WHY DOES GENESIS 5:1-2 QUOTE GENESIS 1

Genesis 5 begins the genealogy of Adam by quoting the creation narrative of Genesis 1:27-28. Does this mean that Adam and Eve were the subject of Genesis 1? No. Genesis 1 was quoted to make a point, but it was not quoted to equate Adam and Eve with those created as described in Genesis 1. Genesis 1:27-28 reads, "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."¹ Genesis 5:1-3 says, "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth." If we realize that the author of Genesis deeply desires to impress the reader that God has richly blessed mankind, then we will see that the reason he quotes the narrative of Genesis 1 is to show us that as God created mankind in His own image and named him man, so God bestowed upon man the ability to beget children in their own image and to be able to name them since man has the capability of language. My book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science shows that God created mankind as recorded in Genesis 1 and then later created Adam and Eve from the dust of the ground.
______________

¹Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Finding Neanderthal Genes in the Human Genome a Problem for Christianity?

An astonding discovery has been made by Max Planck Institute--Neanderthal genes have been found in human genomes. Is this a problem for Bible-believing Christians. Certainly not. Articles on the blog and expecially my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science present a modal for harmonizing the Bible and Science that has no problem with this discovery. The Word of God, the Bible, is always right on the truth.

THE RIVER THAT WENT OUT OF EDEN

The mysteries hovering around the garden of Eden are quite tantilizing to our minds. We wonder where it was and what it looked like. We are told a number of things about it in the Bible. We do know that their was a river that flowed through it, for Genesis 2:10 states, "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it was divided and became four heads" (Gen. 1:10).¹ You may want to read my article "Where is the Garden of Eden?" in which I give evidence that the Garden of Eden was located in Northern Iran. Genesis 2 tells us the names of the four rivers associated with these four heads, two of which we know were the Tigris and the Euphrates. There is a website out there that uses this passage from Genesis to try to show that the Bible is not inspired since there are no rivers that split and become four heads two of which are the Tigris and Euphrates. But the author of this website makes the same mistake that many others have made. When the Bible says that "a river went out of Eden to water the garden" it does not mean that this was the direction of the river's flow.

WHERE WAS THE GARDEN OF EDEN?

In my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science¹ I followed the view of those who place the Garden of Eden in the lower part of Mesopotamia (present day Iraq). I took the view defended by some people that the Garden of Eden was located at Eridu which was situated near the mouth of the Euphrades River. Since I wrote my book, I have recently read David M. Rohl's book Legend: The Genesis Of Civilisation². Also I have observed more thoroughly the Bible's description of the river that went through Eden and became four heads.

QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN A YOUNG EARTH?

1. If the Bible is supposed to teach that the creation days are only 24-hours long, why does Genesis 2:5 say the land was not yielding vegetation because there was no rain? This was before the creation of Adam and Eve and four days after the water was taken from the land. How could you expect to have vegetation this soon and wouldn’t the land still be wet from the water that just ran off of it four days before?

2. If Adam and Eve were the people who were created in Genesis 1, why does the Bible teach that these people were to be scavengers (v. 29) while Adam and Eve were apparently farmers? (Gen. 4:2)

3. If the earth is young, why does Genesis 2:4 say that those whose creation was recorded in Genesis 1 are the generations (meaning descendants) of the heavens and the earth? Adam was created directly out of the ground by special creation. Adam and Eve must be the beginning of a new race created in a different manner.

WHAT DOES GENETICS TELL US ABOUT HUMAN ORIGINS?

This post was taken from my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science (2009 edition).¹

Evidence for Theistic Evolution from Retrotransposons

In the past few years, great strides have been made in our understanding of the genome; some of these discoveries are destined to change the way we view our oringins. In his excellent timely article, "Human Evolution: How Random Process Fulfils [sic] Divine Purpose," Graeme Finlay explains how the human genome came to possess markers shared with other mammals. The natural processes that accomplished it have now been discovered. One of his examples of these processes is the retrotransposon.

DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

This post was taken from the final chapter of my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconiles the Bible and Science (2009 edition).¹

Once we see that our source of knowledge concerning morality and the problem of evil is not human reasoning but divine revelation, the problem of evil is suddenly reduced in size from a major giant to a problem with which God has already given us assistance. The Bible teaches that God is righteous and that He is the source of all wisdom. Our logical response should be like that of Abraham, who said, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Gen. 18:25).² Nevertheless, because the problem of evil can torment people’s minds and even keep them from coming to the Savior, I must make an attempt to address it here. But remember ultimately we are not relying upon human reason but upon God’s revelation to deal with the problem of evil. Therefore, my answers to the problem mainly come from the Scriptures.

WAS ADAM THE FIRST MAN TO SIN?

This post shows that Romans 5:12 does not teach that sin first entered the human race when Adam sinned.

Why You Should Read the Book "New Evidence for Two Human Origins"

New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science shows you how a person can believe in Christianity and at the same time avoid espousing a logical contradiction.

What Is So Special about My Book on Human Origins?

You may want to check out these sixteen topics most of which are covered rather uniquely in my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science.¹

Genesis 2:4 Must Refer to Genesis 1 Rather Than Genesis 2

Most translators have thought that the statement in Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth" (KJV) refers to the story in Genesis 2, but this article proves that it refers to Genesis 1. This becomes very important when we realize that the transtation "generations" would have been better translated "descendants." The Bible says that the people created in Genesis 1 were created as descendants of the heavens and the earth. This post is a copy of appendix D from my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science.¹ It may be easiest for you to skim the opening paragraphs and look at some of the examples to see how the Hebrew language syntax can indicate whether a verse refers to what preceeds it or whether it refers to what follows it. This is important as regards our interpretation of Genesis 2:4. Who are those who are the "generations" (a better translation would be "descendants") of the heavens and the earth. You may want to see my discussion on this subject "Have You Answered the Question of Human Origins?"

HAVE YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION OF HUMAN ORIGINS?

This tract is a summary of a recently published book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science by Gary T. Mayer. See the end of this tract for details.

Some people do not seriously consider the truth of Christianity because they believe the Bible is contradicted by science in the matter of human origins and the age of the earth. This serious error rests on misinterpretations of a number of Bible passages. Here are some reasons why a better understanding of the Bible confirms its truthfulness and diminishes the assumed contradictions between science and the Bible.

The First Modern Men to Inhabit the World

The Bible does not teach that Adam and Eve were the first modern men to inhabit the world. Therefore, the Bible’s placing the creation of Adam and Eve upon the earth only approximately 6,000 years ago is not in conflict with scientists’ opinion that modern humans have been here for at least 100,000 years. The creation of these first modern people is recorded in the Bible in Genesis 1, whereas the creation of Adam and Eve is recorded in Genesis 2. The Bible does not set any time at which God created this first race whose creation was recorded in Genesis 1. These people were pre-Adamites who spread from Africa over all the earth.

Fast Drop in Life Spans Proves Pre-Adamic Man

Genesis chapters 5 and 11 list the life spans of the patriarchs who were descendants of Adam and Eve. They cover the approximate time window from about 6000 years ago to about 4300 years ago. The early descendants of Adam and Eve lived to be an average of 929 years. We can show mathematically that there were modern humans upon the earth before Adam and Eve’s creation by observing how the life spans given

Were The Creation Days Twenty-Four-Hour Days?

The Following article is a portion of the tenth chapter of my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science. [1] I have removed centain material here and there to shorten the article for the reader's convenience.

...Science tells us that modern humans appeared about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago... science also believes that the earth was created about 4.6 billion years ago and that the universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago. If the creation days were only twenty-four hours in duration, modern humans could not have been created 100,000 years ago. Neither science nor the Bible teaches that man was created such a long time ago. Either the conclusion of those who interpret the biblical creation days to be twenty-four-hour days is wrong or the conclusion of science is wrong. Both cannot be correct. If we were to discover that the days of creation as presented in the Bible could be interpreted as very long days rather than twenty-four-hour solar days, mankind could have been created at the end of the long period of time during which God created the universe...[including] the earth. Many who [have] read the first chapter of Genesis say they must interpret these days as twenty-four-hour solar days, certainly not long ages. J. Ligin Duncan III and David W. Hall contributors to The Genesis Debate, argue, “we have yet to see internally compelling reasons for why yom [day] in Genesis 1 means an extended or undefined period.” [2] This explanation they require is exactly what I shall attempt to explain step by step. It will be so put forth, as they desire, based, not on a modern clever hypothesis but rather by approaching the text the way an early Hebrew reader would approach it....

Exactly Who Are "the Sons of God" of Genesis 6?

People that have attempted to understand Genesis 6 have neglected one important tool—discourse analysis. Their failure to apply discourse analysis to chapters 5 and 6 has been most unfortunate. Genesis 5 and Genesis 6:1-8 comprise a section of Genesis entitled “This is the book of the generations of Adam.”¹ Let us make some observations concerning this portion of the Genesis narrative.

A “genealogy” not only gives a list of patriarchs, but it relates an historical narrative of that time. Since the intention of the author of each genealogical division of Genesis was not only to give a list of descendants, but also to tell a story, we must see Genesis 5 through 6:8 as a story written for the purpose of giving us an account of some important events. It sets the stage for the next genealogical section of the narrative. With this in mind, we must interpret this section in the light of what the author wanted us to understand. So what does the author of Genesis 5 through 6:8 desire us to understand?

Of course we are to understand that this genealogy was meant to give us a running history of the “generations of Adam,” or better translated, "the descendants” of Adam.

This is the only section in genesis that the author called a “book.” Should not this make us ask what is unique about this section among all the sections of Genesis? Leupold makes the helpful comment which answers this

My Blog on the Book of the Revelation

You may want to visit some of my other articles on other pages.

You may want to take advantage of my offer concerning the Book of Revelation at the following website:

http://evolutioncreationandthebible.blogspot.com/2010/05/structure-of-book-of-revelation.html

Extended Table of Contents from New Evidence for Two Human Origins

Thank you for visiting my blog on my book New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science. Here is an extended table of contents that may be of help to communicate what topics are discussed in this book:

Contents…………………………………………………………………...v

List of Charts………………………………………………………..…….viii

Chart 1: Relative Order of Events Relevant to the Thesis.................................7

Chart 2: Actual Life Spans of Adam’s Descendants…..................................16

Chart 3: Potential Life Spans of Four Generations after a Mixed
Marriage between the Races…………………………….……...................24

Chart 4: How Close Shem’s Life Span Is to One of His
Probable Life Spans…………………………….……….…….

A Personal Note on My Dual Human-Origins Thesis

I would take this opportunity to explain to you why I believe that my thesis of creation should be seriously considered. As you know, there is much debate today about what should be taught in the public schools on human origins. This debate gets people who have never thoroughly studied the issues giving their opinion on the subject. Some Christians are teaching that you cannot believe the Bible and also accept theistic evolution. This encourages young people, who are continuously being told that humans evolved, to believe that the Bible is untrustworthy. But we know that the Bible is trustworthy and that faith comes by hearing the Word of God and that this leads a seeker to salvation. On the other hand, other Christians say that God accommodated His inspiration of the Bible to the erroneous current views of that day. They can accept evolution, but now they may have an inferior view of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Models that assert that the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally do not do justice to the creation account in Genesis 2,

A Short Rebuttal against Divine Accommodation

by

Gary T. Mayer

The reason for this paper is to question the accommodation view of divine inspiration. According to this view, the Scriptural passages that teach us about early cosmology accommodate the errors of that day. First, I shall show that although many of the verses which are presented to defend this view admittedly employ the old worldview terms, those who hold the view of accommodation rely too heavily on these words in supporting their case. The reader may visualize a reality behind a word based upon his own cosmology or he may not. God would hardly be wise if He were to use terms that were confusing or unintelligible to the worshippers whose hearts were on fire for God. Second, Genesis 1 tells us that God created something in the sky that the text calls in Hebrew a raqia‘. I shall show that it is better to interpret the word raqia‘ to mean an expanse, a sheet-like three dimensional volume with reference to an atmosphere, than to interpret it to mean a firmament, meaning a pounded-out solid metal plate placed above the earth. The practicality of this discussion is appreciated when we realize that, if we interpret the rest of the Bible using the accommodation approach, we may be led to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ and Paul accommodated themselves to the culture of their day, thus robbing the Word of God of its authority.