Background Check Form - Messiah College: Fill & Download for Free

Like many other geeks, I’d rate GeeksForGeeks a great place for practicing and to do the interview preparation, I can go as far as to say that it is the only place which has been created by taking the common student or professional and keeping his problems in mind, you can just get to know this after you check out the articles or even solutions. Hackerank and Hackerearth are above average according to me.I’ll discuss precisely why this is, but first a word on how unlikely GeeksforGeeks was to ever be so successful…The GeeksForGeeks’ Unlikely SuccessNo one would’ve foreseen that the website would become a major success, let alone an all-time saviour of students who can’t afford a good guidance. It was supposed to be a blog written by the CEO Mr. Sandeep Jain.But then something unexpected happened: the blog took off and became one of the most coveted sources of reference for many developers and students. The articles it featured were explained with such precision and simplicity that even a guy who is never good at grasping anything can get it.It was later expanded and we can all see the amazing form of GeeksforGeeks as it is now.So Why Did It Work?In my view, GeeksforGeeks works mainly because Mr. Sandeep Jain had a simple but overriding vision that he was somehow, despite constant threat of being it just a small blog, manage to stick to…He saw that GeeksForGeeks could be seen as more than just another tech blog with the tired old moral, “The more difficult it looks, and the better it is.” Instead, he made it as simple as he could, that was the thread he weaved between CS communities.And in retrospect, it’s far more even than that. It’s really a tool for success for the students who come for tier III colleges, the kids who can’t afford the education which could give wings to their desire. To them GeeksForGeeks is a “Messiah’.The articles it featuresEvery time I Visit GeeksForGeeks, it is a revelation. How can every article be so well researched? It is as if I am not reading some common article, but going through a well-researched scientific paper.Final conclusion: GeeksForGeeks is one of the best places to prepare for placements if you are from CS background. It features an ensemble of contents and articles that helps a developer build up his skills and plays a huge part in acing the interviews.Peace out, Geeks!

I like cats. I have several. I don’t understand guys that make a macho pose out of not liking cats. Some of my favorite people are distinctly cat-like.I have a Pekingese dog named Arthur. He needed a home so we took him in. Pekingeses are good dogs. They’re quite self-confident and good-natured.I have a small flock of laying hens. Barred Rock, Rhode Island Reds, and Black Giants. They’re fun to take care of, and we get a steady stream of fresh eggs for about nine months out of the year.I’m reasonably good at birding. When I’m with my Dad, who is in his eighties and is a genuine polymath in my opinion, I get a master’s seminar on birds.I have a Literature degree. I recently spent time re-reading the works of Willa Cather and Raymond Chandler. If I had the opportunity to go back to college I would study music or history.I try to read about fifty books a year. I read graphic novels and I read 800-pagers, but the average book is fairly hefty and aimed at an adult audience. I’m kind of a striver that way.I have two sons. It’s interesting to see how they each inherit, or have an affinity for, traits that you can see earlier in the family tree. A skill at language here, an interest in travel there, an engineer’s deliberateness and skill here, a love of animals there. An ability to self-educate on the one hand, an ease with formal education on the other.My Mom was a troubled soul, but she was full of artistic skill and deep feeling, especially about music appreciation, and she made me a feminist. She had a fine soprano voice.My grandparents were all born in the 1880s and ‘90s. I believe you can learn something about a person by the old people they knew when they were little. When I meet a younger person whose grandparents grew up with the assumptions of the post-WWII USA, I often contrast them with my grandparents who were considered solidly middle-aged by the time of the 1929 Crash, had sons in World War II and Korea, and whose attitudes rubbed off on my parents.I recently earned a Class A commercial driver’s license. I can drive a big rig.I work in television. One day, I might be puzzling through an IT sort of problem in the studio. The next day, I’m turning wrenches on a mountaintop.I was not a participator when I was in school, but I have some natural athletic talent and I have enjoyed basketball, running, and other sports over the years.I spent my early years in a lily-white suburb. When my mother and stepfather sold our house to a mixed-race family (the dad was a former Los Angeles Laker) I got wind that there was some consternation in the neighborhood over it. Over the course of my life I’ve gained a deeper understanding of the evils of racism and I’ve gotten better about not worrying about other people’s real or imagined emotions, but at the time (I was ten) I simply felt a delicious schadenfreude.On at least one occasion in my youth I cut school so I could go to the library.I love hiking and I feel that the backpacking trips I went on with my Dad helped form my character.When I was a kid places like Huntington Beach, CA were basically wide spots in the road and Orange County was still full of oranges. I would play in the surf all day, and when my body hit the cool sheets that night I felt like I was floating.I was a late bloomer as a musician. When other kids were (perhaps dutifully) playing in band or whatever, I was listening to whatever I could get my hands on, soaking up influences. I don’t regret this time at all - a good musician has to know how to listen. Just like how a good writer learns a lot about writing by reading.I was painfully, awkwardly shy when I was younger. During my bleak high school period when I was bouncing between my parents’ houses, it seemed as though I could go for weeks without speaking to anyone outside of my family. When somebody today goes on about how introverted they are, I smile a little.I’ve ranted a bit here and there about how I don’t reveal much about my personal life on Quora. I think I was even subtly trolled about it by someone who writes very well in the personal, confessional vein - touche.I dropped out of high school in my freshman year. I ended up in a boarding school in Arizona for the rest of the year.When I was in college I took a cross-country trip, hitch-hiking most of the way.Since I hadn’t met all of the aunts and uncles on my Mom’s side, I did that. She had four brothers - a teacher, a career Army officer, an anesthesiologist, and a minister. My aunts were all amazing, as well.In an odd way, the Cold War years were good for my family. Dad’s naval reserve unit was called up for Korea. That was a grim experience. I got none of that romanticizing of the service from him, for which I’m grateful. He returned home and used his GI Bill money to finish his studies at Cal. A stint at GE, marriage to my Mom, and a Master’s earned at night at MIT later, the young family relocated to Southern California, seat of the aerospace industry. What he did was highly technical even for mechanical engineering. There’s a monograph for sale out there that he wrote.My parents were what most people would consider highbrow. Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven were well represented in our home.I have two older sisters. I’m really grateful that we’ve stuck together over the years. Partly because of that “we weren’t dreaming when that happened, right?” reassurance that we provide each other about growing up, but the fact that we genuinely like each other.My wife and I have been an item for yes, over thirty years. There are a lot of similarities in our backgrounds. We’re both from sunny Southern California, have aerospace engineer fathers, etc. But she keeps me on my toes with her restless, deep, wide-ranging intellect. Somehow our similarities form a launching pad from which we continually surprise each other. She surprises me, at least. Marriage-wise it helps that we both think we married up, and we’re both stubborn as hell, we don’t enjoy being mean, and we’re still attracted to each other.She has a degree in religion and philosophy and she works for a Unitarian church. She’s always reading something surprising, like historically well-researched romance novels written by WOC authors. Or a little Boethius. We always have something new to talk about.I’ve studied percussion, voice, and keyboard to varying degrees. I also taught myself how to play guitar. Currently I’m all out of practice except for voice, and the little bit of keyboard that I need to figure out a tricky bit of score. I have an affinity for church music, so I joined a church choir once my schedule freed up (after a too-long hiatus). I’m a baritone but I can switch-hit as a bass or tenor choral singer, assuming the part isn’t written at an extreme range, a la Beethoven. As a singer my goals are to have fun, get the most out of the top of my range, sing more solos, and improve my sight-singing.I don’t seem to have a strong need to produce original works of art. I’m quite happy singing a standard or acting as a side musician.If I had to name a deeply nerdy gee-he-must-be-on-the-autism-spectrum interest of mine, it would probably be “Early Music” from 1750 (the year of JSB’s death) and before. I love the Renaissance masters like Josquin. I’m also a big geek about obscure Christmas music and early American music. I’m about halfway through Martin Geck’s magnificent book on Bach. Basically I took the heavy interest that I had in classic rock, punk, and post-punk and moved on to new stuff.My oldest son is seeing the world. He met his girlfriend in Croatia. They’re currently staying together in Canada, where’s she’s from. This summer they’ll head back to Europe after stops in Boston and Los Angeles (family reunion yay). He’s got a gift for language and music. He likes to paint and he has a nose for literature.My wife and I lived in Boston for a number of years. It was quite an experience for two Southern California kids, but a good one. Her family back there was great to us, and we started a family like, a month after arriving. Must be the water. But we felt a hankering to be closer to the grandparents on the West Coast, and opportunity beckoned in Nevada.My younger son is still in high school. His big interest is RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons. If he and his friends can’t physically meet up, they Skype or whatever and play that way. P seems to have inherited the family engineering gene. He’s great at doing what needs to be done, which took me a long time to learn. He wants to major in math in college. Both my boys amaze me.Books I currently have stacked by my favorite chair: Shorter OED, Western Garden Book, Nat Geo bird guide, “Traitor To His Class”, McCullough’s “Truman” (time to reread), “The Death of Rhythm and Blues”, “I’m a Stranger Here Myself” (Bryson), a John McPhee, a book on Norse myths, “The Perfect Scent”, “Salt”, and that Bach book that I have to return to the library and then check back out. I also need to get hold of a copy of “Death and Life of Great American Cities” and finish that.I was lucky to have lived in San Francisco during the ’80s and ‘90s. As a kid it appealed to me. We’d visit Grandma and come into the City. I lived in the SF State dorms for a while. I met my wife and graduated from college there. I lived in a succession of oddball roommate situations. It was a terrific place to spend your twenties.I never had a definite plan of what to do with my English degree. I can write, sure. The idea of being around young people as a teacher baffled me, probably because I had been a baffling young person myself. I made ends meet with various office jobs until I decisively moved into IT, and then television. Does anybody remember Processed World? It was a ‘zine with a profoundly skeptical, pre-World Wide Web view of computers as dehumanizing. It’s funny how opinions change, or go into cul de sacs. Isolationism and nationalism seemed as though they had gone into some sort of quarantined cul de sac, but they’re baaaaack.I remember reading about Kenneth Rexroth, how he ended up in Chicago as a young person and couldn’t wait to go see the stockyard milieu he’d read about in “The Jungle”. That’s how my mind works a lot of the time.I remember, after years of concentrating on fiction, not all of it easy or accessible: I wandered into a thrift store in San Francisco and picked up the Penguin abridged “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”. What a great book. I think it set me on a path where I read primarily non-fiction now.I consider myself an agnostic Christian. The church I used to attend in San Francisco employed a quartet of paid singers. Most of them also sang in the SF Opera Chorus. In spite of the fact that my Mom and stepfather had been good church musicians, it hadn’t occurred to me that I might be any good as a singer. It was a soloist’s performance of “Behold I Tell You A Mystery” from Messiah that hinted to me that there was something transformative there.Some great musical performances I’ve seen: Stevie Ray Vaughan, R.E.M., Husker Du, the Minutemen, Tom Waits, Van Morrison, the Smiths, Violent Femmes, U2, Placido Domingo, Chanticleer, American Bach Soloists, Nevada Opera. Plus many others that I’ve forgotten about.My wife and I like to visit museums when we’re traveling. We travel well together. That’s a good sign with a couple.I got my driver’s license pretty young. But I didn’t own a car until I was in my early thirties, with a wife and a baby, after we’d moved to Boston. Three thousand miles away from Los Angeles, where I grew up and they say you can’t survive without a car.My best friend is a guy who knows about as much about music as it is possible to know. He’s one of the smartest people I know, but he never graduated from college. I remember this whenever I’m tempted to worry about formal credentials.We homeschooled our boys for awhile, the oldest until he was in fifth grade. We had to give that up, but I think the idea of self-teaching took hold with both of them. No regrets.I own a felt Stetson hat that my wife gave me about twenty years ago. It needs some TLC, so I called the cowboy store here in Reno. The lady there said they don’t do repair work but recommended a hatmaker up in Virginia City that could fix it. That reminded me why I like living here.About twenty years ago I read Patrick O’Brian’s “Aubreyad”: twenty novels featuring his dual protagonists, Aubrey and Maturin. O’Brian made numerous references to Aubrey’s navigational astronomy. That inspired me to start watching the stars. When I was working swing shift I was outside a lot after dark anyway. I got pretty good at naked-eye astronomy. I’m planning a little camping trip to take advantage of some dark sky out in the desert.I really like to walk for exercise and relaxation. I recently started learning the words to “You’ll Never Walk Alone”. Singing while walking is a great way to map out the breaths you’ll take when you perform, memorize, etc. The irony of course, is that I generally walk without a partner, reveling in my solitude. But I get the point of the lyrics - often when you think you’re on your own, you’re not.I once owned a “DJ” mail delivery Jeep with steering on the right, kind of unusual in the US. One fine day a woman with a rural mail delivery route rang my doorbell and offered me cash for it. Godspeed, funky old mail Jeep, it was fun.I’m seldom on the bands, but I have an amateur radio license, call sign KF7PIY.Last night, I suggested to a good friend that she consider Quora for the wealth of writing prompts that the site provides. So I guess I’ve grown attached to this beast over the years.Thanks for the A2A Ranjetta Poobathy.

What if I told you there is no contradiction between the two? Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, evolutionary creationism, or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. First, before I give my answer I need to lay down the framework to help us understand what Genesis is actually talking about.Six day creationists approach the opening passages of Genesis in a very literalistic fashion—that is, they take everything at face value. There is a distinction between the terms 'literalistic' as opposed to 'literal'. As Honorary Associate of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney, John P. Dickson outlines in his essay titled The Genesis of Everything:A literalistic reading takes the words of a text at face value, interpreting them with minimal attention to literary genre and historical context. A literal reading such as my own, on the other hand, gives serious consideration to both the literary style and the historical setting of a text. It tries to understand not only what is said but what is meant—i.e. what the original author intended to convey. Sometimes in literature what is meant and what is said do not have a one to one correspondence. In metaphor, for example, what is meant is greater than what is said (‘The Lord is my shepherd’, Ps. 23:1). In hyperbole what is meant is less than what is said (‘If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away’, Mt. 5:30). One can read such literary devices literally—trying to discern what the literature intends to convey—without reading them literalistically.Both six-day creationists and scientific materialists approach Genesis 1 as if the original author had intended to narrate the mechanics of creation in historical prose. I believe this is a mistaken, literalistic reading. For over a century now, a great many biblical historians have detected in the Bible’s opening words a style other than simple prose and a purpose other than to explain how the universe was made. These two issues, genre and purpose, are critical for understanding this foundational portion of the Jewish and Christian Bible. In what follows, then, I want to unpack what many modern scholars are saying about these issues and demonstrate that, properly understood, Genesis 1 teaches nothing scientifically problematic for the modern enquirer. I emphasize the adverb ‘scientifically’, since there is plenty in Genesis 1 that is theologically and existentially confronting. That is the aim of the text, as I understand it.Dickson's article is linked above, do feel free to check it out as it goes into great detail on this issue, closely examining the way in which the text was written as opposed to how the false Church systems want you to read it. Genesis is perfectly compatible with evolution, most especially in light of the Mishnah and the rabbinic commentaries. Many Jews as well as Christians understand this fact. As far as I can see it is only the politically motivated American Evangelical movement which insists otherwise, and usually for b*llshit reasons too.Most Creationists (especially YECs) completely lack any real exegetical, scholarly, or anthropological approach when studying the Bible. Instead they force their own westernized perspective on it, and this is obviously where many theists and skeptics alike go terribly wrong. Evolution is compatible with the Bible, as many rabbis have noticed, and I will prove it using grammatical and contextual evidence, scholarly sources, as well as medieval Jewish commentaries.What is Genesis?The Book of Genesis (Heb. בְּרֵאשִׁית‎, bərēʾšîṯ) is basically prose narrative, which is written within the Near Eastern “high context” cultural format. Much of the prose has a lyrical quality and uses the full range of figures of speech and other devices that characterize the world's finest epic literature. Vertical and horizontal parallelism is used between passages, it makes excessive use of idioms, expressions, cultural hyperbole, etc...The Torah is not a book of commandments that includes occasional stories, but rather it is a narrative that happens to also include commandments. The books of the Torah form a large narrative framework, and this begins with the story of the Garden of Eden, thereby concluding with the death of Moses before conquering the Promised Land. This framework points to the unity of the Torah, and helps us analyze and discover the true, central theme of the narrative.This is going to be news to many people, but the fact that you may have read the Bible in plain English doesn't make you an expert at it. This might be confusing, however from an anthropological perspective this makes perfect sense. Ancient Near Eastern cultures are what scholars and anthropologists refer to as "high context" cultures. High context cultures are those that communicate in ways that are implicit and rely heavily on context. This is in contrast to "low context" cultures (such as our own), which rely on explicit verbal communication. High context cultures are collectivist, value interpersonal relationships, and have members that form stable, close relationships.Most American and European interpreters come at the biblical texts with a low-context set of assumptions and ways of thinking. However, Hillsdale College professor of English, Justin A. Jackson states in his course on Genesis:It's not that English translations are bad. They serve a purpose and you can rely upon them for a basic understanding of the text. However, we must nevertheless acknowledge that the contextual background for the biblical texts lies not in western culture, but in the Ancient Near East. Thus you shouldn't force a low context reading into a high context text.Knowing the context of what is written in the Hebrew scriptures is vital to understanding the difficult sections in the Hebrew texts. It is vitally important to take a step back so that you may gain a better understanding of the theological, political, social, cultural and historical context in which it was written. The Biblical narratives include moral, ceremonial and social codes of conduct which are difficult to wrap our heads around today. You do not have to believe in God because belief is irrelevant. The Bible is vitally important to our culture and traditions and therefore I think it is wise to consider the possibility that there may be many philosophical and contextual misunderstandings.Six literal days?The first chapter of the Bible says that God made heaven and earth and every living thing in six days. However, in Hebrew numbers don't work the same as they do in western languages. First off, there are no set of numerals in Hebrew. Rather Hebraic “numbers” are just letters with numerological signs attached to it.This ties into something which is called as Gematria. Gematria is an alphanumeric code of assigning a numerical value to a name, word or phrase based on its letters. A single word can yield multiple values depending on the cipher used. It can also be used as an interpretive method that first circulates the numerical number of a particular word and then matches it with another word with exact same numerical value, showing a connection.Although it is often associated with Kaballah and Jewish mysticism, Gematria is not witchcraft. It has very practical uses and Jews implement it for counting the years. Even the biblical authors used it. By Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg at the Israel Institute of Biblical Studies gives us a good example:Let’s take the ladder in Jacob’s dream story – Sulam (סֻלָּם). It has a numerical value of 130 (ס (samekh) = 60, ל (lamed) = 30, מ (mem) = 40). The Hebrew word for “Sinai” (סיני), has the same numerical value, although it is made up of different letters. Hence, one interpretation of Jacob’s ladder could be that it represents the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai.Interestingly enough, some New Testament authors used Gematria in their interpretation as well. For example, beautifully organized argument in the Gospel of Matthew connects Jewish history with Jesus:“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.” (Matt.1:17)Jesus, as David King Messiah, is the main theme in the Gospel of Matthew. Once we assigned numerical value to the word David, Matthew’s point becomes clear.David’s numerical value is fourteen: ד (four) + ו (six) + ד (four) = fourteen.Thus we can see that numbers in Hebrew are not understood as plainly as they are in English. Thus six days might have a much deeper meaning and therefore the focus of the text could be entirely symbolic.Literalists have an overly simplistic view of numbers. They just automatically assume that Genesis 1 is telling us that God created everything in six evenings and six mornings — ordinary-length days. The literal view says, Believe it because that is what is written in plain English and give no thought as to it's original context. However, I beg to differ. We must ask ourselves: is that really what is written?Maybe we should pay close attention to the contextual clues which give us additional insights. For example, on Gen. 1:14-18 we learn that on the fourth day God established the functional divine purpose of the sun, moon, and stars: to be lights for which to help people who are traveling at night navigate their way around, and to account for the passage of time.God divinely appoints the sun and moon to serve a particular function for mankind: to act as a divide between the activities of the day and night routine, to separate our cognitive perception of light from darkness. But we are told in verse 4 that God had separated light from darkness on the first day; and the words “evening and morning” show that there was already a separation between night and day. So what really happened on the fourth day of creation?The meaning of the Hebrew wordsThere are different Hebrew words in the Bible which refer to different modes of creation. Here we will look at bārāʾ (בָּרָא) and ʿāśāh (עָשָׂה). Genesis makes excessive use of the term bārāʾ, however the context clearly implies that this does not refer to material manufacturing but rather it strongly implies a functional ontology.The word ʿāśāh on the other hand always refers to material creation and it usually involves a process as opposed to ex nihlo. Some OECs have also suggested that ʿāśāh (עָשָׂה) could possibly denote “had made” as opposed to “made”—and this would suggest that God may have brought the heavenly bodies into being billions of years earlier. Some suggest that the heavenly bodies where eclipsed, and on the fourth day God made them visible.The creation account is written from an earthly perspective. Since half of earth is in darkness when the other side is in day, the terms evening and morning indicate a perspective not only limited to earth in general, but to a specific point on earth. When God called for light, he meant light at a specific point on earth, not light in general, because light already existed in outer space. When verse 14 says, Let there be sun and moon, it really means, Let earth’s surface have a clear view of the sun and moon, or perhaps, Let the sky be clear.Obviously, there are many clues that the text is not actually referring to material creation. The point of the text is poetic and offers philosophical and spiritual insight into the nature of man. It is not a stretch at all to conclude that it is not referring material manufacturing of the biological origins of life, as the indications in the text clearly suggest that everything already created by God prior to the Genesis account.Many biblical literalists also believe that the universe was created in six literal days, approximately 4000 BCE. This is because the Hebrew word yôm (יוֹם) is often interpreted as “day”. This is not an incorrect translation, however the meaning of the Hebrew isn't nearly as straightforward as it is in English.Like it's English equivalent, yôm (יוֹם) can have two separate meanings; a. it could be referring to a 24 hour time period, or b. it could be referring to a long indefinite span. For example:Micah 7:11—The day of building your walls will come, the day for extending your boundaries. In that day people will come to you from Assyria and the cities of Egypt ...Now, clearly this is talking more than 24 hours. In Hebrew, yō·wm is used the same as we sometimes use 'day' in English, as 'This is the day of social media.' The reader knows by the context what is meant. The Bible is its own best interpreter. A rule of translation is that if a word has two or more meanings, select the one that best fits the context of the surrounding passages.Ancient Hebrew Research Center: 'The Hebrew word yō·wm means a 'day,' but not specifically a twenty-four hour period, but instead more generically like in 'a day that something occurs.'Strong's Exhaustive Concordance / Hebrew #3117 for yō·wm: '1) day, time, year 1a) day (as opposed to night) 1b) day (24 hour period) 1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 1b2) as a division of time 1b2a) a working day, a day's journey 1c) days, lifetime (pl.) 1d) time, period (general) 1e) year 1f) temporal references 1f1) today 1f2) yesterday 1f3) tomorrow.'Generally, ancient languages did not have huge vocabularies and were not as precise and nuanced as modern languages. Word meanings were often defined by the context in which they were used.Bible does not compel six-day interpretationIn this study, we see that the Bible does not compel a six-day interpretation. One person studying the Bible can conclude that God created the universe in six 24-hour days. Another person studying the Bible can conclude that God created the universe over billions of years. See the full study by Thinkers Bible Study:Bible | Can Christians believe Big Bang?Creation 'day' not 24 hours | Thinkers Bible StudiesPeople before Adam?What happened in Garden of Eden | spiritual life beginsMedieval Jewish CommentaryDavid Kimhi (דוד קמחי‎, Dāwîd Qimḥi) [1160–1235], also known by the Hebrew acronym ‘Radak’ (רד"ק), was a medieval rabbi, biblical commentator, philosopher, and grammarian. He was known for his extensive commentary on Genesis. Check this out:Radak on Genesis 1Radak on Genesis 2Radak on Genesis 3Radak makes some very interesting points in his commentary, and he does this through a very deep grammatical exegesis of the Hebrew text from an Israeli perspective. What is interesting is that his commentary was conducted in France centuries before we had any concept of evolution, and yet despite this he makes many of the same points that TEs have been making I recent times. This clearly shows that Theistic Evolution has a firm basis in the actual grammar of the Hebrew text and is not just merely a misguided attempt to reconcile science with faith.The Jewish Oral Torah is also 100% compatible with evolution. For Example, Midrash Rabbah states there were 674 generations of humans before Adam haRishon (Adam the first man). Thus according to many classical rabbis Adam and Eve may not have been the first humans. Clearly there is something more at work here.Disclaimer: I do not believe that the Mishnah was given by Moses, however it clearly demonstrates what Jews in biblical times believed.Also see the following articles:Bereishit Rabbah 1Age of the UniverseIs the Torah Literal?: Ask the Rabbi ResponseEvolution and the Bible: Ask the Rabbi ResponseThe Cosmic Temple Inauguration View is a theory that posits that the use of the number seven in Genesis one is symbolic, establishing that the Cosmos was set up to be God's temple. In Judaism the number seven has the meaning of “perfection” or “completeness” attached to it. In Hebrew numbers are not always simply taken as a numerical value, and the view provides a very compelling case.What is the number seven?In his article Dickson goes into depth explaining the significance of numerological symbolism in Genesis 1:Scholars long ago pointed out that large sections of the book of Revelation correspond to the ancient literary device known as ‘apocalyptic’, in which numbers, colours, animals and so on, were employed with specific referents. The writer of Revelation would never have predicted that audiences one day might approach his work literalistically.A similar situation pertains to the first book of the Bible. Genesis 1 is not written in apocalyptic, of course, but it is composed in a style quite unlike the ‘historical narrative’ of, say, the Gospels in their accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. There is no getting around the fact that the Gospels writers were claiming to write history at that point—whether or not readers end up accepting what is reported. Genesis 1, on the other hand, is not written in the style we normally associate with historical report. It is difficult even to describe the passage as prose. The original Hebrew of this passage is marked by intricate structure, rhythm, parallelism, chiasmus, repetition and the lavish use of number symbolism. These features are not observed together in those parts of the Bible we recognize as historical prose.This observation must be given some weight. While on literary grounds one cannot say that the world was not created in six days, one can safely conclude that the concerns of Genesis 1 lie elsewhere than providing a cosmic chronology. The genre of our text suggests that the author intended to convey his meaning through subtle and sophisticated means, not through the surface plot of the narrative (i.e. creation in six days).Number symbolism in Genesis 1A full account of all of the literary devices in Genesis would be inappropriate in this journal—and would certainly exceed the word limit— and they are well described in numerous technical studies and commentaries7. I will, however, draw attention to the number symbolism present in our passage. This provides a compelling example of the unusual nature of the text and of the way the author seeks to convey his message through means other than the surface-level plot.It is well known that in Hebrew thought the number seven symbolises ‘wholeness’ as a characteristic of God’s perfection. A well-known example is the seven-candle lamp stand8, or Menorah, which has long been a symbol of the Jewish faith and is the emblem of the modern State of Israel.In Genesis 1, multiples of seven appear in extraordinary ways. For ancient readers, who were accustomed to taking notice of such things, these multiples of seven conveyed a powerful message. Seven was the divine number, the number of goodness and perfection. The opening chapter of the Bible makes an unmistakable point about the origin and nature of the universe itself. Consider the following:The first sentence of Genesis 1 consists of seven Hebrew words. Instantly, the ancient reader’s attention is focused.The second sentence contains exactly fourteen words. A pattern is developing.The word ‘earth’—one half of the created sphere—appears in the chapter 21 times.9The word ‘heaven’—the other half of the created sphere—also appears 21 times.‘God’, the lead actor, is mentioned exactly 35 times.The refrain ‘and it was so’, which concludes each creative act, occurs exactly seven times.The summary statement ‘God saw that it was good’ also occurs seven times.It hardly needs to be pointed out that the whole account is structured around seven scenes or seven days of the week.Did God create ‘light’ on Day 1 of creation? He might have. But this is not the point of Genesis 1:3. The highly ‘literary’ presentation style of our passage makes it unlikely, in my opinion, that the author intended for us to link his surface plot of a seven-day week with a sequence of physical events in time. Again, the example of the book of Revelation comes to mind. It is universally agreed amongst scholars that the number of Jews present in Revelation’s picture of the heavenly kingdom (144,000) is symbolic not actual. Being a multiple of 12 (the number of the tribes of Israel) the 144,000 figure conveys the idea of a complete number of Israelites. This is recognized even in popular circles, though I note that Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret the number literalistically.He then goes on ro explain the purpose of the text. However, you can check that out later, let's move forward…The number seven is shrouded with very deep meaning in Jewish culture. Thus it is important that we should take a time to look at this from a different angle. Here is an excerpt from The Jewish Learning website:‘Seven is one of the greatest power numbers in Judaism, representing Creation, good fortune, and blessing. A Hebrew word for luck, gad, equals seven in gematria. Another Hebrew word for luck, mazal, equals 77.The Bible is replete with things grouped in sevens. Besides the Creation and the exalted status of the Sabbath, the seventh day, there are seven laws of Noah and seven Patriarchs and Matriarchs. Several Jewish holidays are seven days long, and priestly ordination takes seven days. The Land of Israel was allowed to lie fallow one year in seven. The menorah in the Temple has seven branches. The prophet Zechariah describes a strange celestial stone with seven eyes (Chapter 4).This emphasis on seven continues post-biblically with seven wedding blessings, seven circuits performed about a groom, and seven days of mourning after the death of a close relative.Events, prayers,and esoteric observances that involve multiples of seven are also common. Entities both natural (gold) and supernatural (angels) are often grouped by sevens (I Enoch 20; II Enoch 19). Seven is a factor in many occult elements and events.Theologian and Old Testament scholar, John H. Walton also noted:“Understanding an ancient text such as Genesis 1 requires us to consider issues the way they would have. A foundational issue is how they thought about existence. Ancient peoples believed that something existed when it had a function. This is in contrast to our belief that existence is tied to material properties. This position views Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins rather than an account of material origins. We must also recognize the cosmos functions as sacred space a cosmic temple concept, which conveys the idea that God has established order in the cosmos which has become his dwelling place. The seven days concern the inauguration of the functional cosmic temple rather than the time over which the material cosmos came into existence.”Walton considers functional creation to be the moment purpose is established, whereas material creation is the moment physical shape is formed. So does bara pertain to material creation, or functional creation? Can we even determine that for certain? Well, Walton gives us his answer:“If all occurrences [of bara] were either material or ambiguous,” Walton says, “We could not claim support for a functional understanding. If all occurrences were either functional or ambiguous, we could not claim clear support for a material understanding. If there are clear examples that can be only functional, and other clear examples that can only be material, then we would conclude that the verb could work in either kind of context, and ambiguous cases would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case-basis.”In the 50 or so occurrences of bara in the Old Testament, “grammatical subjects of the verb are not easily identified in material terms, and even when they are, it is questionable that the context is objectifying them.” Walton goes on to clarify, “That is, no clear example occurs that demands a material perspective for the verb, though many are ambiguous.”In The Lost World of Genesis One, Walton uses a number of analogies to highlight the difference between functional and material creation. Consider the creation of Solomon’s temple.“We must draw an important distinction between the building of a temple and the creation of a temple,” Walton says, “. . . a temple is not simply an aggregate of fine materials subjected to expert craftsmanship. The temple uses that which is material, but the temple is not material. If God is not in it, it is not a temple. If rituals are not being performed by a serving priesthood, it is not a temple. If those elements are not in place, the temple does not exist in any meaningful way. A person does not exist if only represented by their corpse. It is the inauguration ceremony that transforms a pile of lumber, stone, gold and cloth into a temple.”In other words, with functional creation, the act of bestowing a purpose on the materials is what actually determines the moment of creation. To many Christians, an explanation like this will almost immediately sound like an attempt to accommodate modern science, or to use science to interpret Scripture.The problem, Walton argues, is actually the other way around—some Christians try to use the Bible as a science textbook. But when you look at what mattered to the ancient Hebrews, when you look how the ancient cultures around them describe creation, the functional creation of the earth is what was most important. The material creation was inherently assumed—it didn’t need to be explained in a step-by-step process.Evolution vs. the Bible?The Genesis creation story makes excessive use of metaphoric language in order to make a point. It describes the relationship between Man and the Divine. Then Man with the animals. And then Man with fellow man. This theme is prevalent throughout the rest of the Tanakh.Genesis even uses a play on words in order to highlight the frailty of the essence of Man. The Hebrew word אָדָם, which means “human”, sounds similar to the word אֲדָמָה, meaning “earth” or “ground”. Thus the human was fashioned from the earth. This is a poetic play on words, and is not meant literally. Thus we find that, when describing spiritual concepts, the Bible relies quite heavily on wordplay and figurative language in order to effectively bring to the fore these theological and philosophical insights.I think a close study of the Bible suggests that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. They had parent's just like everyone else. Humans evolved. Evolution is part of God's design. Adam and Eve were just the next stage in the development of our species—they bridged the gap between primitive hunter gatherers and the slow rise of early civilization. The Bible says that before Adam and Eve there was no cultivation of the fields. Meaning, early homo sapiens hadn't invented agriculture yet.But if Adam and Eve had parents, then why not mention them?Because the whole entire narrative is not about biological origins, the point of the text is spiritual and philosophical. Going into the specifics about physical nature would draw far too much attention away from the spiritual insights. Besides, the Bible doesn't explicitly say Adam was first human:In Genesis 1:27 we thus read:God created man [generic] in his own image, male and female he created them.'In the next chapter, Genesis 2:8 we read:Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man [individual] he had formed.'Thousands of years could have elapsed between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and the Bible specifically says that Adam was not created in the Garden of Eden as most traditional Christians believe. The Bible does not compel an interpretation that makes Adam the first human. Adam was the first sinner but not necessarily the first person. Most traditional Christians have a limited view of earth's history and focus almost entirely on events in the Mediterranean and European regions during the past four thousand years. It is helpful to step back and look at the long global picture.Here is evidence from all around the world that primitive humans have been around worshipping a single creator God more than 15,000 years ago:Biblical Revolutionary MonotheismPrimitive MonotheismEARTH'S HISTORY IN A SINGLE DAY (Thinkers Bible Study)1200 AM/ Big BangIn this model, I will compress proportionately all of time since creation into one day. Btwy 24 hours divided by 7 is 3.42857143 just so you know. Anyway, as science has confirmed, the universe is indeed approximately 13.8 billion years old.13,800,000,000 / 24 = 575,000,000Thus, a single hour of model time equals 575 million years of actual time.4:10 PM / Earth cooledThe earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Therefore, cooling and solidifying took approximately 9.3 billion years (13.8 - 4.5 = 9.3).> 9,300,000,000 / 575,000,000 = 16.174 hours in model timeThus, in model time (everything compressed proportionately to one day), it took until 4:10 in the afternoon for the cooling gasses and dust to compress to form earth's solid crust covered with water and life-sustaining atmosphere.5:00 PM / Organic lifeThe first organic life on earth appeared approximately 4 billion years ago (13.8 - 4.0 = 9.8).> 9,800,000,000 / 575,000,000 = 17.043 hours in model timeThus, in model time (everything compressed proportionately to one day), it was about 5:00 in the afternoon when simple forms of organic life appeared in the sea and on land.11:08 PM / Fish and birdsThe first fish on earth appeared approximately 500 million years ago (13.8 - .5 = 13.3), followed next by birds.> 13,300,000,000 / 575,000,000 = 23.130 hours in model timeThus, in model time (everything compressed proportionately to one day), it was about 11:08 in the evening when fish appeared.11:23 PM / DinosaursDinosaurs first appeared on earth about 250 million years ago (13.8 - .25 = 13.55).>13,550,000,000 / 575,000,000 = 23.565 hours in model timeThus, in model time (everything compressed proportionately to one day), it was about 11:23 in the evening when dinosaurs appeared on earth.Large birds died with the dinosaurs in the mass extinction sixty-six million years ago (which killed three-fourths of all species on earth), but modern birds are small surviving avian dinosaurs.11:39 PM / MammalsMammals first appeared on earth about 200 million years ago (13.8 - .20 = 13.6).>13,600,000,000 / 575,000,000 = 23.652 hours in model timeThus, in model time (everything compressed proportionately to one day), it was about 11:39 in the evening when mammals appeared on earth and some life began reproduction by live births instead of eggs.11:59:58 PM / HomininsHominins first appeared on earth about two million years ago.> 13,798,000,000 / 575,000,000 = 23.997 hours in model timeThus, in model time (everything compressed proportionately to one day), it was about 11:59:58 in the evening when hominins appeared on earth.11:59:59 PM / HumansHumans (as distinguished from hominins) first appeared on earth approximately 20,000 - 40,000 years ago.> 13,799,970,000 / 575,000,000 = 23.99995 hours in model timeThus, in model time (all time so far compressed proportionately into a single 24-hour period), it was about 11:59:59 in the evening – one second ago! – when humans appeared on earth!See:People before Adam?The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins DebateBiblical Evidence of Men Before Adam and Eve: Goslin, Neil R: 9781448665952: Amazon.com: BooksAre they compatible?It's not talking about biological origins. So yes, it's compatible, especially in light of Ecclesiastes 3:18-20, which states:I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.Natural theology holds the position that God did not insert himself into natural processes but rather that natural processes were merely put into place and work within a functional framework. In other words, nature is fine tuned and we are the result of natural processes that shaped our ontology. The only difference between Darwinian Evolution and Theistic Evolution is that the later argues philosophically that these processes are not merely chance but serve a function and strive towards and end. What is that end?Order and balance. Plain and simple. No supernatural explanation is needed. Why would an incomprehensible entity that transcends space, time, and matter put natural processes into place if this being didn't plan on utilizing those processes? It goes against how God operates. The text is not talking about material creation because everything was already created through natural functions prior to the opening passages of Genesis. The goal of the text is philosophical and poetic: not literalistic.Here are some sources as well as my other answers which help draw attention to these details and definitely demonstrate that evolution and the Bible don't actually contradict each other:The Truth About GenesisGenesis 1: Are the Six Days of Creation Literal or Figurative? | Grace Communion InternationalThe Genesis of Everything: an Historical Account of the Bible’s Opening ChapterThe Genesis Story—Hillsdale College courseDamien Cowl's answer to Should the Bible ever be studied like a work of literature rather than the literal word of God?Damien Cowl's answer to Did Nephilim exist? Are there arguments for and against the existence of these biblical creatures? What is the evidence, if any, supporting these claims?Damien Cowl's answer to Who was the biological father of Jesus?