The Bible Teaches a pre-Adamic Creation

Case for pre-Adamic Race If Genesis 2 contains an attempt at explaining events of the creation in chapter 1, we should find proof that the author of Genesis 2 intended it as an explanation. But what does an explanation look like? First, it must draw reference to the thing its trying to explain. Does Genesis 2:5-25 refers us back to events in chapter 1? Where in Genesis 2 does it say "and on the third day" or "the sixth day"? Not one of the six days is mentioned in chapter 2. Nowhere does it list any of the evenings or mornings spoken about in chapter 1. Nowhere does Genesis 2 mention "in the beginning," or "God made man in his image." The language of chapter 1 is strangely missing from chapter 2 if they are both talking about the same event. If Genesis 2:5 were back-tracking to earlier events, we would expect it to say so, to at least reference which creative day it is speaking about. Secondly, it is rather odd that the author would not in chapter 2 try to "reconcile" let alone "explain" the obvious contradictions which exist even on a surface reading between Genesis 1 and 2. Was the author so foolish to try to explain the creation of birds from "water" in Genesis 1:20-21 by saying they were created from "the ground" (Genesis 2:19)? We find no rational here for how bird made from the ocean, were actually made from the earth. So how is this an explanation? One would expect even something blending water and soil, maybe a claim they were made from "mud" as is claimed in the Jewish commentary my opponent cited. What would an explanation look like? Like this, "and on the fifth day, when God stirred the waters of the sea, he took of the soil of the earth beneath the waters, and made the wet mud into fowl to fly in the heaven." That's what an explanation would look like if Genesis 2 were simply explaining hidden details left out of chapter 1. There is actually lots of evidence though, that Genesis 1 and 2 are two separate events. (1) In Genesis 1:3 we read of God's ability to "speak" things into being. God said "let there be light, and there was light." Hebrews 11:3 agrees, saying that "the worlds were framed by the word of God." In Genesis 1:11-12 "God said, Let the earth bring forth," and so we got trees and vegetation. Now contrast Genesis 2:5, 6, 8 where God doesn't miraculously speak the vegetation and trees into being, and they don't appear fully formed "bearing fruit," but he uses natural cycles of nature. It says the reason no vegetation was growing was because there was no rain, which was unnecessary in the first creation account because this was done by the spoken word. The Lord uses a mist to water the earth in the second account, and then he "planted" a garden in Eden. The word "planted" would suggest that here God was planting seeds, using water from the mist to make them grow, all of which is unlike the first an earlier account which was more miraculous and independent of such natural processes. So first, we have two different "methods" of creation. (2) In Genesis 1:24-27 mankind the species is made first ("male and female created he them"), but in chapter 2:18-20 a single man is made first, then the animals. In Genesis 1 we have the simultaneous creation of man and woman with nothing between them, but in chapter 2 we have creation of animals between man and woman. In Genesis 1:11-13 plant life is made on the third day before man is made on the sixth day (vss 26-31). But in the second creation account Adam is made before the plants (Genesis 2:7-8). So we also have two different "chronologies" of creation (3) In chater 1 there is no limitation on the geography of the events, whereas in chapter 2 the animals were created only in Eden, and only in Eden did God put the man and woman. Only in Eden do we read that God planted a garden in chapter 2. But no such thing is said in chapter 1, and we know that both the plant and animal life in chapter 1 were created world-wide for the following reasons: (1) when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden these vegetarians would have died soon if there was no plantlife outside the garden. Migration would also have been impossible if migrants from Eden couldn't find food; (2) Adam and Eve's son Cain became a herder of sheep even though the Bible says nothing about Adam leaving the garden with any livestock. (Genesis 4:1-2) (3) The migration of animals from Eden to the places where paleontologists trace thier ancestried over the last few thousand years would be impossible. How did penguins get on the polar caps? How did polar bears survive the long journey through the tropics? Some animals only live on specific diets; how did they maintain these diets outside their natural habitat on the long journey from Eden to where they now lay? And why don't we have a record of their migratory history leading back to Eden if all animals came from one place? It is quite clear that God made animals all over the planet in chapter 1, just as he did with plants. The rest of the earth outside Eden could not have been barren. Some tree-ring records show they were unditurbed for over 10,000 years. They predate Adam and Eve, their decendants couldn' have planted them. But if the animals and plants in chapter 1 are worldwide, the same is true for the creation of humans which is in that same pattern of creative days. So we have two diffrent "geographies" of creation. What are the odds that a man writing to explain one creation event, would get not only the "method," but also the "chronology" and "geography" of that event wrong? Sorry, this doesn't seem to be one account explaning the next, but two separate accounts altogether. Incest is condemned in the Bible, and since God judged even the Gentiles for it, we know this law is pre-Mosaic and applied to both Jew and Gentile. (Leviticus 18:6-17, 26-28) God made man with a conscience and so he knows some things are simply taboo, unnatural, wong. (Romans 2:14-16; Genesis 39:7-12) The first humans therefore would not have needed a list of written laws to know incest was a sin. It would be quite silly to imagine this omniscient God, who is perfect and makes no mistakes, created only two people, use incest to populate the earth for over 2,000 years, then says "opse!" What an abominable practice I've created, this must be stopped! This makes a fool out of God. It also makes him immoral, putting brothers and sisters to hump each other so he can fill the planet. This would contradict all the Bible says about God not changing, not going against his own moral standards. Incest is called an abomination, and its hard to imagine the Bible writers believed God created an abomination. The pre-Adamic race also makes more sense out of why archeology and paleontology testify that mankind's history is a lot older than the 6,000 or so years we've had since Adam. What's more, after Adam beget Cain, Cain had a son named Enoch, and Enoch built a city. (Genesis 4:17) A city in just two generations? From Adam to Cain, and Cain to Enoch, and we already have a city? A city is quite a lot of people. Where did the labor force come from? Where did the citizens come from? Was it just one big incestuous community? The pre-Adamic creation makes more sense out of all these things than the traditional idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans. It also agrees with what we know from science of man's history being more ancient that 6,000 years. Now that I've given a breif sketch of my case, I'll deal with Con's arguments in the next round. I don't understand his question on Exodus 20:11. Are you suggesting that God could not create anything after the seventh day? Please clarify. If I need to, I'll show you God still engaged in creation after even Adam and Eve, so the blessing of the seventh day doesn't mean the cessation of all creative acts for all time. Nor was Genesis 2:1-3 the same thing as the weekly sabbath, as these were not literal days. I'm out of space, over to Con.