New Evidence for Two Human Origins

Hi Nick, To answer your comments in order: 1. “T...

2010-07-20T21:13:40.864-04:00

Hi Nick,

To answer your comments in order:

1. “The daughters of men” cannot be an idiom because the text says: “and daughters were born to them” (Gen. 6:1). [1] This sets the stage and puts the pressure on us to view “the sons of God” as a live metaphor, i.e., not an idiom.
2. The Bible never says, or intimates that these marriages were “sinful.” The flood was mainly the result of general sinfulness, and, in particular, it was due to their violent acts: “…The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them” (Gen. 6:13).
3. To have your life span increased is to be physically stronger, more enduring—a positive; to have your life span decreased is to be physically weaker—a negative. To become the leader of men requires strength—a positive. For the author of Genesis to say that these offspring from these intermarriages lost life spans and then to say that they became great leaders would have been like subtracting 1 and the adding 1; the result would have been nothing:

-1 + 1 = 0

4. Because many people believe that the giants mentioned in verse 4 were the offspring from these mixed marriages, I wanted to point out that a careful reading of the text indicates that this is not so. If this were so, it might be concluded that these marriages were unnatural marriages and therefore sinful. But these giants were the result of other marriages. Tradition says they resulted form the angels’ unions with mankind.
5. Science tells us that the prehistoric people did not live as long as we do today. The Bible speaks of seventy years as normal. The average of the normal descendant of Adam and Eve was about 930 years. If these descendants of Adam and Eve married into a race that had an average life span of 60 years, their children would most likely be the average of these two values, since our life spans are determined by over seven thousand genes. Please see my article “Have You Answered the Question of Human Origins?” If you consider what would happen if two groups with these life spans slowly intermarried, you may conclude, as I have, that their average life span would level out at an average life span of 120 years. My book deals more with this probability. This is no doubt why the Lord scattered the descendants of Noah from the Tower of Babel. Otherwise, today we would have an average life span of 120 years.
6. (See No. 5 above.)
___________________
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 9172, 1973, 1975, 1977, by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Hi, (1) I can see your point in the contrast of ...

2010-07-20T16:00:44.758-04:00

Hi,

(1) I can see your point in the contrast of 'sons of God' and 'daughters of men', but those can be considered idioms as well. Further, that argument doesn't necessitate another pre-adamic race.

(2) I do believe the drop in lifespan was due to the (sinful) intermarriages, but that's because it was a punishment for doing so.

(3) I would not say the result of the offspring was 'positive'. These "famous men" were such in the eyes of men only, not before God (hence the introduction of Noah in the next verse).

(4) I think your interpretation of v4 is interesting and plausible in some ways, but I don't see how it connects to your grand point.

(5) How is the 120 years an "improvement" when the godly figures of Gen 5 lived hundreds of years? I'd almost wonder now if the 'men of renown' were the folks in Gen 5.

(6) How do you know who's lifespan was "doubled"? This seems like speculation. As I keep reading your second part, I'd say this is a lot of speculating. My theory fits simply taken what the text speaks on as well as the immediate context of Gen 5.

Hi Wounded Ego, Thank you for the comment. I will...

2010-07-19T18:04:22.226-04:00

Hi Wounded Ego,

Thank you for the comment. I will give you one possible alternative to your conclusion concerning Revelation 4:1.

The Greek word here is simply a word that has much the same meaning as English “door.”

As you said, “John…is immediately in the throne room of God.” Now let us consider this throne room or sanctuary. Revelation 15 shows us that this part of heaven is enclosed and is accessible apparently through a door: “After these things I looked, and the temple [alternative reading, sanctuary] of the tabernacle of testimony in heaven was opened, and the seven angels who had the seven plagues came out of the temple…And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God…And the temple [alternative reading, sanctuary] was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from His power, and no one was able to enter the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were finished” (Rev. 15:5). [1] John could have seen this open door from the earth and then heard the invitation from the voice saying to come up here. This door that John sees need not be a door in a firmament that forms a doom over the earth.

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 9172, 1973, 1975, 1977, by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

(Continued from my last comment.) To summarize, t...

2010-07-19T16:48:03.291-04:00

(Continued from my last comment.)

To summarize, the providence of God brought the descendants in contact with the pre-Adamites of Genesis 1 and they intermarried. Four results occurred after these intermarriages took place: the average life span of the pre-Adamites was doubled, and the offspring from these marriages became politically powerful. The people became more sinful instead of more thankful to God. And God decided to judge these members of this mixed race, who lived upon the land, with Noah’s flood. These sons of God must carry a slightly different genetic makeup or else the average life span of either group would not have changed. Therefore, the sons of God must be the descendants of Adam and Eve, but “the daughters of men” must be members of a pre-Adamic race. This race was the subject of the creation story found in Genesis 1.

You referred to the life spans that are listed in chapter 5; this list resumes in Genesis 11. In my book, I show mathematically that the values of these life spans and the curve showing their progressive fall gives strong evidence that these descendants of Adam and Eve married into an existing race that had a life span of approximately 60 years.

I think you understand how I view the Bible’s teaching on the origins of the two races. The people that God created in Genesis 1 were created through evolution because Moses says that they are “the generations of the heavens and the earth.” “Generations” would better have been translated “descendants.” You can check out this point in my book. The Bible calls the people who were already dwelling upon the “land” the sons of God. They were the race who came directly from God’s special creation of Adam and Eve (directly from His hand).

Hi Nick, Let me elaborate on some of the reasons w...

2010-07-19T16:45:46.225-04:00

Hi Nick, Let me elaborate on some of the reasons why the sons of God are not the descendants of Seth: (1) The text sets the meaning of the word “sons” in two ways: (1) It places “the sons of God” in contrast to “the daughters of men.”

The sons of God--------contrasted with--------the daughters of men

It is plain that the word “daughters” in “the daughters of men” means physical daughters; therefore, it would be best to take the “sons of God” to mean sons of God in respect to their physical creation, rather than in respect to their religious allegiance. (2) You expressed that you do not believe that the context indicates that the change in life spans was due to the intermarriages. But it is right in the center of the discussion of the mixed marriages. It must have been the result of these mixed marriages. In verses 1-2 the marriages occur; in verse 3 the change in life spans is recorded; and we are told how the offspring of these marriages became great well known figures. Maybe it would be helpful to take a look at these verses.

Note that two things resulted: (1) the life spans became 120 years; and (2) these offspring of these mixed marriages became great men. Looking further at the second result, we observe that the second result was a positive result. Observe that even after the appearance of giants on the earth these offspring still became the most renown: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown (Gen. 6:4, NASB). In the Hebrew language, “those” was emphasized, indicating that you would have thought that the giants would have been the most powerful people, but these offspring outdid them. The giants were not the outcome of the mixed marriages. (I changed my mind on this since I wrote my book.) Now let us take a look at verse 3: “Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” Two groups intermarried: “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men” (Heb. “the man).” The text says that God’s Spirit will not strive forever with man (Heb. “the man”) and that his days would be 120 years. So it was the man’s life span that was changed. We can tell it was changed for the better; that is, it was made longer because this result of the intermarriages was followed with the positive result listed in verse 4—their offspring became men of renown. In verse 3, God lets them know that, even though He is going to bless them with an increase in average life span, He is not happy with their sin. There is no mention of God’s anger until verse 5. God meant for them to be thankful after the intermarriages, but instead they sinned more than ever.
(Please continue to my next comment.)

The raqia is clearly a solid structure. Consider i...

2010-07-17T09:10:34.155-04:00

The raqia is clearly a solid structure. Consider in the Revelation:

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door [hatch] was opened in heaven [the sky-ceiling]: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

What happens when John ascends through the hatch? He is immediately in the throne room of God.

That is the cosmology from cover to cover.

Hi, (1) I'd like to see evidence Seth's ...

2010-07-16T15:21:35.553-04:00

Hi,

(1) I'd like to see evidence Seth's line isn't the "sons of God." The drop in ages is an intervening punishment on God's part for the sin; it's not something that biologically happened on it's own due to intermarriage. Further, this drop in ages is to be referenced to Genesis 5 where it lists men living into hundreds of years.

(2) I think race and spiritual devotion in this case were closely tied. It was through Seth's lineage that salvation would come, and Luke 3 even says Adam was the first "son of God" in terms of human lineage.
If you're speaking of a pre-adam race, and yet to you "son of God" refers to immediate creation, then how can those two factors co-exist?

Nick, to answer your first comment, my book does a...

2010-07-13T12:19:42.805-04:00

Nick, to answer your first comment, my book does address this point to show that “the sons of God” are not the descendants of Seth. (1) Genesis 6:3-4 tells us that even though He was not happy with these people’s sins, their life spans would become 120 years. God does not want these people to think that all is right between them and God just because He blessed them with longer life spans. In context, the reason for the change in average life spans to 120 years was due to these intermarriages. If “the sons of God” were the spiritual descendants of Seth and the “men” were the descends of Cain, these intermarriages would not have caused a large change in life spans. In my book, I analyze the drop in life spans as recorded in the biblical genealogies to show that these intermarriages were between the descendants of Adam and Eve and the pre-Adamites.
(2) Those who believe that “the sons of God” refer to Seth’s line, of course, believe this because they realize that sometimes such a phrase was used of religious people to show their devotion to their god. But they do not notice that the context here is one of origins. The men, the text says, “bore” daughters. These daughters of men (literally in Hebrew “the man”) were taken as wives by “the sons of God.” The distinction between the races is one based on physical origins, not spiritual devotion. Therefore, the sons of God were the race that was, through the direct creation of Adam and Eve, the descendants of God. The daughters of man were the descendants of the people who were, according to Genesis 2:4, the descendants of the heavens and the earth. It should also be noted that in Job the angels (not fallen angels) were called “the sons of God.” This is because they were each created directly by God; they do not marry and raise children. So here in Genesis 6, Moses calls the descendants of Adam and Eve "the sons of God" because God created Adam and Eve directly.

Hmm, this is all news to me. I'm not sure if...

2010-07-13T02:37:58.816-04:00

Hmm, this is all news to me.

I'm not sure if your book talks about this, but I have two points I'd like to hear your input on:

1) Some people have interpreted Gen 6 to be talking about angels coming and having sex with humans. You seem to be saying it is a parallel human race. The historical Catholic position, which the Church Fathers took and fits the Biblical evidence is that Genesis 6 is speaking of Seth's lineage intermarrying with Cain's lineage. The "sons of God" corresponds to Genesis 5 which gives the lineage of God-fearing men from Seth's line, who turned away from this with unlawful sex.

2) You spoke of doing some calculations with folks' ages to come to your conclusions, which I'd like to see. If you are taking the lists of lineages and adding them up, that could cause problems. Many of the times, the proper reading of those lineage texts is not to be read as an immediate "father-son" relationship, but rather "father-new lineage-son". For example, "Bob son of Jim" can mean Jim had a son X who's lineage *eventually* produced Bob, and thus not necessarily a single generation with immediate paternity as we're used to using. In other words, it's to be read, "Bob *ANCESTOR* of Jim".
Does that make sense?

Most people think the Bible teaches the earth/Adam is 6,000 years old, which is possible, but there are good "conservative" Catholic folks I know who show reading the lineages properly the Flood took place near 5,000 BC and Adam came 11,000 BC.

Maybe I should explain here where I am coming from...

2010-07-12T21:34:59.144-04:00

Maybe I should explain here where I am coming from. I thought that I would get an answer to the seeming contradictions between science and the Bible while I was in seminary, but this did not happen. After seminary I began to read the young earth model; this lasted, I suppose, over twenty years. Then I realized that I could no longer hold this view and move to the progressive creation view of Hugh Ross. Then I realized that this model was not working. So I got desperate and decided to study it for myself and write up my conclusions in a book, which I did. The book is New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science. I found that if you analyze the decrease in the life spans of the patriarchs’ given in the Bible, you can show mathematically that the descendants of Adam and Eve married into an existing human race. This very nicely harmonizes the Bible and science. To put it all together, I had to make the book 470 pages long. It came out in 2007 and in 2009 I republished it again under the same title mainly to eliminate some serious typos and eliminate chapter 6.

I believe I have the evidence that I need to show that Adam was not the first man according to the Bible. That Adam was the first man is what people have been taught, and this is what you would think the Bible teaches from reading most translations of the Bible into English, but if you check out the Hebrew and Greek, you find out that a different model is taught in the Bible—one that agrees much with science. Not only do people teach that Romans 5:12 teaches this, but they point to 1 Corinthians 15:45 to also support their view. In my book on pages 321-48, I show that 1 Corinthians is not asserting that Adam was the first man of the human race, but rather that Adam was the first man of Jesus Christ’s genealogy.

I was attempting to show in this present article that Paul is not teaching that Adam was the first man to sin, but rather that Adam was the first man to sin against a direct command of God. The pre-Adamites sinned but there was no direct command of God for them to disobey, unless to multiple and replenish the earth was one. However, in this they did obey God. On the other hand, Adam was given specific instructions not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but he did just that. This proved the sinfulness of the human race; their sin comes from their flesh, according to Genesis 6:3. Mankind has always suffered death whether they lived before or after Adam because when Adam sinned, they all sinned. That is, God reckoned Adam’s sin to us all whether we lived before Adam or after Adam.

The Bible has to be interpreted as a whole; we must fit it all together so that there are no contradictions. This is what I have attempted to do in my book. Possibly my thesis would become more understandable for you if you go to my home page and read some of my other articles. There is a little about each of them on this page. Thanks for your interest, Nick.

I'm not sure what you're saying in your la...

2010-07-12T19:00:38.212-04:00

I'm not sure what you're saying in your last two posts. How can we not all descend from Adam if he is the original set of parents? If there were multiple "adams" out there, that goes against Scripture and the notion Jesus came to save based on the sin of a specific Adam.

I am sorry. I made a mistake on my last reply abov...

2010-07-11T21:33:02.779-04:00

I am sorry. I made a mistake on my last reply above. I meant to say, "I believe that through the ages we have not all descended from Adam. I believe that the Bible teaches that the descendants of Adam married into an existing race created as described in Genesis 1."

You may be right. My point is that Adam's sin ...

2010-07-11T19:26:02.445-04:00

You may be right. My point is that Adam's sin implicated us all in his sin because he represented the human race. However, I don't believe that he made us become sinners because we descended from him. I don't believe that through the ages we have not all descended from Adam. I believe that the Bible teaches that the descendants of Adam married into an existing race created as described in Genesis 1.

I believe Adam's sin negatively affected us al...

2010-07-10T23:00:15.812-04:00

I believe Adam's sin negatively affected us all, and required grace for all of us to be saved, but I don't believe it took place in a framework of "imputation." The term "impute" simply is never used like that. Further, the term "impute" isn't really used in reference to salvation. Romans 4 uses the Greek word "logizomai," popularly translated "impute," but it doesn't mean "impute" in the sense most think. It rather means "reckon what is in fact true of the object," so if Abraham's faith is reckoned as righteousness, that means God reckoned faith as a genuinely righteous act.

Hi Nick, I am saying that this passage is compar...

2010-07-10T12:02:47.254-04:00

Hi Nick,

I am saying that this passage is comparing the results of Adam's sin (which was death for all people) to the obedient life and substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus (which results in life for all who believe). By doing this, he brings out one of the results of justification by faith in Christ. Justification opens up the grace of God to a believer so that God can give him the new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit. This gives us the power to live a new spiritual life in contrast to the death we had been living in. This new birth results in immediate and progressive sanctification. Justification also releases us from the heightened power of sin which comes from being under law (1 Cor. 15:56). Adam's act brought death; Christ's act brought life.

People use this verse to argue that Adam was the first man to sin with the result that Adam must have been the first man. However, justification is something that is imputed by God. Adam's sin was imputed to all men whether they lived before or after Christ. Paul is careful to use the Greek article before "sin" each time he uses the word in Romans 5:12. This is because he is referring to an act of sin that was committed against a commandment of God. This had never been done before Adam and Eve were created.

My point is that neither in Romans 5:12 nor in other biblical passages does the Bible teach that Adam was the first human being. These verses that have been thought to teach this are dealt with in my book.

I hope this clears up what is my understanding of this passage; however, if not, let me know.

Hi Nick, I have been trying to post you a comment...

2010-07-10T12:01:19.805-04:00

Hi Nick,

I have been trying to post you a comment, but it will not post it. Sorry. I will keep trying.
Gary

Hi, Sorry for this late response, a lot of stuff...

2010-07-06T19:55:09.348-04:00

Hi,

Sorry for this late response, a lot of stuff came up in my life (nothing tragic, thankfully), including food poisoning the last few days. I simply have been unable to be online for more than maybe 15 minutes a day over the last week or so.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Results" of Justification. On one hand, it seems you agree that it is speaking of "sanctification," since "sanctification" springs from justification, but on the other hand you seem to be saying Rom 5:12ff is speaking of what Justification is based on. Please clarify.

Thank for your comment. Please let me explain that...

2010-07-01T12:42:52.381-04:00

Thank for your comment. Please let me explain that as the "Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible" labels Romans 5 "Results of Justification," Paul is explaining the results of justification by faith in Romans 5:12ff. As Adam's sin resulted in death for mankind, so Christ's act of obedience resulted in life for all who believe. But this life that is given to all who believe is theirs through their justification. As verse 18 says, "So then as through one transgression there resulted comdemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." (NASB)As is stated in "Expositor's Greek Testament" [W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967), vol. 2, 630.], "When God justifies the sinner, he enters into and inherits life." So justification undergirds Romans 5:12ff.

Greek expert Daniel Wallace says Romans 5:12ff isn...

2010-06-26T18:26:19.334-04:00

Greek expert Daniel Wallace says Romans 5:12ff isn't talking about justification:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/06/greek-expert-daniel-wallace-on-romans.html

Rodney, Thank you for your comment. I realize that...

2010-06-03T19:16:56.299-04:00

Rodney, Thank you for your comment. I realize that many people believe that "the sons of God" refer to angels in Genesis 6:1-2. I don't agree for various reasons. This phrase does refer to angels in Job. Indeed, a connection does exist here, but I don't think it is because this phrase always refers to angels; rather this phrase indicates both in Job and in Genesis 6 that these people were created directly by God--the angels He created individually and the descendants of Adam and Eve He created as a group through His creation of Adam and Eve out of the dust of the ground. Genesis 1 gives us the account of His creation of mankind in a different way; this creation is referred to in Genesis 2:4 where it calls these people the "generations of the heavens and the earth." A better translation would have been, "the descendants of the heavens and the earth."

The same Sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6 also a...

2010-05-31T19:32:38.442-04:00

The same Sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6 also appear in the Book of Job, this disputes the claim that they were descendants of Adam and Eve.