The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
14 Points

The Bible Teaches a pre-Adamic Creation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,536 times Debate No: 18309
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




Full Resolution

The Bible teaches a pre-Adamic Creation that exists between Genesis 2:3 and Genesis 2:3-4


Pre-Adamic: A race of humans/creation that existed before Adam supposedly existed.

Sources – Information taken from a source must be directly mentioned in the debate in order to count. Posting a link to an essay and adding "read this" is a way to gain extra argumentation outside the round and is therefore unfair. An external citation page is permitted. Sources must be listed either at the end of each round or on the citation page and are to be referenced with brackets [] or parenthesis ().

Plagiarism - Plagiarism is unacceptable and will result in an automatic loss.

Videos - I will allow videos as long as they complement the argument rather than make the entire argument for my opponent.

Characters - There will be 8,000 characters allowed.

Voting Comments - All voters are required to have a RFD.

Round 1: Acceptance and no arguments.

Round 2: PRO will present the contradictions in creation and CON will attempt to reconcile these verses.

Round 3: PRO will respond to CON's rebuttals and attempt to show why CON's "rebuttals" fail.

Round 4: Same as above

Round 5: Closing arguments, summaries, and final rebuttals.



A violation of one of the rules listed under "Technical Rules" results in a loss of the conduct vote. If bother debaters violate a rule, the conduct vote should be tied. Excessive rude behavior, in either the debate or the comments, results in an automatic lose of the conduct vote regardless of rule violations. Violations of conduct cannot count toward argumentation (this is particularly relevant for rule violations).

Spelling and Grammar:

The use of poor spelling and grammar that detracts from the debate results in the automatic loss of this point. Otherwise, disregard minor typographical errors. This point may be awarded for exceptionally good writing and presentation.


For me to win, I need to show contradictions in the creation account. My opponent must reconcile it in order to win.


The sources vote goes to whichever debater made better use of external material to defend his or her position. This does not necessarily mean hard data; references to philosophical arguments and the like also count. Voters should consider the number and quality of sources presented. If a debater violates the rules for sources, he or she cannot win the points for sources.

The voting period will last three months.

Votes that do not contain a meaningful evaluation of the debate of at least a few sentences and with direct references to arguments made within the rounds in the RFD may be countervoted.


I request that my opponent is not a troll, if you troll this debate you will be blocked, reported, and will lose this debate. In addition, I request that my opponent states in round 1 his position on this problem.


To avoid plagiarism, all I ask is that you cite the source. If it is long, like the copy above, then I do not care if you use quotation marks or not.


There are lots of translations of the Bible and I want my opponent to tell me what version of the Bible to use. I will use whatever version my opponent wants me to use. However, my favorite translations are the ESV and NASB.

Note that the Burden of Proof is shared among myself and my opponent.


I agree to these terms, however, I'm so sure I need to reconcile all contradictions betweens Genesis 1 and 2 to show there was a pre-Adamic race. Proving that there was such a race (according to the Bible) doesn't entail reconciling all possible contraditions. It only entails reconciling those contradictions which would argue against such a face existing. But nevertheless, I'll do my best to reconcile any possible discrepencies Con presents; honestly, I don't know of any...Good luck to Con.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate. It is my burden to cast shadow of doubt on a pre-Adamic creation.

Contention 1: The Theory is Contradicted

While the gap theory does resolve the contradiction between the two creation accounts, it creates more problems than it solves.

4. In the Fourth Commandment, Exodus 20:11, it is clearly stated that the heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that is in them were created in six days.

C1.1 The 4th Commandment

Exodus 20:11 state, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

Therefore, we can conclude that the LORD blessed the 7th day (Saturday), made it holy, and created the sea and all that is in them. Why would the LORD bless the 7th day for the Israelites if there was a pre-Adamic creation?

C1.2 It puts death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture. [1]

Romans 5:12, "Therefore, even as through one man [Adam] sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as have sinned," there could not have been human sin or death before Adam.

1 Corinthians 15 states that Adam was the first man, and as a result of his sin, death and corruption entered the world. Before Adam, there could not have been any type of death. There could also have been no race of humans that died in "Lucifer's flood" because 1 Corinthians 15:45 tells us that Adam was the "first" man.

C2: The Jewish Understanding

This is a quote that I recieved from a Rabbi when I asked the question on chabad's "Ask the rabbi."

"The differences between Genesis 1 & 2 have been noted by the ancient commentaries on the Torah. Hypothesizing a pre-Adamic race (Neanderthals?) does not appear to be the intent of the text. Rather, the two chapters tell the same story in two different ways, the second being an elaboration on details omitted from the first. The second story fills in that 1) when G-d said "Let the ground give forth vegetation", it had not actually sprouted yet, but remained just below the surface, waiting for man to come along and pray for rain. 2) Birds were created from mud, since in the first account they are said to come from the water, and in the second from the earth. 3) Adam named and perceived the nature of every animal. 4) Man and woman were originally created as a single being with two sides, and then divided. It also elaborates on what became of them (entering the Garden of Eden, the trees, the snake, and their eventual expulsion)." [2]

While I must respectfully disagree with what the Rabbi is stating, it appears that the ancient comentaries understand that a pre-Adamic race is NOT the intent of the text. (I will bring a source in comment section)


The pre-Adamic race does not hold any water:

1) Theological contradictions; and
2) The Jewish understanding was not of a pre-Adamite race and is not the intent of the Torah.

I bring it back over to my good friend and opponent to bring up evidence for pre-Adamites.

[1] Ham, Ken. "Is the “gap Theory” an Acceptable Way to Harmonize the Bible and the Geologic Record? • ChristianAnswers.Net." Christian Answers Network [Home] • Multilingual Answers, Reviews, Ministry Resources, and More! • ChristianAnswers.Net. Creation Ministries International. Web. 12 Sept. 2011.


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.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate on wheither or not there was a pre-Adamic creation.

My opponent's entire case rests on the fact that Genesis 1 & 2 are contradictory if they are talking about the same events, to which I agree. I will be arguing for a very simple explanation known as "JDEP" or the Documentarty Hypothesis.

Firstly, we must note that the language is ENTIRELY different. In fact, the name for God has also changed drastically. In the first chapter, the word for God is 'elohiym which can literally be interpreted as "Gods." [1] However, when we get to the second chapter it become Yĕhovah 'elohiym which literally means "Yahweh of the gods." [2] I believe that there is a logical explanation for this. We both know that Moses did NOT write the Documentary Hypothesis, which is comonly called, "JDEP" [3]. The fact that the language of chapters 1 & 2 change drastically are proof that they are not of the same author.

Here are just some more proofs of the JDEP and what you need to explain without it:
  • Why humans are created twice (Gen. 1:27, 2:7ff.).
  • Why Noah is commanded to take two of every animal (Gen 6:17) and then seven of every clean and two of every unclean (Gen 7:2).
  • Why the seams between the two creation accounts and the two flood accounts also divide perfectly the similar language that is used in the creation and flood accounts.
  • Why in one text (Num 12:4-15) the tent of meeting is outside the camp, and anyone can go to it, and in an earlier one (Num 2), it is in the center of the camp, and only the priests can enter it. And why these two texts preserve similar language and textual allusions to other similarly divided texts.
  • Why in the flood account it is proclaimed that God limits man’s days to 120 years, but in Genesis 47:9 Jacob says he lived 130 years and Abraham and Isaac lived even longer.


The creation accounts are VERY contradictory without JDEP. My opponent needs to prove that Genesis 1 & 2 were written by the same people, despite the blatant contradiction and the overwhelming evidence for JDEP. I believe that both are referring to the same event, but written by TWO people.


[1] Strong. "Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon." Blue Letter Bible - Home Page. Web. 14 Sept. 2011.
[2] Strong. "Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon." Blue Letter Bible - Home Page. Web. 14 Sept. 2011.

[3] "Documentary Hypothesis." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web. 14 Sept. 2011.



"Why would the LORD bless the 7th day for the Israelites if there was a pre-Adamic creation?"

By the seventh day God's work was complete; the seventh day was sanctified in memorial of that creation. Does this mean God couldn't create other things afterward? Clearly not, for each soul that is born into the world receives his spirit from God. It's a fresh creation. God created manna for Israelites in the wilderness, and Jesus created bread to feed five thousand. The universe is expanding, for all we know new stars are forming. The Bible doesn't say after God rested he must stay inactive.

"It puts death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture."

It's very possible the pre-Adamic race had not yet fallen into sin by the time of Adam's creation, so this isn't problematic. Adam could have spread sin to them by taking the lead in its spread. But its not necessary for me to assume this, for the Bible doesn't teach Adam was the first sinner. Eve ate of the fruit and sinned in so doing "before" Adam. (Gen 3:1-6) Also, Romans 5:12 doesn't mention Adam, just one man; who is to say Adam was that one man? Even if he is given credit, doesn't mean he was the first sinner. Jesus is also called the "last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45), yet, he wasn't the last "man" to be born, nor was he last man named "Adam" in history. These are theological terms, not facts of history regarding who came first. One could also say based on Genesis that sin entered the world by a serpent, not by a man. So symbolic theological terms do not always conform to history.

I don't believe in "Lucifer's flood," in fact, see my debate on DDO, "Lucifer is not Satan." The pre-Adamic race was made on the sixth day, not between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Since I never argued for pre-Adamic flood, Con is knocking down a strawman. In that same chapter in 1 Corinthians 15 Con sites for Adam being the first man, it also called Jesus the "second man" just as Adam was the "first." (1 Cor 15:47) Now, is Con seriously going to tell me Jesus was the second human to be born on earth? Was he Adam's son? No, these are not literal terms, but theological ones, they have symbolic significance. Adam was no more the literal "first" human that Jesus was the "second" or the "last.'

"The Jewish Understanding"

They misunderstood the Scriptures just as they did when they rejected Jesus as the Messiah. The prophets and other holy men who wrote these things were usually a persecuted folk, greatly misunderstood. Since Con argues that ancient Jews didn't know of a pre-Adamic race as proof that it was't so, then he must also agree with the same Jews who claimed that Moses was the author, when we know that he was not. Even his own erroneous JDEP theory rejects Jewish tradition, so even he should admit that Jewish tradition on the OT could be wrong.

"My opponent's entire case rests on the fact that Genesis 1 & 2 are contradictory if they are talking about the same events"

Con fails to mention I also argued that Genesis 2 makes no quotes from chapter 1, or any reference to the listing of days, mornings and evenings, pronouncements by God to create, or anything such thing to show it was attempting to explain Genesis 1. Nor does it seek to explain the curious parts like birds being made from water when chapter 2 says they were made from the ground. Genesis 2 isn't written in the form of an explanation.

I also showed other passages in the Bible that confirm that other people apart from Adam's family were on earth by the time he had his first 2 sons. From Adam, to Cain, to Enoch, we already have a city. Where did all these people come from? When Cain killed Abel and left his parents behind, where did he get a wife? (Gen 4:17) And who was Cain afraid of that would find him and kill him outside his parents home? (Gen 4:14-16) Clearly, the pre-Adamic race has others on earth, otherwise, God, who is totally against incest, used incest to populate the earth. This is plain ridiculous. Nor did Con answer how is it that someone trying to explain Genesis 1 would get the "method," "chronology" and "geography" of that creation wrong? Why would this person create such "obvious" and unnecessary contradictions, and give no attempt at reconciling them? One would have expected the contradictions to be vague, hidden, and we need to look beneath the surface to find them, but this is not so. It's more obvious these are two separate events.

As for the documentary hypothesis, this argument fails to note that the same writer can and usually does have different writing styles, and these styles and language used changes according to the different subjects upon which he treats. Con gives no rational reason why one writer could not know God as both Elohim and Yahweh Elohim. (By the way, YHWH Elohim means Yahweh God) Christians and Jews today know God by many names and titles, so why should each title imply a different author in Genesis? God holds many offices. Today, when a newspaper article refers to the same person as "the owner," "CEO," "manager," etc, we don't assume that three different journalists contributed to the article. Modern-language writers often write in different styles at different stages in their careers, or when they are dealing with different subject matter. No one has explained why the author of Genesis could not refer to the Creator both as God and as Jehovah. No one has proved that he could not write in different styles if he was treating different subjects, writing at different times in his life, or using earlier sources. K. A. Kitchen notes in his book Ancient Orient and Old Testament: "Stylistic differences are meaningless, and reflect the differences in detailed subject-matter." Similar style variations can also be found "in ancient texts whose literary unity is beyond all doubt." The argument that the use of different names and titles for God is evidence of multiple authorship is particularly weak. In just one small verse, Genesis 28:13, the terms "Elohim" (God) and "Jehovah" are used together? Did two authors collaborate to write that one verse? John Romer said in his book Testament—The Bible and History: "A fundamental objection to this whole method of analysis is that to this day not one scrap of ancient text has been found to prove the existence of the theoretical strands of different texts so beloved of modern scholarship."

Why humans are created twice? They aren't, these are separate events. As for Noah, Genesis 6:13-21 is instruction given before Noah even built the ark, while Genesis 7:2 was only for the final 7 days before the flood. So in the last 7 days the paring changed; it's a second event, not an explanation of the first.

"Why the seams between the two creation accounts and the two flood accounts also divide perfectly the similar language that is used in the creation and flood accounts."

They don't. Genesis 6 calls God by "Elohim" and "Yahweh" (Gen 6:4-5), it doesn't use Elohim in one chapter and leave Yahweh for the next. The same is true of Genesis 7:16 where both Elohim and Yahweh are used in the same verse. If Con wants, I could go on to refute the documentary hypothesis in detail but that's not what the debate is about. I've illustrated the error of it already. I want Con to tell me first why an ancient writer could not have known God as both Yahweh and Elohim.

Con has not responded to even most of my argument for the pre-Adamic race, but I have refuted all of his assertions, vote Pro..
Debate Round No. 3


To maintain professionalism, I must say that after analysing my opponent's evidence that he was (yet again) correct. Please VOTE PRO.


Correction on one point I made earlier but there was a typo. I meant to say in a previous round that in Genesis 1 man was made AFTER the animals, but in Genesis 2 man was made BEFORE the animals, hence, these are two separate epocks of creation. Anyways, thanks agains for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 4


Not a problem. Daley, you never fail to impress me.


Thanks. You impress me too, you make me do a hell of a lot of research. Btw, I read the thing on prophecies at infedels and I actually had both an article on that from Farrell Till himself, as well as a debate on it between him and Norman Geisler (don't think I got the last name right...) So I just want you know its not that I haven't looked into this. I must admit, this is one of the better arguments the skeptics have; its even stronger than the argument from evil.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by coldog22 6 years ago
Kohai, why can you not say GOD? Allah is (in muslim religion) concidered to be a god. Jesus was the last masiah not Mohamid ali. say GOD. not G-D.
Posted by Rabid.Penguin 6 years ago
This is kind of an interesting debate.

Though I believe Genesis 1 and 2 are referring to the same creation event, that it's written by the same author (namely Moses), and there was no human race prior to Adam. :)
Posted by daley 6 years ago
I apologize to Con for forgetting to tell him what translations to use. I'll be using the KJV, so it would be nice if Con could use the KJV in addition to the two versions he mentioned that he likes. I really have no preference one way or the other, so any of these three he uses is fine with me. However, research into what the oldest manuscripts in Hebrew or Greek say is even better.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Great arguments and analysis of the two creation sections in Genesis, Daley. Kohai earns a point of conduct for his honorable forfeit.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeit and conceded that Pro had better arguments.
Vote Placed by PartamRuhem 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: concede