Genesis 5 - Proof that Adam was born
I believe I have made a convincing case that mankind was created before Adam, around 200,000 years ago. Then, Adam lived around 6,000-10,000 years ago. The main proof is scripture.
Genesis 1:26-31
- God made both genders on Day 6, and blessed them together, as one group. But in Genesis 2, Eve was only created because God saw Adam was lonely and needed help.
- In Genesis 1, Day 6 refers to all of mankind by the word Adam; Genesis 2 refers to a specific person the name Adam.
- In Genesis 1, God gives mankind the entire world to subdue, but…
- In Genesis 2, God only gives Adam the Garden of Eden to tend
- Adam only goes into the world after he sins
- Any subduing Adam and his descendants did were seemingly undone by the flood.
 A more literal interpretation of scripture suggests that Genesis 2 came after Day 7. Just read it sequentially, and the oddities above appear to go away. In fact, science supports this more literal interpretation of the scripture. Interpreted sequentially, scripture and science now agree:
- After modern man appears, mankind subdued the world
- The skills of farming and agriculture appeared much later, exactly when Christians think Adam was alive
- When the flood took place, the world remained subdued. Specifically, the flood exacted punishment on mankind to the extent that it refers to Adam’s descendants, yet without removing the blessing God gave to mankind on Day 6.
The one detail of contention however that is not such an easy argument is Adam’s actually conception. Was he born, or directly created? Recall Genesis 2:4-6. According to science, it exactly describes the state of the earth after it first formed. Does this provide context Genesis 2:7?
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
The answer is yes, because the conditions in verses 4 to 6, an earth with no plants, animals, or rain, but there is mist rising from the earth, actually existed 4.5 billion years ago. That mist formed the basis of the first oceans… the deep that God’s spirit hovered over just before He said, “Let there be light” on Day 1. In other words, the conditions were that of dust and water. So, when it says that God created man from the dust of the ground, scientifically it means that that the verse is referring to that dust.
Given that Adam was liveda around 6,000 years ago, long after mankind was created on Day 6, then was God’s action to form Adam? It means that God’s creation of Adam began 4.5 billion years ago, and completed some time after Day 6, about 6,000 years ago. It suggests a process. It suggests that God was getting the dust ready, making it fertile, getting it to the point that Adam could be created directly from the dust, or means that God started with dust, created plants and animals from that, and mankind from that, and Adam was born to mankind. Both are possible. Each have their arguments. But, which is true?
In Genesis 5, there is a similar disconnect in the first few verses that might shed some light on whether Adam was born or directly created. Here are the verses…
 1 This is the written account of Adam’s line.
      When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man. ” 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
Do you see the disconnect? In verse two, the word for “man” is Adam. Basically, verse 2 refers to all of mankind by the name Adam, and then proceed to tell of Adam’s lineage. In Verse 2, Adam is mankind; in verse 3, Adam is a one person. Does that sound familiar? It should. In Genesis 1, Adam is mankind; in Genesis 2, Adam is one person. It is the same disconnect.
But, what does verse 1 say? “This is the written account of Adam’s line.” And what is the first entry? God created man; He created them male and female. In other words, mankind is the beginning of Adam’s line; Adam himself comes later, in verse 3. But, for mankind to be part of Adam’s line, it must be talking ancestry. Genesis 1 makes it clear that mankind came before Adam, and the consistency of Genesis 5 confirms it. To be Adam’s ancestry, Adam must have been born.
Now, I suppose there are several possible other explanations for this. I will address a few.
A flaw in the Translation
One could argue that the modern translation is flawed. I could make a the argument using the Hebrew, but let me go at it a different way. Let us look in an older translation, the KJV:
 1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
 2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
 3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
 4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
 5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
See the disconnect again? It’s in verse 2. It says that God called men and women collectively, “Adam”, in the “day” when they were created. Verse 3 then talks of Adam as a person, and verse 5 says Adam lived 930 years. Obviously mankind lived longer than 930 years… hence the disconnect. However, even in the King James, it is clear that mankind are counted among Adam’s generations. Coming before him, they must therefore be his ancestors.
A flaw in Interpretation of verse 1
One could also argue that just “Adam” refers to mankind in verse 2, it also refers to mankind in verse 1. Therefore, mankind Adam is not part of person Adam’s lineage or generations.
Suppose that verse 1 does mean mankind Adam. It would only change the interpretation slightly, to mean that Genesis 5 constitutes the generations of mankind… meaning Adam was descended from mankind. Adam the person is a generation of Adam mankind. Again, it would seem that Adam was born.
Mankind an Assumption where None is Warranted
One could argue that generation or lineage does not by necessity require physical descent. But, if it does not, then what would it mean? I have been argue for spiritual life and death as the interpretation of God’s punishment for Adam and Eve eating the fruit, so could this mean spiritual generations? Spiritual lineage?
Mankind before Adam is not part of Adam’s spiritual lineage. If one is to try using my own reasoning against me, then notice that my argument for spiritual life hinges on God breathing spiritual life into Adam, long after mankind was created. In other words, Adam may have physical ancestry in mankind, but no spiritual ancestry. Therefore, verse 1 is referring only to physical ancestry.
Putting Words into Moses’ Mouth
Finally, one could argue that Moses is not attempting to explain anything of sort. Well, I would agree! In fact, I would say his expressly avoiding it! However, I noticed two things in this area. The first is that Moses talked to God in his tent, face to face, as if to a man… and yet was not seeing the glory of God’s presence. Look it up. The verses are carefully worded, implying Moses was talking to God in a man’s form, yet without actually saying so. Yet, the verses following make it quite clear that God wasn’t in His glory. When God did show Himself in His glory to Moses, it was physically, and only His back. Later, in the Gospels, we see Jesus transfigured, and Moses talking to Him (with Elijah). It would seem that the figure of God walking by Moses was Jesus transfigured… and by extension, it was Jesus in Moses’ tent, not transfigured. In other words, Moses knew Jesus, yet clearly avoided describing God as a man, or God coming to Him as a man in His tent. Therefore, Moses was not above skirting a detail that could be stumbling block to the Hebrews he was writing the Torah for. I believe that is what Moses was doing here.
In other words, there really is a blank to fill in! And the only interpretation makes real sense, as described above, is that Adam was physically descended from mankind.
Conclusion
Adam was born