Christian Identity What is it? by CHARLES WEISMAN
Was Adam the First Man?

An Analysis of An Argument Against Pre-Adamic Men & Races

Nearly all Bible authorities and students agree that Adam was created by God about 6,000 years ago (c. 4,000 B.C.). Bible chronology on this issue has been established long ago and has been continually verified and sustained.

The question which is debated and argued is whether Adam was the first man or humanoid being on earth, or if other types of men existed before Adam. History and science reveal that many different men and humanoid types were on earth tens of thousands of years before Adam. The skeletal remains of these beings have been found all over the planet. Some resemble races now existing, some represent more primitive humanoid types. Bible "fundamentalists" and Christian humanists claim Adam was the first humanoid or man, and was consequentially the father of all peoples and races on earth, or ever existed on the earth. This is derived from their literal and universal interpretation of Scripture, and their denial of what history and science reveal on the matter.

To show how inaccurate these humanists and Bible fundamentalists are in their position that Adam was the first man, we will analyze an argument which one of these people has given on the matter. The following excerpts are from an article titled Pre-Adamite Yearnings, written by Douglas Jones in Credenda Agenda magazine (Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 18). Mr. Jones takes the position that all men and races are descended from Adam. In the article he cites some views of "white racialists" about Adam being of the father of only the White race, and that other people existed before Adam. He then states why he thinks this idea is wrong:

The primary arguments for such claims stem from Cain. For example, "If only Adam and Eve existed, then who was Cain afraid of that would kill him? . . . If Adam and Eve were the first and only people at this time, then from where did Cain find a wife? Not only was he able to find a wife, but there were obviously enough people to be part of the city built by Cain. . . .All of these circumstances thus point to the existence of men independent of Adam."

This wording was apparently derived from our book on The Origin of Race and Civilization. That book also stated that when God cursed and cast out Cain, God placed a "mark" on Cain, "lest any finding him should kill him." God said, "Whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold" (Gen. 4:14,15). The statements clearly indicate other people already existing at the time of Adam, Eve and Cain. Yet those who always apply a literal interpretation of the Bible say that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth. Now what can Christian humanists do in regard to such facts? The only thing they can do, distort Scripture. Mr. Jones states that, "we do have some textual ground for other Adamic children alongside Cain and Able." This is the explanation which Mr. Jones gives for his statement:

First, we know that Cain killed Abel when Adam was nearly one hundred and thirty years old. Support from this comes from the fact that Seth is born specifically to replace Abel, and that birth occurs when Adam was one hundred and thirty (Gen. 5:3).

We don't know exactly how old Adam was when Cain killed Abel. We only know that this event occurred before the birth of Seth. It could have been only a year or two, or 30 or 50 years. Mr. Jones continues:

Second, it appears that Abel and Cain were born soon after Adam's expulsion from the garden (Gen. 3:24; 4:1). So between the birth of the first two and the birth of Seth, we have over a hundred year time span. Surely that's plenty of time to party reproductively. After Cain and before Seth, Adam and Eve produced many children who had children and grandchildren, long before Abel was killed. Cain would have plenty of people to encounter.

This 100 year "time span" is speculation. This would mean that Cain was 100 years old when he killed Abel, when it is generally acknowledged he was a youth of no more than 20 at this time. How ever long this "time span" was between Cain's birth (C on the chart below), and the birth of Seth (E), there is no Biblical proof or indication that Adam and Eve had other children during this time span. There is no Biblical passage cited by Mr. Jones to support this. The Bible does say that Adam had other children, but this occurred after Seth:

After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he begot sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died (Gen. 5:4,5).

Adam was 130 years old at the time of Seth's birth. It was during the remaining 800 years of Adam's life that he had other children. Mr. Jones is claiming this reproduction of sons and daughters happened "after Cain and before Seth." This is a blatant distortion of what Scripture says on the matter. Mr. Jones is apparently trying to take the events of "F" and "G" on the Adamic time line, and move them over to just after "C" on the time line.

      Time Line  



                 __ A________B________C_______D_________E_________F___________G_


             l                  l                 1               l             

                  l                   l                        l

            Adam       Expulsion      Cain           Cain               Seth    

               Adam's other      Grand

             created      from Eden     born        kills Abel           born   

                   Children         Children

              Gen. 2:7    Gen. 3:23     Gen. 4:1    Gen. 4:8       Gen. 4:25    

              Gen. 5:4      Gen. 5:6-9




Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve had no other children when Cain killed Abel. So who were the people Cain was afraid would kill him? Where did all the people come from that made up the city Cain established? The Christian humanists cannot explain these Biblical facts. We thus find people like Mr. Jones will engage in speculation and twist the clear words and chronology of Scripture because he wants his theology of racial universalism established. This notion of the unity of man is the philosophy of the Establishment and one-world order, and they have convinced many "Christians" which are bent towards humanism that this is the correct ways of God and doctrine of the Bible.

Mr. Jones also raises the speculative argument that "Adam and Eve produced godly and ungodly lines of descendants (Gen. 3:15)." He says that Seth was a special replacement for Abel as the godly line, and that "not just any of Adam's many children could fill Abel's shoes." He thus implies that the ungodly lines were these other children of Adam. To make this bit of speculation work out, Mr. Jones makes the following arguments:

But why is there no other mention of other descendants? The answer seems to be that these other descendants lacked the covenantal significance of Abel. We find such an omission in the genealogy of Adam. The genealogy is concerned with the godly line, not Cain or his other siblings. Genesis 5 teaches, "This is the book of the genealogy of Adam....." (Gen. 5:1-4) Notice that both Cain and Abel are missing from this. The texts reads as if they hadn't even been born. The truth is that the genealogy isn't very concerned with biology. Abel and Cain are simply insignificant to the continuation of the godly line, as would be the other children outside that line.

This paragraph is loaded with erroneous statements. The first sentence asserts that these other children or descendants of Adam and Eve are not mentioned in the Bible. Yet the Bible does mention them in Gen. 5:4, but it does not mention any before this or at the time Mr. Jones would like other children to exist. So he pretends they existed and says they are not mentioned because they "lacked the covenantal significance of Abel." That is absolute and unfounded conjecture, as the covenantal birthright is always given to the first born, not one who is the 20th or 30th born. To support his presumption he says Cain and Abel are not mentioned in Adam's genealogy in Genesis 5, so these other children may not have been mentioned as well.

The reason Abel is not mentioned in the genealogy is because he was dead. Genealogy is a continuous lineage and one who dies without having children cannot be part of such a genealogy.

Since Seth was appointed to be heir instead of (or in the place of) Abel, that means Abel was not "insignificant to the continuation of the godly line," as Mr. Jones states. Christ referred to Abel as "righteous" (Matt. 23:35). Even Mr. Jones said at first that Abel had "covenantal significance," and then said he was "insignificant" to promote a godly line. How mixed up can anyone get? Abel died childless, that is why he is not part of the Adamic genealogy.

The reason Cain is not mentioned is because he was cursed and rejected by God because of his murder. Cursed and rejected people are never mentioned as being heirs, or as part of the chosen line. When God rejects someone from being the heir or chosen seed who is biologically in line to be the heir it is a very big deal and a rare event. Thus such a rejection is always specifically mentioned in Scripture, as it was with Cain, Ishmael, and Esau. If Adam had a son after Cain killed Abel, but before Seth was born, then that son would have been treated as the firstborn and heir of the Adamic birthright. So if that son was rejected or passed over as Mr. Jones suggests, then that rejection would be mentioned. Mr. Jones implies that this mythical son and other children are not mentioned because they were not godly enough. In other words, Adam and Eve just kept producing ungodly children until one day they got lucky and produced a godly child who was Seth. How utterly stupid could anything be as that piece of speculation?

This line of nonsense is support with more nonsense. Mr. Jones says that "genealogy isn't very concerned with biology." What in the world does he think genealogy is? My Webster's New World Dictionary gives the following definition of genealogy:

1. a chart or recorded history of the descent of a person or family from an ancestor or ancestors

2. the science or study of family descent

3. descent from an ancestor; pedigree; lineage.

According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, genealogy (# 3188) means "a pedigree or family list." From where does Mr. Jones get his definition of genealogy? He obviously makes up definitions to conform to his twisted theology. Genealogy has everything to do with biology, that is what genealogy is all about! It is about biological descent and ancestral lineage! The law of the firstborn is prevalent throughout Scripture and is clearly biological. Anyone who reads the Bible knows of the prevalence of biological descent and genealogy--"This is the book of the generations of Adam" (Gen. 5;1). "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed (descendants) after thee in their generations" (Gen. 17:7). It does not say this is the book of a line of people who were righteous, or that God will only have a covenant with those that are godly. The Bible deals with a biological lineage of a chosen seed or race, a people that God has chosen (Isa. 44:1-3; Deut. 7:6; 10:15), even if they were not so godly. Israel's repeated idolatry shows they were not always godly. The Bible does not reveal that Adam had "other children" between Cain and Seth, whether godly or ungodly. But to support his doctrine Mr. Jones further states:

There was one father Adam who had one very thin, godly, messianic line of descendants. He also had many other lines of opponents of God.

The issue is not the "messianic line," anymore than it is the priestly line, or even some tribal line. All of these lines are a part of the chosen people line. That is the issue--who are God's chosen people? God's chosen people were always of a specific lineage or race of people. This excluded others because of their race regardless of being godly or not. Mr. Jones wants to divert attention from this fact by making the issue to be a "very thin, godly, messianic line."

One wonders from where he got this argument, especially when we look at all the ungodly and wicked kings that were in the "messianic line" (Matt. 1). This dismisses the theory of Mr. Jones that genealogy is a question of who is godly and who is not. It is a question of race just as the genealogical records of Scripture reveal.

As a further attempt to support his humanistic concept of the universality of the races, Mr. Jones states the following:

The rest of Scripture clearly supports this picture that Adam and Eve were our first parents. Pre-Adamites would make nonsense out of such claims that, "It is not good that man should be alone: I will make him a helper comparable to him" (Gen. 2:18) or "there was no man to till the ground" (Gen. 2:5). Eve is called the "mother of all living (Gen. 3:20) and Adam--"the first man was of the earth" (1 Cor. 15:47; cf. 45).

The fact that God had to make Eve as a helper comparable to Adam implies only that there were no women "comparable" to Adam, not that there were no women living at the time. If Adam was of the white race then a female Bushman or Chinaman would not be comparable to Adam. The order of kind after kind had to be maintained, and a man and woman of the same kind or race are "comparable."

The Hebrew rendition of Gen. 2:5 is that, "there was no Adam to till the ground." There were none of the Adamic kind on earth before Adam was created, but there were other humanoid kinds.

It was also inferred that the verse which says Eve is called the "mother of all living" means she is the mother of all races. But if we allow such a literal interpretation of this verse, then why can we not say Eve was the mother of horses, giraffes, gorillas, and serpents? All of these are "living" things. The verse can mean nothing more than that Eve was the mother of all the Adamic race, whether they are of the chosen line or not.

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.

Mr. Jones also quotes Acts 17:26, which is commonly cited by those who opt for the unity of the races doctrine. This verse says: "He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth." This verse does not mean that all races have the same blood genetically, anymore than the statement, "there is one flesh of men" (1 Cor. 15:39), means all races have the same skin. Daily observation of the different skin pigmentations tell us this is not the correct interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:39. Also, medical science has well established that the various races do not have the same genetic makeup of blood (see, Races and People, by Dr. William Boyd, 1955, p. 145). Thus the literal interpretation which Mr. Jones wishes to apply to Acts 17:26 is obviously wrong. Further, most Bible commentaries on this verse state that, "The best texts omit the word `blood'."

We thus see that these and other verses do make sense in light of other people and races existing before Adam when proper interpretation and common sense is applied. When people like Mr. Jones liberally and indiscriminately apply a literal or apparent meaning to Scripture verses, they end up with a lot of "nonsense" that is not in accord with Scripture, nature and logic. They thus have to engage in a considerable amount of speculation to cover up their nonsense. Notice the words Mr. Jones used in his argument, "it appears that," and "seems to be." In other words, it is just a guess, or a speculative hope. To conclude his argument Mr. Jones makes says the following:

Pre-Adamites just don't fit into the biblical scheme. Whether from scientific or racist motives, they are just an ugly excuse to twist the faith.

We have seen that Mr. Jones was unable to explain the verses relating to Cain and had to twist and distort Scripture in his attempt to do so. He engages in much speculation, fabrication and a sloppy literal interpretation. He has nothing to support his concluding statement, which means pre-Adamites can indeed fit into the biblical scheme.

I suppose it is true that Scriptural fact, verified by science and history, does indeed "twist the faith," that is, Mr. Jones' faith. It is obvious that his argument is not the result of an objective evaluation of Scripture and available facts, but was an attempt to distort Scripture so it can conform to his preconceived notions and belief of the way he thinks God should have done things in regards to the races of men. It is all just an "ugly excuse" to deny the truth of Scripture and what God as done in the earth.

This is a warning to all, that humanism abounds in what is called or passes for "Christianity" today --Isaiah 55:8.