Adam and Eve - the First Humans
83
Tradition
Most of us have grown up with the story of Adam and Eve being the first people on earth. When someone asks such a question it most likely is on the background of the scientific evidence of evolution. This is not an article on the two theories, creation and evolution. Rather it is taking a different look at the bible story itself concerning Adam and Eve.
A look at the bible stories concerning Adam and Eve may shed a different light on what actually is written and what we have been taught. It may also shed a different light on what is actually meant with the names that these first two humans received.
The First Account
There are two versions in the Bible on how Adam and Eve were created, and they are very different.
In Genesis 1:26-27 we have the first story:
God [elohim] created man in the image of himself
in the image of God [elohim] he created him,
male and female he created them
What we read here, is not what most of us have been taught. God [elohim] continues in the line of the whole creation, and now creates man. The Hebrew word "adam" literally means man as in mankind, humanity, and not an individual being. In fact the names, Adam and Eve, are not used here. Mankind is created male and female. The word "adam" is derived from another Hebrew word "adama" which means earth.
It continues to explain that "adam" (mankind) is created in his image. There are several words for god in Hebrew, all translated as god in all other languages. The word used in Genesis is Elohim, a plural version of the singular word for a god, El.
So when "adam", mankind, is created in the image of god, we must ask what this image is. It is plural and therefore male and female. But the image is also more than that.
What separates man from beasts is his ability to create. It's not communication, nor emotion, nor intellect, but his ability to create. That is the one thing that sets man apart from beasts.
The word create is only used twice in this first creation story. In Gen. 1:1 when god creates heaven and earth, and in Gen.1:26, when mankind is created.
The Second Account
Most are more familiar with the second account in Genesis 2:7. In Genesis 2 a different word for god is used, the tetragram that cannot be pronounced in Hebrew, but is usually translated as Yahweh.
Yahweh takes dust and fashions it into man, and breathes a breath of life into the nostrils, and man becomes a living being.
In Gen. 2:21-22 we have the famous account of the making of woman through the fashioning of the rib. This is followed by the story of the fall and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. It is only at the expulsion that "adam" gives the name Eve to the woman. The Hebrew word for Eve may be derived from the Hebrew word "to live".
At no point in time is man called by the name all know, Adam.
After the expulsion man and woman have two sons, Cain and Abel. Only after Cain has slain Abel do we hear about Cain taking a wife and having offspring. Finally in Genesis 4:25 is Adam called Adam, when he and Eve have a third son, Seth.
Both Cain and Seth have one son each, and from these the rest of the Biblical accounts continue.
The First Humans
Now the question arises: Where did the wives come from?
Although the wives are not mentioned, they must have been there, as there is no talk about divine intervention in the procreation process.
We must then assume that there were other people around, and it is from them that Cain and Seth took their wives.
So is Adam and Eve the first humans?
Maybe what we have been taught to take literally was never meant to be taken literally. Maybe what the Bible is trying to tell us is that there were beings on this planet, who were not yet "adam", but creatures like all the other creatures.
It is through learning to create that "adam" set itself apart from all other living creatures. If this is the case, then we must conclude that what the Bible talks about as being created as "Adam" and "Eve" are creatures who could now create as god (elohim or yahweh) had created, and therefore are the first true people on earth.
More to Come
There are other aspects in both accounts that could support this reading of the creation accounts.
There are also many other aspects in these accounts that call for new and different interpretations. With some luck I will share more of this with you.
Untraditional Adam and Eve
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
If you mean Adam and Eve, maybe. If you mean bible interpretations - most definately
I've always wondered who their children married
Interesting. However I have recently seen a fascinating program (Discovery channel - I think) on DNA sequencing which is taking sample from different people of different ethinic groups over different generations who all have set of genomes that match. Even material from ancient grave sites and frozen corpses have the common genome which all seem to be pointing back to a single common ancestor. Food for thought?
Well-researched hub BriteEdwards. According to my knowledge in this specific topic about where did the woman come from, I believe that God created Adam first then He created a women out of him. God set Adam in a deep slumber and took one rib out of his chest. Then, He used this single rib to create the Woman. That's why woman now have less ribs than men...
Sixtyorso - yes, I have seen that program on the one common genome, leading back to one common ancestor.
Which in a way says that science and bible support each other. I will be writing on that issue soon
shamelabboush - yes, the story of the rib is in the second account, which is the account commonly taught. I believe because it served a purpose to teach that one, and not the Genesis 1 account
Would you rather we come from apes? Not me. I believe in God and that He is capable of creating mankind out of the dust of the earth. It takes more faith to believe he ape theory than the Bible facts.
Oscarwms, you don't know what you are talking about. The bible is full of falicies, poetry and man made stories. Example: Genesis book I. Day 1 God created day and night and seperated day and night with light and darkness. Right? Wrong! Then the bible says on day 4, 3 days later God creates the sun. No honest and informed person can maintain the universe came itno being a few thousand years ago and assumed its current form in 6 days to say nothing of absurdities that day and night existing before the sun was created. No one in the science field say we came from Apes. You are a very uniformed person who should put the bible down and get out in the REAL WORLD, and learn how we evolved. UNBELIEVABLE!
charts, I only have this to say that you might try to read a book by Gerald Schroeder: Genesis and the Big Bang.
Believe me I did not invent what I wrote. I like you do not believe in the creation in 6 days. What is notable is that the creation story follows the line of evolution.
The Light created on the first day was not from the sun, but light in general, and that light according to the Jewish outlook is understanding and knowledge, not a physical light. And if it is, science will tell you that there was light long before the sun and the moon came into being.
Birte: If I read 100 different books by 100 different authors on this subject, chances are I will get 100 different answers. If I asked 100 different christian theologens questions about christianity, again I will get several different answers. Thats no good. You say light created on the first day was not from the sun and your source is according to the Jewish outlook?? Who makes the Jewish outlook an authority? What EVIDENCE do you have that the light was not a physical light that made day and night dark and bright? Your speculating, unless you can show me evidence not theories. I don't have to see something to believe if its true, it just has to make common sense....right? right! Many stories in the bible make no common sense and I was raised a catholic and like most don't practice anymore.
If God is all knowing, and all mighty, and christians believe he inspired men to write the books of the bible, then wouldn't common sense tell you God would have inspired each writer to make each quote in the bible New and Old testaments CRYSTAL CLEAR for ALL to have exactly the same understanding of its meanings and teachings? Consistency would kind of help the credibility wouldn't ya think? There are over 35,000 different christian denominations, and many argue that their way is the right way. We have theologens who disagree with each other over the bibles terminologies.
Common sense tells me that organized religion brings individuals of that faith together but divides themselves from everyone else just like discrimination. Most people of faith are so because of family tradition and indoctrination from an early age to learn and become what their parents want them to become.......just like them.
Christians have a bad habit of re-wording, re-phrasing, using metaphors to make their point of what the bible says and means. That to me is not common sense.
charts, just to let you know: I don't take the bible stories at face value. If I did, I would not have written the original article. What I was saying with that article was that what we were taught as Jews or Christians is not necessarily what is written, and what may have been the original intention.
I also don't believe that the bible, old or new testament, are god-given in the traditional interpretation. All thoughts are inspired, by god or otherwise. Just like you and me have misunderstandings and need clarifications, so the writers of the bible also need clarification. After all many things have changed since they were written and today.
Being Jewish, but with quite an intimate knowledge of the Christian world, I will say that Christians have a much stronger tendency to insist on "being right" and all others wrong.
Thank you for commenting and continuing this discussion, which I find very interesting and stimulating
One theory says that the "serpent" was an ape. This is from an Arabic translation and not Hebrew. The Ape was created to walk upright--but now can only accomplish this with great discomfort. The Ape also had the ability to talk. These are two traits that the "snake" never had.
The curse on the ape caused him to walk the earth with his belly to the ground on "all fours" as opposed to just walking upright as humans do. Apes often eat food right off the ground. Hence the part where God says "you will eat the dust of the ground" or " with your belly to the earth you shall travel.
Apes can also be cunning, subtle and crafty. They like to play tricks. Finally the same word translated Ape "can" have the connotation or translation of "Devil". For it was he wo was behind the whole garden plot.
Interesting
Jeff, thank you for sharing this information, which I had absolutely no knowledge of.
Interesting Hub. I would just like to add that according to stories and legends that Eve was actually Adams second wife. Lilith was the first. The Bible is beautifully put together but all the spare parts and omissions could make an equally interesting tale.
Peter, yes I know that legend. I did not want to include it here, for the sake of keeping it short.
I agree that what was left out and all the additional myth, legends and traditions will make very interesting reading
I would like to say that the first and second stories on the creation of man are not opposed to one another, as long as Eve was created on the same day as Adam. The first account merely teaches the quick overall account that they were created on the sixth day. The second account goes into detail on what happened on the sixth day from man's perspective.
Where did Cain and Seth's wives come from?
Genesis 5:4 states the following: "4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters."
This is a genealogy focusing on the line of Seth. So it doesn't mention Cain or Abel who were born before Seth; and it doesn't mention if other daughters were born before Seth. However, we do know that Adam and Eve had daughters.
So Cain and Seth married their sisters. Sound weird? Well, this was before Mosaic law forbidding the practice. And this was back in the day when our genes didn't have as many mistakes as they do now.
For example, this is Abraham speaking of Sarah in Genesis 20:12: "12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife."
This was forbidden in Mosaic Law (And, today, it would produce deformed children because of the degradation of our genes.); but it was blessed by God in Abraham's time. So, given the fact that there were no other women around and there was no commandment to not take a wife and the genes that far in the past had much fewer mistakes than we have today, they surely would have taken one of their sisters as wives as Abraham did, strange as it may sound in today's culture.
Special note: Genesis 3:20
"20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living."
Adam seemed to understand that anyone living on the earth would be born from Eve. She was mother of ALL the living, not some of the living.
This fact is very clear in Mohammedanism. every time Eve gave birth to a twin baby, one male and one female. the first male was to marry the second's female and first female was to marry the second's brother. either Abel or Seth wanted to break the rule. that's why the first killing was occurred. wedding own sister was prohibited later.
Adam's and Eve's childrren, Seth, Cain, et al, would have married their own sisters. I know, sound a bit gross, but who else was there? If we're following the Bible, God only created Adam, then formed Eve from Adam. They were to reproduce and fill the earth.
The idea of marrying their own sisters is defensible. In the first generation of humanity, there would be no chromosome defects, so mutantation would not be a problem. As far as legality, who are you going to report it to, and why? There was no choice. The only reasons we have laws against marrying close relatives are to avoid mutations and defects and to keep us feeling comfortable in our own culture. Doesn't matter who the people are: if there's a blue one and a pink one, you can make a baby.
Here's the thing. You say that "Adam" was not called the name Adam until Genesis 4:25, correct? Ok, from Genesis 4:24 going backwards: Adam named in; Gen. 3:20,21,17,9,8
Gen. 2:23,21,20,19. Up until Genesis chapter four verse twenty five, there are nine other verses prior that refer to the first man as Adam. Before you suggest your theories and use the Holy Bible to back up what you are saying, make darn sure that you know what you are saying about the bible is true. You say until Genisis4:25 the Bible does not refer to man as Adam. I clearly showed you that it does. But it was not me that showed you, it was God, through my comment
Pete Maida says:
8 months ago
I find this interpretation fascinating. Please write more on the subject.