Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 67

1

ADAM WAS NOT THE FIRST MAN

Presentation: Prof. Dr. Mr. Maqsood Hasni


2

Contents
ADAM WAS NOT THE FIRST MANThe First Man

In Search of the Historical Adam (Part 1)

They Lived Before Adam, Prehistoric Origin ofNdigbo,


The Never -Been-Ruled

ADAM WAS NOT THE FIRST MAN

The Kingdom of God Before & After the Fall of Man


3

Adam Was Not The First Man


Willie_Martin_
(1) Question: Were there people before Adam and Eve?

Answer: This question is almost always asked whenever


atheists and agnostics are trying to confound or confuse a
New Christian! It comes from a reading of:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them. And God
blessed them, and God said unto them. Be fruitful, and
multiply, and REPLENISH the earth..." (Genesis 1:27-28)

Many people have become agnostics because of the


supposed conflict between the Bible and science. In truth,
there is no conflict at all between a correct translation of the
Bible and really proven science, not just unproven theories.

Men have theorized for years about the possibility of the


co-existence of another race of human beings upon the
earth during the time of Adam. It must be recognized that
there is considerable evidence to show that the earth was
not only inhabited by a race(s), but as a result of the earth
becoming void and without form, that race or races were
apparently destroyed. But first let's look at the word
"REPLENISH":

Replenish:

1). to make full or complete AGAIN, as by furnishing a


NEW SUPPLY.

2). to supply AGAIN...or the like.


4

3). of PEOPLE. (New World Dictionary of the American


Language, Second Edition page 1205)

Jeremiah the Prophet refers briefly to the existence of such a


race(s), but he states that, as a result of the earth becoming
void and without form, that race(s) were apparently
destroyed.

"I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void;
and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the
mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved
lightly. I beheld, and, lo, THERE WAS NO MAN...I beheld,
and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and ALL THE
CITIES THEREOF WERE BROKEN DOWN AT THE
PRESENCE OF THE LORD, AND BY HIS FIERCE
ANGER...For this shall the earth mourn, AND THE
HEAVENS ABOVE BE BLACK..." (Jeremiah 4:23-28)

Job also makes reference to a past age, a former time:

"For enquire...OF THE FORMER AGE, and prepare thyself


to the SEARCH OF THEIR FATHERS." (Job 8:8)

Job then relates:

"For want and famine they were solitary; fleeing into the
wilderness IN FORMER TIME DESOLATE AND WASTE."
(Job 30:3)

Solomon relates:

"THERE IS NO REMEMBRANCE OF FORMER THINGS..."


(Exodus 1:11)

David relates:

"Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of


the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth.
There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his
mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the
5

heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his
feet. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly
upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness his secret
place; his pavilion round about him were DARKWATERS
and thick clouds of the skies. At the brightness that was
before him his thick clouds passed, hail stones and coals of
fire. The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the
Highest gave his voice: hail stones and coals of fire. Yea, he
sent out his arrows, and scattered them; and he shot out
lightnings, and discomfited them. Then the channels of
waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were
discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath
of thy nostrils." (Psalms 18:7-15)

Isaiah said:

"...LET THEM SHEW THE FORMER THINGS..." (Isaiah


41:22)

Again:

"REMEMBER THE FORMER THINGS OF OLD...AND FROM


ANCIENT TIMES..." (Isaiah 46:9-10)

Then Isaiah relates a most revealing statement from God:

"For, behold, I CREATE NEW HEAVENS (NOTE: a plural


heavens: more than one) AND A NEW EARTH: AND THE
FORMER SHALL NOT BE REMEMBERED, nor come into
mind." (Isaiah 65:17)

Then we have God's Law to confirm the existence of people


other than Adam. Cain's wife, which is another question in
itself.

"And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord... And
Cain knew his wife..." (Genesis 4:16-17)

Now most "Ministers" will repeat that old, old, worn out
statement, one which cannot stand a close inspection, hence
6

the instincts of the atheists and agnostics to that fact, giving


them more fuel for the consternation they are causing the
New Christian: "Cain's wife was his 'sister.'"

Choosing to completely ignore God's Law concerning this


situation.

"The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or


daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or
born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not
uncover...The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter,
begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not
uncover her nakedness." (Leviticus 18:9, 11)

"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or


his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see
his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off
in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's
nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity." (Leviticus 20:17)

I can just hear the atheists and agnostics cry out: "But Cain
has already broken God's Law once, so why wouldn't he do
so a second time." and well he might; and there is ample
evidence that he did sin time and time again, But now a
second, third and even a fourth person must consent to his'
breaking of God's Law.

His sister, his father (Adam) and his mother (Eve) must also
consent to this violation of God's Law, not just Cain: Which
would be consistent with the period of time involved, this
would do violence to the Scriptures. Thus this answer is
completely unacceptable.

Thus, the only logical answer to the question is: Not only
were there people on earth before, (Genesis 1:2) BUT
THERE WERE OTHERS PRESENT WHEN GOD,
“FORMED” A “MAN” TO TILL THE GROUND, AND WHO
WAS FIRST CALLED “ADAM” IN Genesis 2:19.

Therefore, it is clear for all to see, that the Judeo-Christian


7

clergy say that Adam and Eve were the first man and
woman, but the Bible doesn’t, it merely says Adam was the
first White Man. Let’s look at the record.

Many mistranslation in the King James Bible obscure much


of the truth; for example “In the beginning, Yahweh created
the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form
and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”

In the Hebrew it says, “Now the earth HAD BECOME chaotic


and empty.” (See Rotherham’s emphasized Bible) Some
early catastrophe had wrecked the earth, which was not
without form and void before that. This was a judgment of
Yahweh on earlier civilizations, for their wickedness.
Jeremiah 4:23-27 gives a vision and we state it again to be
sure you remember it:

“I beheld the earth and lo, it was without form and void; and
the heavens and they had no light. I beheld the mountains
and lo, they trembled and all the hills moved lightly. I
beheld and lo, there was no man and all the birds of the
heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a
wilderness and ALL THE CITIES THEREOF WERE BROKEN
DOWN at the presence of Yahweh and by His fierce anger.
For this hath Yahweh said, The whole land shall be desolate;
yet will I not make a full end.”

Therefore we do find buried ruins of cities older than Adam


and skeletons which has been dated by several means as
being several thousands of years older than Adam. The Bible
itself tells us about this.

Next the Bible tells us about the creation of MEN, IN THE


PLURAL in Genesis 1:26-28 saying:

“Male and female created he THEM and Yahweh told these


people, Be fruitful and multiply and REPLENISH the earth.”

Plenish is an obsolete English word meaning to fill. You


cannot REPLENISH what was never plenished, or filled,
8

before. In Genesis chapter 2, we find THE ADAM (in the


singular) “formed.” The Hebrew word aw-dawm, rendered
Adam in English, is from a root word meaning TO SHOW
BLOOD IN THE FACE or OF A RUDDY COMPLEXION, a word
obviously not applicable to the dark races, which we also
know from scientific evidence to be much older than the
White Race. Bible scholars know Genesis 3:20:

“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve because she was the
mother of all living,” is a later interpolation, which was not in
the earlier manuscripts. (See Moffett’s Translation)

Genesis chapter 4 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 this was long after the
birth of Cain and Abel, most scholars say this was over 100
years later. Yet, when Cain killed Abel, and in punishment
was driven out of the land, he complained to Yahweh in
Genesis 4:14:

“Any one that findeth me shall slay me.”

Upon being sent away, Cain found many other people, for
Genesis 4:17 records Cain not only married a wife, but built
a city. You don’t build a city for just two people. These were
the pre-Adamic races, mentioned in the latter part of
Genesis chapter 2.

There is no getting around it, for there are many people


who, upon reading this study will cry out “You didn’t tell us
where Cain got his wife; therefore he must have married his
sister or some such nonsense.” So we will show you where
Cain got his wife, and it was from these pre-Adamic people.

Where Did Cain Get His Wife?

This is a question that has caused a lot of controversy in


Christians and one which they have avoided for centuries;
especially the Judeo-Christians because most of them do
9

very little if any serious Bible study. They simply let some
so-called member of the clergy tell them what is what.

Since Cain was banished to the land of Nod, after his


brother's murder, and before Eve gave birth to her third son
Seth (Compare Genesis 4:8-17 with Genesis 4:25), then
there was as yet only one (supposed) descendant of Adam
on earth, and this was the reprobate Cain. We know that
Cain had a wife, and evidence would indicate that he had
taken a female from among the BEASTS OF THE FIELD, ONE
OF THE OTHER RACES.

After the birth of his first son, Enoch, Cain built a city
(Genesis 4:17). THERE CAN BE NO CITY WITHOUT
INHABITANTS AND THOSE WHO INHABITED THE CITY
WHICH HE BUILT WERE OBVIOUSLY THE INHABITANTS OF
THE LAND OF NOD, the same creating that had been given
to Adam as servants in the Garden of Eden. They were
driven forth with Adam, and became wanderers, which is the
meaning of the word NOD. These were a numerous people
who had been CREATED (Genesis 1:27) before the
FORMATION of Adam.

Before Cain was driven forth from the presence of God, he


complained:

"My punishment is greater than I can bear, 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
everyone that findeth me shall slay me." (Genesis 4:13-14)

A fugitive from whom? Certainly not his father and mother,


Adam and Eve! From who then would he be forced to flee?
And to whom did he refer when he spoke about "everyone
that findeth me shall kill me?" It would be none other than
the inhabitants of the land of Nod, and these inhabitants, we
believe were THE OTHER RACES, THE BEAST OF THE FIELD.

So God put a mark upon Cain(we are not told what it was)
10

and gave a command that whosoever slew Cain, his


vengeance would fall seven fold. (Possibly Cain was made to
resemble the people of Nod). In any case, he was able to
assemble enough people to build a city and the female he
took as his wife, was not a descendant of Adam.A very
expressive term can be found in the book of Jude, in the
New Testament, when he describes the great sin of Sodom
as "going after strange flesh." That is a very descriptive
term. The Sodomites were given to every imaginable sexual
perversion, just as they are today (See Genesis 19:1-9),
and it was for this fifth that they were eliminated. These
Sodomites were Canaanites (See Genesis 10:15-19). It is
most significant that Cain, is mentioned in this context in
Jude 11.

Note that Jude first mentions the angels which kept not their
first estate. These may or may not have been the "sons of
God who married daughters of men." (There is a great deal
of argument on this among Bible scholars).

Then Jude speaks of the Sodomites who were destroyed for


the same wickedness; "going after strange flesh." These as
brute BEASTS CORRUPT THEMSELVES, he says, and
pronounces:

"Woe unto them, because they have gone in the way of


Cain." (Jude 6-11)

Thus the wickedness of Cain, the wickedness of the


Sodomites, all appear to be similar. All these filthy dreamers
defiled themselves by filthy sexual intercourse with "strange
flesh." (Verse 8) The civilization of Cain was very wicked and
was completely wiped out by the flood. The fate of Sodom is
known to every Bible reader.

When Jeremiah wrote concerning the Babylonian captivity of


the Judahites, he said:

"And now I have given all these lands into the hands of
Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, My servant; and the
11

BEASTS OF THE FIELD, have I given him also to serve him."


(See Jeremiah 27:6)

when prophesying of the destruction of Babylon, he wrote,

"O Lord, Thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off,
that none shall remain in it, neither MAN OR BEAST, but it
shall be desolate forever." (Jeremiah 51:62)

This prophecy was fulfilled ages ago, and it is most


significant to find that the ancient ruins of Babylon abound
with four-footed animals but that MEN, and the BEASTS OF
THE FIELD, THE OTHER RACES, ARE COMPLETELY ABSENT
FROM THIS AREA.

From these facts, we can only conclude that the BEASTS OF


THE FIELD are indeed a servant race, distinct and separate
from the Adamic creation of God, but who have a special
place and calling in God. They are vocal, intelligent, capable
of prayer, and repentance. The pure Negro stock is a
servant order, as are the angels in heaven.

The Garden of Eden was not a plantation of ordinary trees


and shrubs. Yahweh did nothing so foolish as to make a
special creation, just to have a man to wield shovel and
pruning shears, when He already had millions of pre-
Adamites available for this type of work. We are told that
the Garden of Eden contained the tree of the knowledge (or
experience) of good and evil. No tree of the forest has any
knowledge or experience of either good or evil. Ezekiel
chapter 31 says, “Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in
Lebanon, with fair branches and a shadowing bough and of
an high stature; Therefore his height was exalted above all
the trees of the field and his boughs were multiplied and his
branches became long; all the fowls of heaven made their
nests in his boughs and under his branches did all the beasts
of the field bring forth their young and under his shadow
dwelt all great nations. THE CEDARS IN THE GARDEN OF
YAHWEH could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his
boughs and the chestnut trees were not like his branches;
12

NOR ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN OF YAHWEH WAS LIKE


UNTO HIM IN HIS BEAUTY. I have made him fair by the
multitude of his branches: SO THAT ALL THE TREES OF
EDEN THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF YAHWEH ENVIED
HIM.”

Obviously, the trees in the garden of Yahweh in Eden were


family trees of races and nations who admired and envied
the early Assyrian empire. These made up the garden that
Adam was to cultivate. Satan had been what we might call
the superintendent of this planet, to rule it in obedience to
Yahweh’s will, until he forfeited his position by rebellion
against Yahweh.

Adam was sent to take his place. It was Adam’s job to rule
the various nations and races of the earth as Yahweh’s
representative here, educating them in Yahweh’s laws and
enforcing obedience to those laws. These other races and
nations had been here long before Adam. Therefore the
Bible makes it unmistakably clear we are not all descended
from Adam and Eve, for there were other races on earth,
already old, already numerous, when Adam was “formed.”

Among these other races there are several who are simply
pre-Adamic and one at least, which is satanic. If you will
read the third chapter of Genesis, you will notice that,
immediately after the fall of Adam, when Yahweh required
them to answer what they had done, Yahweh condemned
Satan. The word mistranslated serpent is the Hebrew word
naw-khash, which literally means enchanter or magician.

No doubt Satan still possessing angelic powers, was able to


be an enchanter or magician. It is certain the one who
seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along on the
ground. Seduced Eve, for this is what she admitted in the
original Hebrew. Cain was the son of this seduction. The
Bible uses the word begat with monotonous regularity but,
the first time the Bible ever says Adam ever begat anyone is
Genesis 5:3 where it says,
13

“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a


son in his own likeness, after his image: and called his name
Seth.”

To get back to Genesis 3:15, Yahweh said to Satan,

“I will put enmity between THEE and the WOMAN and


between THY SEED and HER SEED.”

The same Hebrew word for seed is used in both cases.


Therefore, it is clear for all those who understand the English
language, that Satan was to have just as literal seed, or
descendants, as Eve. Yahweh’s own word being pledged to
his, we must expect to find it actually happening and we do.
Yahshua tell us of it.

In Matthew 13:38-39 explaining the parable of the tares


among the wheat Yahshua says,

“THE FIELD IS THE WORLD; THE GOOD SEED ARE THE


CHILDREN OF THE KINGDOM: BUT THE TARES ARE THE
CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE: THE ENEMY THAT SOWED
THEMIS THE DEVIL.”

In John 6:70-71 Yahshua had been talking with His twelve


disciples and we read:

“Yahshua answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve and


ONE OF YOU IS A DEVIL? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son
of Simon: for he it was that should betray him being one of
the twelve.”

You should read carefully John chapter 8 where Yahshua told


those who hated him,“YE ARE OF THE DEVIL AND THE
LUSTS FOR YOUR FATHER YE WILL DO...He that is of God
heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because
YE ARE NOT OF GOD.” (John 8:44, 47)

He was not being vulgarly abusive in either of these cases,


for He never resorted to name calling so His statement was
14

precisely accurate. He did call some of them serpents,


children of vipers, which was accurate. Long before this,
they had adopted THE SERPENT as a symbol of Satan. This
is why their tradition had given the word naw-khash the
translation serpent, when it really means enchanter.
Yahshua therefore was telling them that they were of their
father the devil (or serpent, fi they preferred that word). In
this He was simply stating a biological fact with scientific
precision and identifying the persons of this ancestry.

Whenever someone tells you the Bible is in conflict with


what modern science has proven true, don’t you believe it.
The things many Judeo-Christian preachers teach are in
conflict with scientific truth, as we all know, but these
preachers are equally in conflict with the Bible. Go back to
the Bible, not to any man made doctrines and double check
it for accuracy of translation. You will find what the Bible
really says, in its original languages, is accurate and with a
precision our scientists have not yet achieved.

Genesis 1:1-2:

In Search of the Historical Adam


(Part 1)
15

Dick Fischer
P. O. Box 50111,
Arlington, VA 22205

From PSCF 45 (December 1993): 241.

Human beings appear to be related by common ancestry that


extends back in time 100,000 years or more. If Genesis has
accurately presented the surrounding environment in the beginning
chapters, and if weight is given to recent archaeological findings,
Adam's niche in time and space is about 5000 to 4000 BC in
Southern Mesopotamia, thus precluding his being the progenitor of
the entire human race. The Garden of Eden probably required
irrigation via a canal network to sustain Adam and his immediate
family. Although Adam may very well have been specially created by
God, intermarriages between the covenant line of Adam and the
indigenous populations assure even Adam's descendants a link to
the distant past. All this can be deduced not only from archaeological
finds and ancient cuneiform tablets, but from clues in the Scriptures
as well.

For those who believe Genesis is historically accurate, Adam and Eve
were de facto historical figures, not symbolic representations
concocted by Moses or some other source. Indeed, the historicity of
the covenant couple is implied in the New Testament as well. It is
the purpose of this series of two articles to show that Adam appears
to have actually been an historic personality who had a moment and
a place in history. Furthermore, a specially created Adam dictated by
the Scriptures is entirely compatible with this thesis.

Bible interpreters have had a propensity to conclude that the


Genesis text confers upon Adam the distinction of being the
biological head of the entire human race. The Bible does position
Adam as the first "man" (I Cor. 15:45), but what definition is to be
applied" Could Adam have been the first hominoid or hominid, an
Australopithicine perhaps; or first of the genus Homo, such as Homo
habilis or Homo erectus" Was Adam first of the archaic Homo
sapiens, first of the modern Homo sapiens, the first Caucasian, or
was he the first of a Near East people from which present-day Jews,
Arabs, and some others have derived" Remember, Adam was a
16

unique person who could have lived only once.

Small amounts of secular history were incorporated in Luke and


Acts. As a result, readers many centuries removed have had minimal
trouble determining when and where the events took place. In the
beginning of Genesis also, sufficient peripheral information is
recorded to give us a fairly accurate historical perspective. We are
told just enough about the culture of Adam's day that we can get
some idea as to his approximate time frame. The genealogies in
Genesis 5 and 11 are especially helpful in pinpointing Adam, both in
time and place. (The secular surroundings of Adam and his kin will
be explored in the second article in this series of two, to be
published in the March 1994 issue of Perspectives.)

Mitochondrial Eve

The "Eve hypothesis" was developed from pioneering work in


mitochondrial DNA published by Wilson and Sarich in 1987.
According to them, and subsequent researchers, there is evidence
that all human beings have descended from one common female
genotype that lived in Africa about 200,000 to 100,000 years ago.1

Support for the "out of Africa" model can be derived from the
morphological diversity seen among black Africans today. African
peoples must therefore be very ancient, since presumably more time
should be required to produce such diverse populations from
common stock.

Researchers at the Natural History Museum in London prefer the


"out of Africa" model. It is believed that only there Homo erectus
gave rise to modern humans. They spread throughout Europe and
Asia, displacing whatever remnant populations they may have
encountered in their migrations.

A number of distinguished paleontologists disagree, and have


published data suggesting a co-mingling between ancient and more
modern peoples. Their evidence supports "regional continuity,"
meaning that local populations of archaic ancestors eventually begat
modern types. An analysis of human fossils found in Israel and
Africa, when compared with older Homo erectus remains, led
17

researchers to place Homo erectus directly in the line of hominids


that culminated in modern man. Science reported:

These modern-looking fossils all date to about 100,000 years and


appear at the end of a sequence of fossils that stretches back to
400,000 years ago, which seem to show a gradual transition from
their Homo erectus-type forebears to early modern humans.2

What unity there is among contending parties was summed up:

In spite of the contention, all parties can agree on one thing. The
proto-human fossil record begins in Africa, with a species now called
Homo erectus. After evolving in an African homeland, all concur,
Homo erectus migrated to Europe and Asia about 1 million years
ago. But after that, comes the Great Divide in paleoanthropology.3

Although two theories are competing for prominence, what has been
generally agreed upon by both molecular biologists and
paleoanthropologists is that all humans are biologically connected,
as evidenced by our DNA signatures4 (and confirmed in Acts 17:26).
When and under what circumstances ancient "Eve" got here is still
an open question.

The temptation among some Bible apologists has been to postulate


that Adam must have lived at a similar early date as mitochondrial
Eve, and thus the origins issue is seemingly resolved. The problem
with this idea is that even if the Bible was accommodating (and it
isn't), how do you explain the various precursors predating that
point in history, such as Homo erectus" Can they just be swept
under the rug?

According to the Bible, Adam was the first to have a covenant


relationship with the Creator, the first to be accountable, the first to
sin and suffer the consequences, and the first in the line of promise
leading to the Savior. That does not necessarily mean, however, that
Adam was the first biped with an opposable thumb and a cranial
capacity of 1300 to 1400 cubic centimeters.

Adam - Ancient or Recent


18

Placing Adam's time frame in the distant past infers the Genesis
record must have omitted the names of hundreds of generations
who supposedly lived between Adam and Abraham. The rationale is
that the word "begat" does not necessarily mean "the immediate
father of," so the named patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11 would be
only a representative sampling.5

The elasticity of Hebrew grammar can be seen to permit


genealogical stretching. The Hebrew word "ben" for "son" can also
mean "grandson," "children," or even "descendant."6 Jesus is called
"the son of David," for example (Matt. 1:1). Conversely, the word -
'ab" for "father" can mean "ancestor." So the means for
accommodation are in place, and many Bible scholars have taken
this path.

These interpreters point out inconsistencies in Bible genealogies by


comparing Old Testament authors with New Testament authors, and
then saying, for example: "Aha! Matthew dropped three relatives out
of Jesus's lineage that are clearly listed in II Kings (Ahaziah, Joash,
and Amaziah)."7

Thus these inconsistencies and allowances in Hebrew grammar are


seen as somehow establishing a precedent which makes the
genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 and in Luke 3 fair game, and
therefore, expandable at will. Like many other devices, this one will
not stand up to scrutiny.

Seth has to be the immediate son of Adam (Gen. 4:25). The


identical phraseology which sets Adam's age at the birth of his son,
Seth, is repeated from Seth to Noah (Gen. 5:3-29). If there are no
intermediate generations from Adam to Seth, then that should
indicate the same thing down the line.

In Jude 1:14, Enoch is "the seventh from Adam," inhibiting


additional unnamed patriarchs for the first seven generations.
Methuselah died near the time of the flood, presumably before the
rain started. That ties in the age of the patriarch at his death with
the date of the flood, thereby precluding any additions of time
between Methuselah and Noah.
19

Thus these inconsistencies and allowances in Hebrew


grammar

are seen as somehow establishing a precedent which makes


thegenealogies in Genesis 5 and 11and in Luke 3 fair game,
and therefore, expandable at will. Like many other devices,
this one

will not stand up to scrutiny.

So if there is no space to stick in hundreds of generations from


Adam to Enoch, and Enoch's son, Methuselah, died in the year of the
flood (assuming a recent flood), that is the coup de grace to the
expanding genealogies method. Inserting additional time or
generations is not a workable proposition from Adam to Noah.

The idea that Noah or Shem would have recorded ten forefathers,
detailing the age of each at the birth of their first son, or son of the
line of promise, and the age at death, while omitting hundreds of
intermediate generations, is beyond reason. There is no justification
for postulating intermediate, unnamed generations in Genesis 5.
Even if it were theoretically possible to insert extra generations, the
specific language used giving the age of the father at the birth of
each succeeding son prohibits inserting more time. So it is a moot
point. Archer maintains:

...for even allowing the numerous gaps in the chronological tables


given in Genesis 5 and Genesis 10 it is altogether unreasonable to
suppose that a hundred times as many generations are omitted in
these tables as are included in them.8

More importantly, the background information surrounding


Adam
and his generations to Noah, and from the flood to Abraham,
is far too modern in description to have happened at such an
early period in man's history.
20

More importantly, the background information surrounding Adam


and his generations to Noah, and from the flood to Abraham, is far
too modern in description to have happened at such an early period
in man's history. How would livestock raising and farming (Gen. 4:2)
have come before hunting and gathering" Could sophisticated
musical instruments (Gen. 4:21) predate simple bone flutes" How
could metal working (Gen. 4:22) have preceded the Neolithic (late
Stone Age) period" It serves no useful purpose to render the Genesis
account incredible in order to extend a hermeneutical helping hand
the Bible can do without.

Why force something that isn't there" If we believe paleontologists,


anatomically modern humans go back some 100,000 years; archaic
Homo sapiens first appeared about 300,000 years ago; and
hominids of some description can be traced back 2.5 million years
with precursors to 4 million years ago. And if we trust the biblical
text, Adam fits best at about 5000 to 4000 BC. Schroeder addresses
this issue in Genesis and the Big Bang:

For the Bible scholar, it is not an easy task to accept as reality that
for the past 100,000 years there existed animals such as hominids
and that the skeletons of these ancient animals are near replicas of
those of modern man. But the fossil evidence is abundant and
irrefutable. It is folly, no it is counterproductive, to close one's eyes
to this fact.9

Of course, a figure like 100,000 years ago for the emergence of


anatomically modern humans may undergo revision in the future,
but barring any drastic changes, there really is no comfortable niche
for Adam any time before communicative bipedal creatures had
already commenced on planet Earth. What became of them is the
real issue.

These creatures either died out, leaving the world devoid of


humanity until Adam was created, or else they left progeny who
were busy populating the earth when Adam arrived on the scene.
Adam either evolved or was nonexistent - notions the Bible rejects -
or else he was inserted, so to speak, into the train of humanity. This
is the solution we will explore.
21

A Time for Adam

The task of finding some place to inject Adam into human history
can be simplified if we let the Bible do the talking. References to
tents, farming, and raising livestock suggest that Adam was not a
cave dwelling hunter-gatherer.

Archaeologists place the beginnings of modern man 10,000 years


ago with the advent of farming techniques10 Adam's placement at
roughly 5000 to 4000 BC from the Genesis genealogies, combined
with the mention of farming, makes this a compatible time frame.

Lamech, a descendant of Cain, had three sons by his two wives


(Gen. 4:19-22). Jabal "was the father of such as dwell in tents, and
of such as have cattle." A second son Jubal, "was the father of all
such as handle the harp and organ."

In just eight generations counting Adam, there are tents, livestock,


and musical instruments; not caves, wooly mammoths, and hand
axes. For many reasons, we can conclude that Adam was not
contemporary with the "Flintstones." A wealth of Stone Age artifacts
have been uncovered giving silent testimony to a culture long
disappeared at this point. So where does Adam fit in the history of
man" The next verse is explicit.

In Genesis 4:22, one of Cain's descendants, Tubal-cain, was "an


instructor of every worker in brass and iron." The Hebrew word for
"brass" also means "copper," and copper tools were not in use
before 10,000 years ago. Although iron smelting would be out of the
question, there is evidence that bog iron was beaten into
rudimentary tools, and iron was known as far back as 4000 BC,11 or
else what may have looked like iron could have been tin. Copper and
tin together make bronze, and the Bronze Age is identifiable in
history, starting about 3000 BC.12

That is the proverbial smoking gun. Adam belongs after the old
Stone Ages, near the threshold of the Bronze Age, in a period called
the Chalcolithic, when traditional stone tools were being gradually
augmented by crude copper implements. Adam's descendants saw
22

the dawning of the Bronze Age.

In the initial period of the Middle Eastern civilizations, from about


3000 BC, there was a truly remarkable development of metallurgy.
This is seen in the beginning of the Bronze Age, when alloys of
arsenic and copper, or tin and copper (in both cases known as
bronze), came into being...13

Stone tools would have been of little use to Noah when he needed to
construct a massive watertight ark. Metal tools suitable for such an
undertaking would have only been available if the pre-flood
patriarchs lived in the period of what archaeologists call "modern
man;" that is, after 10,000 years ago. The Stone Age periods may
not have completely passed by Adam's day, but apparently human
history was well into the Bronze Age by the time of Tubal-cain and
Noah. And a late entry for Adam puts him in the company of
unrelated indigenous populations.

Why Cain Feared for His Life

Cain's lament in Genesis 4:13-14 highlights the issue of whether


Adam was alone or not. By murdering Abel, only Cain and his
parents were left. Cain's first words upon hearing the Lord's
punishment were out of fear that someone would kill him. Is it likely
that his immediate worry was that his parents would retaliate, or
that he would be tracked down and killed by future and thus far
unborn generations from Adam" Cain would have had a whole world
in which to hide.

God answered Cain's plea by providing a sign for him (Gen. 4:15).
Cain's anxieties were justified as evidenced by the Lord taking action
to quiet his fears. We have no way of knowing what that sign or
mark was, but evidently it was necessary. From Cain's point of view,
the entire human race would have reached a dead end at that point
- unless there were other human beings about.14 There must have
been potentially hostile tribes of men in the vicinity. Cain was aware
of it, and the Lord's action attested to his justifiable fear.

And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the
23

land of Nod, on the east of Eden. (Genesis 4:16)

Throughout the Bible the "land of Canaan" or the "land of Egypt"


refers to an area populated by those particular peoples; such as
Canaanites and Egyptians. Why have Bible interpreters not
considered that the "land of Nod" might well have been populated by
"Nodites," who were minding their own business before Cain arrived,
and might have been the very ones Cain feared" In Hebrew, "nod"
means "wandering." This would be an apt designation for a band of
nomads who might have been in the area at the time, "nod" being
simply a form of the word, "nomad."

Removing the Shackles of Prejudgment

Once we hold up to scrutiny the traditional assumption that Adam


was the first human, and consider the probability that other human
beings were already living in Adam's proximity, previous pitfalls in
the Genesis narrative disappear. Passages that had obscure
meanings become clear. The "Nephilim" or "giants" in Genesis 6:4
may now be identified as prehistoric or pre-Adamic - not in Adam's
line of descendants, or ancestry.

If we can shed our preconceptions, we may view Genesis from a new


perspective. Yes, the early chapters are lacking an abundance of
details. Paleontologists also differ over the course of man's descent
due to sparse fossil evidence of early hominids. And it is too early for
gene research to give us a conclusive picture.

Nevertheless, if we can cast off the shackles of prejudgment, we can


examine the Genesis text with a view toward what may not be
entirely provable, but is certainly possible, plausible, and, if I may
be so bold, indeed probable.

The Image of God

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God


created He him; male and female created He them. (Genesis
1:27)

What does it mean to be created in God's image" "The ancient Orient


24

shows us with ever increasing clarity that the purpose and function
of an image consists in representing someone," Edmond Jacob
writes in Theology of the Old Testament. "An image, that is to say a
statue of a god is the real presence of this god..."15

In that context, Adam would have been God's representative to the


world, and an already populated world to boot. Humbert raised
another possibility; that man was given the same "physical outward
appearance" as the deity.16 However, the human physique has a
certain functionality necessitated by our physical environment that is
not required by a Creator-God.

By using the term "God's image," the writer of Genesis may have
been alluding to the inner essence of us which is an integral part and
yet unseen - our soul, or our spirit. That may not have been an
altogether unique feature. We are in the dark with respect to Adam's
neighbors, even though Adam was apparently infused with
something which gave him a kind of kinship with the deity.

Who is the "them" referred to in Genesis 1:27" It has been argued


that the plural "them" should be applied to generic man, and not
exclusively to Adam and his generations. But most Bible scholars
believe this passage applies solely to Adam and Eve, and their
descendants who came under the Adamic covenant. This is expressly
implied in Genesis 5:1-3:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God
created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female
created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in
the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and
thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image;
and called his name Seth.

It is true that traditionally most Bible scholars have thought all of


humanity started with Adam. This stand has been taken, however,
with certain nonchalance for not only the fossil record and the
genetic evidence, but even the qualifiers in the Scriptures
themselves. Adam was created, and then Eve, but it is unwarranted
to presume ancient precursors are encompassed by Genesis 1:27.
25

Adam, as God's chosen, was the first man capable of achieving


God's kingdom, and that was passed down through his generations
until Christ's sacrifice at the cross changed the equation and brought
a new covenant. Presumably any outsiders in Adam's day would
have been outside the covenant, and unable to enjoy this unique
status, which included the hope of redemption through (1) the
Adamic bloodline, (2) the discipline of self righteousness, and (3) the
ritual of animal sacrifice.

As the first type of Christ, Adam may have had a similar mission.
Adam's task was probably to bring the word of God's kingdom to the
polytheistic heathen living all around him. We can only guess. We
can never know with certainty what it was Adam was supposed to
have done, or could have done had he not yielded to Satan's odious
deception so early on.

A Place for Adam

In terms of place, Southern Mesopotamia is clearly indicated by the


Bible. The rivers, Hiddekel (Tigris) and Euphrates, the cities of Erech
and Ur (and much more we will explore in depth) all point to this
region" - a region that came to be called "Sumer." Jacquetta Hawkes
describes it in The Atlas of Early Man:

The fourth millennium in Sumer is one of the most remarkable


passages in human history. Already at its beginning old settlements
such as Eridu, Uruk, Ur, Lagash and Nippur had become substantial
towns and from 3500 BC they waxed into cities. The citizens now
included large numbers of specialist artisans - "potters, carpenters,
makers of mudbrick, coppersmiths - and fine sculptors too.17

Identifying the various cultures which have flourished in the Near


East has been done with meticulous care made possible by years of
carefully compiled archaeological data. The earliest identifiable
people belong to the Neolithic Natufian culture, which was spread
from Palestine to Syria, and date from about 12,500 to 10,500 years
ago, clearly a pre-Adamic date. The oldest city identified with
Natufian culture was Jericho.18

In 1961-1963, the excavation at Catal Huyuk in south-central


26

Turkey was excavated in the early 1960s. It was dated from 6500 to
5400 BC, and supported the concept of regional areas of Neolithic
development instead of a single nuclear area, such as a city.

Contrasts among Jericho, Catal Huyuk, Jarmo, and Umm


Dabaghiyah - all about 6000 BC - suggest a considerable
regionalization within widely scattered Neolithic communities of the
Near East.19

In the Tigris and Euphrates floodplain, the ancient cultures leading


to the development of Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian
civilizations can be traced from late Neolithic villages of around 5500
BC to towns and urban areas of the highly developed Sumerians of
2500 BC.

The Hassuna culture takes its name from the mound of Tell Hassuna
in northwestern Iraq, and dates to 6000-5250 BC. Numerous
agricultural villages have been unearthed in Iran, Turkey, and
Palestine that were contemporary with the Hassuna.

The coarse pottery wares identified with the Hassuna were gradually
replaced by the remnants of the Samarra culture, starting about
5500 BC. At Tell-es Sawaan in Iraq alabaster female figurines were
discovered, along with ornaments of turquoise, carnelian,
greenstone, and copper. The presence of widely disparate materials
in one location indicates trading practices, and shows that trade
routes had already been established by that time.20

Dating from 5500 to 4700 BC, the Halaf culture succeeded, but
overlapped the Samarran. Halafian ceramics have been discovered
from the Mediterranean coast to Iran, though the Tigris-Euphrates
region south of Baghdad may have been uninhabited at this early
date.

From similarities in pottery shards and other artifacts, the highly


developed Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian civilizations that
flourished in the third and second millennium periods can be traced
to the late Neolithic villages of around 5500 BC. There is no break
that one would expect to see if there had been a catastrophic
termination of mankind and a subsequent renewal, a theory that is
27

popular among "gap" proponents.

The highly developed Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian


civilizations
that flourished in the third and second millennium periods
can be traced to
the late Neolithic villages of around 5500 BC.
There is no break that one would expect to see if there had
been a catastrophic
termination of mankind and a subsequent renewal,
a theory that is popular among "gap" proponents.

Located four miles from the ancient city of Ur is the small


archaeological mound of al-'Ubaid. The settlements in southern
Mesopotamia dating from 4500-3500 BC are collectively assigned to
the Ubaid culture. Whether or not pre-Ubaid sites exist in southern
Mesopotamia is a subject of controversy. Some archaeologists
believe that fluctuations in the level of the Persian Gulf may have
erased any traces of earlier settlements.

The origin of the Ubaid culture is unknown. The Halafians were


flourishing in the north at about the same time Ubaidan farmers
began to settle the southern delta of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
The climatic conditions seem unlikely for a Garden of Eden until the
advancement of irrigation could bring its blessing of water to the
area. This began to happen during the Ubaid period.

By 3500 BC, the Ubaidans were living in townships from


Mesopotamia to Syria to Turkey. The subsequent flood at the time of
Noah could have wiped out the Ubaidans, although there is some
evidence the Sumerian culture may have derived from the Ubaidan.
Broken pieces of pottery show subtle transition from Ubaid ware to
Uruk ware. This is more indicative of gradual change through the
influence of friendly contact with neighboring cultures than it is of a
foreign invasion and replacement by conquest. Yet some
archaeologists prefer the displacement model, and believe the
Sumerians were a discrete population.
28

The purpose of designating these ancient populations as Halafian,


Ubaidan, or Sumerian is primarily to place them in time and place
context, and need not necessarily imply ethnic differences. The flood
must have devastated Southern Mesopotamia, leaving behind ruined
cities which the next generations of Sumerians could build on and
repopulate. Whether Ubaidan fathers had Sumerian sons is
unknown.

The flood must have devastated Southern Mesopotamia


leaving behind ruined cities
which the next generations of Sumerians could build on and
repopulate.

When it comes to identifying candidates who may have been


enjoying the Tigris and Euphrates region prior to Adam's creation,
there are two or three choices depending on the precise date of
Adam's arrival. We can select the earlier Halafians, the Ubaidans, or
the later Sumerians, although the Ubaidans seem the most likely:

About 4500 BC the region was settled by people who came to be


called Ubaidans. They in fact settled most of the sites where the
great cities of Sumeria [Sumer] were to grow - ncluding Ur (where
Wooley found their remains under the silt of the flood). Later they
spread up the valley, succeeding the Halafians and becoming the
first people to dominate the whole of Mesopotamia.21

The harsh, arid conditions might have caused the Halafians to make
only brief appearances in the south, or maybe they never got there
at all. The first inhabitants of the Tigris and Euphrates basin that can
be readily identified are the Ubaidans, succeeded by the Sumerians.

Flood deposits have been found at key Southern Mesopotamian city


sites; Kish, Shuruppak, Erech, and Lagash that center around a
2900 BC time frame.22 However, both Ubaidan and Sumerian
artifacts have been found at levels dated earlier than that. The
Sumerians re-established their civilization after the flood, and rebuilt
or resettled previously established city sites.
29

Conceivably Halafians could have been living in the vicinity of Eden


when Adam was placed in the garden. But Ubaidan pottery has been
found at the lowest levels of excavated cities in Southern
Mesopotamia, and the Ubaidans best fit the most likely time frame.
Adam and his generations likely were surrounded from the
beginning, or became surrounded by first Ubaidan, and then
Sumerian culture.

Irrigating the Garden

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every
herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to
rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But
there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of
the ground. (Genesis 2:5-6)

Genesis 2:5-6 is a useful passage to use in demonstrating that Bible


interpretations which exclude pertinent extra-biblical data can
produce dubious opinions and perplexing conclusions. From this
verse, Henry Morris argues for a "vapor canopy" over the early
earth, and reasons:

In the original world, however, there was no rainfall on the earth. As


originally created, the earth's daily water supply came primarily from
local evaporation and condensation.23

Morris reaches this conclusion solely on his reading of the biblical


text, deducing that rain doesn't come until the flood,
notwithstanding the fact that no one has discovered any place in the
world where mist or fog naturally oozes out of the ground in
sufficient volume to water humans, livestock, and crops. We would
also be left to wonder what furnished the rivers in Genesis 2:10-14
with water. Were the Tigris and Euphrates not supplied by snow melt
and rainfall as they are today"

In their well known Commentary on the Old Testament, Keil and


Delitzsch explain Genesis 2:5 as follows:

The creation of the plants is not alluded to here at all, but simply the
30

planting of the garden in Eden.

They too slide down the slippery slope to a woeful opinion. This was
"dependent upon rain," they decide, and conclude that the mist or
vapor in Genesis 2:6 was the "creative beginning of the rain itself""24
So even though the Bible states in the previous verse "for the Lord
God had not caused it to rain," nevertheless, rain it was, according
to this respected Bible commentary.

So which is it, rain or no rain" The answer can be sought in the


Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology pertaining to ancient
Mesopotamia:

The culmination of these prehistoric advances is to be found in the


`Ubaid period of the sixth and fifth millennia, when the earliest
settlements are known from Sumer. This area was characterized by
the very great fertility of its alluvial soil and - outside local areas of
marsh and lagoon, where a specialized fishing, hunting and
collecting economy could have been practiced - an extremely arid
environment that necessitated the use of irrigation for successful
agriculture.25

Could "an extremely arid environment" be described as a place


where the "Lord God had not caused it to rain"" Could a "mist from
the earth" that "watered the whole face of the ground" refer to a
land "that necessitated the use of irrigation for successful
agriculture""

It seems "there was not a man to till the ground" for an


uncomplicated reason.
No one had irrigated the desert soil; thus no plowing had
been done, so no crops could be grown.

Driver suggests irrigation:

Provision [is] made for the irrigation of the garden. The reference is
implicitly to a system of canals, such as existed in Babylonia...26
31

The Septuagint offers furtherassistance. In the Greek text the word


is not "mist," but "fountain." The RSV uses "stream." Certainly the
words "fountain" and "stream" better describe an irrigation canal
than a vapor canopy. It seems "there was not a man to till the
ground" for an uncomplicated reason. No one had irrigated the
desert soil; thus no plowing had been done, so no crops could be
grown.

Even before the first cities began to appear on the Mesopotamian


plain, sizeable settlements such as Jericho were being supplied by
irrigation.

The biblical city of Jericho, a center for salt trade, flourished during
the seventh millennium BC in the desert near the north end of the
Dead Sea. Water diverted from a spring nourished its fields.27

In Genesis 2:8, "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in


Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed." "And a river
went out of Eden to water the garden - " (Gen. 2:10).

It is unlikely that a river, synonymous with "brook" or "creek," is


intended. Water falls on the ground, trickles into streams, and flows
to rivers, which empty in the sea - the exact opposite of what the
verse states. The purpose of irrigation canals is to carry water from
the rivers to the ground - precisely what the verse states. There
were no "rivers" in Babylon (Psa. 137:1), only canals. In other
words, there was a place called Eden, out of which a canal ran
eastward to irrigate the garden, where God placed Adam.

What cries out for attention, though, is this:


How could Eden be identified and named as a place
distinct from the garden if there was no citizenry?

We know that Southern Mesopotamia was laced with a canal


network, the remains of which can still be seen today as lines in the
desert. Canals obviously required people to dig and maintain them.
What cries out for attention, though, is this: How could Eden be
identified and named as a place distinct from the garden if there was
32

no citizenry"

Take any place - London, England, for example. Was there ever a
time when London was unoccupied" Well, yes, but no one could have
called it "London" then. The principle is the same concerning Eden.
Isaiah speaks of the Lord making the wilderness of Zion "like Eden"
(Isa. 51:3). Eden was apparently a place for people, and had to
have people before it could be called "Eden."

Who lived in Havilah (Gen. 2:11,12), and who mined the gold there"
Driver places Havilah "most probably" in the northeast of Arabia on
the west coast of the Persian Gulf, south of Egypt, and adds, "The
gold of Arabia was famed in antiquity."28 Also, the remains of mines
have been found in the Egyptian Nile Valley that were active over
30,000 years ago.29 There may be other ways to explain this verse,
but the implications are that gold mining preceded even Adam's Fall!

We may not know who was living in "the whole land of Ethiopia"
(Gen. 2:13), but sewing needles and stone vessels for grinding grain
into meal were found at el-Badari along the Nile dating to slightly
earlier than 5000 BC.30 This was about the same time that Hassuna
and Nineveh were established beside the Tigris (biblical Hiddekel) in
the region later known as Assyria.

Enuma Elish - An Early Creation Epic

The first people who can be clearly identified as likely descendants of


Adam are the post-flood Semitic Accadians. Most authors believe
that an influx of Semites31 from the early third millennium BC were
known by the Sumerians as "Martu."32 The Accadians apparently
learned their writing skills from the Sumerians, and began to record
their own versions of history in their own language using the same
cuneiform technique.

One of the early creation epics was written in Accadian or Babylonian


cuneiform and is called Enuma Elish. It has been compiled from
tablets found at Ninevah, Ashur, and Kish. According to legend,
father Ea (second in the early Accadian Trinity) begat the heroic
Marduk who slays the rebellious Tiamat. Thereupon:
33

He split her like a shellfish into two parts:


Half of her he set up and cield it as sky...33

(For a shadow of this see Psa. 89:9,10 and Isa. 51:9. ) The one
who "contrived the uprising" was the evil Tiamat's commander-in-
chief, Kingu:

They bound him, holding him before Ea.


They imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood (vessels).
Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.34

In this account, the blood of Kingu was used, but in another legend
the blood is mixed with clay.36 Although somewhat gory in describing
the mode of their creation, the Accadians also seemed to be aware
they were not alone in the world. Frequent references are made to
the "black-headed" people.37

The "black-headed" was a reference to the Sumerians who


supplanted the Ubaidans, or conceivably, it could be a reference to
some other race of people. But regardless of who they were, they
were not Semites (or Adamites) judging from Accadian poetry.

May he shepherd the black-headed ones, his creatures.


To the end of days, without forgetting, let them acclaim his ways.
May he establish for his fathers the great food-offerings;
Their support they shall furnish, shall tend their sanctuaries.
May he cause incense to be smelled...their spells,
A likeness on earth of what he has wrought in heaven.
May he order the black-headed to re[vere him],
May the subjects ever bear in mind their god,
And may they at his word pay heed to the goddess.
May food-offerings be borne for their gods and goddesses.
Without fail let them support their gods!
Their lands let them improve, build their shrines,
Let the black-headed wait on their gods.
As for us, by however many names we pronounce, He is our God!38

Evidently the Semitic Accadians thought of the "black-headed" as a


separate people, racially distinct, and polytheistic as regards to
religion. The light-skinned, dark-haired Sumerians best fit this
34

description, and they spoke an unrelated language long before the


Tower of Babel incident.

Early Adamite populations must have lived in relative isolation at


the beginning since they developed a language entirely unlike the
Sumerian language. But by the time the Sumerians learned to write,
some of the earliest names recorded were Semite (or Adamite),
demonstrating the close contact between these two cultures very
early on.

Adam's Bride

After naming the animals of the garden, there was still something
missing, "but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him"
(Gen. 2:20).

A search can easily be implied by the words, "was not found." A


search for a helpmate to be both wife and companion would be
ridiculous if the world at that time contained only birds, beasts,
cattle, and creeping things - but what if one or more settlements of
humans were already in the vicinity"

Available females must have been nearby, one of which Adam could
have chosen for his wife. We can deduce that from archaeological
history. From the Bible we can conclude that none was suitable, so
Adam had an operation resulting in Eve. As confirmation of an act of
special creation for the first covenant couple, Genesis 2:21-23 gives
us a graphic description. Paul confirms this mode of origination. "For
Adam was first formed (plasso in the Greek), then Eve" (1 Tim.
2:13).

Apparently Adam was created biologically compatible with the


neighbors outside the garden. But God's desire was for Adam's wife
to be distinctive, just as Adam was. By fashioning Eve out of Adam,
this allowed them both to enjoy 900 or more years of wedded bliss.
We are free to speculate about the origins of Cain's wife, or Noah's
wife, but not about Eve.

The Bread of Life


35

Adam was banished from the garden after the Fall. "In the sweat of
thy face shall thou eat bread..." and, "...the Lord God sent him forth
from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was
taken" (Gen. 3:19,23).

Could we believe the first man on earth already knew how to use
fire, construct an oven, plant and harvest grain, mill it, and prepare
the flour for baking" If not, then we may conclude that Adam was
not the first man in the biological sense.

Prehistoric men were hunters of wild game and gatherers of fruits


and berries. Farming and domesticated livestock were later
developments. Paleontologists have uncovered evidence that ancient
peoples harvested wild wheat as far back as 9000 BC. It took a
genetic crossing of goat grass and "emmer" to produce bread wheat.
The earliest evidence of wheat cultivation was found in the ancient
oasis of Jericho and is dated at 8000 BC.39

Wheat, and therefore bread, appears to have been in use 3,000


years before Adam. So we have two choices. We can either deny the
anthropological data; or allow that these agricultural developments
predate Adam. If we choose the second option, at his inception,
therefore, Adam must have been surrounded by people already
familiar with growing grain when he was inserted into human
history.

In the second article of this two-part series, we'll examine the


culture that surrounded the early Adamites in Southern
Mesopotamia at around 5000 to 4000 BC and discuss early
cuneiform writings and inscriptions that speak about an historical
figure that could have been Adam of Genesis. In addition, we'll look
at the Sumerian king lists of early pre-flood rulers, which begin with
"Alulim," the probable equivalent of Adam. Eridu, the oldest city in
Southern Mesopotamia, dating to about 4800 BC, is the most likely
place to have been Eden, the original home for Adam and his kin.
Even the word "Eden" apparently was derived from the Sumerian
"edin," meaning "plain," "prairie," or "desert." "Enoch," the city Cain
built in the pre-flood period corresponds with "E-anna(k)," a
Sumerian and Semite post-flood site.
36

Notes
1
Ann Gibbons, "Mitochondrial Eve: Wounded But Not Dead Yet,"
Science (14 August, 1992), 873.
2
Ibid., 875.
3
Ibid., 875.
4
James Shreeve, "Argument Over A Woman," Discover (August
1990), 52-59.
5
Robert C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, Genesis One and the
Origin of the Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 111.
6
Lloyd R. Bailey, Genesis, Creation, and Creationism (New York:
Paulist Press, 1993), 130.
7
Paul H. Seely, Inerrant Wisdom: Science & Inerrancy In Biblical
Perspective (Portland: Evangelical Reform, Inc. , 1989), 17.
8
Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 203.
9
Gerald L. Schroeder, Genesis and the Big Bang (New York: Bantam
Books, 1990), 175.
10
John E. Pfeiffer, The Creative Explosion (New York: Harper & Row,
Publishers, 1982), 121.
11
From an exhibit in the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D. C.,
July 25, 1993.
12
Jacquetta Hawkes, The Atlas of Early Man (New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1976), 63.
13
John Gowlett, Ascent to Civilization (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., 1984), 180.
14
Dick Fischer, "The Bible Proves Creationism is Wrong," The
37

Washington Post (August 17, 1986), C4.


15
Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament ( New York: Harper
& Brothers Publishers, 1958), 167.
16
Ibid., 167.
17
Hawkes, The Atlas Of Early Man, 64.
18
Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (New York:
Doubleday, 1990), 36.
19
C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, and Jeremy A. Sabloff, Ancient
Civilizations: The Near East and Mesoamerica (Menlo Park: The
Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. , 1979), 79.
20
Ibid., 99.
21
Hawkes, The Atlas of Early Man, 63.
22
Lloyd R. Bailey, Noah: The Person and the Story in History and
Tradition (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989), 36.
23
Henry Morris, The Genesis Record (San Diego: Creation-Life
Publishers, 1976), 84.
24
C. F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch, Commentary On The Old Testament
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989), 77-78.
25
Andrew Sherratt, ed., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology
(New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1980), 113.
26
S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.,
1938), 39.
27
George, Constable, Ed., The Age of God Kings: TimeFrame 3000-
1500 BC (Alexandria: Time-Life Books, 1987), 10.
28
Driver, The Book of Genesis, 39.
38

29
Pierre M. Vermeersch, Etienne Paulissen, and Philip Van Peer,
"Palaeolithic chert exploitation in the limestone stretch of the
Egyptian Nile Valley," African Archaeological Review (1990) 8: 77-
102.
30
Hawkes, The Atlas of Early Man, 47.
31
"Semites" is the term archaeologists and historians use to denote
not only descendants of Shem, but also descendants of Japheth,
Ham, or any of Adam's line in the pre-flood period (if a person such
as Adam ever existed, or there was ever an event such as the
Flood.) Thus, Canaanites spoke a "west semitic" language,
notwithstanding Canaan was the son of Ham, according to the Bible.
One might think "Hamites" would have communicated in a "hamitic"
tongue. But the secular world does not recognize the Bible as being
historically accurate. Therefore, "Semites" are universally
recognized. "Adamites," "Hamites," and "Japhethites" are not, shall
we say, "politically correct."
32
Samuel Noah Kramer, "Sumero-Akkadian Interconnections,"
Genava, n. s., 8 (1960), 272-273.
33
James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 60-72.
34
Ibid., 67.
35
Ibid., 68
36
Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1942), 56.
37
Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament, 70.
38
Ibid., 69.
39
John Wiester, The Genesis Connection (Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1983), 187.
39

They Lived Before Adam,


Prehistoric Origin of Ndigbo,
The Never -Been-Ruled
Prof. Catherine Acholonu and his co-authors
explained,
40

"The discoveries at Ugwuele show that the 'out of Africa' migrations


were more or less an 'out of Igboland' migration and that Igboland
was original home of Homo Erectus and that all of those who
migrated out of Africa were Igbo ambassadors.

They stated that in the olden days, the ancestors carved stones as
means of communication and also a way to give honour to great
men and women who made great achievements in the society, and
these stones were named after people, whom they were dedicated
to.

Some of these carved stones known as monoliths were discovered in


Ikom Local Government Area of Cross River State, Nigeria, about
300 kilometers from Calabar, the state capital and the villagers
called them Akwa Nshi, meaning that they were made by Nshi,
Stone Age people. 'Nshi' in Igbo means dwarf.

Based on archeological discoveries, the researchers also claimed that


they have found out that one language was spoken at the beginning
of mankind, the same language spoken by Adam and Eve and that
the language was indeed none other than Igbo.

"Likewise, the story of Adam and Eve has links with Igbo tradition
through remnants of Igbo language found in all words connected to
Adam and Eve story. For instance, Hebrew name for Adam as first
man was 'Esh,' which is also spelt Eesh/Eshi/Ishi. The Bible says that
Eve's name 'Ish-she or Esh-she' because she was taken out of the
man.

This means that 'Esh' and 'Esh-she' means in Igbo 'Taken from the
dwarf (as in she-puta-to pull out). She also means in Igbo 'to
become less, 'to reduce,' implying that by creation of woman from
man, man became weaker or less than he was originally. Adam's
popular name by which he is known throughout the world has a
straight meaning-Adaa m 'I have fallen, I have become less than my
original self' but not so in Ikom language," they stated.

"Also the name of Adam's second son, Abel, who was murdered by
his elder brother, and who became known as the 'lamb that was
slain' seems to have been derived from Igbo word, Ebula meaning
41

lamb. (We heard of the blood of Abel being compared with the blood
of Jesus 'the Lamb of God').

Cain, who killed his brother, was banished and he began to roam the
earth and took the name Amakandu (condemned to life of roaming),
but as time went on, some of his children got tired of roaming and
decided to build settlements for themselves. And accordingly they
changed their names to Dunu, meaning 'settle' or 'sit' in Igbo,
revealing that the first generation of humans on earth spoke Igbo.
In fact, there is a clan in Anambra State that goes by the name
Dunukofia, meaning that to settle is better than to roam."

It was noted in the book that if "the Bible tells us that God's first
instruction to humankind was written on stone, the Igbos have an
oral tradition published under the title "Ndi Ichie Akwa mythology or
folklore tradition of Ndigbo by I.N.C. Nwosu, which narrates that God
gave a set of 10 laws on stone to his people called Ndiichie Akwa,
which were symbolised by 10 fingers etched on stone. This has a
similarity to Hebrew story of the laws given to Moses by God.

The story says that after the world was destroyed by the great flood,
the children of the great ancestor of Igbo people were instructed by
God to return to the center of the earth where he and his lineage will
dwell with God in peace and tranquility.

They continued: "We believe that Ikom (and its monoliths) was the
destination of the journey of the children of Noah as indicated in the
Biblical Genesis and that the people who journeyed to West Africa,
were a branch of Ham's children, possibly Canaan and that the
monoliths served as a landmark for the new immigrants.

In the Bible, it is actually reported that Noah instructed his second


son, Ham to return to Africa with his children. South Eastern Nigeria
(which includes South South) is actually the cartographical (from the
map of the world) location of the center of the earth, because all the
ancient territory of Biafra was the 'Median" and 'Median' means
centre in any map."

Acholonu and his co-authors noted however that the monoliths were
not the only stone writings associated with the Igbo, since in the
British Isles, stones have been found bearing Igbo language
42

inscriptions written in form of writing known as Ogam, said to have


been written on a stick as well as a stone, giving it the name
Ogama, which in Igbo language, might have been Ogu-ama,
meaning 'Stick for External use' or 'Writing on sticks for masses'.
Ogu is also linked to the Igbo concept of Iji ofo na ogu-a stick that
stands for justice and innocence.

They stated that apart from the Igbo based ancient Ogam
inscriptions found in British Isles, another proof that Igbo people
lived in and colonised the British Isles in pre-historic times is the
presence of numerous Igbo words in English language such as doro
(draw), Mmanwu (Man); Saa (Say), Ukwe (Choir), Ekpere (prayer),
Mfe (fair), Okuko (Cock), Mmiri (Marine), ga (go) among others.

"We found evidence that in pre-historic times, Igbo people were


known as people of light and Sons of God (Opara/Okwara). They
were worshipped by other clans of humans. They were the first kings
and god-men known to human beings in general. Appollo, whose
name was pronounced as Okpara, was the first example. The
Pharaoh of Egypt actually took their title from Okpara Ihe (Son of
Light). There are available records from 2000 BC showing that
Pharoahs sent expeditions to West Africa to import Eshi (dwarfs),
whom they valued as divine beings who bestowed blessings on
Egypt."

Reviewing the book, They Lived Before Adam, at its public


presentation at Michael Okpara Square in Enugu on June 27,
2009, a senior lecturer at the Institute of African Studies,
University of Nigeria Nsukka (UNN), Prof. Nwankwo
Nwaezeigwe said that from the title of the book, it is all about
tracing the origin of the Igbo people to the remotest past of
human existence, a study whose methodology cuts across
such disciplines as history, linguistics, applied arts, geology,
economics, geography as well as science and technology.

Nwaezeigwe said that he has come to the conclusion given the


characteristic embellishing masculinity of the work, that Prof.
Catherine Acholonu is an enigmatic mistake of divine creation, one
of those rare women who are imbued with every ingredient of
manhood except the manhood itself.
43

"This, one can evidently notice by an internalised driving force in


her, a force for adventure, a force to conquer and an ever propelling
carriage ready to accept challenges, all embellished with a passion
for upholding her, do I say, his Igbo identity, pride of the past and
culture. She is not just a pan Igboist, but also a universal proponent
of the primacy of Black human kind in the cradle of human
existence.

"The book is not merely an emphasis within the broad spectrum of


historical studies. Built on a panoply or oral ethno linguistic and
archeological studies, and to some appreciable extent, on array of
written sources, the work fundamentally represents a paradigm shift
from traditional school of thought which often seeks to define Igbo
origin in particular and black race in general, in context of non-
African root," Nwaezeigwe said.
_______________________

o human is god among the gods, all unified as


supreme BEING, thus, thou shall not seek, you're one.
-denker
o you think you live and you do not you die -denker
o Humans tend to explain their failures by inventing
imaginary scapegoats. -ithinkbetter
o true/real change/development can only take place
alone from within....!-denker
o The quality of Thought is directly proportional to
the level of Development. -denker
o protection of the weak is the beginning of wisdom
-Okoye
44

ADAM WAS NOT THE FIRST MAN


Rev. Bertrand. Comparet, A.B. , J. D.
Many people have become agnostics because of the supposed
conflict between the Bible and science. In truth, there is no conflict
at all between a correct translation of the Bible and really proven
science, not just unproved theories. One of these supposed conflicts
is between the fact that science knows that human beings have lived
on the earth far longer than the few thousand years covered by the
Bible, and the common belief that the Bible says that Adam was the
45

first man. But the truth is that the Bible nowhere says that Adam
was the first man. Yes, I know that most of the preachers say that,
but the Bible doesn't. It merely says that Adam was the first WHITE
man. Let's look at the record.

The many mis-translations in the King James version obscure much


of the truth. For example Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning, God
created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form
and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep." In the
Hebrew, it says, "Now the earth HAD BECOME chaotic and empty."
(See Rotherham's Emphasized Bible) That is, some early catastrophe
had wrecked the earth, which was not "without form and void"
before that. This was a judgment of God on earlier civilizations for
their wickedness. Jeremiah 4:23-27 gives a vision of it: "I beheld the
earth, and lo, it was without form and void, and the heavens, and
they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled,
and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and lo, there was no man,
and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the
fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken
down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger. For thus
hath the Lord said, "The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not
make a full end."

Therefore we do find buried ruins of cities older than Adam and


skeletons which can be dated by the carbon 14 process as many
thousands of years older. But the Bible itself tells us about this.

Next the Bible tells of the creation of men in the plural. In Genesis
1:26-28 is says "Male and female created He THEM" and God told
these people "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth"
(1:28). "Plenish" is an obsolete English word meaning "to fill" and
you cannot RE-plenish what was never plenished, or filled before.

In the next chapter, Genesis 2 we find THE ADAM (In the singular)
created. The Hebrew word "aw-dawm" (rendered "Adam" in English)
is from a root word meaning "to show blood in the face" or "of a
ruddy complexion" --a word obviously not applicable to the dank
races, which we also know from scientific evidence to be much older
than the White Race.
46

Bible scholars know that Genesis 3:20---"And Adam called his wife's
name "Eve" because she was the mother of all living." This is a later
interpolation which was not in the earlier manuscripts. (See Moffatt's
Translation.)

The 4th 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." (4:14)

Upon being sent away Cain found many other people. Genesis 4:17
records that Cain not only married a wife, but built a city. These
were the pre-Adamite races mentioned in the latter part of Genesis.
The Garden of Eden was not a plantation of ordinary trees and
shrubs. God did nothing so foolish as to make a special creation just
to have a man to wield shovel and pruning shears when He already
had millions of pre-Adamite peoples available for that sort of work.
We are told that the Garden of Eden contained "the tree of the
knowledge (or experience) of good and evil". No tree of the forest
has any knowledge or experience of either good or evil. And Ezekiel
31 says: "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair
branches and a shadowing bough and of an high stature. Therefore
his height was exalted above all the trees of the field and his boughs
were multiplied, and his branches became long and all the fowls of
heaven made their nests in his boughs, under his branches did all
the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow
dwelt all great nations ... THE CEDARS IN THE, GARDEN OF GOD
could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the
chestnut trees were not like his branches; NOR ANY TREE IN THE
GARDEN OF GOD. WAS LIKE UNTO HIM IN HIS BEAUTY. I have
made him fair by the multitude of his branches: SO THAT ALL THE
TREES OF EDEN, THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD ENVIED
HIM". Obviously, the trees in the Garden of God in Eden were
"family trees" of races and nations who admired and envied the
early Assyrian Empire. These made up the "garden" that Adam was
to cultivate. That is Satan had been what we might call the
superintendent of this planet, to rule it in obedience to God until he
47

forfeited that position by rebellion against God. Adam was sent to


take his place. It was Adam's job to rule the various nations and
races of the earth as God's representative here, educating them in
God's laws, and enforcing obedience to those laws. These other
races and nations had been here long before Adam.

Therefore, the Bible makes it unmistakably clear that we are not all
descended from Adam and Eve, for there were other races on earth,
already old, already numerous, when Adam was created. And among
these other races there are several who are simply pre-Adamic, and
one, at least, which is Satanic. If you will read the third chapter of
Genesis, you will notice that immediately after the Fall of Adam
when God required them to answer what they had done God
condemned Satan.

The word mistranslated "serpent" is the Hebrew word "naw-khash"


which literally means "enchanter" or it magician" ---and no doubt
Satan, still possessing angelic powers, was able to be an enchanter
or magician. It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere
scaly snake wriggling along the ground. Yes, I said "seduced" Eve,
for that is what she admitted in the original Hebrew. Cain was the
son of that seduction. The Bible uses the word "begat" with
monotonous regularity, but the first time the Bible ever says that
Adam ever "begat" anyone is Genesis 5:3, where it says, "And Adam
lived an hundred and thirty years and had a son " in his own
likeness, after his image and called his name Seth." But to get back
to Genesis 3:15--God said to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee
and the woman, and between THY SEED and HER SEED."

The same Hebrew word for "seed" is used in both cases. Satan was
to have just as literal "seed" or descendants as Eve did. God's own
word being pledged to this, we must expect to find it actually
happening, and we do.

Jesus Christ, Himself, tells us of it.

In Matthew 13 explaining the Parable of the Tares Among the


Wheat, Jesus says, "The field is the world; the good seed are the
children OF THE KINGDOM, but THE TARES ARE THE CHILDREN OF
THE WICKED ONE: THE ENEMY THAT SOWED THEM IS THE DEVIL."
48

Again, in John 6:70-71 Jesus had been talking with His 12 disciples
and we read: "Jesus answered them 'Have not I chosen you twelve
and one of you is A DEVIL?' He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of
Simon: for he it was that should betray Him being one of the
twelve." And again you should read carefully the eighth chapter John
where Jesus told those who hated Him, "Ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." He was not being
vulgarly abusive in either of these cases, for He never resorted to
name calling for abuse. He did call some of them "hypocrites"
---which they truly were. His statement was precisely accurate. He
did call some of them "serpents, children of vipers"--which, again,
was accurate. Long before this they had adopted the serpent as a
symbol of Satan, that is why their tradition mad given the word
naw-khash" the translation "serpent", when it really means
"enchanter". Jesus, therefore, was telling them that they were of
their father the devil (or serpent, if they preferred that word). In this
He was simply stating a biological fact with scientific precision, and
identifying the persons of this ancestry.

Whenever someone tells you that the Bible is in conflict with what
modern science has proved true, don't you believe it. The things that
many preachers teach are in conflict with scientific truth, as we all
know; but these preachers are equally in conflict with the Bible. Go
back to the Bible not to any man made doctrines and double check it
for accuracy of translation.

[5] Pre-adamic man

27 And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s


image he created him, male and female he created them (Genesis
1).

26 And he made out of one [man] every nation of men, to dwell


upon the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed
times and the set limits of the dwelling of [men] (Acts 17).

The conflict

The Fundamental Christian says that Adam, who was created around
6,000 years ago according to biblical chronology, was the first man,
49

and so Archaeology is rubbish. The Archaeologist says mankind has


for a fact been around for 30,000 years and we have good evidence
that he has been around for over 2 million years, so the concept that
we began with Adam 6,000 years ago is rubbish and therefore
Genesis is rubbish. Incidentally, if the speed of light was faster for
the first half, the evening half, of the 6th creative day - see I2, then
the radio carbon dating of the 2 million year old human fossils would
be incorrect. In fact we understand that the speed of light was 360
times faster at the start of the 6th creative day, than it is today, and
so the human fossils are crudely speaking 360 times younger than
we think. For people who like this sort of thing please visit U234 - A
brief history of light.

So how do we resolve this conflict between Science and Religion?


They both cannot be right! Traditionally religious people just throw
away their reasoning capability and say, my faith tells me that the
bible is right and that is the end of it. This is a very dangerous thing
to do. It is a lazy idolatry of an illogical church doctrine, it is selling
God and his book, the bible, short. It happens because people in
general do not have the courage of their deductions. They do not
believe that they have the mental power to climb out of the trap that
has been laid for them. The fact that over a billion people in the
world believe in the Trinity doctrine, which amounts to the abolition
of the number 2, demonstrates clearly how little confidence mankind
has in his own reasoning capability. No rational man could ever
accept the Catholic Trinity Doctrine, but it took a certain Isaac
Newton to make that point in England, some 1650 years after Christ
died.

So all those who do accept the trinity are just demonstrating how
easy they are to brainwash. And the Muslim suicide bombers of the
last days are busy showing us just how dangerous religious
brainwashing can be. Most, if not all people with faith, throw away
their reason when they join a religion and just accept the doctrine of
their church or mosque or synagogue etc. So one could argue that
every Christian who believes in the trinity is one step away from
being a suicide bomber. But Jesus did not command us to become
brainwashed idolaters of the lame spiritual understandings of lazy
control freak priests or rabbis or imams. He said:
50

37 You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with
your whole soul and with your whole mind (Matthew 22).

And the first living stone that Jesus laid in the Christian church
(Peter), said...

13 Hence brace up your minds for activity, keep your senses


completely; set your hope upon the undeserved kindness that is to
be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1).

This Revelation requires brain power and of course the world is being
dumbed down further and further every day at the very time that
the Revelation is occurring because there is a battle that we are the
victims of between the holy angels and the deadly demons. But we
can avoid being a casualty of this war if we open the eyes of our
mind.

The Resolution

Jesus said that we should scrutinize every little detail of every


scripture...

17 Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came,


not to destroy, but to fulfill.

18 For truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass
away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass
away from the Law [of God, the whole bible] by any means and
not all things take place (Matthew 5).

Let us therefore apply this kind of scrutiny to the account of the


creation of mankind in Genesis 1.

26 And God [Elohim literally 'Gods' meaning the holy spirit


under God's direction] went on to say: Let us make man [md)] in
our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in
subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens
and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving
[animal] that is moving upon the earth.
27 And God [Elohim meaning Jehovah himself - see Genesis
51

2:4,7] proceeded to create the man [md)h] in his image, in God's


image he created him; [this repetition of the man being made
in God's image rather than in our image, makes it the key
point in the scripture] male and female he created them 28
Further, God blessed them [Adam and Eve] and God said to them:
Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and
have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the
heavens and every living [being] that is moving upon the earth
(Genesis 1).

4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their
being created, in the day that Jehovah God [YHWH Elohim] made
earth and heaven (Genesis 2).
7 And Jehovah God [YHWH Elohim qualifying the ambiguous
verses 27 and 28] proceeded to form the man out of dust from the
ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man
came to be a living soul (Genesis 2).

Now at first sight this looks like a rather repetitive account of the
creation of mankind. But let us examine these 3 verses a bit closer
since they may just hold the secret to our very existence within
them. Here is a comparative table of the two successive accounts of
our creation...

Action Verse 26 Verses 27 and 28


God himself. Adam had
no heavenly mother.
Satan was the head of
the Holy Spirit, the head
Us: God and the holy of God's wife. He was
Who does the
spirit, his wife. Father cut out of the deal with
creating?
and Mother. Adam. This would have
been the first time that
God created an equal to
Satan and created any
life without Satan.
In our image (the
The image of God
In whose image? image of the holy
himself
spirit)
52

In whose likeness The angels n/a


Name Man [md)] The Man
Created as Male Yes, Male and Female
Yes
and Female? he created them
Blessed? No Yes
Be fruitful become
No Yes
many fill the earth?
Fish, flying creatures,
Fish, flying creatures,
domestic animals, all
What do they have every living [being]
the earth, every
in subjection? creature moving on the
crawling animal
earth
moving on the earth

So verses 27 and 28 are not merely a repetition of the creative act


of verse 26. Verses 27 and 28 are the creation of something
different from verse 26. Verse 26 is the creation of 'man', of
mankind, of pre-adamic man. Pre-adamic man was created by the
holy angels in the image of his angelic creators.

They continued the iterative (dare we say evolutionary) desing


process from Homo Habilis, through Homo Erectus to Modern man,
Homo Sapiens, the post ice age variety. By Pre-adamic we mean
Homo Sapiens the final version that was indeed in the image of the
angels and therefore was a fully spiritual being. We do not mean the
earlier pre ice age varieties.

Adam was created by God without the involvement of his wife, the
holy spirit, and made in the image of God alone, being a direct first
generation son of God, like Satan was. God is perfect, the angels are
not, these are therefore two different images and therefore two
different creations.

Pre-adamic man was not blessed, Adam was. Adam was blessed
with procreating power in order that he could fill the earth, and with
authority over every living being including the pre-adamics on the
earth. Adam did actually fill the earth, the pre-adamics did not.

Pre-adamics were effectively angels. They were created in the image


and the likeness of the angels. In other words they were born as
53

angels at the same time that they were born as humans. They were
born again when they were born. Therefore like the angels they
were sterile unless activated on a per child basis like God (which is
the case with all judicially living beings - who follow the pattern of
Abraham and Sarah in concpetion). And like the angels they did not
marry...

30 for in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women


given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven (Matthew 22).

But Adam who was made in God's image but not said to be made in
his likeness, was not born again when he was born. Rather he was
born again aged 30 as an archetype of Michael's entrance into Jesus
and Immanuel's exit into his associated angel - see I17 and U41.

Death came to humans from Satan and through Adam...

21 For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also


through a man.
22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be
made alive (1 Corinthians 15).

The pre-adamics did not die, since death came through Adam and
since angels do not die other than through a capital sin in which case
they go to Tartarus, which is the first death for them. Their human
bodies died but their spirits were raptured at that time into their
associated angelic bodies. Presumably there was no reason for their
bodies to grow old, so they grew to maturity and remained in a
steady state until they were raptured we imagine. They became the
angels that they really were at their 'death'.

According to www.drmcdougall.com (the McDougall Newsletter


January 2006 vol 5 number 1) ...

No prehistoric remains have been found of people older than 50


years. (This is also discussed in 'Anti-aging is an oxymoron' L.
Hayflick, Journal of Gerontology 2004 June 59 (6): B573-6).

Although they did not actually fall asleep in death but were
54

transferred in the twinkling of an eye so as not to see it.

Whereas Adam, having sinned, got his everlasting inheritance as a


son of God, because Jesus ransomed him.

6 Who gave himself a corresponding ransom over all, [this is] what
is to be witnessed to at its own particular times (1 Timothy 2).

Adam was made in God's image in the sense that he was alone
without brothers or sisters or family in his form in the Garden for 19
years, and in fact his life followed the pattern of God's early life - see
U41. God likewise was alone before he created any other life forms.
Furthermore being a son of God he has an inheritance which is to be
a God, even a God to the angels, just as the angels and indeed all
sons of God can aspire to be Gods one day just like their father.
They merely have to grow up first!

Furthermore Adam once he was born again, became a direct son of


God, a first generation son of God, just like Satan. Whereas the
angels are in general sons of sons of God. This genealogical descent
puts Adam equal to Satan. This will have been the cause of Satan's
jealousy. Furthermore, as we shall discover, the angels could not
themselves procreate directly without the help of the holy spirit,
whereas Adam could and so again in this way he was in God's image
not the image of the angels. So in fact, in procreative terms, Adam
was ahead of Satan whilst he was in the Garden. One can therefore
regard Satan's murder of our parents as an act of genocide intended
to remove this advantage that the firstborn human, Adam, had over
the firstborn angel, Satan.

God involved the angels in the creation of pre-adamic man in order


that they would feel a kinship with them and a responsibility for
them. This would make it easier for them to learn from us just as
parents learn from their children even today.

Are the angels male and female?

Traditionally mankind believes them to be effectively neuter. In


favour of this point of view we have the fact that they are always
referred to as 'sons of God' in the bible and never as 'daughters of
55

God'.

7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the
sons of God began shouting in applause? (Job 38).
6 For who in the skies can be compared to Jehovah? Who can
resemble Jehovah among the sons of God? (Psalm 89)
43 Be glad, O heavens, together with him, and let all the angels of
God worship him. Be glad, you nations, with his people, and let all
the sons of God strengthen themselves in him, (LXXBagster
Deuteronomy 32).

Demons here are evening stars with Satan being the moon, and
angels are morning stars with Jesus being the Sun. Furthermore
female Christians eventually become sons of God, not daughters of
God.

9 Happy are the peacemakers since they will be called 'sons of God'
(Matthew 5).
26 You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus
(Galatians 3).

So women are to become male sons of God? Surely only confused


mankind goes in for gender re-assignment surgery?

We know from the scriptures that God hates homosexuality...

22 And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down
with a woman. It is a detestable thing (Leviticus 18).

We know from the scriptures and from common sense that


Lesbianism is un-natural...

26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for


both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one
contrary to nature
27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female
and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another,
males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in
themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.
56

(Romans 1).

God even detests cross dressing...

5 No garb of an able-bodied man should be put upon a woman,


neither should an able-bodied man wear the mantle of a woman; for
anybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah your
God (Deuteronomy 22).

So would God put a female human in a male angelic body?


Absolutely not. So either the 'sons of God' are asexual, or they are
male and female like we are. But would God put a male into a neuter
body? Well such an action would not transgress any of his laws on
sex, so it is possible. So the question now becomes, are the angels
all neuter or are they male and female?

Well we read in Genesis that the demons came down and married
women before the flood and had children with them...

2 then the sons of the [true] God began to notice the daughters of
men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for
themselves, namely, all whom they chose (Genesis 6).

4 The Nephilim proved to be in the earth in those days, and also


after that, when the sons of the [true] God continued to have
relations with the daughters of men and they bore sons to them,
they were the mighty ones who were of old, the men of fame
(Genesis 6).

These are not the actions of asexual neuter beings. These angels
were not said to come down because they wanted to procreate, they
were said to come down because the women looked good. So they
must have felt some kind of sex drive. In fact their sex drive was so
strong that they sinned, by coming down here and leaving their
proper dwelling place of the heavens...

6 And the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook
their own proper dwelling place he has reserved with eternal bonds
under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude).
57

Actually their spirits left their proper dwelling place of an angelic


body and came down in super hero human bodies to sleep with
women and create Nephilim.

Jesus adds to the debate with his answer to the sadducees (who say
there is no resurrection) about marriage in the Kingdom of God...

28 Consequently, in the resurrection, which of the 7 will she be [a]


woman of (  ) ? For they all had (  ) her.
29 In reply Jesus said to them: You are mistaken, because you know
neither the Scriptures nor the power of God,
30 for in the resurrection neither do they marry (  ) nor are
they given in marriage (  ) , but are as angels in heaven
(Matthew 22).

24 Jesus said to them: Is not this why you are mistaken, your not
knowing either the Scriptures or the power of God?
25 For when they rise out of [the] dead [ones] neither do they
marry () nor are they given in marriage (), but
are as angels in the heavens (Mark 12).

34 Jesus said to them: The sons of this system of things marry


() and are given in marriage (),
35 but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system
of things and of the resurrection, the [one] out of [the] dead [ones]
(  ) neither marry (  ) nor are given in marriage
().
36 In fact, neither can they die (  ) anymore, for
they are like the angels, and they are sons of God, being sons of the
resurrection (Luke 20).

In all three accounts of his answer we read that Jesus made the
distinction between men marrying and women being given in
marriage and then compared this situation to that of the angels. We
see that 'sons of this system' can be given in marriage and are
therefore female. We also see from verse 36 that women who are
resurrected as sanctified born again human women are called 'sons
of the resurrection' and 'sons of God'. So 'sons of God' can in fact be
human daughters of God with associated angels. The word 'sons'
really is used to mean offspring. This site uses the term 'sons of the
58

1AC', to mean men and women and children with a faith that makes
them beneficiaries of the first Abrahamc covenant - see I29. So
nothing Jesus said forces angels to be neuter.

Jesus did not actually answer the question as to who would get the
woman in the Kingdom, he just said there would be no marriage for
those who have risen from the dead. This does not mean there will
be no marriage in the kingdom of God. It means there will be no
marriage amongst those who are not judicially dead and are
therefore as angels in heaven. There will be no marriage for those
who are spirit baptised, those who are born again, those who have
associated angelic bodies - see I12.

Marriage is an institution for the dead, the judicially dead. It is for


the judicially first dead and the judicially second dead. It is not for
those with associated angels.

It is fine to be married for a long as you live, if you are not going to
live for long. For death ends the marriage 'till death us do part'. But
it is no good getting married if you are going to live indefinitely or
forever. So angels do not get married, as such a thing would be a
monstrous commitment. Likewise the saints do not get married in
the Kingdom of God, but those who are not saints do.

Now Jesus is saying two things. He says that being given in marriage
does not occur in heaven and he says that marrying does not occur
in heaven. So he is telling us that there are both male and female
angels. For it is females who are given in marriage and males who
marry. But the power of Jesus' seeming labouring of this point is
that there exist both sexes in the heavens...

12 For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than
any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and
spirit, and of joints and [their] marrow, and [is] able to discern
thoughts and intentions of [the] heart (Hebrews 4).

Given that all scriptures have power, there is no irrelevant repetition


or meaningless labouring of points in the scriptures. If we are told
that men do not get married and neither do women but are an
59

angels in this respect, then we must have male and female angels.

The slam dunk proof that there are female angels and indeed angelic
families is in Ephesians...

14 On account of this I bend my knees to the Father,


15 to whom every family in heaven and on earth owes its name
(Ephesians 3).

Using the bible code to prove for a fact that there are male
and female angels

The only part of the bible code that we cover in this introductory
book/website is the Binary Question Principle. It says...

Any unanswered question asked in the scriptures with two possible


answers (normally yes and no), has the answer in the symbolic
meaning, being the opposite of the answer in the literal meaning.

In other words with any unanswered binary question in the


scriptures, both possible answers are true. Whichever answer is true
in the literal meaning of a literal account, the opposite answer is true
in the greater meaning of the account. We visit this principle again
in I45. In the literal meaning of Jesus words, no one marries this
poor woman in the Kingdom of God. No one has her as his wife. But
in the greater meaning which actually refers to covenants, all 7
brothers have her being sub-mediators of the covenant that she
represents - see U32. Likewise in the kingdom of God, any one of
the 7 or all of them one after the other (not all at once) could
actually have this woman sexually. But they could not have her as a
wife. Because as we know God wishes to provide two parents for
every child, one male and one female. And that is really the main
purpose of marriage in this system. Although it is also a great form
of emotional security and a great lesson in the longevity of love etc.
But for the born again saints of the kingdom of God, we know that
they too are male and female and that they will want to have
beautiful non ageing perfect fleshed children, who wouldn't? We
know too that God will satisfy that desire for them since he has
said...
60

16 You are opening your hand and satisfying the desire of every
living thing (Psalm 145).

And this scripture plainly does not refer to this system since the
reader will not need to be told by the writer that for the most part
Satan is not satisfying but is rather frustrating the desire of every
living thing at present. But in the next system, God will satisfy all of
us...

4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be
no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The
former things have passed away (Revelation 21).

He will need a big Kleenex! So in particular those who want babies


will have babies. So judicially alive people will have babies out of
wedlock in the next system. But they will not have them willy nilly
like they do in this system. There will be some child rearing
agreement that the two parents make with each other, that amounts
to a temporary marriage. This agreement can be terminated after
the child is fully reared one imagines. But by virtue of 7 of these
agreements, the woman of the Sadducees example could actually
have a child with each of the 7 brothers sequentially in the new
system if the rules would permit such a thing. After all the whole
purpose of brother-in-law marriage was to produce a child. For a
physical example in this system of serial child rearing agreements
have a look at the excellent movie: The March of the penguins.

There are two other aspects of the code which absolutely nail the
existence of male and female angels. We will just state them here
for completeness.

1. 'Male and female he created them' Genesis (1:27) applies to


humans in the literal meaning, and angels in the greater meaning,
the first word thread, see U300.

27 And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's


image he created him; male and female he created them (Genesis
1).

2. Matthew 1 is the angelic ancestry of the angel Michael in the


61

second word symbolic thread - see Matthew. And it has 4 women in


it. These 4 are therefore 4 angelic women. They cannot all be
different parts of the holy spirit, God's wife, since his wife is one
unified group. 3 of the women, Tamar, Ruth and Rahab, only appear
once in the account. So by the Repetition Principle of the code these
nouns mean Tamar, Ruth and Rahab in all threads. So it is our
exceeding great pleasure to introduce you to 3 beautiful female
angels in the heavens, whose names are Date Palm (Tamar),
Satisfying (Ruth) and Large (Rahab). There names will be spoken in
the heavenly language of course, but this is what their names mean
in English.

Furthermore, the only logical reason why a female angel might be


called 'date palm' would be that she invented the date palm we
suppose. So yes, heavenly women, at the least, can invent brilliant
things. But who invented the Mosquito? - surely it was a demon.

So yes, there are male and female angels. The pre-adamics are in
the image of these angels in the respect of Gender. In fact Gender is
a tutor leading to love. God himself is neither male nor female
because his love is perfect. We are imperfect in our love, so God
made us and our brothers and sisters, the angels, and the pre-
adamics, male and female, to teach all of us the surpassing value of
love. Actually to teach us all the surpassing value of loving just one
person.

Sex is a tutor to love. All beings are sexual both human and angelic
until they become Gods. Gods have perfect love and therefore need
no tutor and therefore are asexual. Even if you hate all of your
brothers, there will be some woman somewhere that you love.
Regrettably in this system she may not love you. But nonetheless
the lesson in the second commandment, to love your brother, is
there. In a similar vein one needs both a king and a priest until one
has fully grasped the first commandment we think. Although born
again sons of God would appear to be able to be both?

Zechariah 5 actually describes female angels

5 Then the angel who was speaking with me went forth and said to
me: Raise your eyes, please, and see what this is that is going forth.
62

6 So I said: What is it? In turn he said: This is the ephah measure


that is going forth. And he went on to say: This is their aspect in all
the earth.
7 And, look! the circular lid of lead was lifted up; and this is a certain
woman sitting in the midst of the ephah.
8 So he said: This is Wickedness. And he [the angel speaking
with Zechariah] proceeded to throw her [back] into the midst of
the ephah, after which he threw the lead weight upon its mouth.
9 Then I raised my eyes and saw, and here there were 2 women
coming forth, and wind was in their wings. And they had wings like
the wings of the stork [Storks have large white wings. These
women are female angels. All of the actions against this
woman are angelic, whether by the male angel who put his
back in the box or the femal angels who raised her up
between the earth and the heavens] And they gradually raised
the ephah up between the earth and the heavens.
10 So I said to the angel who was speaking with me: Where are
they taking the ephah?
11 In turn he said to me: In order to build for her a house in the
land of Shinar; and it must be firmly established, and she must be
deposited there upon her proper place (Zechariah 5).

How Adam was made in God's Image and the pre-adamics


were made in 'our image'

At last we can nail the understanding of these statements.


Heterosexual reproduction produces a child with genetic material
from both parents. This will be true of the angels as well. An angelic
child will have a body with certain predisposed character traits of the
mother and of the father as default. So the pre-adamics had children
which had the character traits of both of their parents in their default
makeup. But Adam had the character traits of God, his father,
whose spirit was in Humaniah at the time he fathered Adam with
Matriarch - see U264a. So Adam, like Satan before him, had God as
a father.

Pre-adamic Man was sexually active but could not procreate


and fill the earth

The second human creation of 'the man' is further specified by the


63

phrase 'male and female he created them' and the first creation of
'man' is not so specified. Adam and Eve were told to fill the earth,
and pre-adamic man were not told to fill the earth. Man, pre-adamic
man, did not have a wife...

20 But for Man [md)] there was found no helper as a complement


for him (Genesis 2)

The scripture does not say: But for the man, there was found no
helper as a complement for him. So Adamic man had a wife, but
again pre-adamic man had no wife. So pre-adamic man could not
directly procreate and did not get married, just like the angels. We
initially thought that this meant he was asexual. But archaeology is
against that hypothesis. There are cave paintings of men and
women having sex which predate Adam. So then we theorized that
pre-adamic man was male and female and sexual but sterile. This
would certainly fit the scriptural constraints that we have discovered
for him. Pre-adamic man would be male and female in form and in
character but not reproductively male and female. The big change
with Adam and Eve would then have been the capability for
independent human-human reproduction. Prior to that humans were
made some other way and could not reproduce without assistance
from the angels. Although Eve only became fertile after she sinned,
since sexual reproduction is the preserve of the dead.

When God brought Eve to Adam, he said:

23 And he said, the man: This is at last bone of my bones and flesh
of my flesh
This one will be called woman, because from Man [#y)] this one was
taken (Genesis 2).

17 I can count all my bones [Jesus' apostles]. They themselves


look, they gaze upon me [they watched him die on the stake]
(Psalm 22).

So Eve came from pre-adamic 'Man' as opposed to 'the man'. But


she was gene enhanced using the genetic material of Adam,
symbolised by his rib, his bone. We are using skeletal building blocks
to symbolise genetic building blocks and apostolic building blocks,
64

pillars of the church of Jesus' body. Peter was the first bone of Jesus'
body, and start of his wife - see I35. Although the numbers we have
of these blocks are different. For most people have 23 Chromosomes
and 24 ribs. But with one rib removed you would have 23 ribs. So
the bones are the chromosomes and the flesh is the entire body,
which is built from the genetic material in the chromosomes.
Chromosomes and bones can be counted, flesh cannot be counted.

So this symbolism tells us that Eve was genetically similar to Adam.


But we know that sexual fertility is controlled and programmed by a
single chromosome pair. We know that this is true today. It is the
sex chromosome which is XY in a man and XX in a woman. So one
can genetically create a woman from a man, but not the other way
round. The result of the application of this chromosome to Eve was
not that she eventually became fertile however. Fertility is only
permitted to the dead. The living who exist in non adamic bodies
cannot procreate either in the garden or in the kingdom. She was a
pre-adamic female who was baptised in Adam's rib. This did not
make her into a clone or a sister of Adam. No incest occurred.

Eve was sterile as all pre-adamics were whilst in her indefinitely


lasting non ageing body. When she lost that body and had dead
flesh with an associated angel, then she could reproduce sexually.

Then the commentary continues with...

24 That is why man [#y)] will leave his father and his mother and
he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.
25 And both of them continued to be naked, the man and his wife,
and yet they did not become ashamed (Genesis 2).

In early Genesis, 'the man' is Adam, man [md)] is pre-adamic man,


and man [#y)] is all mankind - see above and see U1. But pre-
adamic men did not have genetic mothers and fathers like we have
today, since they were not created by heterosexual reproduction.
They were therefore like the angels and like Melchizedek, of whom
Paul says...

3 In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither


a beginning of days nor an end of life, but having been made like the
65

Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually (Hebrews 7).

The pre-adamic children were carried in surrogate pre-adamic


mothers just as Jesus and the non adamics were carried in surrogate
adamic mothers.

Now Adam left God and the Holy spirit and broke God's law and
stuck to his wife. He fulfilled the prophecy in Genesis 2:24-25. So he
had a mother. So Adam was a direct child of Jehovah in Humaniah
and Matriach. In other words he was a brother of Satan, a first
generation human angel. Whereas the pre-adamics were merely
children of an angelic pair, a male and a female angel.

This prophetic drama of Adam's leaving his parents and sticking to


his wife is telling us that pre-adamic man did not stick to his wife in
that way, he did not get married, he did not have a wife to stick to
(but pre-adamics did pair up to raise children). This may also explain
why Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed. There was no
shame associated with pre-adamic sex. But since his sexual desire
lead to his choosing Eve over God, Adam associated sex with sinful
desires. Hence he felt shame about sex and so covered himself. In
fact Satan seduced Eve, with her insatiable desire for status and
showed Eve how to seduce Adam with his insatiable desire for her.

It is very important to put this in context today. Desiring sex and


having a lot of sex and desiring money and having a lot of money
are neither of them sins. But if the desire for sex or money or both is
greater than the desire for righteousness and God then these desires
can lead you into sin which when accomplished brings death. So sex
is not a sin, but the desire for it is the most dangerous desire a man
has. And likewise having financial and other status is not a sin but
the desire for it is the most dangerous desire that a woman has. This
is the mature view we get from a deep understanding of Adam's fall.
Things are no different today - see I25a.

The reason why Eve said, on giving birth to Cain: I have produced a
man with the aid of Jehovah (Genesis 4:1). Is that Cain was
produced pre-adamically/angelically which method of procreation
needed God's help. Satan impregnated Eve before she sinned
66

How did the Pre-adamics come about?

Jesus was born by in vivo fertilisation of a surrogate mother Mary by


the Holy Spirit. He was conceived asexually. He was non adamic, not
a son of Adam. Now Jesus is called the Last Adam, so putting this
the other way around, Adam was the first Jesus. So Adam was
created in the same way that Jesus was created - asexually - see I6.
He was also born by in vivo fertilisation by Holy Spirit of a surrogate
pre-adamic woman. But then all the pre-adamics were also created
asexually as were Jesus and Adam. But then we realise that Adam
was pre-adamic as regards his method of creation, since sexual
reproduction came later. So the pre-adamics were created in the
same way as Jesus and the non adamics were created, which means
that it is us, the adamics, who are the odd ones out! And now we
see it all.

In the Kingdom of God, those who are born again are 'as angels in
heaven'. They do not get married...

30 For in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women


given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven (Matthew 22).

So they too are like Jesus and Adam and the pre-adamics. So now
we can see that the born again post adamics of the Kingdom of God
are in the same reproductive situation as the pre-adamics and the
non adamics and the angels. It is only the judicially 'dead' post
adamics who procreate sexually and who get married.

The angels effectively took the first human in the archeological


records, homo habilis, to the modern human, homo sapiens, by an
iterative design process during the first half of the 6th creative day.
We do not want to use the word 'evolution', but the fossil record
appears to show that the pre-adamics were regularly upgraded from
the homo habilis to modern man through various stages reached by
the intelligent design expertise of the angels. Once the pre-adamic
design was perfected, God made Adam. Then he gave us the ability
to procreate, which effectively made Adam a God and put mankind
into mass production.

Male and Female pre-adamics were sterile, since they were 'not
male and not female' in the reproductive sense. For the scripture
says, referring to the man and the woman...

27 And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's


67

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi