have carved out a canyon at least 50-100-200 feet deep. Why?! There are places of similar sandstone and shale beneath the bed of the Ohio River much like the type of earth formation beneath the Colorado River. Why? What about the Mississippi River?

You see, natural explanations allow that everywhere that a particular natural element is acted upon in a similar manner, that the result will always be relatively the same. But in the case of rivers eroding rocky substrate, that isn't the case. Science tells us that the oldest river in the world is the Finke River. As we follow its path, there are very few places where there is any erosion evidence and nothing to compare to the Grand Canyon. Kind of makes me go, Hmmmm. Just maybe science isn't all it's cracked up to be in answering questions of long ages past.

Anyway, I've provided an answer to the questions asked and this now becoming a rather long running commentary of the faith in, and shortcomings of science. Please don't misunderstand me. I approve and believe in the scientific method, but I know that to really be able to prove any hypothesis, then it must be reproducible. Science is great in telling us how soda ash affects water quality in a swimming pool. We can reproduce that thousands upon thousands of times. We can study its effects in the here and now as it changes water chemistry. But so many of these scientific facts of ages past have to be accepted on faith because you can't reproduce it to actually prove by showing that the hypothesis works.

Finally, as I've said before, anytime it comes to the hand of God working in our realm, all bets are off as to there being any method by which man can prove or disprove that He did what He claims to have done. We cannot prove that Jesus was born of a virgin. We accept that on faith. We don't have Mary's uterus or vagina available for inspection. We can really only believe on faith, because God has said it is so, that Mary was really a virgin at the time Jesus' head popped out of her birth canal.

God bless,
Ted
 
Hi gordon777
All died in the wilderness, and the next generation were spared, including God opening up the ground and sending fiery serpents among them.
I'm sorry, but that's not anything like what happened in Egypt. They didn't all die in the wilderness. Only the generations over 20 years of age and it happened over 40 years. They were not the firstborn, as in a six month old baby that had just been born to a newlywed couple. Or the 40 year old son of a couple who had the place of being the firstborn of that family 40 years ago.

Yes, God did send fiery serpents among them and again that's going to be a miracle that you can neither prove or disprove ever happened.

God bless,
Ted
 
Hi Cooper

That's old antiquated science. Now, many think that our coal and oil reserves are vestiges of all the vegetation covered up in the flood event...but there isn't anyway to prove that. Do you believe that God knows the end from the beginning? If so, do you believe that God created this realm of existence for man to live? If so, do you have any proof that when God spoke the earth into existence that coal and oil were not just a part of what He knew would be needed for mankind on the earth? Why do we think to assume that all of the minerals contained in the earth formed of their own natural processes? Why can it not be true that when God spoke the earth into existence some 6,000 years ago, there were not deposits of coal and oil and diamonds and lithium and all of the many, many other minerals found in the ground of the earth.

Now, I'm not saying that's how all the minerals got where they are in the earth, but I am saying that there isn't a soul upon the earth that can prove either hypothesis.

Further, who sat around for the million years to prove that it takes a million years for coal to form from vegetative matter? It's really just as possible that on the day God commanded the earth to exist, had there been an earth mover to dig miles down into the crust of that newly formed planet, coal may well have been right where we find it today. We cannot prove either hypothesis because it cannot be replicated. True science must be able to repeat its hypothesis, in order to prove that the hypothesis is correct.

Next question: If it took billions of years for water to carve out the grand canyon, and we have rivers all over the face of the earth, why don't we have grand canyons with rivers running at the bottom of them all over the earth. Why? What made the water of the Colorado River so special, or the formation of the earth over the 277 mile length of the Grand Canyon so susceptible to this carving effect that no other river of water was able to duplicate anywhere else on the face of the earth? Why is the Grand Canyon only 277 miles long? The Colorado River is some 1,400 miles long. What was so special about the 1/6th length of the Colorado River that it only carved out that limited area of its total length?

These are valid questions for which we should have answers, if we are to believe that there are only a couple of places on the earth where canyons have been claimed to have been formed by millions of years of erosion. Science tells us that the Ohio River was formed about 2-3 million years ago. Why is it only a few feet below the top surface of the surrounding land if millions of years of constant water erosion is what formed the Grand Canyon. Even if the Ohio River is younger than the Colorado, certainly after 2 million years it would have carved out a canyon at least 50-100-200 feet deep. Why?! There are places of similar sandstone and shale beneath the bed of the Ohio River much like the type of earth formation beneath the Colorado River. Why? What about the Mississippi River?

You see, natural explanations allow that everywhere that a particular natural element is acted upon in a similar manner, that the result will always be relatively the same. But in the case of rivers eroding rocky substrate, that isn't the case. Science tells us that the oldest river in the world is the Finke River. As we follow its path, there are very few places where there is any erosion evidence and nothing to compare to the Grand Canyon. Kind of makes me go, Hmmmm. Just maybe science isn't all it's cracked up to be in answering questions of long ages past.

Anyway, I've provided an answer to the questions asked and this now becoming a rather long running commentary of the faith in, and shortcomings of science. Please don't misunderstand me. I approve and believe in the scientific method, but I know that to really be able to prove any hypothesis, then it must be reproducible. Science is great in telling us how soda ash affects water quality in a swimming pool. We can reproduce that thousands upon thousands of times. We can study its effects in the here and now as it changes water chemistry. But so many of these scientific facts of ages past have to be accepted on faith because you can't reproduce it to actually prove by showing that the hypothesis works.

Finally, as I've said before, anytime it comes to the hand of God working in our realm, all bets are off as to there being any method by which man can prove or disprove that He did what He claims to have done. We cannot prove that Jesus was born of a virgin. We accept that on faith. We don't have Mary's uterus or vagina available for inspection. We can really only believe on faith, because God has said it is so, that Mary was really a virgin at the time Jesus' head popped out of her birth canal.

God bless,
Ted
It took billions of years for the continents to move into their present positions. Early on, the land mass covered only the South Pole.

Show me differently before I put you on ignore.
.
 
If anyone looks at Genesis as a scientific treatise, God help them.
The six 'Days' of the creation account, better known as six 'era', beginning with the sun, moon, and stars, and moving on to marine life, animal life, and finally humans, are scientifically correct, providing extra Biblical evidence of divine inspiration.
.
 
Isaiah does not mention anything about Satan being in the garden. Ezekiel does mention Satan being in the garden, but doesn't go any further than that as to whether or not that was where Satan always existed. It just says that he was in the garden. Then it goes on to speak of how he was created perfect and beautiful until iniquity was found in him. I don't think anyone denies that Satan was in the garden. The Scriptures are pretty clear on that and I have never denied it either. But the angelic realm was created prior to, outside of, and apart from the realm of mankind. Satan went into the garden to tempt Eve after God created the realm of mankind.
I never said that Satan always existed in the garden. I said God placed him in the garden as a keeper over it until iniquity was found in him then cast him out which was way before the creation of Adam and Eve. Satan travels between heaven and earth as he is the evil principality of the air and stands before Jesus accusing the brethren, but in the end of days he will be cast out of heaven for all eternity being cast into the lake of fire.

I never said that anyone denies that he was in the garden of Eden when he was perfect and said to be beautiful. I agree that the angels were created, even before the foundation of the world. When iniquity entered Satan then that is how he worked through the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve. Isaiah 14:12-4 shows why he has fallen from heaven even though he still for now has access to heaven.

Depending on what translation you read, God probably never did say that to Adam and Eve. The NIV says that God said to Adam and Eve: God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” It may be a worthwhile study to look into why, of some 54 translations given in Biblestudytools.com, only 5 include the word 'replenish' as their translation of this passage. All the others merely say mulitiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Hmmmm?
Replenish or fill it truly does not matter to the question of were their others hear before Adam and Eve. Like I asked you, what about the date of Caveman and Dinosaur's that roamed the earth supposably million of years ago.

No one can say how old the earth is as even science can not agree with its age using carbon dating. It might be possible to date the generations of man if we backtrack through all the generations ending with Adam, but that would seem impossible since all of us are that generation of Adam. We could even try to use the timeline of Noah and the flood, but yet that will bring no conclusion.

Moses give us the account of the creation events of God in Genesis Chapter 1,2 before God created man, but there is no evidence anywhere in scripture how long each day was or how old the earth is. Genesis 1:1-31; 2:1-3 we read the first six accounts of creation as each part that was finished God saw that it was good as the evening and morning only numbered the days it took, but gives no actual timing of how long each day could have been. I believe each day from evening to morning are only symbolic of a certain length of time it took God to create the heaven and the earth before He created man as God's timing is not the same as our timing, Deuteronomy 7:9; 1Chronicles 16:15; Psalms 50:10; 90:4; 105:8 Ecc 6:6; 7:28; Daniel 5:1; 2Peter 3:8.

God calls each day by number from day one to day six as being evening and morning, but on the seventh day Moses only mentions the word day, but no closing of it as in evening. It was only called a day that God rested from all His work. God set it apart as a day (time) of rest as it has no ending like that of the time of rest when God ushers down the New Jerusalem, Rev 21 and we will have eternal rest without end. There is no mention of it being a Sabbath day rest, but only a day that God set apart as all His work was finished. The seventh day of rest has no ending and if we read Hebrews 4:1-10 this will teach us what Gods day of rest is for those who are faithful to Him and walk in obedience.

Strong's Exhausted Concordance;

The Hebrew word "yowm", Hebrew #3117, translated "day" in English means a day from sunrise to sunset, a space of time defined by an associated term, season, a process of time as in other times (day)

The Hebrew word "ereb", Hebrew #6153, translated "evening" also means dusk, evening, night.

The Hebrew word "boqer", Hebrew #1242, translated "morning" also means dawn, breaking of day, morning with possible metaphoric usage. Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. The intended meaning of the word should be determined from the context.
 
Satan wasn't a man.
Never said Satan is a man, but every reference to angels in the Bible uses the masculine gender, even though they are spirit form. An angel is always a "he" rather than a "she" or an "it." In addition, the Greek word for "angel" in the New Testament is angelos, itself a masculine noun. We know God is a spirit without flesh and bone, but yet we call God "Him" or "He" in the masculine gender.
 
Hi for_his_glory

I said God placed him in the garden as a keeper over it until iniquity was found in him then cast him out which was way before the creation of Adam and Eve.
Right! And there is no Scriptural evidence to support that. No where do the Scriptures say or allude to some idea that God placed Satan in the garden as some sort of keeper.

God bless,
Ted
 
Hi Cooper

It took billions of years for the continents to move into their present positions. Early on, the land mass covered only the South Pole.

Show me differently before I put you on ignore.
.
Do you think that's some sort of threat to me that you'd put me on your ignore list? LOL!!! Look, if you want to put me on your ignore list, go ahead. My life won't change one iota because of such an action.

God bless,
Ted
 
Hi Cooper


Do you think that's some sort of threat to me that you'd put me on your ignore list? LOL!!! Look, if you want to put me on your ignore list, go ahead. My life won't change one iota because of such an action.

God bless,
Ted
Hold onto the truth that the Hebrew word yome, means time, as defined by context. For example, to talk about events in your grandfather's day is not to imply your grandfather only lived twenty-four hours.

There are enough people in the world wanting to discredit the Bible without us giving them the ammunition. Thank you.
.
 
Last edited:
For the confused people, God can do whatever He likes in creation, and all is created through Jesus Christ( this is faith for the faithful)

The earth was replenished, as all live unto Him, and we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Now Christ is our corner stone and the foundation is the prophets and Apostles of the Lord ( not of this world)



The god of this world can have freedom to do what it pleases, and because it is testified 2000 years ago that all the world is deceived through it now, that right away answers why you people discuss a confused discussion, because of being under delusion.


As for coal and water, trees, and the landscape we live in, its ages, and functions, God has no limits( he has to also contend with the deceit of satan on all mankind) and dinosaurs do not frustrate faith in Christ, ( there are good and wicked angels around who decide what is on earth and who should believe what) and if the universe is billions of years old, it makes no difference, man was created a lot less time than that, and for man( which he avoids until it is too late for him now) the importance is to not focus on matters of this world, but to keep the eyes on heaven, which this forum has no interest in whatsoever.
 
Back
Top