The Timeline of Man

James ♦ February 28, 2011 ♦ Leave Your Comment

The Timeline of Man

by James Patterson, MD, PhD

 To reconcile our modern view of the historical development of mankind with the Biblical story presented in Genesis, RTB departs from the naturalist TE model, as well as the Young Earth Creation crowd. The RTB timeline presented in “Who Was Adam” attempts this reconciliation; however it leaves open some issues that are unclear, and often are the focus of discussion and debate. 

Table 1 on p12 presents an overview of the development of mankind from the finding of the original H. sapiens remains ~100 kBC to about the time of Christ, during the Iron Age. When one places the discoveries made by man about mankind up beside modern interpretations of the Biblical verses that make reference to them, and then place that in the context of the hypothesized RTB timeline, these issues are more noticeable.

 For reference, let’s look at RTB book “Who Was Adam” by Rana and Ross. Here we see that Adam and Eve were created sometime between 10 and 100,000 years ago. It points out the existence of gaps in the lineages, describes the importance of the lineages despite the gaps, and then estimates the time of the flood to 20 to 30 kBC, and Adam and Eve a “few tens of thousands” of years earlier – thus 40 to 60 kBC.  But still, this window remains from 10 to 100k, simply because it is not clear.

 Next, let’s look at what man has discovered about mankind in Table 1. We know that in terms of culture, there was a “Cultural Explosion” that occurred circa 40,000 BC. There have been a very few things and events that have been discovered before – but quite near – this time. The time period between 100 and 40 kBC is actually quiet in terms of mankind – some indicate this means that there was a decline in the population of mankind at that time – a bottleneck, down to a very small population. There was also perhaps a bottleneck at the time of Noah. However the time period about and after 40 kBC up to the time of Christ (any beyond) has been rich in discoveries about man compared to the time before that.

 So, as Adam and Eve are the origins of mankind, and we have good evidence from multiple sources that mankind emerged from Africa at about 40 kBC, then Adam and Eve must have preceded mankind, and thus the best available date we have is circa 40 kBC or before.

There does appear to be reasonable evidence for the “Out of Africa” hypothesis of the spread of man, beginning circa 40 kBC. In the same way, we see the spread of cultural and societal behaviors and activities. Some of the earliest findings are in the Levant: skeletal remains and ornaments at 42 kBC in Lebanon, and small stone tools found in Israel at about 40 kBC. However, there were also signs of mining as early as 43 kBC in Swaziland (SE Africa) for the red pigment ochre. While it is believed that humans used this mine, a mine of similar age in Hungary was believe to be used by Neanderthals to mine flint for weapons and tools.

We know that mankind emerged from Africa fairly early, as the ancient aborigines settled Australia somewhere between 125 and 40 kBC, with the latter number being perhaps the more accepted one, as mankind was found in Borneo and New Guinea at about 38 kBC (on the way there). Art and decoration emerged at the same time. Permanent settlements began emerging as early as 24 kBC in Europe, and grain was gathered about 17 kBC near the Sea of Galilee. The earliest signs of animal domestication were 15 kBC, and the earliest known metallurgy of any sort was about 8 kBC, with the earliest ironworking possibly about 6.5 kBC. The appearance of art, complex toolkits, farming, and domestication, all took place at various times and various places. This spreading of technology thru time and space makes it difficult to nail down a given “age”, as that age varies from region to region. However we do have a general idea for a given region when things happened based on the archaeological record.

Table 2 is a listing of specific verses from Genesis. Read chapters 1 through 6 in Genesis as it always helps to read it. But specifically, these verses are the ones that are of interest.

Let’s discuss each one of these verses specifically in context of how it relates to the timeline difficulty.

Genesis 1:26a,27	Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 2:7	And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Regardless of when it happened, these verses tell us of the creation of man, in God’s image, in the likeness of God. The accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 differ in format and content, Genesis 2 goes into greater detail with regard to the creation of both Adam and Eve, whereas Gen 1 just states that God created them male and female. However God did it, and whatever God used to create man from (clods or dirt, or hominids) is quite irrelevant to the fact that God made man in his image, and give him a living soul.

Genesis 2:8

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.

So, where God created man was different from where he placed the Garden of Eden. If we put the garden in a place, it would have to be on the Tigris and Euphrates. The other two rivers are gone, but there are some who find evidence of old river beds, and these four rivers are postulated to come together at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates – in SE Iraq, near Kuwait.  That is east of Israel, east of Egypt, and importantly, east of Africa. It is also in this same general region where Sumeria was.

Genesis 2:21

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Out of all the Bible verses in Genesis 1 and 2, this one is the most troubling. It is troubling because it speaks directly to whether this verse – and therefore perhaps the entirety of the creation account – is symbolic or not. Surely, one might say, this is figurative of the description of Eve’s creation. Why then did God not create both Adam and Eve from the dust of the earth? In Genesis 1, it was “male and female” he created them, “in the image of God”. In G2, it is man from dust, and woman from rib, and not sequentially either. It appears that there was some amount of time that passed between, as man was busy naming things.  Looking at G2:21 in the context of 2:7, it is easy to imagine that “from the dust” could mean many different things, since we are all made from physical material that is dust of the stars in some sense. It is not so easy to do the same with Eve’s creation from a rib (or the side) of Adam. If we take G1 as an overview of all of creation and not specific about mankind, and G2 as focusing more on the creation of mankind, then perhaps we can rationalize the statement that the first pair of humans were not created simultaneously. God created man, put him in Eden, and set him to work. This went on for quite some time. He then created Eve, in the rather unique manner of using a rib, or something from Adam’s side. Why not just from the dust of the earth? Was Adam special in some way, since he had been given the breath of life? Medically, why not just use hair, or a skin cell? It is of academic interest to note that ribs are an excellent source of stem cells. This of course does not speak whatsoever to how God could have created Eve. We can say that perhaps he manipulated a stem cell to develop, but He would have had to chunk out the Y chromosome, and duplicate the X chromosome. And then He’s got an effective embryo…which turns into Eve…somehow. To say that God did this is to say that God was interventional, miraculously created Eve, and points back to the importance of the original Adam formed from the dust of the ground, since Eve was not created in the same way. If God cloned Eve from Adam (with some gender changing modifications), then Adam must have been special; either because of the “breath of life” or something else.

Now from another viewpoint, let us presume that G1 and G2 are not just different stories about the same creation account, but different creation accounts. I am going to call this the “Hebrocentric” hypothesis, indicating that G2 is about the dawn of the Hebrew race, rather than the dawn of mankind. This alternative viewpoint will be examined in contrast to the traditional view several more times below.

First, it is unclear to me why G2:1-2 are not part of the ending of G1. They seem to fit much better there. I know that the chapters and verse numbering were added later, thus it isn’t clear why these verses were put here, since they clearly (to me) seem to cap G1. So if we are to interpret G2 as Hebrocentric, the most likely break between the two accounts would be after G2:3. After that, G2 speaks only minimally and in passing about the creation of the heavens and earth, in a manner that is less than clear, in verses 4-6.

If G2 is a separate creation account, then perhaps it is an account of the creation of the ancient Hebrew race, and is “Hebrocentric”. In this case then perhaps G2:4-6 refers to a specific region. We then have God creating man from the dust of the ground, and breathing the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being, and later Eve being created from his side/rib. And so in this scenario, mankind would have been created in the image of God much earlier on in G1, with a pair of humans – Adam and Eve – specially created in G2, referring to the origins of the Hebrew race. Not just imago dei, but with the breath of life of God, given to Adam, and passed to Eve.

Why didn’t God just take a pair of humans, zap them somehow, and call them good? I don’t know. Perhaps he did, and perhaps G2 is a story which relates how the first man and woman who were the descendants of the Hebrew race came about, in language which the ancient Hebrews could understand. From “the dust of the ground” is referred to again in G3:19 “For you are dust, and to dust you shall return”, as well as when Adam and Eve were cast out after the fall, to “till the ground from whence he was taken”, in G3:24.  Word pictures were important to the Hebrews. Eve coming from the side of Adam is of course also symbolically important, it tells us this in G2:24, the foundation of marriage. So the language is important, the imagery is important, the uniqueness and individuality of both Adam and Eve is obvious, but the methodology is less than clear.

Genesis 3:20	And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Genesis 9:19	These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

The “mother of all living” is a bit more encompassing. If this refers to all of mankind, then it puts it back before 40 kBC. If it possibly refers to the mother of all living Jews, then it could be much more recent on the timeline. These appear to be the only two choices, and the latter (Hebrocentric view) has not been traditionally a choice. Gen 9:19 may also mean only the Jews – thus there were previous/other peoples that were elsewhere other than the universal flood, that didn’t pass away. This would seem to be the case if the flood happened either a few thousand BC, or circa 20 kBC, since we know that mankind emerged by 40 kBC (aborigines appeared in Australia about this time). Thus, to presume that Moses spoke only of the Jews after the flood is a logical presumption, but to presume that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of all mankind rather than just the Jews is still a presumption…albeit more so of one.

Genesis 2:5b	…and there was no man to work the ground,
Genesis 3:23	therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
Genesis 4:2	And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

These are some of the most problematic statements in Genesis with regard to timelines. The earliest reference to gardening, planting, “working the ground” is G2:5.  If one presumes the natural history of mankind is true, then sheep were first domesticated circa 11 kBC, and the first grain was gathered about 17 kBC. However it is worth pointing out some things here. This is the earliest evidence we have obtained of these practices, and this “first” evidence is only as good as mankind’s ability to find it. Something else to consider is that God tells us in Genesis 6:13 that he is not only going to destroy man, but also the earth. We believe that this was referring to universal “earth”, and thus not the entire world, but nevertheless, God says it will be destroyed. Even for the Hebrocentric view, this would mean all that was important to the Jewish race. In Gen 6:16, He states that “every thing on earth will perish”. Thus, if animal husbandry or farming were ongoing even very early on, there perhaps would be no evidence left. There is evidence that primitive technologies were discovered, lost, and rediscovered (refs from Kaiser). We know that even primitive hominids had fire, that the concept of mining preceded the cultural explosion; primitive tools have been used for long before that. If God gave man “the beasts of the field” then he certainly could have given mankind the capacity to shepherd them early on, and (for instance) given sheep an intrinsic naturally easy domestication ability. Plants are even easier to tame. While this is only speculation, it seems that the concept of cultivating plants that produce food (even on a small scale) is not one that would escape a people that can produce art and tools. However, it may have taken quite some time to get to the point (large scale and after the flood) that it would leave a mark that mankind could find millennia later. Also, the Bible doesn’t say Cain had a John Deere tractor! He could have been a very primitive farmer. Able may not have had fences and a cattle lot – just managed to herd some sheep. I don’t know enough Hebrew to say if there were better words that could have been chosen to say “hunter-gatherer”…the point is that these types of behaviors could have begun well before they were large enough to leave a mark, especially given that what mark they did leave would have been destroyed in the flood.

Another possibility is that the origins of Adam and Eve refer to the origins of the Jewish race, and not to all of mankind. This Hebrocentric view also relies on the “universal” concept made use of by some in looking at the flood in a different way. The flood was not just universal (rather than global) in terms of the extent of the flood, but also in the extent of the peoples affected by the flood. Thus, it applied to all of the Jewish race, and practically speaking for the Jews, all of the known world. This possibility would allow for the origins of the Jewish race to happen at a later time than the origins of all of mankind, and does seem to be more consistent with what science has discovered through archaeology.

Genesis 4:12-16

When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.” Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” But the LORD said to him, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

There is a lot of stuff east of Eden. Some of the earliest migratory pathways apparently went that way, as that way is Australia. However, note also that it says that Cain went out from the presence of the Lord. It was Seth’s lineage from whence Israel and the Jews came, via Abram.

It also seems clear from these verses that Cain was fearful of being attacked. Now one must ask, by whom? The question is commonly raised about who Cain and Seth had as wives, and the standard response is their sisters, given the presumption that there were no other humans extant. However, this passage is more troublesome in this regard. Do we really expect Cain’s sisters to try and kill him? Why would that even be a consideration, and even for later brothers who didn’t know Abel? Do we think that it is Adam or Eve who may find him and kill him? That’s not what the verse says – it says “whoever” [NIV] or “everyone” [KJV]. Who might that be? The most reasonable answer is to not presuppose their aloneness, and thus there were others of the human race present. We can’t simply presume that these “others” were pre-human; if so they may not have any need or desire to kill Cain. However, if they were cognizant of (or could know of) Cain’s great sin, there are at least two possible reasons for attacking him. The first is to take vengeance on him, knowing that he had committed a great sin. The second is that these others were also not of the Hebrew lineage, were jealous of Cain for being of that lineage, knew (or could know) that he had been cast out, and wanted to kill him out of spite. It’s not clear why, but it is clear that Cain was fearful, and that God marked him. All of this points at others being present. This indicates therefore that references to being the mother of all mankind (Gen 3:20) were Hebrocentric references in the universal sense with respect to the Hebrew lineage, not in the global sense with respect to all mankind.

Genesis 4:17

And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and bare Enoch, and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch.

The word for city used here is Strong’s 5892: ‘iyr or par, and can mean anything from a camp to a city guarded with a watch. The first permanent homes were discovered in Europe from 24 kBC, and Jericho was settled about 8 kBC. Earliest other known villages and towns (cities) were about 6 kBC. The ancient Hebrew lexicon was quite limited compared to our own, and so it is not clear how big the city was. It may have simply been a home, although since Cain named it after his son this implies something more.

Genesis 4:18-22

And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

Domestication of cattle is believed to have occurred about 6 kBC and the use of iron about 6.5 kBC. We can push that back possibly to the earliest references to use of metal in the early copper age, about 8 kBC. While the first musical instrument was discovered from approximately 30 kBC, the first stringed instrument discovered is from 2.6 kBC. So several of the things mentioned here refer to developments that were unlikely to be around before these times, unless perhaps they were lost in the flood. Another possibility would be that the “begats” above do not refer to direct lineages but rather to important or notable figures in a longer lineage, and thus this timeline could be ages long. In support of this Enoch’s wife is mentioned, but no family is mentioned for Irad, Mehujael, or Methusael, and then we see that Lamech had two wives. This possibly indicates that Irad, Mehujael, or Methusael were notable forefathers in this lineage, but leaves open the possibility for others. These verses are also unclear as to when Jabal and Jubal were alive. They point to Jabal being the “father” of those who dwelled in tens and who had cattle, and Jubal being the “father” of those who use these musical instruments, and so that puts then in the unknown, perhaps distant, past, and their descendants sometime in the future. Thus the best time reference from this passage is with regard to Tubalcain, as it states he is involved in the making and forging of tools, with perhaps reference to blades of weapons. Even if we push this back to earliest references to the Copper Age, this is about 8 kBC.

So in summary, we have Enoch, the son of Cain, the son of Adam, who resulted in a lineage that generated Tubalcain, who could have been as early as 6.5-8 kBC. For this to be true, then Cain’s lineage must have survived the flood. It *this* is true, then this points to the flood being Hebrocentric; “universal” to the Hebrews – as Cain was cast out, he and his lineage would not be considered part of the Hebrews. It is reasonably clear that *somebody* else survived the flood. To make the flood universal in terms of all mankind would be to move it all the way back to 40 kBC, since we have aboriginal man in Australia at 40 kBC. This seems unlikely.

Genesis 4:25

Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”

While this verse follows the timeline for Cain, it does not necessarily imply that it came temporally after Cain’s lineage had been carried out, as some presume. Recall that the ancient Hebrews often put things in the context of the story, not temporally. Even by today’s standards, one might describe Cain’s descendants before mentioning Seth and his descendants. The point here is that this cannot be used as evidence that all of the technology described in the verses previous to this were contemporaneous with Seth, Adam, and Eve.

Genesis 4:1-2a	And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel.
Genesis 5:1-3	This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth.

Abel died, Cain was cast out, and from Seth we see the emergence of the Jews and Israel. Contrasting the birth of Cain and Abel to that of Seth, we see that with Seth, reference is made directly back to the image of God, through Adam and Eve, whereas this isn’t so for Cain nor Abel. We also see that “Adam” is the name of the man and the name of mankind…”man” has multiple meanings. It seems evident that Genesis 5 begins by linking Seth not only to Adam the father of Seth, but directly to the original (same) Adam. However this is not clear; Strong’s #120 is used three different ways in the first two verses. Perhaps this in itself means that there was more than one interpretation. Nevertheless, the author states that this lineage starts “from the beginning”. This could mean either the beginning of mankind, or the beginning of Adam. The common interpretation is that they are one and the same, but a Hebrocentric view would mean the origin of the Jews.

Adamic names are also used in the Sumerian literature. There are some who point to the parallels with the Sumerian king list and other Sumerian accounts as possible shared history, from which both (Sumerian and Hebrew) derive their stories. This is an interesting concept, but does restrict the timeline to that of Sumeria, which is certainly better documented than the Hebrews, and is much more consistent with a Hebrocentric view than with the traditional view.

Genesis 5 goes on to list the lineage of Seth in fairly exacting detail. There are apparently some differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts. Some believe this is an exacting and linear account of the descendants of Seth, while others feel that it is representative of the major figures in that line. This is a rather important distinction, because the time represented by this timeline is that which reaches from Adam to Abram. Evidence for it being an actual and accurate lineage includes the fact that the age at the time of birth is given, as well as the total age, so that a time can be calculated (despite the lack of totals). Moreover, the ancient Jews cared deeply about lineage. Evidence against it being an actual timeline includes its symmetry – the “top 10” before and “top 10” after Noah are given, as well as the differences mentioned above, and the possible different meanings of “begat”. So a case can be made either way. Ross states that the verse related to Peleg about the “earth being divided” likely refers to the Bering land bridge being broken as well as other changes in geography due to the retreat of the Ice Age. This puts Peleg at about 10-11 kBC.

So, to synthesize this into something approaching cohesion, there are some minimal starting points –some theological positions that should be stated so that they won’t be presumed, and some scientific data that must be accommodated. To begin with, I think Genesis 1 is a general timeline, and Genesis 2 is a story told in the fashion of the Hebrews, who do not always keep things in temporal context, but rather the context of what they feel is important to the word picture they are building. Also, while I agree with many that Genesis can and should be interpreted theologically as God’s communication to us about creation, it should also be understood that there are creation accounts throughout the entire Bible that speak to us of Creation…not just Genesis. And while we should always interpret the Bible and Genesis in the context in which it was written, the words do have meaning with relationship to both history and to the natural world. To dismiss this as being either unnecessary or inappropriate is unfounded, and seems to me to be merely a mechanism to escape having to deal with some difficult issues that it brings up. As in all things, there is balance. To state that the word of God is the only authority denies God’s creation, and to state that God’s creation should be our primary source of knowledge about the creation denies all that God tells us specifically in this regard in the Bible and in Genesis. They should *both* be examined, and since they are both of God’s work, and therefore both true, then both should agree. If they don’t (seem to) agree, then man’s interpretation of the Word or the world is at fault, not God, and man must work out the differences as best he can, until we can actually ask God just what it is that He meant. Especially that bit about Adam’s rib.

With regard to science, I think we must encompass the dawn of man in Africa. James Hurd in his chapter in Perspectives actually goes so far as to state that some data places man not just in East Africa but possible the Levant. However, Africa works. While hominid skeletons show up at about 100 kBC, the dawn of man seems more tied to the cultural explosion of 40 kBC. There are examples of fossils from known, non-interbreeding, and different species, which cannot be distinguished based on the fossil evidence alone, but rather on the soft tissue that is not fossilized. Thus the presence of fossilized remains alone is not absolute evidence of the dawn of mankind. It is therefore the rapid appearance of civilization at about 40 kBC that seems to provide a better marker.

That puts Adam and Eve at 40 kBC, not 6 to 10 kBC. Hurd states in his chapter in Perspectives that the main theological problem with this position is how to explain pain and suffering before Adam and Eve. I disagree, that is a relatively minor and easily explained problem. With regard to animal and plant death, these things had been ongoing since the origin of life for some 3.8 billion years. The first bacteria…died. The life that existed in the Cambrian died. The dinosaurs died. Early mammals died. Early hominids died. From a neuroanatomical perspective, I can tell you that all these creatures (at least very likely from the Cambrian onwards) had nervous systems that provided pain sensation, and so it hurt when they died. Just to be clear, and using the example of a carnivorous dinosaur, it hurt other organisms when it ate, it hurt when it was harmed or killed trying to eat or defend itself, it even “hurt” when it was hungry or thirsty. Pain is a part of life. It is a necessary part of living because without it we wouldn’t know of many types of danger. Simply because things died and felt pain before Adam says nothing about sin, especially original sin, and the problems that it has caused.

No, the bigger problem with putting Adam and Eve at 40 kBC is flood dating, dealing with Genesis 4:2, and dealing with Cain’s lineage. If Cain’s lineage carried on, as it presumably does from reading it until at least as early as 8 kBC (if we try and ignore the reference to stringed musical instruments and perhaps presume this refers to some other musical instrument, since musical instruments have been around for 30 k years), AND we put the flood in a reasonable position with regard to the origins of Adam and Eve, then it appears that the Biblical Flood’s universality was Hebrocentric; with respect to the Hebrews. Cain was cast out, and so some wandered off, and apparently some of his lineage perhaps wandered all the way to Australia. This in and of itself sets a precedent, and perhaps an antecedent, for Hebrocentrism. The historical accounts in Genesis perhaps are referring to the history of the Jews, not the history of the total of mankind. If the Jews refer to themselves as “all of mankind”, because they are the chosen race of God, then all else outside that sphere (i.e, Cain and his lineage) become “not mankind”. If we accept this, then what does that say about the origins of man? This seems to add support for a model that perhaps distinguishes the dawn of the human race from the dawn of the Hebrew race.

If such is the case, then Adam (as the direct descendant of the Hebrews) could have existed as late at 10 kBC, or perhaps even later, since the Genesis accounts do not speak to that directly. If we accept this, then it is certainly easier to accept the usage of farming and animal husbandry by Cain and Abel. Cain’s lineage might, or might not, have escaped the flood; we’ve already accepted that mankind appeared at 40 kBC and spread out, so all of mankind did not die in the flood – just all of the ancient Hebrew race except Noah. There might still have been a bottleneck; mankind did develop from a small population in Africa, it seems. However with this scenario it could have been one pair that was chosen by God to be the descendants of the Hebrews, one pair that was especially created differently, one pair that was instilled with the spiritual essence of God, one pair that was placed in the East, in Eden, and one pair that broke the covenant with God.

The point here is that there is no reason to presume that Adam and Eve were symbolic, rather than real. There are no grounds for denying the truth claims that are made about Genesis based on the truth claims that are made based on science, when the history and science involved is reasonably  consistent (as much as it can be) and clear as to when and what happened. Many of these scientific discoveries are consistent with what is written in the Word of God, e.g., genetic bottlenecks, mitochondrial data, Y-chromosome data, to list a few examples. Does the evidence found in nature answer all the questions? No, and I doubt that is will. God describes specific accounts of creation miracles that must be called supernatural intervention. Science (as it is defined today) will not touch upon this in a way that is meaningful. That’s what faith is, understanding that God is real and that he created the heavens, the earth, man, and our spiritual nature. You won’t find God’s recipe for all the things that he does written in the genetic code. At best, I would appeal to Bob Russell’s concept of Objective Special Providence for the theistic evolutionist to help them understand that the miraculous works of God (in my opinion) could have been wrought in such a way that only the natural traces would show up and be describable.

If we presume that Adam and Eve are not just the origin of the Hebrews, but rather also the origins of the human race, then the case I’ve presented above also goes a long way to supporting that position. There are remaining problems, but as models go, this one at least is a working model. However, if we place the dawn of man at about 40 kBC, and the dawn of the ancient Hebrew race significantly later with a real Adam and Eve, this model too has problems, but they seem less insurmountable than the alternative. This implies that there were two origins: mankind (perhaps about 40 kBC) and the Hebrew race (perhaps at about 10 kBC or earlier). This seems easier to reconcile with the record of nature. I must note here again that Genesis 5:1-2 in two verses, uses “Adam” three different ways, in a total of four sentences. It seems to me that if they wanted the picture to be clearer, there were literary mechanisms available to make it so. However, I am by no means an expert in ancient Hebrew, and so must leave that to the experts to decide.

The main question of course for us is whether the Hebrocentric view changes our concept of original sin. I believe the answer is no. We still have Adam and Eve, in Eden, given a choice by God. We still have Satan in the guise of a talking snake, lying to man. We still have man doing what man does…sinning. We still have Christ, who died for our sins…and this is the best part. While the Hebrocentric view leaves out the Gentiles, we (I’m not a Jew) get added back in. So the Hebrocentric view is OK in that respect. Jesus died for all of our sins, not just the Jews.

In summary, there are two possible views: the traditional view, and the Hebrocentric view. We may not know for sure which is true, there may be some other data out there that will modify one or both models. However, what we do know is that God is real, Christ died for our sins, that there was an origin of man and an origin of the Hebrew race, and an origin of sin. We can debate the rest until Christ returns…and probably will.