The description of the creation of human beings in Genesis implies that Adam and Eve were the only ones that God created. Adam couldn’t find a suitable helper (Genesis 2:20 — suggesting there were no other human beings around) and Eve is described as “the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20). Similarly, in the New Testament, Adam is described as the “first man” (1 Cor 15:45) and the first sinner (Romans 5:12-14).

On the other hand, some people think that Genesis 4 implies the existence of human beings other than those descended from Adam. There are a few suggestions that might point to this conclusion.

  • Genesis 4:14-16. Cain was afraid that someone would find and kill him, but would he be afraid of his own family?
  • Genesis 4:17. Cain found a wife and built a city. Perhaps his wife was his sister or some other relative, but would there be enough members of his family to form a “city”?
  • Genesis 4:26. “At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.” Which people? The suggestion is that these are humans who are not descended from Adam.

While this view solves a few apparent problems, it raises some others. In particular, it must be explained how Adam can then be said to be “the first” man.

Tagged with →  
Share →
  • Bob

    And I was pleasantly surprised when I went up to my “evolutionist” classmate at our 20 year reunion. When I asked him how he was doing, he told me that he was the treasurer in a fundamentalist church. So I said-Praise the Lord, then that means you don’t believe in evolution and are now a creationist. To which he agreed, so he is now a doctor who does not believe in evolution any longer.

    So I still agree with the following, The age of the earth ultimately comes down to a matter of trust—it’s a worldview issue. Will you trust what an all-knowing God says on the subject or will you trust imperfect man’s assumptions and imaginations about the past that regularly are changing?

    Well, Ken, I will close with a concept repeated many times by my favorite news commentator, we present both sides of the story, now let the people decide.

  • Ken Gilmore

    Hi Bob

    As there are a few more posts pending to my reply, including the full list of references, you are commenting having only read half of my response. In particular, the full list of references is pending, and rather than further monopolise bandwidth I have directed the interested reader to them for further details.

    Bob, credentials do not make one a scientist – rather, it is the scientific method, and creationists for all their qualifications do not practice science. They have already arrived at their conclusion, and shoehorn or ignore facts to suit. If you want to see why I regard AiG with scorn, follow this link: http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html That sadly is not atypical for AiG. They are simply worthless as a source of information.

    Anecodotes about former evolutionists are not convincing – what if you had a former classmate who was a creationist but now accepts evolution. Again, it is the evidence which matters and this invalidates special creationism. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

    The age of the earth is not a matter of trust, but of evidence. Over 99% of modern geologists – believing and unbelieving – accept the great age of the earth based on science. One needs the humility to follow the evidence where it leads, and YECs simply do not allow themselves to do that.

    Again, I would suggest you wait until all the posts are approved, read all the references and then reply. But please, no more AiG cut and pasting. Credible sources only, thanks.

    Ken

  • Russell Downs

    Ken asked me to post this because he for reason is not able to.
    References

    1. See Dalrymple GB “The Age of the Earth” (1991, Stanford University Press)
    2. McDougall I, Brown FH, Fleagle JG “Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia” Nature (2005) 433(7027):733-6
    3. Walton JH “The Lost World of Genesis One” (2009, InterVarsity Press)
    4. Walker, C.C. “Is it wrong to believe that the earth is a sphere?”, The Christadelphian (1913) 50:346-348
    5. Kline M.G. “Because it had not rained” The Westminster Theological Journal (1958) 20:146-157.
    6. Seely P.H. “The Firmament and the Water Above – Part 1: The Meaning of raqia’ in Gen 1:6-8″ The Westminster Theological Journal (1991) 53: 227-240
    7. Walker op cit p 348
    8. Ham K “Cain’s Wife: Who was she?” http://www.answersin…-was-cains-wife
    9. Hodge B “How Old is the Earth?” http://www.answersin…ld-is-the-earth
    10. http://www.answersin…x?Speaker_ID=48
    11. http://www.answersin…org/about/faith
    12. A list of scriptural references to a geocentric cosmology can be found at this site: http://www.fixedeart…references.htm. One cannot claim that this is phenomenal language as that presupposes that the ancient Hebrews knew the earth moved around the sun. No one prior to the 5th century BCE knew that the earth revolved around the sun, so when they claimed that the sun rose and set, they really believed it, and the Bible does nothing to correct this popular assumption, but rather accommodates it.
    13. Futato M.D. “Because it had Rained: A Study of Gen 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3 Westminster Theological Journal (1998) 60 1-21 .
    14. WDJ, ‘The Bible as a Law of Life and Immortality’, The Ambassador of the Coming Age, (1.1.93), 1864
    15. Venema D.R. “Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence for Human-Ape Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes.” PSCF (2010) 62(3):166-178
    16. Li H, Durbin E “Inference of human population history from individual and whole-genome sequences” Nature (2011) 475:493-497
    17. Schneider R.J. “Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth?” PSCF (2001) 53:159-169
    18. http://biologos.org/
    19. http://network.asa3.org/
    20. http://www.cis.org.uk/
    21. http://geocentrism.com/
    22. http://www.geocentricity.com/
    23. http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/
    24. Dalrymple op cit p 291
    25. http://www.asa3.org/…rces/wiens.html
    26. http://www.asa3.org/…onderly2006.pdf

  • sheepfeeder

    From the way it is written, Genesis creation account is a re-creation. This would explain the older earth concept not being contradicting to the Scripture.

  • Aandrew Patrick

    HEY WHAT IF. you all have it backwards. you do. its logic God made Adam and eve first, then others, it follows Adam and eves lineage as they are most direct and THE FIRST shocking i know but chill, read this scripture my friends while it says before this all his PLANS to make humans the process takes thousands of years also attributing to earths age. Also noahs family had multiple kids with wives so no incest there..babylon scatter shows with science genetic changes in pigment, dialect, looks with time as a species diverges(like fish and such) ” These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

    5 And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: !!!!! there was not a man to till the ground; !!!!

    6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

    7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Now any further questions on dinos giants, demons/ghost, and why book of enoch isn’t included how it explains all the above aside from dino that’s in job, msg me on Facebook and add me . God bless.

  • Aandrew Patrick

    And ken you sound so smart but really are misled. Yes other forms existed, gen 1-3 “and the earth WAS formless and void” which that word in Hebrew or coronary Greek, yes i studied it, can be interpreted as BECAME , you see angels were around before us and in Ezekiel God and Satan do walk together on regular basis. So makes sense that traces exist. Your opinion of God not revealing to other humans ? Contradicts who he is. Thank,goodness my other post sets that silly hairbrained scheme to rest eh:) stop ARGUMENTs about God and start sharing information, insights FACTS, and accepting them , love God yourself, faith in Jesus and Gods word and grow up man also time to science means nothing to biblical reference , seasons were sporadic and judged the same however if it was sunny a 75 for 4 weeks then rained snowed next 4 that was summer winter. Not a crazy summer early fall as is common, also, oxygen was more pure, longer life span, annnd a all knowing Gods time frame is not our idea as my first post infers, days are generations (thousands of years ) to him. So your millions are mere thousands to him, which makes ..oh no..im sorry i am being too aggressive, believe what you will brother

    • Aandrew Patrick

      To break time table down say 7 days was 1000 yes as it was generations to him. 500 to be safe then, a WEEK x 4 2,000 years a month 24000 a year. One year is 24000 to him. 4 is 100k 40 is a million . See how skewed your timing which you base you argument off of,is? Your welcome