Are there people before adam and eve

Not Possible From Scripture A close investigation of the Bible shows that it does not allow for the possibility for pre-Adamic humanity. And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being Genesis , The Apostle Paul wrote: And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being 1 Corinthians According to these verses, there were no humans before Adam and Eve.

The first created humans were Adam and Eve. The Bible gives no hint that any pre-Adamic race was created before them. No Death Before Adam We are also told that there was not any human death until after the creation of Adam. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses Romans , Because there was no death of human beings until after Adam, this seems to rule out any race existing before him.

Genesis Some have pointed to a verse in Genesis that seems to support a race existing before Adam. Genesis in the King James Version reads: Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth Genesis Why would the earth have to be replenished?

Does this not assume a race existed previously? The answer lies in the verb the King James translators rendered as replenish.

The Hebrew word maleh means fill. There is no idea of replenishing something that was already there. The New King James Bible properly translates the verse in this manner: Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it' Genesis Angels What about angels?

Would they qualify as to being some type of pre-Adamic race? The answer is No. The Bible makes the distinction between humanity and angels. Angels are ministering spirits created to do the will of God.

In speaking of the angels He says, He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire Hebrews Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation? Hebrews There is no evidence they reproduce or can reproduce. Consequently they cannot die. Jesus said angels do not marry: For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven Matthew What are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?

Yet you have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor Psalm , 5. Many Questions If there were a race of people created before Adam and Eve, then numerous questions would have to be answered such as: What did they look like? Did these people have a soul? Did Christ die for their sins? What happened to them when they died? Why isn't there any specific information in Scripture about them? All these questions have no answer for those who believe there was some pre-Adamic race.

Summary We conclude that the Bible gives no evidence of any race having been created before Adam. All the evidence points to him as being the first human.

To argue for a race of Pre-Adamic humanity causes all sorts of problems from a biblical perspective. Donate Contact. Blue Letter Bible is a c 3 nonprofit organization. Thus, human beings are subject to sin and death, not because of genetics and biological descent from a first pair, but rather because we live in a world which is, at its very core, disordered and chaotic. In his life, death, resurrection, and ascension Christ reveals what it means to be truly human, to live an ordered life, and he initiates for believers the restoration of sacred space.

Eventually this process will culminate in a new creation. Here God will, once again, reside with his people and restore order to the world so that there will be no mourning, death, or pain.

He offers a well thought out view of how the Ancient Near Eastern mind would have received and understood the story of creation. It is a helpful reminder that the ancient Israelites did not think of the world on our terms, and so the text should not be forced to support views with which it is not concerned.

His comparison with other ancient creation narratives Babylon, Egyptian, Ugaritic, and Assyrian offers good insight in the similarities and distinctives of the Genesis account. The idea that humanity is called to a certain function even after the fall and eventual resurrection of Christ urges us to consider our purpose and responsibility towards each other and the created order.

There are, of course, problematic areas and many things that will make conservative Evangelicals uncomfortable. Though Walton offers various arguments why this is an unnecessary belief, many will find his views unconvincing especially as they relate to the inheritance of a sin nature.

Similarly, Walton fails to adequately examine the doctrine of the imago Dei. It is one thing for Walton to say that Adam and Eve are chosen from among the wider mass of humanity; does this imply that the functionality installed in Genesis reflects a similar choice? Does God simply choose a location from the wider world in which to create order, functionality, and then the Garden?

Does the Garden simply become another archetype: real but also representative? How must we conceive of the rest of the world beyond the Garden? Along this same fault line is the entrance of sin and its results. Yes, the world is broken due to sin and subsequent disorder. Even the Eastern Orthodox, who believed Adam and Eve were created as immature, childlike-beings with the purpose of growing and maturing, would still affirm immortality and lack of death in the original created order.

Walton does not make explicit arguments in favor of an evolutionary understanding of human development. However, he in no place takes pains to deny that this not only fits his position but is better suited to it than six-day-creationism.

Surprising though it seems, it is scientifically tenable that, among our billions of other ancestors, we could all be descendant from a single human couple who lived in the past 10, years. In fact, as Swamidass carefully explains, this is almost certainly the case according to current estimates of the so-called identical ancestors point, a time in the past when all family trees converge into one common pool of universal ancestors.

There are two clear reasons why this astonishing hypothesis is compatible with science. First, Swamidass acknowledges the undeniable scientific truth that the human population evolved from ancestor ape species and shares common descent with all living things. He is a defender of, not a dissenter from, modern evolutionary theory.

Second, according to Swamidass, Adam and Eve could have been a special creation whose progeny slowly interbred with the human population that already existed outside the Garden of Eden — people who had descended through the normal evolutionary process. Therefore, as long as one reads the book of Genesis in a way that allows that the evolutionary tree of life existed alongside the Garden of Eden, and that humans derive their ancestry from both sources, modern science might actually be silent on the issue of Adam and Eve.

The effect of this new realization is that Christians, Jews and Muslims can effectively move the Adam and Eve story from the column of miracles that science has soundly disproved — such as a recent global flood — to the column of miracles that science cannot disprove, like the virgin birth of Jesus.

Instead, he provides a bridge for those whose faith insists on the real existence of Adam and Eve. Until now, they have had little choice but to reject evolutionary science, at least partly but often wholly.

Classes are taught in some evangelical churches that discount evolutionary science in its entirety, a troublesome prospect, being that 1 in 4 Americans identify as evangelical Christians. But if Adam and Eve could exist within the natural world, we might have a resolution to one of the greatest cultural conflicts of the past two centuries.

Tempest in a Tardigrade cup: 'Water bears on the moon' don't contaminate space.