Adam, the first man on Earth?
August 27, 2009 6:48pm CST
I often come across this question when discussion with people. In the Bible and the Quran the indication is that Adam and Eve were of the first people to walk this Earth. But is this interpretation correct? For in the Bible, Adam's life is quoted to be over 900 years! The Quran also stipulates Adam to be a Messenger given instructions as the the awareness of God. I believe the 900 years refers to not his age, but his Law of the times which would have been the religous law of the time. Moreover, in order to bring a law or message from God, there must have been people to preach to - therefore Adam could not have been the first physical man. This then fits into the theory of evolution that Man evolved from Apes, and only gained his spiritual awakening via Adam. However, most people believe Adam to be the first man on Earth. Man has said to walked the Earth around 2.5 million years ago, whereas Adam is thought be around 10000BC. Anyway, food for thought.
28 Aug 09
I strongly believe Adam is the 1st to walk on earth. It is also said in Bible that 1 year is equal to '1000 years'. so that makes the equation almost correct. The theory of evolution is total nonsense to me (no offenses to anyone), because I haven't heard of any evolution happening in around 10,000years now. why didn't man evolve into some thing else by now then!! There are many questions which no scientists can answer & the even wonder what the answers are. Just look around , everything is created so perfectly, that only god can ,make such a creation. More over everything is mentioned perfectly in bible so that you can find all your answers over there.
29 Aug 09
It is also important to think how many points of disbelief do you have. That Adam was the First (and only) Man? That Eve was his only consort? Of course you have clearly mentioned your guess-- a kind of Logic that you're trying to read into the whole thing, to state that there must have been many others before Adam, who could be called homosapiens but they found God through Adam because he was a prophet of God, in that he could instruct his fellow beings on how to find God. But that would contradict the Scripture. That he lived for 900 years! And Evolution contradicts (God's) perfection in Creation.You are trying to reconcile irreconcilable ideas.
30 Aug 09
Erm, no. 'Points of disbelief' seems be a rather arrogant way of responding to a debate. But nevertheless, point 1 That Adam was the First (and only) Man? Well justify your own question then. Point 2: Eve was his only consort. Are you implying others? Are you implying, what I am saying that more people were there? Point 3: 'kind of Logic' and 'condradict the scripture' - but you have just contradicted it by implying more consorts to Adam if Adam and Eve were the only beings Point 4: The bible relate to 900 years, his Law, not his life. What you fail to debate on is the common sense approach that it is possible that religion and evolution can indeed sit side by side without condradicting each other. If one becomes as dismissive in debate then there is little understanding of how humans 'evolved' their religions.
31 Aug 09
Marko, I thought so- that my first sentnce will come up as sounding "arrogant". But I was trying to be brief, in my statements, and definitely not arrogant if you had even glanced at some of my posts in the religion section.You are right we must try to use the common sense approach- in the sense,if I get you right that is, give the thought that there might not be anything superhuman about the Scriptural pronouncements, and may be they are somewhat historical realities perhaps written by not-so-accurate scribes! Further the perceptual acuity also improves when more knowledge becomes available to people to sift the data into information if we choose to use contemporary terms. I will tell you why I put those points as short questions. The plausible inference of having had many people to have been available besides Adam and Eve would eliminate the possibility of incest, as species multiplication strategy. The idea of everything proceeding from one couple essentially makes furtherance of species only through incest.Or you must accept the yet unproven phenomenon of parthenogenesis. Being a Hindu the idea of incest is anathema to me. The problem you are trying to address interestingly is the same we seem to face in the Puranic View of how humanity spread. The Vedas speak of simultaneous appearance of the human species, which is not in agreement with paeleontological evidence(which in my opinion is not that accurate as the archaeological) After some point on of course there wouldn't be a problem as genetic spread is available. But to have the same at that remote point in time, your presentation is very welcome: That Adam might not have been the First of homosapiens, but the most evolved of them that peopled the world, in a sense a Prophet. Being a believer I would prefer an approach that contradicts Scripture as little as possible.
29 Aug 09
But you could tell the story in such a manner that it could only be a story now for him or her to undestand and remember; but at a very later date when s/he is grown up, may be when you are not even there, he/she thinks about the story and then understands the intended meaniing, in terms that are appropriate. This perhaps would be the best way to teach the greatest science without burdening the minds of the young while keeping their imaginations engaged at the same time giveing them the necessary education. Why don't you think all religious books are just such story telling?
30 Aug 09
I would always say, stories are great for children, but they must snap out and grow up. To assume biblical accounts as mere stories, I am afraid baffles me as how people can somehow get to that conclusion. The only explanation, I believe, is that we as children, like to listen to fairy stories and happy untruths. But children need to also be told the difference between untruths and truths as we would between right and wrong. Howeever, children grow quickly and are intelligent, they become we, and we should not try to find an easy way out by converting accounts into mere stories. This dismisses the facts and value of the historical accounts.