Did God create others after Adam and Eve?

[obsolete]

For the past few days I've been pondering this thought. The Bible never states that God did not create other people after He created Adam and Eve and after the fall, but it never says that it does.

Here's where I'm coming from: after Cain kills Able, and is talking to God before he is "marked", Cain mentions something about people coming after him to kill him for what he has done. So, where did these "people" come from?

[Jac3510]

For the answer to where the other people came from, see the "Cain's Journey" thread. And the Bible does say that God didn't create anyone after Adam.

1 Cor 15:45 - "So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit."

Notice that Adam is the first man. No men were before him. Second, you know from your theology that sin entered the world through Adam. Jesus was in Adam's line (see His geneologies). Notice, again, our verse calls Him the "last Adam." He was and is the perfect man, and thus, He redeems his kinsmen--the Adamic race.

Now, if there were people other than Adam, then there would be people who did not trace their lineage back to Adam, and if not to Adam, then they would not have participated in Adam's sin, nor would they be able to be saved by Jesus, not being a part of the Adamic race. But since Christ is the savior of all men, it follows that there was no one other than Adam created directly by God.

[obsolete]

He was and is the perfect man, and thus, He redeems his kinsmen--the Adamic race.

Now, if there were people other than Adam, then there would be people who did not trace their lineage back to Adam, and if not to Adam, then they would not have participated in Adam's sin, nor would they be able to be saved by Jesus, not being a part of the Adamic race. But since Christ is the savior of all men, it follows that there was no one other than Adam created directly by God.

This was the answer that I was looking for. I should have known better. But the thought kept popping into my mind for some reason. A spiritual attack of doubt perhaps? Thank you, Jac.

[jlay]

I was reading Gen 4 and 5 last night and the same question came to my mind.

Jac, does the bible say emphatically that God didn't create others? Genesis 3:20 says that Eve was the mother of all the living. Is this a symbolic or literal statement?

I would tend to believe that Gd did not create others as he did Adam. Genesis does emphatically state that Adam was the first man. It would seem clear that the curse of sin was on all of mankind outside of the garden. Trees, plants and animals are not in the blood line of Adam, but all of creation travails because of Adam's sin.

It is apparent that the early parts of Genesis are not a day to day history. (The book takes a specific turn when we come to chapter 5.) There is a lot left unsaid. For instance, how long did A&E dwell in the garden before the fall? Is the age of Adam given in chapter 5 his age from when he was created or his age post banishment from Eden? A valid question since there would be no point to record age in a world absent of death. Where did Cain's wife come from? Where did all the other wives come from? God is silent on much of this, and that is OK with me.

Genesis elludes to a lot of activity between the murder of Abel and the birth of Seth. It is reasonble to think that Cain and Abel were not the only sons of Adam and Eve, perhaps not even the first. But they were the one's chosen to be included in the telling of God's story.
Does the Bible exclude a lineage of Abel? Did Abel marry and have offspring? This would certainly be a group interested in revenge for Abel's murder.

[Jac3510]

j,

I think the NT makes it clear (as noted above) that Adam was the only person actually created. Genesis doesn't imply that there was anyone else created. I think we should take Eve's meaning as literal, considering the context was the creation of the first woman. Here name's meaning was a major point for Moses--everyone goes back to these two. Further, you have the theological problem with extra creations of other potential Falls.

In short, if you read the text of the story itself, it strongly implies that Adam and Eve were the first people and that everyone came from them. I don't see any implication to the contrary, and the question of other people to interact with Cain is easily enough answered as extended family. Because of all that, I simply don't see a warrant for posing the possibility that God created others--not a biblical warrant, at least.

[DannyM]

For the past few days I've been pondering this thought. The Bible never states that God did not create other people after He created Adam and Eve and after the fall, but it never says that it does.

Here's where I'm coming from: after Cain kills Able, and is talking to God before he is "marked", Cain mentions something about people coming after him to kill him for what he has done. So, where did these "people" come from?

As far as I can tell, there was an already existent creation and civilisation of which Cain was rightly apprehensive about in regards to reprisals for his crime against his brother. The narrative presupposes the existence of an organised society. The author does not see didn't consider this to be of such importance as to elaborate. the "solution" of Cain fearing his brothers and marrying his sister is in my opinion a desperate solution from those who think orthodoxy requires that Adam was the chronological first man. Orthodoxy does not require this in any way shape or form.

Godbless

[DannyM]

j,

I think the NT makes it clear (as noted above) that Adam was the only person actually created. Genesis doesn't imply that there was anyone else created. I think we should take Eve's meaning as literal, considering the context was the creation of the first woman. Here name's meaning was a major point for Moses--everyone goes back to these two. Further, you have the theological problem with extra creations of other potential Falls.

In short, if you read the text of the story itself, it strongly implies that Adam and Eve were the first people and that everyone came from them. I don't see any implication to the contrary, and the question of other people to interact with Cain is easily enough answered as extended family. Because of all that, I simply don't see a warrant for posing the possibility that God created others--not a biblical warrant, at least.

Jac,

1 Corinth 1: 45- does not tell us that Adam was the chronological first man. This passage, along with Gen 2: 7 is often presented as the "killer" passages. Adam, for me, is clearly the first of God's people. The bible specifically deals with god's people. And Genesis certainly *does* imply that others were created if you wish to read Gen 1 in that way.

Regarding "the fall", could you point me to the passage which holds these exact words, please, as I'm struggling to find it?

The text does not suggest that Adam and Eve were the first people, (although they could have been the first of a whole influx of people), or that everyone came from at all. I might be wrong and this may well have bewen the case, but to say the text "strongly implies" this is frankly ludicrous. The narrative of Cain clearly presupposes an already existent people. It is only the advent of another agenda which has sought to skew this to people's own views.

Godbless

[Jac3510]

Danny,

You are simply wrong about 1 Cor 15:45 for several reasons:

1. The passage uses the definite article--it is THE first man, not A first man. Paul is speaking absolutely.
2. The passages distinguishes between man and adam, which refutes your point about adm in the Heb of Gen 1-2 refering to mankind generally;
3. The passage is an allusion to Gen 2:7 (note the phrase "it is written"). There, Paul clarifies the meaning of that verse by distinguishing between mankind generally and the first human being, saying expressly that the first man was Adam.
4. The context of the passage is the resurrection, which is to come to ALL men. If there were other men, then Christ would not be their savior, and they would not take part in the resurrection.

Regarding the text of Gen 1-3, it is obvious that Adam was the first man of all. If it were not, you would have expected a common second interpretation in both Rabbinical and Church History, but you don't. There's simply no place in the theology of the Bible anywhere that distinguishes between a race of men belong to God and a race men that don't. As far as Cain's narrative, it doesn't presuppose other existent people. It presupposes that other people will want to kill him, wherever they come from. In fact, it STRONGLY supposes that the people Cain feared were from Adam's line, for why would people want to kill him who were not related to Abel? Because he killed some random guy they never heard of? No, he was clearly afraid of being avenged by a family member. THAT is what is implied by the text.

[Gman]

Jac,

1 Corinth 1: 45- does not tell us that Adam was the chronological first man. This passage, along with Gen 2: 7 is often presented as the "killer" passages. Adam, for me, is clearly the first of God's people. The bible specifically deals with god's people. And Genesis certainly *does* imply that others were created if you wish to read Gen 1 in that way.

Regarding "the fall", could you point me to the passage which holds these exact words, please, as I'm struggling to find it?

The text does not suggest that Adam and Eve were the first people, (although they could have been the first of a whole influx of people), or that everyone came from at all. I might be wrong and this may well have bewen the case, but to say the text "strongly implies" this is frankly ludicrous. The narrative of Cain clearly presupposes an already existent people. It is only the advent of another agenda which has sought to skew this to people's own views.

Godbless

I'm with you Danny.. Look how the Today's New International Version translates it. No "man" here..

1 Corinthians 15:45 (Today's New International Version)

45 So it is written: "The first Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

[Jac3510]

Gman,

I have no clue where the TNIV got its translation except, most likely, to avoid sexism, but the Greek most defintely does include the word "man." It is actually explicit, complete with the definite article.

Here's a transliteration for you of the passage:

houtos kai gegraptai, "egenento ho protos anthropos, Adam, eis psuchen zosan"; ho eschatos Adam eis pneuma zoopoioun.

The bolded parts:

ho - defininite article ("the")
protos - "first"
anthropos - "man"
Adam - "Adam"

Still more, anthropos doesn't just mean 'man' as in 'male'; it means 'man' as in 'mankind.' This is then set against ho eschatos Adam (the last Adam), who is Christ. Christ is set aside Adam. As Adam was the beginning of the race, so Christ is the beginning of the new man, the man born in Him.

Just another reason to avoid the TNIV . . . :p

[DannyM]

Danny,

You are simply wrong about 1 Cor 15:45 for several reasons:

1. The passage uses the definite article--it is THE first man, not A first man. Paul is speaking absolutely.
2. The passages distinguishes between man and adam, which refutes your point about adm in the Heb of Gen 1-2 refering to mankind generally;
3. The passage is an allusion to Gen 2:7 (note the phrase "it is written"). There, Paul clarifies the meaning of that verse by distinguishing between mankind generally and the first human being, saying expressly that the first man was Adam.
4. The context of the passage is the resurrection, which is to come to ALL men. If there were other men, then Christ would not be their savior, and they would not take part in the resurrection..

Do you think I'm wrong, Jac? I certainly *could* be wrong, but am certainly *not* definately wrong

1. The NIV: "So it is written (Paul is not making a theological statement: Paul is reiterating Genesis 2: 7), 'the first Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life giving spirit." The NIV, for me, is the most thorough and conscientious compilation ever undertaken.
2. See above.
3. On the contrary, Paul - my hero second to Jesus - expresses "...the first Adam...".
4. Why not? Surely the glory of Christ is the saviour of *all* men? Why would Christ not be the saviour of other men? This makes no sense when considering the whole nature and purpose of Christ Jesus.

Regarding the text of Gen 1-3, it is obvious that Adam was the first man of all. If it were not, you would have expected a common second interpretation in both Rabbinical and Church History, but you don't. There's simply no place in the theology of the Bible anywhere that distinguishes between a race of men belong to God and a race men that don't..

No doubt obvious to you, Jac, but not to me I'm sorry to say. Why would you expect a narrative of another existent civilisation? The bible explicitly deals with our God's people. Why would you dismiss a potential existent society on the basis of an absence from text?

As far as Cain's narrative, it doesn't presuppose other existent people. It presupposes that other people will want to kill him, wherever they come from. In fact, it STRONGLY supposes that the people Cain feared were from Adam's line, for why would people want to kill him who were not related to Abel? Because he killed some random guy they never heard of? No, he was clearly afraid of being avenged by a family member. THAT is what is implied by the text.

Jac, I've briefly looked at your blog, and I love your reasoning techniques to pieces, so I'm treading very carefully in "crossing swords" with you , but you and I are *way* apart on the narraitive of Cain: Let's try to deal with this - although a solution is practically impossible due to the lack of expansion

1. Cain and God agree that Cain is at risk of reprisals.
2. Cain might be at risk from other siblings.
3. Cain is the only existent sibling (according to scripture) left on the earth.
4. There must be an already existent creation for which Cain and God feared reprisals.

I am willing to rationally believe that the stigma of attacking one's own brother, which leads to the slaughter of Abel, was enough (even in this day and age, let alone in a more youthfull and moral age) to put Cain at genuine risk of outrage among a co-exitent society that would have viewed such an act as abhorent.

So the risk to Cain from an existent community(or plural) is still, for me, the most plausible of opinions.

Godbless

[Gman]

Hi Danny,

I recently found this article that put an interesting spin on 1 Cor 15:45..

"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. "

Source: http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/adam.html

[DannyM]

Hi Danny,

I recently found this article that put an interesting spin on 1 Cor 15:45..

"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. "

Source: http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/adam.html

Hi Gman,

Thanks for the link, it's a good link and a succinct argument against the opposing view.

"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."

I hadn't thought of flipping the alledged "first" man argument around to Christ then (by "definition") being the literal "second" man. The source takes the same view as me in regards to Adam being the first man of his particular line (or the first of "God's people").

While the source is certainly robust, it is a very good argument and interesting with it. I fully appreciate this, thank you.

Godbless

[Gman]

Thanks, while I don't adhere to this website or their teachings, I did find this topic a bit interesting..

[Jac3510]

Do you think I'm wrong, Jac? I certainly *could* be wrong, but am certainly *not* definately wrong

1. The NIV: "So it is written (Paul is not making a theological statement: Paul is reiterating Genesis 2: 7), 'the first Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life giving spirit." The NIV, for me, is the most thorough and conscientious compilation ever undertaken.
2. See above.
3. On the contrary, Paul - my hero second to Jesus - expresses "...the first Adam...".
4. Why not? Surely the glory of Christ is the saviour of *all* men? Why would Christ not be the saviour of other men? This makes no sense when considering the whole nature and purpose of Christ Jesus.

Regarding (1), I'm not sure what either my or your opinion of the NIV has to do with the discussion.
Regarding (2), I'm not sure what "the above" has to do with anything. I made a specific grammatical argument based on the Greek text. The words "man" and "Adam" are distinguished. Paul uses BOTH words. He says "the first" (ho protos) "man" (anthropos) "Adam" (adam) . . . thus, while you may make the argument that the Hebrew word adm, which means "mankind", refers to men generally, Paul clarifies here that the first human being was named Adam.
Regarding (3), no, Paul says "the first MAN, Adam." Look at the Greek. You can do so yourself here. You will be able to follow it even if you don't read Greek.
Regarding (4), because Adam is the "first" man, as you are so fond of pointing out. If there were other people before Adam, then he either would not have been the first, or they would not have been men (that is, mankind). Yet Christ is the savior of MAN (anthropos). He's the savior of the Adamic race.

No doubt obvious to you, Jac, but not to me I'm sorry to say. Why would you expect a narrative of another existent civilisation? The bible explicitly deals with our God's people. Why would you dismiss a potential existent society on the basis of an absence from text?

I'm not expecting a narrative of another civilization. I'm expecting non-exclusive language if the traditional view is incorrect. If this is really such an open matter, then I'm expecting for other people to have come to a similar conclusion. Further, note your statement that the text deals "explicitly with God's people." Well, there's another answer for your (4) above.

Jac, I've briefly looked at your blog, and I love your reasoning techniques to pieces, so I'm treading very carefully in "crossing swords" with you , but you and I are *way* apart on the narraitive of Cain: Let's try to deal with this - although a solution is practically impossible due to the lack of expansion

1. Cain and God agree that Cain is at risk of reprisals.
2. Cain might be at risk from other siblings.
3. Cain is the only existent sibling (according to scripture) left on the earth.
4. There must be an already existent creation for which Cain and God feared reprisals.

I am willing to rationally believe that the stigma of attacking one's own brother, which leads to the slaughter of Abel, was enough (even in this day and age, let alone in a more youthfull and moral age) to put Cain at genuine risk of outrage among a co-exitent society that would have viewed such an act as abhorent.

So the risk to Cain from an existent community(or plural) is still, for me, the most plausible of opinions.

I appreciate your kind words with regard to the blog. But, no worries, a solution is not impossible because while there is little expansion, there is the presence of exclusive language (look, again, at 1 Cor 15:45, as already described).

As to your four points:
(1) Agree
(2) Agree
(3) Disagree. What evidence do you have of this? Do you have a text that says he was the only other sibling? And even if he were, how would this matter, for could not future children have had just as much desire to avenge Abel's death as anyone else, especially given your idea that non-Adamic people could have been so incensed by the event!
(4) "There must have been" are very strong words. Where do you get that idea? It is certainly not true that there must have been. You've presented no argument to the case at all. The best you've provided is an incredulity based on your rejection of early incest, which we gave a plausible explanation a long time ago.

Your conclusion, then, is unwarranted. For something to be plausible--and certainly more plausible than another position--it has to best fit the evidence. The straight-forward reading of the text provides prima facie evidence for the traditional understanding, and the history of interpretation proves that to be the case, and 1 Cor 15:45 shows that Paul took this passage the traditional way as well. Against this, you have the objection to insect . . . that hardly counts as "more plausible."

Now, you may say, "Granted my lack of evidence, I still prefer to believe this for moral reasons." That's fine. It's not exactly rational. It's an emotional reading of the text. It's what you want it to say (or, in this case, not say), but that's fine. I can't tell you how the text looks to you. But when talking about more objective issues such as what is more plausible, then you simply are incorrect on this.

Finally, a note about Gman's oddball source . . . 1 Cor 15:47 does refer to Christ as the "second man," but that is in context of 1 Cor 15:45, not the other way around. What Paul is doing is painting a theological picture. For him, there are only two men: Adam and Christ. Those who are "in Adam" will perish (see 1 Cor 15:22 which is in the context!), whereas those who are "in Christ" will live. In any case, 15:45 still stands. Mankind is distinguished from the individual Adam, and Paul goes out of his way to state that Adam was the first human being in that he quotes, and modifies, Gen 2:7. Adam, then, was the first man, which means that there were no other civilizations.

God bless