Adrian,
In my last note I mentioned that I see evidence of men before Adam in both
Gen. 1:26,27 and in Rom. 5:13.
At the time I wrote that note I thought some things went without saying.
For instance, the fact that if there were no other communities of people
living outside of Eden at the time of Adam and Eve then Cain must have
married his sister. But we know God's law later given to Israel expressly
forbid such incestuous relationships. I believe it did so not just to avoid
the increased chance of birth defects. But also because such relationships
are often very emotionally destructive to families. That being the case, it
seems highly unlikely to me that God would intentionally create a situation
that required people to engage in unhealthy relationships which He Himself
would later expressly condemn and forbid.
And, of course, those who insist that Adam was the first man in an absolute
chronological sense must answer the question, "Who were the people living in
other lands who Cain said he was then afraid might kill him?" (Gen. 4:14) His
brothers and sisters? This does not seem likely. For Genesis certainly seems
to portray Cain as Adam and Eve's first born child. (Gen. 4:1) And after Cain
killed Able it does not appear that Eve had another child until she gave
birth to Seth. For when she did she said, "God has granted me another child
in place of Able, since Cain killed him." (Gen. 4:25)
Also, if Adam was the first man in an absolute chronological sense, then the
Bible is clearly at odds with science. Why? Because science tells us that men
just like ourselves have populated the earth far longer than Genesis allows
us to date the creation of Adam. For instance, we are told that Australia has
been continually populated for over 30,000 years and North America for over
15,000 years. Yet Bible chronology seems to date Adam's creation to only
4,000 BC. Some respond to this by saying that maybe there are "gaps" in the
Genesis genealogies which allow us to understand that Adam was actually
created several tens of thousands of years ago. The problem with this is that
scientists also assure us that the various activities Genesis 3 and 4 tell us
Adam and his immediate descendants were involved in (raising crops, herding
animals, forging tools of iron and copper, and building cities) took place
nowhere on earth any earlier than 10,000 years ago.
As I said, I thought these arguments went without sayings since they have
been made many times. But then it dawned on me that you may be somewhat new
to this group. So I thought I had better cover all bases.
With all I have mentioned in support of the existence of preadamic men in
mind, I think it is the traditionalists who have some position defending to
do.
In Christ,
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 00:44:51 EDT