Who was Adam ?

There is a problem reconciling the findings of anthropology with the Biblical record about Adam. There are fossils of hominids (with similarities to both apes and humans) that have been dated to have lived between 7 and 2 million years old. The earliest hominid bones were the australpithecines, a wide group of hominids about 4 feet tall, long arms and shorter legs and believed to be forms of ape. It is thought that they walked like great apes today, balancing with their knuckles. A characteristic that is used to put a species within the Homo group is that they walked upright on two feet.

The next hominids that had bones more resembling humans were grouped together as Homo habilis and these lived between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. They had a larger brain size than the australopithecines but had many apelike characteristics. However may have used simple tools, but most anthropologists still reckon that they were more ape than human and should really be classified with the australopithecines, apes that were similar to, but differ from chimpanzees. These did not have the characteristics of humanity in that there was little evidence of planning for the future, of aesthetic values, such as paintings, jewellery and music. There has been a vogue to say that these species were, in some way, evolutionary intermediaries between apes and humans but others claim they were just species of apes that died out, just as 99 per cent of known species have.

Other forms of skeleton appearing between 1.8 and 100,000 years ago has more humanoid features and have been called Homo erectus in the East or Homo ergaster in Africa, for the obvious reason that they all walked erect. There is considerable debate about their relationship They both made shaped knives and axes from flint, characterised as Acheulean technology. They appear to have died out about 100,000 years ago.

A recent dental survey has revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo ergaster all developed in a way similar to chimpanzees in that they grew and matured rapidly, very unlike modern humans. Another study has shown that the brains of modern humans develop far more slowly than the other hominids and apes. Human newborns have a brain size just 25 per cent that of the adult and at one year is only 50 per cent of the adult. In contrast the apes and probably the other hominids develop much more quickly, with the brain size at birth being 40 per cent that of the adult and at a year 80 per cent. Such differences link Homo erectus and ergaster much closer with the apes than with humans.

The earliest bones that appear similar to modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens, have all been dated to be less than 100,000 years old. There have been some discoveries of bones that are similar to humans that have been dated as being up to 500,000 years old but most paleoanthropologists recognise that these all have the features of a group called Archaic Homo sapiens and have not been classified as Homo sapiens sapiens.

Genetic Studies

DNA is a double helix of coded units, called nucleotides. The order of these units in the DNA controls the formation if tailored proteins in the cells cytoplasm. Recent genetic studies confirm that modern man is a relatively recent newcomer to earth but that he shares both designs and genetic material with apes a nd other organisms. Mice share 90 per cent of human DNA, dogs share 84 per cent, slugs 70 per cent and chickens 65 per cent. Even bananas share nearly 60 per cent and daffodils 35 per cent of genetic material with humans. When the DNA of a chimp is compared with that of a human, there is only a 1.23 per cent difference in substitutions of one nucleotide with another. This amounts to 35 million changes in base pairs. However there are additional insertions or deletions of nucleotides that have not been replaced, which amounts to a further 1.5 per cent difference. In all there is a 3 per cent difference between the genome of the chimp and a human. It is asking a lot for all these beneficial changes to have occurred without a brilliant mind behind them. No living person could design such changes.

Genetic Dating

The structure of DNA is altered by mutations over the generations. Neutral mutations acculmulate over the years. Significantly there is much less variation in the DNA of humans than in any other species, suggesting that humans have not been around that long.

Some of a cell’s DNA is not in the nucleus but in the mitochondria of the cytoplasm (mtDNA). This mtDNA is passed on unchanged from mother to mother, in the cytoplasm of the egg, over the generations. The only variation should be the result of mutations as the cells divide so can be used as a type of molecular clock. If these neutral mutations occur at approximately regular rates, the number of mutations can be used to calculate how long it has been since the original genetic material was set. One large study analysed all the mtDNA of 53 individuals from different places and races. They concluded that the first woman lived relatively recently, being only 171,500 ± 50,000 years old. However it is very difficult to be sure about mutation rates.

There is also DNA in the Y chromosome, the chromosome that determines the sex of a being. This chromosome is passed from father to son, and can also be used to look at mutations. There is much more DNA available to analyse, than is found in mtDNA. Recent studies have given dates for the first man as being between 35,000 and 47,000 years ago. However the accuracy of this technique has also been criticised.

Many other genetic studies have come to similar conclusions that the first humans lived approximately 100,000 years ago.

It is on the basis of such studies that it has been suggested that genetically all people stem from a mitochondrial Eve and a Y-chromosome Adam and that these appear to come from Africa. Such studies suggest that Homo sapiens sapiens began as a new line relatively recently and are difficult to understand if man evolved from other species by a Darwinian process. However another explanation could be that other ancient humans died out leaving a single genetic pair from which the human race is derived – a genetic Noah and his wife!

Anthropology

Several caves have now been discovered in Europe and Africa that have primitive artwork on their walls. These have mostly been dated from 25-40,000 years old. Surprisingly hardly any human bones have been found that have been dated between 40,000 to 80,000 years old, suggesting that there was a cataclysmic annihilation of the first humans. This could explain the genetic findings that also suggest a relatively recent origin for human beings. The fossil record shows a sudden explosion in the number of human remains from around 40,000 years ago.

Agriculture

The evidence of early farming has been found in Israel at the Ohalo II archeological site. Grasses with larger seeds, including wheat and barley, were grown and used to make flour. Multiple measurements using carbon dating have consistently dated the site as being 23,500 years old.i Further evidence suggests that cereal farming is even older than this, possibly 45,000 years ago.ii Agriculture became widespread less than 12,000 years ago and this appears to have begun in the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia.

Abel, Adam’s second son, was a shepherd. His older brother Cain, ‘worked the soil’. It would therefore appear that both plant and animal farming were known when Cain and Abel lived, unless they were the first to practice both.

Cities

The city of Urukin, Mesopotamia, is so far the oldest known city, being dated at 4,500 years old. Cain, after his expulsion from Adam’s family following the murder of Abel, travelled east. He was terrified that,

“I will be a restless wanderer, and whoever finds me will kill me.” Genesis 4:14

Cain travelled to the ‘Land of Nod’ where he was building a city when his wife had his first son Enoch. Who was he scared of and for whom was he building this city and where did he get the idea of a city from? This would suggest a later date for Adam and his family and that there were others living at the time.

Cuneiform tablets

The book of Genesis is broken up into sections, each headed by the formula, ‘These are the generations of’. The NIV translates this,

‘This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created’. Genesis 2:4

The Hebrew word is toledoth and this comes ten times at regular intervals throughout the book. Professor P.J.Wisemaniii, as a result of studying ancient Babylonian cuneiform tablets has shown that many ancient family tablets begin with this phrase and has argued convincingly that the sections of Genesis were written on clay tablets, possibly by the person the toledoth section introduces.

“This is the written account of Adam’s line.” Genesis 5:1

“This is the account of Noah.” Genesis 6:9

“This is the account of Shen, ham and Japheth.” Genesis 10:1

“This is the account of Shem.” Genesis 11:10

“This is the account of Terah.” Genesis 11:27

“This is the account of Abraham’s son, Ishmael.” Genesis 25:12

“This is the account of Abraham’s son, Isaac.” Genesis 25:19

“This is the account of Esau.” Genesis 36:1

“This is the account of Esau, the Father of the Edomites” Genesis 36:9

“This is the account of Jacob.” Genesis 37:2

The first section has a different formula to start with,

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1

It is likely that the ancient histories, written on clay tablets, all began with this toledoth formula and would have formed part of the birth-rite that was passed on to the eldest son. This theory is supported by the finding that everything written in each section could have been written by the person involved. Furthermore nothing is included in each section that did not occur within the lifetime of the named person.

It is significant that the first eleven chapters of Genesis have many Babylonian words and that, from the story of Joseph, Egyptian words are used. This supports the thesis that Moses simply edited these ancient writings when he edited the book of Moses and the first five books of the Bible – the Torah. Many place names are so old that Moses added new names so that the sites could be recognised in his day. Examples of these editorial additions can be seen in Genesis 14 v. 2,3,7,8, 15 and 17. This suggests that Genesis 1 is one of the earliest writings known to man.

The earliest evidence of writing, so far known, was in Sumer, southern Mesopotamia, dated about 3100 BC. Earlier such stories would have been shared orally. Consequently these early accounts would have to be in a form that is easy to memorise accurately and this could account for their rhythmic repetitive structure.

Snakes

Fossils of snakes have been found in England, Portugal and the United States that have been dated at about 150 million years. They had all the feature of modern snakes. The question needs to be asked what we should understand from the story of the snake in Genesis 3 where a snake speaks to Eve.

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals . . . He said to the woman, ‘Did God really say . . . ‘” Genesis 3:1

Later in the account we read,

“So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.” Genesis 3:14

This reads more like an Aesop’s fable. Serpents do not speak in an intelligible language and they have, for millions of years crawled in the dust. They do not eat dust, this also appears to be figurative language. However the meaning is clear. Adam and Eve were tempted, just as we are, to make decisions about what we deem to be right and wrong, whereas God says this is his prerogative alone. They were not permitted to eat of the ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’ and neither are we today. The Bible frequently uses allegory to teach a lesson and it is the lesson God wants us to learn. Jesus summarised the history of the Jews in the ‘Parable of the Wicked Servant’ (Matthew 21:33-41). Most people recognise that the book of Revelation needs to be read allegorically to appreciate the lessons it teaches.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this debate on how we should understand the early chapters of Genesis is the anger and even venom that has been demonstrated by some involved. Such demeanour is totally unacceptable when those involved accept the prime authority of Scripture, as Jesus and his apostles have taught us. To demean the integrity of other Christians because they do not accept a literal interpretation that is contrary to other disciplines is nothing less than sinful. Honest open friendly debate should surely be the way christians behave. Gamaliel wisely advised the Sanhedrin not to react angrily with the disciples, whose teaching they disagreed with,

“Leave these men alone. Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.” Acts 5:38

Virtually no early Christians held the view of a flat earth or denied the place of the earth in the solar system. With good research have both been resolved and undoubtedly the same will happen over the age of the earth. Neither salvation issues nor the authority of Scripture are at stake.

Ancient Babylonian literature

In the Gilgamesh Epic and other ancient Near Eastern literature a structure of six plus one, often involving days, is frequently seen. It would not be surprising therefore if the original writer of the tablets on which Genesis was edited, who used Babylonian words, would not also use a commonly known structure in describing the creation of the world in terms of six plus one days. the seven day week is almost universally held and this needs to be explained. Couldn’t God have explained this to Adam who appears to be the first man with whom God had a personal relationship?

iDolores R. Piperno et al., “Processing of Wild Cereal Grains in the Upper Paleolithic Revealed by Starch Grain Analysis” Nature 430 (2004) p. 670-673

ii Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, ‘Who was Adam?’ 2nd Edition, Reasons to Believe 2015 p. 359

iiiP.J.Wiseman, ‘Clues to Creation in Genesis’ ed by D.J.Wiseman, Marshall, Morgan and Scott, London 1977