Of the all the issues at stake in the creation debate, the origin of man is surely one of the most contentious, and with good reason. After all, what we believe about the creation of man heavily influences what we believe about the nature and purpose of man—including what it means to be made in the “image” of God. Were humans specially created by God, or did he instead direct their evolution from certain hominid ancestors, with Adam being the first “spiritual” man? What can scripture tell us about this? Are we free to “follow the science” wherever it appears to lead, or does scripture impose hard limits on what Christians can accept regarding the origin of humanity? These are high-stakes questions, and they deserve the most careful consideration we can devote to them.
Before I begin, I must say that this will be a survey-level approach to the issue by necessity. Entire books have been written on the creation of man and the identity and timeframe of Adam, and doubtless more will be added to them. As with every other issue covered in this book, my focus will be on what we can learn from the scriptures themselves—what is potentially plausible in light of the text. I believe there are answers that can reconcile the biblical record with the scientific data, but to do so will require we be willing to reconsider some common theological assumptions.
The Root of the Problem
If you add up the biblical genealogies at face value, they appear to place the creation of Adam at a point approximately 6,000 to 7,000 years ago. So, if Adam was the first human being, then the human race is only about 6,000 to 7,000 years old. Yet, scientists have dated the oldest human remains ever found at over 200,000 years—not even close to the biblical genealogical data. Even in antiquity—long before Darwin, the Big Bang, and “deep time”—cultures such as Egypt and India boasted of legacies extending back well beyond what the Genesis genealogies appear to allow.[1]
Young-earth teachers emphatically claim that scientific dating methods must be unreliable because they appear to contradict scripture and should thus be dismissed as “man’s fallible opinions.” For their part, old-earth believers fall into several camps on the issue. Some, such as Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig, argue that we should push the dates for Adam and Eve back in time, citing various considerations. Others, such as those from the Christian evolutionist group BioLogos, argue that Adam and Eve may have been chosen by God from amongst a population of a few thousand humans who evolved from the great apes, or that they may simply be archetypal rather than historical—“literary figures in a highly compressed history of all our ancestors.”[2] In short, there is no default old-earth view of the matter.
Severing an Unnecessary Connection
I think it’s essential to begin by noting that the timing of man’s creation does not necessarily have anything to do with the age of the earth and the universe. The alleged conflict only exists if the creation days of Genesis 1 are literal calendar days making up a literal calendar week, with no gaps between the days. If the creation days are non-literal, however, as I have already argued, then they could be of any length at all and the timing of man’s creation tells us nothing about the age of the earth. Humanity could actually be about 6,000 to 7,000 years old, whereas the earth and the universe could be vastly older.
The Biblical Genealogies Considered
It may be tempting to straightforwardly add up the years lived by the persons listed in the biblical genealogies and call it a day—case closed. Unfortunately, things are not so simple. There are certain internal nuances and various other scriptural factors that must be addressed where the genealogies are concerned. The following are some of the more prominent of those factors.
Birth Order Issues
Genesis 11:26 tells us that Terah, Abraham’s father, “lived seventy years and became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.” Read straightforwardly, the record seems to show that Abram, Nahor, and Haran were triplets, born when Terah was 70 years old. Further, it seems to indicate that Abraham was born first. Other scriptures make these conclusions impossible, however.
Genesis 11:31-32 tells us that Abraham moved to Haran with Terah and remained there until Terah died at age 205. It was then that God called Abraham to leave Haran for Canaan. Genesis 12:4 and Acts 7:4 tell us that Abraham was 75 years old when the call of God came to him. So, if Terah was 205 years old when Abraham was 75 years old, to find out when Abraham was born, we subtract 75 from 205, which gives us 130. Terah was not 70 years old when Abraham was born; he was 130 years old.
For this reason, if you tried to “straightforwardly” calculate the Genesis genealogies based on the idea that Abraham was born when Terah was 70 years old, you’d be off by 60 years. The text is telling us that Terah became a father when he was 70 years old and eventually had three named sons, one of which was Abraham. Yet, Abraham was not the first in birth order even though he is listed first in the text. He is probably listed first because Abraham is the key ancestor of the Hebrews. As such, he is the most important child of Terah in their family tree. Although he was not first in birth order, he was first in priority where the Hebrews were concerned.
If the same is true of any of the names in the genealogical listings prior to Abraham, then the situation becomes complicated indeed; and in fact, we do see a similar situation in the life of Noah. Genesis 5:32 tells us that Noah was 500 years old when he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham is listed second amongst Noah’s three sons, although Genesis 9:24 tells us that he was actually the youngest son. Genesis 11:10 tells us that Shem was 100 years old when he had his son Arpachshad, who was born two years after the Flood (which occurred when Noah was 600 years old). This would mean that Shem was born when Noah was 502, making Japheth the oldest, born when Noah was 500. Ham was born sometime during the decades afterward and was old enough to have a wife of his own by the time the flood occurred (Genesis 7:7, II Peter 2:5). Shem is probably listed first among the three sons because he was the direct ancestor of Abraham, just as Abraham is listed first among Terah’s three sons even though he was not the oldest. Again, the Abrahamic lineage is primary here, not birth order.
How many of the other names in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 may tell a similar story, not of first-borns but of direct ancestors of the Abrahamic line? And what does this do to the date for Adam’s creation? For instance, Genesis 5 says that Seth lived a total of 912 years, becoming the father of Enosh at age 105. If, however, this account reflects what we’ve seen in the instances of Noah and Abraham, which is entirely plausible, then it may simply be saying that Seth first became a father at the age of 105, with Enosh being born sometime during the remaining 807 years of Seth’s life. He was not necessarily the first-born. So instead of there being 105 years between Seth and Enosh, there may actually have been a few more years, several decades, or even a few hundred years. We simply do not know.
At this point, it may be asked: If Enosh was not the first born, then why doesn’t the text list the names of Enosh’s siblings as it lists the siblings of Shem and Abraham?
As it happens, the text does tell us that Seth had other children. In full, Genesis 5:6-7 reads: “Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh. Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters.”[3] So Seth did have other children besides Enosh. Judging by Genesis 4:16-26, these other children were probably named in the original source material from which Moses compiled Genesis, but it is likely that he did not name them in Genesis 5 because they were not significant in the view of the Hebrews. Again, this genealogy traces the Abrahamic line, which ultimately became the Messianic line. In that sense, Enosh is the only person of real importance amongst the children of Seth. Contrast this with Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Shem was the direct Abrahamic ancestor, but Genesis 10 tells us that Ham and Japheth fathered nations that were known to the Hebrews, so it makes sense that they are discussed in the text.
Where the children of Seth are concerned, however, apparently only Enosh produced any offspring that survived the flood. The nations or groups produced by Seth’s other children did not survive and were of no consequence to later generations. Thus, there was really no reason for Moses to include them in Genesis even if he knew their names. It would not have served his purpose, which was primarily to chronicle the lineage of Abraham back to Adam.
Given these things, it is entirely plausible that Enosh may not have been the first-born child of Seth. In fact, this is a common feature in the Messianic line. Seth was not a first-born son, and neither were Shem or Abraham. In later times, we find that Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, Solomon, and Nathan—all prominent, direct ancestors in the line of Christ—were not first-born sons. How many times this pattern repeats in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 is anyone’s guess, but given how many times we find it in later generations, the odds are very good that at least a few of the men listed in Genesis 5 and 11 (besides Seth, Shem, and Abraham) were not first-born sons. If this is the case, given the sort of lifespans we see in these genealogies, even if only a few of the listed names were not first-born sons, this could potentially throw off calculations done by the “straightforward” method by hundreds of years.
Possible Gaps, Compression, or Telescoping in the Genealogies
Matthew chapter 1 begins with “the record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah,” and picks up the record beginning with Abraham. In Matthew 1:7-8, we find this:
Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa. Asa was father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat was the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah.
Now compare this listing to another lineage found in 1 Chronicles 3:10-12:
Now Solomon’s son was Rehoboam, Abijah was his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah his son.
Notice any differences? To make things easier, here’s a comparison chart listing the relevant portions of the two genealogies:
As you can see, three names are omitted from Matthew’s genealogy. Yet, Matthew writes: “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations” (Matthew 1:17), making it sound as if he’s including everyone. For one reason or another, Matthew omitted three persons from his genealogy in order to create three neat groupings of fourteen. Yet, we would not know this if it were not for the listing in I Chronicles 3.
We have still another oddity to consider in Matthew’s genealogy as well. Adding 14+14+14 gives us 42, but if you add the names in Matthew’s list, you’ll find only 41. The breakdown in Matthew’s pattern occurs in the third set of fourteen names, chronicling the time “from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah.” The only way to resolve this is to count Jeconiah twice. He is the last name in the second group of fourteen, and the first name in the third group. If you omit him from the third group and only count his son, Shieltiel, you end up with thirteen names in the third group. So, by necessity, Jeconiah must be counted twice. This is obviously deliberate on Matthew’s part, but we can only speculate as to why he might have done it.[4]
Still another genealogical discrepancy can be found in Ezra 7:2, which creates an apparent direct father-son relationship between Azariah and Meraioth, skipping six names which are found between these two persons in I Chronicles 6:6-14. Azariah was not the son of Meraioth; he was actually his great-great-great-great-great grandson. Why Ezra skipped over these names is not evident.
Were someone to tinker with genealogical listings like this in our culture, they would likely be accused of misrepresentation, but such was not the case in the culture of the ancients. The Hebrew word translated father in scripture is ab, which can refer to a simple ancestral relationship, such as being someone’s grandfather, rather than to direct parentage. An example of this is Genesis 28:13, where God says to Jacob: “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham, and the God of Isaac.” Abraham was not Jacob’s father; he was his grandfather, yet God uses the term “father” here. God says something similar to Moses in Exodus 3:15 while commissioning Moses to go to Egypt and free the Hebrew slaves, whom he calls “sons of Israel.” When Moses asks what he should say to them, God tells him: “Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’” Here, God refers to himself as the God of their “fathers,” plural—with particular emphasis on Jacob—yet by this time the Hebrews were separated from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by many generations.
Beyond this, however, the term ab can have a much wider application even than ancestry. It can refer to someone who is the founder or originator of something, such as in Genesis 4:21, where Jubal is called “the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.” The same general concept is also found in the New Testament, where Jesus refers to Satan as “the father of lies” (John 8:44).
Correspondingly, the term son (Hebrew – ben) can also carry a broader meaning than one’s direct offspring. Genesis 46:19-22 lists Joseph, his brother Benjamin, and all of their children, saying “These are the sons of Rachel…fourteen persons in all.” Yet, amongst those listed, Rachel gave birth to only Joseph and Benjamin; the others are her grandchildren. We see something similar in the book of Ruth as well. When Ruth’s son, Obed, is born, the text tells us that “the neighbor women gave him a name, saying, ‘A son has been born to Naomi!’” (Ruth 4:17). Yet, Naomi was Ruth’s mother-in-law from a previous marriage. As such, she was not even a blood relative of Obed.
Even the Hebrew term yalad, meaning “to beget,” “to bear,” and “to bring forth” can have a wider application than direct parentage. To see this, go back to Genesis 46, where the fourteen persons called ‘sons of Rachel’ are said to have been “born to Jacob.” Again, Jacob was the actual father of only two of those persons: Joseph and Benjamin. This is particularly significant because yalad is the term used in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, such as where the text tells us that Seth lived 105 years and ‘begat’ or ‘became the father of’ [yalad] Enosh.
Given these factors, it seems plausible, even probable, that there may be a mixture of direct father-son relationships and gaps or “telescoping” (highlighting or expanded focus) in the Genesis genealogies. We’ve already seen that Moses was selective in his approach to chronicling the Genesis lineages, even listing persons first when they were not actually born first. We also see how Matthew skipped three entire entries and counted one person twice in order to give us three groupings of 14 generations in his genealogy of Christ. Strict, linear accuracy seems not to have been the top priority in these listings.
These and other factors have led some conservative Bible commentators to suggest that the Genesis genealogies may be incomplete. Norman Geisler is one such commentator:
The symmetry of the text argues against it being complete. Scholars have noted that the symmetrical arrangement of Genesis 5 and 11 into groups of ten argues for their compression. Noah is the tenth name from Adam and Terah the tenth from Noah. Each ends with a father who had three sons. This is certainly the case in Matthew 1 where there are three series of four-teen (double-seven, the number of completeness and perfection), for we know three generations are left out in Matthew 1:8.[5]
Even some young-earth creationists have admitted that there is compelling evidence for the possibility of gaps in the Genesis genealogies.
Writing in their book The Genesis Flood—which has been tremendously influential within the young-earth movement—John Whitcomb and Henry Morris list a number of evidences indicating that there may be “gaps of an undetermined length…in the patriarchal genealogy of Genesis 11.”[6] One such factor referenced by Whitcomb and Morris has to do with Peleg, of whom Genesis 10:25 remarks, “In his days the earth was divided.” Whitcomb and Morris comment:
It is difficult to understand why it should be said only of Peleg, that “in his days the earth was divided,” if, on the assumption that Genesis 11 is a strict chronology, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, and Eber (and probably Cainan) were still living throughout the entire lifetime of Peleg.
All of this leads us to submit the following proposition: at least in this section of Genesis 11, if not in other sections, we have warrant for assuming that the term “begat” is to be understood in the ancestral sense…we feel justified in assuming that Peleg was a distant descendant of Eber.[7]
Going by a “straightforward” reading of the Genesis genealogies, the flood came 1,656 years after Adam’s creation—a mere 412 years prior to the birth of Abraham. After weighing historical factors such as “remarkable similarities” between the biblical flood account and the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, however, in addition to examining the details of the biblical text, Whitcomb and Morris came to the surprising conclusion that “the Flood may have occurred as much as three to five thousand years before Abraham.”[8]
When I was a young-earther, I believed that the idea of gaps or “telescoping” (highlighting or expanded focus) in the Genesis genealogies was nothing more than another effort to compromise with secular authorities and fit long ages of time into the biblical text. In fact, even after I became an old-earther, I was still reluctant to entertain the notion, as it seemed too simplistic, too contrary to what appeared to be the straightforward meaning of the text. Yet, the factors I’ve listed here render such gaps plausible, even probable.
Given what we’ve seen with regard to birth order and potential gaps, and considering the lifespans of the people who lived during the Genesis 5 and 11 eras, it is entirely plausible that the “straightforward” reading may be off by a considerable margin. As to how much it deviates, opinions vary widely.
Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe has argued that we could potentially calibrate the Genesis genealogies by focusing on the genealogy in Genesis 11. Abraham appears at the end of that listing. Various archaeological discoveries show Abraham lived approximately 4,000 years ago, which is consistent with the biblical data. If we then go halfway back up the list in Genesis 11 to Peleg, “in whose days the earth was divided” (Genesis 10:25), and assume that this may be a reference to rising sea levels that submerged the Bering Land Bridge and other land bridges around the globe, thus ensuring that humanity was dispersed in obedience to God’s command, this would place Peleg at approximately 11,000 years ago. Based on these benchmarks, Dr. Ross reasons that if approximately the same amount of time is represented by both the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, then Noah lived around 35,000 years ago, whereas Adam and Eve lived some 50-70,000 years ago.[9]
William Lane Craig, on the other hand, thinks that Hugh Ross may not be going nearly far enough. He speculates that we should be ready to push the date for Adam back much further on the grounds of “a major shift in scientific opinion among paleo-anthropologists about the cognitive capacities and humanity of Neanderthal Man”:
It is utterly prejudicial to say that Neanderthals were not human beings. Now, if that’s right, that means that Adam and Eve need to be the ancestors not only of Homo Sapiens but also of Neanderthals, and that’s going to put them back somewhere around 750,000 to 500,000 years ago. And so, I think, putting Adam and Eve that far back is perfectly consonant with scientific evidence, in particular with the much ballyhooed evidence of population genetics.[10]
The questions we’re faced with now are: How many gaps are there in these records, and how much time do they represent?
For my own part, I tend to doubt that the division of the earth in the days Peleg refers to rising sea levels separating scattered populations. The Bible’s focus is on the narrow strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea between Egypt and Asia Minor, extending eastward to the Euphrates. Little is said about the world beyond this region, and most of that content is found in the New Testament. It is unlikely that the ancients who left the records compiled by Moses knew very much about what lay beyond Egypt, Sumer, Shinar, and Canaan.
The reference to Peleg comes from Genesis 10, which chronicles how the sons of Noah repopulated the land following the flood. It describes the families and nations they produced, along with some of the regions they inhabited, and ends with this statement: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated after the flood” (Genesis 10:32). For this reason, I tend to think it more likely that the “division” in the days of Peleg was some sort of treaty that was negotiated to officially recognize borders between the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. If Peleg was born at the time this treaty was ratified, it would make sense for his father, Eber, to name the period of division in association him (especially if his honor was somehow on the line or if Peleg was born to a wife who was given to Eber to cement this arrangement).
All in all, I take a conservative view of the Genesis genealogies. I would be surprised if Genesis 5 and 11 cover a period of more than 5-7,000 years each, with Adam and Eve coming in at around 7-14,000 years ago. I certainly cannot justify extending the genealogies by tens of thousands of years. As we’ve seen, there are indeed gaps in some biblical genealogies, but unlike those other genealogies, we have nothing against which to compare Genesis 5 and 11, so caution is warranted, and extending them to degree that Dr. Ross and Dr. Craig favor is, in my opinion, out of all proportionality with what we actually observe in the biblical text. Even if we were to go by the example of Ezra 7 and assume six missing generations in Genesis 5, and assuming an average lifespan of 800 years for each missing individual, we would only gain another 6,300 years—far short of what is needed.
As for William Lane Craig’s assertion that Neanderthals must be considered true humans and thus children of Adam and Eve, I believe he is reading some unwarranted assumptions into scripture, and that there is a better answer.
Next in this series: Tracing the Advent of Man, II
[1] For an example, see the account of the Egyptian priest who scorned the Greeks as “children” lacking even one science “that is hoary with age,” as chronicled in Plato’s Timeaus.
[2] Loren Haarsma, “Where are Adam and Eve in the Story of Evolution? Four Possibilities.” BioLogos. July 10, 2017.
https://biologos.org/articles/series/old-earth-or-evolutionary-creation-a-new-book-shows-fruits-of-multi-year-dialogue/where-are-adam-and-eve-in-the-story-of-evolution-four-possibilities
[3] The word other was added by the translators of the NASB.
[4] Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy through David’s son Solomon, whereas Luke traces it through David’s son Nathan. One of Solomon’s sons was Jeconiah, of whom God says in Jeremiah 22:30, “Write this man down as childless, a man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah.” For this reason, it seems that the right of kingship is passed down to Christ through Nathan’s line rather than Solomon’s. Matthew follows the genealogy of Jesus’ adoptive father Joseph, whereas it seems that Luke followed Mary’s genealogy, treating Joseph as the son (son-in-law) of Mary’s father, Eli. This is not explicitly stated in the text, but it seems plausible. See Genesis 48:5-6, where Jacob adopts Joseph’s two sons, saying, “Now your two sons…are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are.” Mary’s father may have adopted Joseph in the same way.
[5] Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), p. 269.
[6] John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1961), p. 483.
[7] Ibid., pp. 482-483.
[8] Ibid., pp. 488-489.
[9] “Calibrating Genesis Genealogies – Hugh Ross.” YouTube video, posted by “Abrahamic Faith.” February 11, 2017. As of this interview, Dr. Ross thought that the best date was probably 60,000 years ago, but was willing to go as high as 70,000.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_i7Prd1UkA
[10] “The Book of Genesis: With Dr. William Lane Craig.” YouTube video, 31:27 - 33:35, posted by “The Remnant Radio.” April 22, 2020.
https://youtu.be/KK3TbR4crho
