Nearly all Bible authorities and students agree that Adam was created by
God about 6,000 years ago (c. 4,000 B.C.). Bible chronology on this issue
has been established long ago and has been continually verified and
sustained.
The question which is debated and argued is whether Adam was the first man
or humanoid being on earth, or if other types of men existed before Adam.
History and science reveal that many different men and humanoid types were
on earth tens of thousands of years before Adam. The skeletal remains of
these beings have been found all over the planet. Some resemble races now
existing, some represent more primitive humanoid types. Bible
"fundamentalists" and Christian humanists claim Adam was the first
humanoid or man, and was consequentially the father of all peoples and
races on earth, or ever existed on the earth. This is derived from their
literal and universal interpretation of Scripture, and their denial of
what history and science reveal on the matter.
To show how inaccurate these humanists and Bible fundamentalists are in
their position that Adam was the first man, we will analyze an argument
which one of these people has given on the matter. The following excerpts
are from an article titled Pre-Adamite Yearnings, written by Douglas Jones
in Credenda Agenda magazine (Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 18). Mr. Jones takes the
position that all men and races are descended from Adam. In the article he
cites some views of "white racialists" about Adam being of the father of
only the White race, and that other people existed before Adam. He then
states why he thinks this idea is wrong:
The primary arguments for such claims stem from Cain. For example, "If
only Adam and Eve existed, then who was Cain afraid of that would kill
him? . . . If Adam and Eve were the first and only people at this time,
then from where did Cain find a wife? Not only was he able to find a
wife, but there were obviously enough people to be part of the city
built by Cain. . . .All of these circumstances thus point to the
existence of men independent of Adam."
This wording was apparently derived from our book on The Origin of Race
and Civilization. That book also stated that when God cursed and cast out
Cain, God placed a "mark" on Cain, "lest any finding him should kill him."
God said, "Whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold"
(Gen. 4:14,15). The statements clearly indicate other people already
existing at the time of Adam, Eve and Cain. Yet those who always apply a
literal interpretation of the Bible say that Adam and Eve were the first
humans on earth. Now what can Christian humanists do in regard to such
facts? The only thing they can do, distort Scripture. Mr. Jones states
that, "we do have some textual ground for other Adamic children alongside
Cain and Able." This is the explanation which Mr. Jones gives for his
statement:
First, we know that Cain killed Abel when Adam was nearly one hundred
and thirty years old. Support from this comes from the fact that Seth is
born specifically to replace Abel, and that birth occurs when Adam was
one hundred and thirty (Gen. 5:3).
We don't know exactly how old Adam was when Cain killed Abel. We only know
that this event occurred before the birth of Seth. It could have been only
a year or two, or 30 or 50 years. Mr. Jones continues:
Second, it appears that Abel and Cain were born soon after Adam's
expulsion from the garden (Gen. 3:24; 4:1). So between the birth of the
first two and the birth of Seth, we have over a hundred year time span.
Surely that's plenty of time to party reproductively. After Cain and
before Seth, Adam and Eve produced many children who had children and
grandchildren, long before Abel was killed. Cain would have plenty of
people to encounter.
This 100 year "time span" is speculation. This would mean that Cain was
100 years old when he killed Abel, when it is generally acknowledged he
was a youth of no more than 20 at this time. How ever long this "time
span" was between Cain's birth (C on the chart below), and the birth of
Seth (E), there is no Biblical proof or indication that Adam and Eve had
other children during this time span. There is no Biblical passage cited
by Mr. Jones to support this. The Bible does say that Adam had other
children, but this occurred after Seth:
After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he
begot sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine
hundred and thirty years; and he died (Gen. 5:4,5).
Adam was 130 years old at the time of Seth's birth. It was during the
remaining 800 years of Adam's life that he had other children. Mr. Jones
is claiming this reproduction of sons and daughters happened "after Cain
and before Seth." This is a blatant distortion of what Scripture says on
the matter. Mr. Jones is apparently trying to take the events of "F" and
"G" on the Adamic time line, and move them over to just after "C" on the
time line.
Time Line
__ A________B________C_______D_________E_________F___________G_
l
l
1
l
l
l
l
Adam
Expulsion
Cain
Cain
Seth
Adam's other
Grand
created
from Eden
born
kills Abel
born
Children
Children
Gen.
2:7 Gen. 3:23 Gen. 4:1 Gen. 4:8 Gen.
4:25
Gen. 5:4
Gen. 5:6-9
THE ADAMIC TIME LINE
Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve had no other children when Cain
killed Abel. So who were the people Cain was afraid would kill him? Where
did all the people come from that made up the city Cain established? The
Christian humanists cannot explain these Biblical facts. We thus find
people like Mr. Jones will engage in speculation and twist the clear words
and chronology of Scripture because he wants his theology of racial
universalism established. This notion of the unity of man is the
philosophy of the Establishment and one-world order, and they have
convinced many "Christians" which are bent towards humanism that this is
the correct ways of God and doctrine of the Bible.
Mr. Jones also raises the speculative argument that "Adam and Eve produced
godly and ungodly lines of descendants (Gen. 3:15)." He says that Seth was
a special replacement for Abel as the godly line, and that "not just any
of Adam's many children could fill Abel's shoes." He thus implies that the
ungodly lines were these other children of Adam. To make this bit of
speculation work out, Mr. Jones makes the following arguments:
But why is there no other mention of other descendants? The answer seems
to be that these other descendants lacked the covenantal significance of
Abel. We find such an omission in the genealogy of Adam. The genealogy
is concerned with the godly line, not Cain or his other siblings.
Genesis 5 teaches, "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam....."
(Gen. 5:1-4) Notice that both Cain and Abel are missing from this. The
texts reads as if they hadn't even been born. The truth is that the
genealogy isn't very concerned with biology. Abel and Cain are simply
insignificant to the continuation of the godly line, as would be the
other children outside that line.
This paragraph is loaded with erroneous statements. The first sentence
asserts that these other children or descendants of Adam and Eve are not
mentioned in the Bible. Yet the Bible does mention them in Gen. 5:4, but
it does not mention any before this or at the time Mr. Jones would like
other children to exist. So he pretends they existed and says they are not
mentioned because they "lacked the covenantal significance of Abel." That
is absolute and unfounded conjecture, as the covenantal birthright is
always given to the first born, not one who is the 20th or 30th born. To
support his presumption he says Cain and Abel are not mentioned in Adam's
genealogy in Genesis 5, so these other children may not have been
mentioned as well.
The reason Abel is not mentioned in the genealogy is because he was dead.
Genealogy is a continuous lineage and one who dies without having children
cannot be part of such a genealogy.
Since Seth was appointed to be heir instead of (or in the place of) Abel,
that means Abel was not "insignificant to the continuation of the godly
line," as Mr. Jones states. Christ referred to Abel as "righteous" (Matt.
23:35). Even Mr. Jones said at first that Abel had "covenantal
significance," and then said he was "insignificant" to promote a godly
line. How mixed up can anyone get? Abel died childless, that is why he
is not part of the Adamic genealogy.
The reason Cain is not mentioned is because he was cursed and rejected by
God because of his murder. Cursed and rejected people are never mentioned
as being heirs, or as part of the chosen line. When God rejects someone
from being the heir or chosen seed who is biologically in line to be the
heir it is a very big deal and a rare event. Thus such a rejection is
always specifically mentioned in Scripture, as it was with Cain, Ishmael,
and Esau. If Adam had a son after Cain killed Abel, but before Seth was
born, then that son would have been treated as the firstborn and heir of
the Adamic birthright. So if that son was rejected or passed over as Mr.
Jones suggests, then that rejection would be mentioned. Mr. Jones implies
that this mythical son and other children are not mentioned because they
were not godly enough. In other words, Adam and Eve just kept producing
ungodly children until one day they got lucky and produced a godly child
who was Seth. How utterly stupid could anything be as that piece of
speculation?
This line of nonsense is support with more nonsense. Mr. Jones says that
"genealogy isn't very concerned with biology." What in the world does he
think genealogy is? My Webster's New World Dictionary gives the following
definition of genealogy:
1. a chart or recorded history of the descent of a person or family from
an ancestor or ancestors
2. the science or study of family descent
3. descent from an ancestor; pedigree; lineage.
According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, genealogy (# 3188) means "a
pedigree or family list." From where does Mr. Jones get his definition of
genealogy? He obviously makes up definitions to conform to his twisted
theology. Genealogy has everything to do with biology, that is what
genealogy is all about! It is about biological descent and ancestral
lineage! The law of the firstborn is prevalent throughout Scripture and
is clearly biological. Anyone who reads the Bible knows of the prevalence
of biological descent and genealogy--"This is the book of the generations
of Adam" (Gen. 5;1). "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee
and thy seed (descendants) after thee in their generations" (Gen. 17:7).
It does not say this is the book of a line of people who were righteous,
or that God will only have a covenant with those that are godly. The Bible
deals with a biological lineage of a chosen seed or race, a people that
God has chosen (Isa. 44:1-3; Deut. 7:6; 10:15), even if they were not so
godly. Israel's repeated idolatry shows they were not always godly. The
Bible does not reveal that Adam had "other children" between Cain and
Seth, whether godly or ungodly. But to support his doctrine Mr. Jones
further states:
There was one father Adam who had one very thin, godly, messianic line
of descendants. He also had many other lines of opponents of God.
The issue is not the "messianic line," anymore than it is the priestly
line, or even some tribal line. All of these lines are a part of the
chosen people line. That is the issue--who are God's chosen people? God's
chosen people were always of a specific lineage or race of people. This
excluded others because of their race regardless of being godly or not.
Mr. Jones wants to divert attention from this fact by making the issue to
be a "very thin, godly, messianic line."
One wonders from where he got
this argument, especially when we look at all the ungodly and wicked kings
that were in the "messianic line" (Matt. 1). This dismisses the theory of
Mr. Jones that genealogy is a question of who is godly and who is not. It
is a question of race just as the genealogical records of Scripture
reveal.
As a further attempt to support his humanistic concept of the universality
of the races, Mr. Jones states the following:
The rest of Scripture clearly supports this picture that Adam and Eve
were our first parents. Pre-Adamites would make nonsense out of such
claims that, "It is not good that man should be alone: I will make him a
helper comparable to him" (Gen. 2:18) or "there was no man to till the
ground" (Gen. 2:5). Eve is called the "mother of all living (Gen. 3:20)
and Adam--"the first man was of the earth" (1 Cor. 15:47; cf. 45).
The fact that God had to make Eve as a helper comparable to Adam implies
only that there were no women "comparable" to Adam, not that there were no
women living at the time. If Adam was of the white race then a female
Bushman or Chinaman would not be comparable to Adam. The order of kind
after kind had to be maintained, and a man and woman of the same kind or
race are "comparable."
The Hebrew rendition of Gen. 2:5 is that, "there was no Adam to till the
ground." There were none of the Adamic kind on earth before Adam was
created, but there were other humanoid kinds.
It was also inferred that the verse which says Eve is called the "mother
of all living" means she is the mother of all races. But if we allow such
a literal interpretation of this verse, then why can we not say Eve was
the mother of horses, giraffes, gorillas, and serpents? All of these are
"living" things. The verse can mean nothing more than that Eve was the
mother of all the Adamic race, whether they are of the chosen line or not.
Many universalists like to quote a portion 1 Cor. 15:47 or verse 45 to
prove Adam as being the first man. But if we look at all the verses
involved we see the distortion of their conclusion. Verse 47 states: "The
first man [Adam] is of the earth, earthy: the second man [Christ] is the
Lord from heaven." Now if the word "first" is used literally and
universally, then so is the word "second," which means Christ was the
second human being on earth. This verse (and verse 45) are a comparison
between Adam and Christ. Adam was the "first man" of the Adamic line, and
he had affected all in that line in a spiritual way. The second man which
affected this line in a similar manner was Christ. Other lines or kinds
were not affected by these two men in the spiritual manner which Paul
discusses in 1 Cor. 15, and in Rom. 5:12 which Mr. Jones also quotes.
Mr. Jones also quotes Acts 17:26, which is commonly cited by those who opt
for the unity of the races doctrine. This verse says: "He has made from
one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth." This
verse does not mean that all races have the same blood genetically,
anymore than the statement, "there is one flesh of men" (1 Cor. 15:39),
means all races have the same skin. Daily observation of the different
skin pigmentations tell us this is not the correct interpretation of 1
Cor. 15:39. Also, medical science has well established that the various
races do not have the same genetic makeup of blood (see, Races and People,
by Dr. William Boyd, 1955, p. 145). Thus the literal interpretation which
Mr. Jones wishes to apply to Acts 17:26 is obviously wrong. Further, most
Bible commentaries on this verse state that, "The best texts omit the word
`blood'."
We thus see that these and other verses do make sense in light of other
people and races existing before Adam when proper interpretation and
common sense is applied. When people like Mr. Jones liberally and
indiscriminately apply a literal or apparent meaning to Scripture verses,
they end up with a lot of "nonsense" that is not in accord with Scripture,
nature and logic. They thus have to engage in a considerable amount of
speculation to cover up their nonsense. Notice the words Mr. Jones used in
his argument, "it appears that," and "seems to be." In other words, it is
just a guess, or a speculative hope. To conclude his argument Mr. Jones
makes says the following:
Pre-Adamites just don't fit into the biblical scheme. Whether from
scientific or racist motives, they are just an ugly excuse to twist the
faith.
We have seen that Mr. Jones was unable to explain the verses relating to
Cain and had to twist and distort Scripture in his attempt to do so. He
engages in much speculation, fabrication and a sloppy literal
interpretation. He has nothing to support his concluding statement, which
means pre-Adamites can indeed fit into the biblical scheme.
I suppose it is true that Scriptural fact, verified by science and
history, does indeed "twist the faith," that is, Mr. Jones' faith. It is
obvious that his argument is not the result of an objective evaluation of
Scripture and available facts, but was an attempt to distort Scripture so
it can conform to his preconceived notions and belief of the way he thinks
God should have done things in regards to the races of men. It is all just
an "ugly excuse" to deny the truth of Scripture and what God as done in
the earth.
This is a warning to all, that humanism abounds in what is called or
passes for "Christianity" today --Isaiah 55:8.