Nothing in Genesis suggests the other inhabitants numbered in thousands. They could have been a lot smaller in number.
Yes, but only if we agreed to a population size close to the figure you suggested.
Why is that the starting assumption? One would have to choose that assumption. It doesn’t come from the text.
1 Like
I think that it is difficult to show from the text that Adam and Eve, the characters in the garden (if we read Gen. 2,3 as talking about individuals) are the first two humans. Am I wrong on this?
That assertion seems to be assumption based on misreading the word “human” or “humanity” in Gen. 1. Does anyone actually argue that in Gen 1 God creates a human named Adam? If not, then how could you show that the people, Adam and Eve, are the first humans?
1 Like
I think you’re right on this.
The doctrine of A&E as first genetic humans stems from other passages of Scripture, such as …
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings - Acts 17:26, NKJV
And…
The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. - I Corinthians 14:47, NKJV
Just as Genesis 1 - 3 need not be interpreted as newsreel footage or science textbook, these passages need not be interpreted as newsreel footage or science textbook. They teach important truths: that humanity has a common origin, originating in God’s will and creativity, and a common end (mortality). And Christ is the harbinger of the ultimate design and destiny that God has in mind for us.
Believe the revelation; don’t try to turn it into a scientific textbook; and you’ll be on the right track. In my opinion. 
Regards,
Chris
3 Likes
Hi all,
It’s well known in OT studies in scholarship that Genesis has doublets all throughout its literary composition and/or compilation. In other words, like some other portions of the OT, it has patch work. How the doublets are interpreted differs from groups of scholars to others. However, the data are the same for all to see. The fact that Genesis 1-2 are two different creation stories is a major view in OT studies. Not all scholars accept, but I think the majority do. I was looking for a John H. Walton video for the doublets, but I cannot find it. Or, maybe it was not one of his videos. Instead, I remembered Dr. Kipp Davis (Trinity Western University) who has recently produced his last critical analysis of Genesis 1-11 on his YouTube Channel. Dr. Davis is not a believer, but the data are well presented nonetheless as this information can be found in evangelical and non-evangelical resources (but it’s easier to reference and watch YouTube!):
Entire series:
Is Genesis 1–11 Reliable? A Critical Response, Part III: introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis - YouTube
Is Genesis 1–11 Reliable? A Critical Response, Part III.2: Evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis - YouTube
Is Genesis 1–11 Reliable? A Critical Response, the Finale (featuring the Brick Bible!) - YouTube
For our purposes here, watch the ones bolded above.
Therefore, anyone wanting to speculate on what is going on in Genesis must take into consideration how genealogies work in the OT and the ANE (John Walton does some of this work), which is not what we normally assume as moderns, and how the text probably came together. The Genesis literary sources were not always aligned. Of course, fundamentalists will argue that all this must be explained away because of Inspiration and Inerrancy, since God cannot make mistakes. But that supposes that Inspiration and Inerrancy works a certain way, for that Inerrancy is a actually a “thing” in the Bible besides Inspiration.
4 Likes
I am not widely read on this, but I think there is silence on the origin of the other inhabitants. I assumed, thus, that they were direct descendants of AE who moved out from the residence of AE. Of course, one can also assume that they were not related. However, I think that if these unknown people were genetically related to AE, then it soundly explains why Cain would beg God for protection and how these inhabitants knew that Cain was under God’s protection. My understanding of the underlying Hebrew is shallow so I might be misreading the text. Corrections are welcome.
I am not misreading anything. AE (ish and ishah respectively) are the first human couple to be mentioned in Genesis and that’s where my hypothesis starts.
Adam was the first human being, whatever it was. Later on God carved out Eve from Adam, giving rise to ish (male Adam) and ishah (female Adam). Adam and Eve went on to produce Cain, Abel, their mentioned siblings, and possibly the unknown inhabitants of other parts of the earth.
How else do you read the beginning of Genesis 5?
This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man[a] when they were created. 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
Oops, my post above came out unclear. Let me re-list the videos of Dr. Davis:
Entire series:
For our purposes here:
Well there are two clear problems here.
-
You aren’t widely read on this. If you were you’d know that readers of Genesis for thousands of years wondered about people outside the Garden.
-
Silence does not imply absence. That doesn’t logically follow. Your assumption isn’t warranted.
2 Likes
It seems you forget my hypothesis does not allow for the existence of POGs prior to the Fall. Following the Fall, AE become the first set of people outside the garden. They had kids, some of which were recognized early on, while others were kept in secret until the earlier recognized kids were removed from center stage.
I am also not in ignorance on the extensive degree of thinking that has gone into POGs.
I don’t think I argued anywhere that there were no explanations for the origins and identity of other inhabitants who get their first mention by Cain in Genesis 4. I simply offered an explanation that attempts to reconcile Cain’s statement on the other inhabitants with AE being their only human, genetic ancestors.
I also don’t see why my assumption is unwarranted.
A. It’s very true that commentators and critical readers – from second temple Jewish literature 'til today – have wondered about other people outside the Garden narrative in Genesis 4-5. However, it’s a narrative, and to match or correlate the narrative (or narrative gap) with science is a different endeavor than wondering about it. In other words, the fact that there is a gap in the narrative does not mean evolution can, or would, or will answer the gap. That supposes the narrative’s gap is part of a historical reality in the way that the narrative is told. The endeavor to discover some more about it or to test the hypothesis of historical reality and correlation to the narrative is fine, but it’s not definitive proof that the narrative actually happened the way narrated. What I am sharing here is even more pronounced if you are learned about the issues of the Exodus and the Exodus story and the gaps and issues it has. Same thing with other books in the OT (Daniel has historical issues that are more and more difficult to reconcile with real historical reality!). Thus, this entails issues of Inspiration and Inerrancy as well as whether Adam / Eve (and subsequent genealogies) are archetypal when discussing Genesis 1-11. Yes, Paul and Jesus believed it literally as written, as any other Jewish reader of their day would have, but this by itself does prove historicity. There is still a silence/gap, and this is not the only gap in the OT!!!
B. It’s true that silence does not prove absence. However, there is no positive evidence that it is the way proposed by some scholars here and there. Therefore, the silence remains to be interpreted much better in the light of the Documentary Hypothesis (Kipp Davis above), or the Supplementarian view (Dr. Heiser), and in the light of doublets and patch work throughout Genesis and the rest of the OT. The Doublets are there! The patch work is there! That is evidence to be considered.
4 Likes
The simplest explanation is that the compilers of Genesis stitched together many separate stories, making some attempt to connect them but not unduly concerned with erasing all inconsistencies. Thus Adam and Eve are the first couple in a story entirely separate from Genesis 1, and Cain and Abel are made children of Adam and Eve in order to connect those two stories, but the existence of other people is a necessary part of the Cain story and is retained even though it’s inconsistent with the Adam and Eve story. One can of course remove the inconsistency in a variety of ways, but all of them must stretch the A&E story to fit, in a way that’s technically uncontradicted but that doesn’t really match the story very well. YMMV.
5 Likes
Sort of…yes.
It appears to my non-expert eyes to repeat the same literary devise used in Gen 1 - 3 to connect humanity (Gen 1) to the first people in the narrative Adam and Eve. I think this works whether Adam and Eve were actual people or not).
2 Likes
The origins debate that the first chapters of Genesis addresses is not our origins debate, it is the one ancient Israel had with Babylon and Egypt.
Much conversation in these days is spent on things that are not the major themes of the story that the authors of Genesis are trying to tell. I think putting more energy towards understanding the story that the authors intended to tell yields richer theological understanding and helps us do less co-opting of Biblical texts for uses that the authors never intended (like defending our traditions).
Can you imagine asking a prophet or scribe anytime between 1000 and 0 BC about how their text informs our understanding of phylogeny? 
We (Jesius followers) should seek to understand the story, and let it correct our traditions, rather than hold our traditions so tightly that we are compelled to make the text do things it is not intending to do.
My point in all of that is to say that one of the things that the BibleProject does well is to trace the big themes of the story of the Bible as they develop through the progression of the text. And I bring that up because in Episode 4 (linked up above) we start to see one small payoff of looking at Genesis in context. Episodes 1-3 prepared us for a look at how the major theme of “Waters” in the Hebrew Bible develops and is used by the authors to do theology.
2 Likes
Here’s episode 5
By the way, there is no 0 BC in history. In fact, there is no 0.
It’s -1 BCE (or BC) and 1 CE (or AD 1). It goes -3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3…
2 Likes
It’s AD 1. 
1 Like
For example:
Two Syriac versions from perhaps the fourth century, along with the eleventh-century bishop Theophylact (PG 123.1133–34), say that John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Nero (54–68 CE).
Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 38A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2014), 72.
Also
“The formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:3–8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE, because the appearance to Paul is the last of the appearances and cannot be dated after 33 CE.”112
Justin W. Bass, The Bedrock of Christianity: The Unalterable Facts of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 81.
@swamidass : Yes, it’s not wrong I’ve seen both in the scholarly literature, and some scholars are not consistent. I’ve seen 50 CE and the like (BCE / CE). AD has a Christian meaning, so if AD is used AD + number. If CE is used than it’s the number + CE. As long as one is consistent. I’ve also seen different universities from different countries do it differently. Same issues with punctuation, some universities follow some guidelines and I’ve seen MA theses and PhD dissertations with inconsistent usage of punctuation and other symbols (and yet were reviewed by Professors!).
1 Like