Adam the High Priest in the Paradise Temple



© Margaret Barker 2010

The story of Adam and the garden of Eden is one of the best known and yet least understood parts of

the Bible. It sets out the biblical teaching on the nature of human beings, and all too often has been

read as no more than the story of the fall. The familiar talking snake and the missing rib which have

caused such problems belong in the pre-phisosphical culture of ancient Israel, and an over-literal

reading of the text can obscure not only its profound insights but also its importance in the

framework of the New Testament.

Adam and Eden are the beginning and the end of the great story of the Bible. Returning to Eden was

an important part of Christian teaching from the beginning; paradise was regained when one entered

the Church. Cyril of Jerusalem told the newly baptised that he was leading them by the hand ‘into

the brighter and more fragrant meadow of paradise before us’....(

First Lecture on the Mysteries, 1).

In the New Testament, Jesus was described as the last Adam, the second Adam (1 Cor.15.45-7) and

he was also described as the great high priest (Heb.4.14). Adam and the high priest, as we shall see,

were the same figure. Jesus promised his faithful followers that they would once again eat from the

tree of life in the paradise of God (Rev.2.7). The story in the New Testament reverses the story of

Adam in Eden, and the Church’s claim to be paradise is rooted in the ancient belief that the original

temple represented the garden of Eden.

Paradise,

pardes, is not a Hebrew word, and when it is found in the Hebrew Bible, English

translations usually give something other than ‘paradise’:

forest (Neh.2.8), park (Eccles 2.5) or

orchard

(Song 4.13-15). In the LXX, the LORD planted a paradise, an enclosed garden, in Edem [not

Eden, Gen.2.8] The original Hebrew word Eden can mean either ‘delight’ or ‘plain’, so Eden could

have been a garden on a plain, or a garden of delight. The prophet Ezekiel, a priest who had known

the first temple (Ezek.1.3), described Eden as the mountain garden of the gods, the

’elohim

(Ezek.28.13-14), and so the meaning ‘plain’ would not have been appropriate for his Eden. ‘Delight’

fits better as the meaning of Eden, especially since Eden was used as an image for fertility. Isaiah,

for example, prophesied of Zion ‘I will make her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the garden of

the L

ORD (Isa.51.3); and Ezekiel prophesied that the desolate land would become like the garden of

Eden (Ezek.36.35). In the L

XX, Isaiah’s Eden was translated as ‘paradise’ and Ezekiel’s as ‘garden

of delight/ luxury’.

The Genesis Eden was the garden where Yahweh of the Elohim [‘the L

ORD God’] walked. It was a

place of trees and rivers, of cherubim and an evil snake. The L

ORD God set the man there, and

caused every tree to grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, as well as the the tree of

knowledge and the tree of life. When Adam and Eve were cast out, cherubim and a flaming sword

were set to guard the gate of the garden. Nothing in the story as told in Genesis has any obvious link

to the temple. In Ezekiel’s Eden, however, the figure who was driven out was a high priest, and his

2

Eden was probably earlier than the more familiar garden in Genesis. Ezekiel’s Eden was ‘the garden

of the gods’,

’elohim, on the holy mountain of the gods/God (Ezek.28.12-19). The figure addressed

in his lament, seemingly the king of Tyre, is both masculine and feminine, and it had walked among

the stones of fire, or possibly the sons of fire, before it was thrown down from the mountain garden

because it had become proud and corrupted its wisdom.

The rest of the description is almost opaque, and the problems of the Hebrew are considerable. It is

not clear whether the person Ezekiel addressed

was the guardian anointed cherub, or was with the

cherub, but it is clear that the key figure in Ezekiel’s Eden became Adam in the more familiar

version of the story. [We shall return to the King of Tyre.] It is also clear that the figure in Ezekiel’s

Eden was remembered as a high priest. It was dressed in precious stones: carnelian, topaz, jasper,

chrysolite, beryl, onyx, sapphire carbuncle, emerald - nine different stones, according to the Hebrew

text. The Greek text, however, has twelve stones which correspond exactly to those worn by the

high priest, both in name and in the position they were set in his breastplate (L

XX Exod.28.17-20).

Either the difficult Hebrew text has lost three precious stones, or the Greek translator has added three

in order to make clear that the figure driven from Ezekiel’s Eden was a high priest. Whether it

was a

cherub or had been ‘with the cherub’, this ‘King of Tyre’ had been in a heavenly place.

Another pattern corroborates the temple tradition that the original Adam was a high priest. When

Moses on Sinai was commanded to make the tabernacle, he had to replicate on earth what he had

seen in his mountain-top vision (Exod.25.8-9, 40). Later texts indicate that what Moses had seen

was not a heavenly temple - although some do say that that is what he saw. Moses’ vision was

the

six days of creation

, which he had seen when he was within the cloud of glory for six days

(Exod.24.15-16). This vision is now the opening of the first book of Moses, Genesis chapter 1. A

comparison of the six days of creation and the stages of erecting the tabernacle (Exod.40.16-33)

show that each day of creation was represented by one item of tabernacle or temple furnishing. The

sixth day, when Adam was created, corresponded to the laver of water in which the high priests

purified themselves before approaching the altar. Thus the creation of Adam represented the high

priesthood. This pattern of correspondences is a complex and fascinating topic, but one that we

cannot explore in detail today. Note, however, that Adam as the original high priest was a widely

based and widely known temple tradition.

The temple itself was a built as a paradise place. The great hall of Solomon’s temple [corresponding

to the nave of a western church] was decorated with carvings of gourds and open flowers, cherubim

and palm trees (1 Kgs 6.18, 29). The great bronze pillars were decorated with pomegranates and

lily-work (1 Kgs 7.15-22). When the measuring angel showed Ezekiel a vision of how the restored

temple should be, he saw a temple on a high mountain (Ezek.40.2), with cherubim and palm trees

carved on the walls of the great hall (Ezek.41.15-20). He saw a river flowing from the temple, just

as rivers had flowed from Eden (Ezek.47.1-12), and other prophets too looked forward to the time

when waters would flow from the temple (Joel 3.18; Zech.14.8). The righteous were described as

trees in the house of the L

ORD, a pointless metaphor if there had been no trees in the temple, albeit

carved in the wood (Ps. 92.13).

Various purges of the temple show other Eden items used in worship: Hezekiah broke in pieces a

bronze serpent that had been venerated with incense since time immemorial (2 Kgs 18.4), although

3

the text does not say that the serpent was in the temple; and when Josiah purged the temple, he

burned the chariot of the sun [Hebrew has plural but Greek is singular] which was probably the great

throne of the L

ORD in the holy of holies (2 Kgs 23.11), another feature of the later traditions that link

the temple to Paradise. According to the Enoch tradition, when the L

ORD came to Paradise, he rested

under the tree of life (

2 Enoch 8.3), and the Greek version of the Life of Adam and Eve says that

when he returned to Paradise, seated on the chariot of cherubim, all the plants came into bloom, and

the throne was set by the tree of life (

Apocalypse of Moses 22.3-4).

The temple as Eden was the setting of the Book of Revelation, where St John described the heavenly

city itself as a huge holy of holies (Rev.21.15-16), and so there was no need of a further temple there

(Rev.21.22). In the holy of holies St John saw the tree of life and the heavenly throne, and from the

holy of holies flowed the river of the water of life (Rev.22.1-2). The risen L

ORD promised to his

faithful followers that they would have access again to the tree of life (Rev.2.7), and St John saw

them standing before the throne and the tree of life (Rev.22.3-4) – exactly as described in the other

texts. They were restored to Eden whence Adam had been banished, but in fact they were standing

in the holy of holies.

There are two accounts in Genesis of the creation of Adam: God [or the

’elohim] resolved to create

Adam ‘according to our invisible heavenly form, as our material image’ (Gen.1.26, translating

literally; ‘as’ c.f Exod. 6.3 as El Shadddai). Adam was created male and female. The second

account has Yahweh of the Elohim (the L

ORD God), form the man from dust and then breathe into

the man the breath of life so that the man became a living being (Gen.2.7). Breathing into a statue

was a well known ritual for bringing it to life as the dwelling place of the god it represented, and all

the Targums agree that breathing into Adam meant giving him the power of speech. The image of

the beast was brought to life in this way in the Book of Revelation and given the power of speech

(Rev.13.15).

In each Genesis story, Adam was created as male-and female, and only later, after being set in the

garden as high priest, was Adam separated into distinct male and female beings. He was set in the

garden ‘to till and to keep’- the usual translation - but both these words have a temple meaning

(Gen.2.15), and Adam was understood to be a high priest even though that is not explicit. ‘Till’

‘bd,

was also the technical term for temple service, and ‘keep’,

šmr, meant to preserve the tradition. The

traditional Jewish interpretations did not think this was a command about gardening. The debate

was: did it mean serve for six days and then preserve the Sabbath, or serve God and perform the

sacred duties (

Genesis Rabbah XVI.5).

Apart from the biblical accounts, there were many stories about Adam and Eden, some of which

echo material in the Hebrew Bible and so may well have been known to its writers. They confirm

that the temple was Eden. Amongst texts known in the time of Jesus, the

Book of Jubilees, an

alternative version of Genesis, had Adam wait forty days from his creation until he could enter Eden,

and Eve eighty days, since both applied to Eden the temple laws about impurity after childbirth

(Jub.3.8-14). When Adam was leaving Eden, he burned an incense very like the one prescribed for

use only in the tabernacle (Exod.30.34-38): frankincense, galbabum, stacte and sweet spices

(Jub.3.27). Noah knew that the garden of Eden was the holy of holies, and the dwelling of the L

ORD

4

(Jub. 8.19). It is sometimes said that Jubilees reworked Genesis in order to make the link between

Eden and the temple, but this is unlikely, since the temple-as-Eden tradition was older than Genesis.

Another Adam and Eve text known at that time was the

Apocalypse of Moses. After Adam himself

had opened the door of paradise ,allowed the serpent to enter, and listened to his words, he grieved

for his folly. He had lost his garment of glory, the righteousness with which he had been clothed

(

Apocalypse of Moses 20-1-2). This is consistent with his role as high priest, since the vestments of

any high priest were described as a garments of glory: ‘holy garments for Aaron... for glory and for

beauty’ (Exod.28.2); and when Enoch stood before the heavenly throne, he was given garments of

God’s glory (

2 Enoch 22.6-10). St Ephrem, writing in fourth century Syria, said that God had

clothed Adam with glory (Ephrem,

Commentary on Genesis 2), and a collection of legendary

material from the same area said ‘Adam and Eve were in Paradise, clothed with glory and shining

with praise for three hours’ (

Book of the Cave of Treasures, I). The Genesis storyteller said that

Adam and Eve knew they were naked when they had taken and eaten the forbidden fruit, but did not

say what garment they had lost. Presumably the original hearers knew they had lost the high priestly

garment of glory when they listened to the snake. The community at Qumran hoped to regain ‘all

the glory of Adam... the knowledge of the Most High... the wisdom of the sons of heaven.’

(

Community Rule IV).

Adam’s garment of glory was woven by Wisdom, and Adam was proverbially wise. Eliphaz asked

Job: ‘Are you the first man that was born?... Have you listened in the council of God? And do you

limit wisdom to yourself?’ (Job 15.7-8). Ben Sira, writing in the second century BCE linked the high

priest’s vestments and Wisdom. When he was advising his son to accept the discipline of Wisdom,

he compared this to putting on the vestments of the high priest: ‘There is a golden ornament upon

her, and her bonds are a blue cord. You will wear her as a garment of glory, and put her on as a

crown of gladness ‘ (Ben Sira 6.30-31, my translation). This passed into Christian teaching. An

early Christian Wisdom text found in Egypt had Wisdom speaking to her children: ‘I am giving you

a high-priestly garment woven from every wisdom... clothe yourself with wisdom like a robe... be

seated on a throne of perception... return to your divine nature..’ (

Teaching of Silvanus CG VII.4.89,

91). The Gospel of Thomas attributes to Jesus a longer version of a saying in Matthew and Luke,

which suggests that Jesus was speaking of this robe of glory and wisdom. ‘Jesus said “Why have

you come out into the desert? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a man clothed in fine

garments like your kings and your great men? Upon them are the fine garments, and yet they are

unable to discern the truth.”’ (

Gospel of Thomas 78).

Now Adam wearing fine garments of wisdom and sitting on a throne is not the figure we imagine in

Genesis, but such stories were known in the time of Jesus and, it would seem, to the writers of the

Hebrew Bible. The

Life of Adam and Eve is, in effect, the background to the Genesis story. It

describes how Satan was driven from heaven and vowed revenge on Adam who had caused his

downfall, [and this is the Adam story that appears in the Qur’an]. When Adam was created as the

image of the L

ORD God, all the angels were commanded to worship him, but Satan refused. He had

been created with the angels, he said, and so was prior to Adam in creation. Adam should worship

him. Satan and his angels were then expelled from heaven and plotted Adam’s downfall (

Life of

Adam and Eve

12-16).

5

This story is the context for the enigmatic words in Psalm 2. The L

ORD has set his king in Zion and

called him his son, and the kings and rulers are commanded to serve him: ‘Kiss the Son, lest he be

angy and you perish...’ (Ps.2.12). The king in Zion is the Adam figure, the image of God enthroned

in Zion. The angels called to worship Adam is also the setting for Deuteronomy 32.43, which

became a key proof text for the early Church: ‘When he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says

“Let all God’s angels worship him”’ (Heb.1.6). Jesus is the second Adam enthroned as the Son and

the angels have to worship him. Remember, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus describes Adam as the son

of God (Lk.3.38). The story of Satan refusing to worship Adam is also the context for Jesus’

temptations in the wilderness. Since Jesus was alone at that time, these must have been his own

accounts of the experience, and they are told in terms of this story: ‘If you are the Son of God...’. and

then most telling of all, the words of the devil: ‘If you will worship me, [the kingdoms of the world]

shall be yours’ (Lk.4.7). The second Adam was being asked to worship Satan, to reverse Satan’s

ancient humiliation. Mark summarised the same wilderness experience differently: ‘[Jesus] was with

the beasts and the angels served him’ (Mk.1.13). This means that in his wilderness visions, Jesus

was in the holy of holies with the beasts that formed the heavenly throne [the ‘living creatures’], and

the angels served him. This is the same story of Adam the image being worshipped, and is the vision

St John described in Revelation 5. It also appears in the description of the image of the beast who,

like Adam, was given breath and the power of speech, and then those who would not worship the

image of the beast were killed (Rev.13.15).

It is possible that all the stories known only in later texts were spun from the gaps and allusions in

the Genesis story, and the Eden temple of the

Book of Jubilees was a late fabrication. It is also

possible that the Adam and Eden and temple material is far older than Genesis 2-3, and that

traditions surfacing in later texts were themselves ancient, known to Ezekiel and either assumed by,

or omitted from, Genesis.

The accounts of Ezekiel’s visions of the chariot throne leaving the temple and going to Babylon,

with their mixture of masculine and feminine forms, singular and plural, are almost impossible to

translate. This is what we should expect of the male-and-female-Adam in the heavenly state.

Ezekiel saw ‘on the heavenly form of the throne, a heavenly form as the appearance of Adam,’

(Ezek.1.26, translating literally) which he recognised as ‘the appearance of the heavenly form of the

glory of Yahweh’ (Ezek.1.28). Adam enthroned was leaving the temple. Ezekiel spoke of ‘forms’

and ‘appearances’, mysterious words for us, but for a first temple priest they were probably technical

terms. The word translated ‘form’ seems to mean a heavenly archetype, and the word translated

‘appearance’ seems to mean its manifestation in a visible but not material form. Later teachers

would say that sin made it impossible for Adam to see his form, that is, to know his true self and his

true potential. ‘Because of sin, it was not given for man to know the

demut on high; were it not for

this sin, all the keys would be given to him and he would know how the heavens and the earth were

created...’ (

Abot de R Nathan, A39).

Similar ideas are found in the Qumran

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which also describe the

heavenly throne and entourage that Ezekiel saw, but there is a different word here for the invisible

realities, the forms. It is the word

şur. The Songs describe the ‘forms’ of living ’elohim, and the

‘forms’ of luminous spirits (4Q405). In the Old Testament, this same word is often found in

descriptions of God, but is translated as ‘Rock’ since that the same Hebrew letters can also mean

6

Rock. ‘The Rock, his work is perfect’ (Deut.32.4); ‘He scoffed at the Rock of his

salvation’(Deut.32.15); ‘The Rock of Israel has spoken to me’ (2 Sam.23.3); ‘O L

ORD... O Rock...’

(Hab.1.12). In none of these examples does the L

XX have the word ‘rock’, and there are many

examples where the Rock becomes simply ‘God’. In other words,

şur which means the ‘invisible

form’ in the

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice probably meant that in many other places in the Hebrew

Bible.

But how is this relevant to Adam? In Ezekiel’s Eden there was a bejewelled high priest figure who

was thrown out of the mountain-top garden of the gods. He was addressed as the King of Tyre.

Now why should the translator of the L

XX describe this figure as a temple high priest with all his

jewels if he was the King of Tyre? The answer may lie in the fact that the Hebrew for ‘Tyre’ is

written in the same way as the word that can mean ‘Rock’ or ‘invisible heavenly form’. The King of

Tyre, I suggest, was originally the heavenly ‘form’ of the king in Jerusalem, who had also been the

high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Ps.110.4). His expulsion from the city and temple was

described as Adam, the image of God, being expelled from Eden, or, in the case of Ezekel’s visions

of the throne, Adam, the appearance of the heavenly reality of the L

ORD, leaving the temple.

The charges against Ezekiel’s fallen high priest figure resemble the words to unfallen Adam in

Genesis who was created as the image, according to the ‘form’ of God - the same word as Ezekiel

used for the invisible reality. In his glorious unfallen state and vested, we assume, in his garment of

glory and wisdom, Adam was told to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Gen.1.28). But these

words can have other meanings, and I suggest that they were originally understood to mean: ‘Be

beautiful and great, and fill the earth with glory’

1. In the time of Jesus, Adam was described as very

tall and beautiful: ‘a man very great in height, and terrible in breadth, incomparable in aspect’

(

Apocalyspe of Abraham 23.5), and later Jewish teachers said that in the time of the Messiah,

everything Adam had lost would be restored: his lustre, his immortality, his height..... (

Genesis

Rabbah

XII.6). There is nothing in Genesis, as we now read it, to suggest that Adam was tall and

radiant, but the words translated ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ can have this other

meaning.

The Genesis Adam was also commanded to subdue,

kbš, the earth and have dominion, rdh. Now kbš

usually means ‘subdue’ (e.g Num.32.22; Jer.34.11), but Micah 7.18-19 suggests another possibility.

The context here is atonement, and the L

ORD has compassion and *** our iniquities. The verb is

translated ‘subdue’ [AV], ‘tread under foot’ [ RSV], but the atonement process was one of repairing

the bonds of the eternal covenant, and so ‘binding up’ our iniquities would better fit the context.

Since Adam was the high priest, this would have been his great work of atonement, of upholding the

eternal covenant and binding all things together. His second duty,

rdh, would then follow. ‘Have

dominion’ should be understood in the way it was used of Solomon: he ruled, he had dominion, and

he had peace on all sides (1 Kgs.4.21.24).

Ezekiel’s jewelled figure in the garden of the gods had corrupted all the characteristics of the original

Adam. Like the original Adam it was male-and-female, and in this passage, as in the visions of the

throne, ther is a mixture of masculine and feminine forms. Originally the jewelled figure had been

1

Parah, be fruitful, pa’ar, be beautiful; rabah, be great, ,

7

perfect in beauty and full of wisdom, just as Adam had been beautiful and wise, but the jewelled

figure had corrupted its wisdom and become proud through its beauty. Instead of filling the earth

with glory or wisdom, it had filled the earth with violence, and instead of being great, it had achieved

only greatness in commerce. The difficult command to Adam, ‘subdue’, which I suggest meant

‘bind things together’ appears in Ezekiel’s description of the jewelled figure as ‘You were the

seal of

perfection’.

The Genesis Adam was set in the garden and told that he could eat the fruit of any tree except the

tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam’s first disobedience was not simply an act of defiance

or stupidity; it concerned the attitude to knowledge. Adam was intended to eat from the tree of life

which was the symbol of Wisdom (Prov.3.18), but instead the human pair listened to the voice of the

snake and ate from the forbidden tree. Immediately they realised they were naked because they had

lost their garments of wisdom. You will recall that the Qumran community hoped to regain ‘all the

glory of Adam....’ which was ‘the knowledge of the Most High... the wisdom of the sons of heaven’;

and Ezekiel’s jewelled figure was thrown down from the mountain garden of the gods because it had

corrupted its wisdom and become proud.

Who, then, was the snake? A bronze snake had been part of the cult in Jerusalem until Hezekiah

destroyed it, and the words of the snake were in fact the promise to those who ate from the tree of

life. ‘Your eyes will be opened and you will be like the

’elohim’ (Gen. 3.5). But Wisdom did open

the eyes of those who fed on her, and she did make her children sons of God. This was symbolised

by temple anointing, since the perfumed oil represented the oil of the tree of life, and thre high priest

was anointed on his eyelids.

But who was the snake? I suspect that this was Satan’s first act of deception, taking the form of the

symbol of Wisdom, the bronze snake that Hezekiah destroyed. The snake suggested that both trees

were identical and had identical effects. The Genesis story of Adan and the garden of Eden marks

the point in Israel’s religion when Wisdom was rejected by the temple priesthood. Adam, the high

priest, chose the knowledge of good and evil rather than wisdom, and Ezekiel’s jewelled figure

corrupted its wisdom. They were driven from the garden. Those who remained faithful to Wisdom

said that she was rejected at this time, and that the eyes of the temple priests lost their sight. (

1 Enoch

93.8).

There are many echoes of the story of Adam leaving the garden that was the temple. Before he

sinned, when he was still in the garden, he could hear the song of the seraphim singing ‘Holy Holy

Holy’ (

Testament of Adam 1.4, a mid-3rd century Christian text), the seraphim that Isaiah had heard

in the holy of holies. When he left the garden, he took with him gold, frankincense and myrrh to

remind him of the garden, the temple, that he had lost, and these were buried with him (

Testament of

Adam

3.6). The magi bringing them as gifts to Jesus is the first sign in the New Testament of the

new Adam.

....

Taken from: http://www.templestudiesgroup.com/Barker_TheParadisaicTemple.pdf

Did Adam write the account of the Creation of Eve, the Fall and his sons Cain and Abel?



Did Adam write the account of the Creation of Eve, the Fall and his sons Cain and Abel? The Origin of Genesis. From the Evangelical Catholic Study Bible:

 

QUESTIONS and INSIGHTS!

Genesis 5:1 THIS is The Book [literally: “written narrative” (inscribed tablet)]* of The Histories* of Adam. In the day that God [Elohim]*created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

*The Book (inscribed tablet): Besides the fact that Peter confidently asserts there were prophets and their witness to the truth “from the very beginning of the world”(Acts 3:21), the Hebrew word sepher here means “written narrative,” and is so translated by F. Delitzsch. Despite this, most in the field of “Biblical scholarship” from the mid 1800’s into the 20th century, recklessly ignoring this Biblical evidence of writing from the very earliest human civilization, spun an entire system of Biblical criticism by which they rendered everything in the five books of Moses as a patchwork of much later written renditions of myths and stories that had evolved over the many centuries by word of mouth. When solid extra-Biblical evidence proved the scholars were dead wrong, it was such an embarrassment that most simply ignored the evidence and went on their way continuing to peddle their outdated notions. This written record of Adam (Ch. 3-5:1) could have been completed as early as 3500 BC. P. J. Wiseman cites examples of original writings discovered in Egypt to be from 3000 BC, and perhaps the oldest known stone document dating to 3300 BC used a “line picture” form that predates cuneiform. New Discoveries, p. 35-36. For an understandable but scholarly review of Wiseman, see: www.specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth Next evidence of one Sacred Canon: Exodus 1:1; 17:14; and Joshua 24:26

*histories: See the Introduction to Genesis.

*Elohim: Note that when Adam speaks of God the Creator, before the Covenant with man, he does not use Jehovah (Lord), but Elohim (God). These accounts in Genesis are not stories written later by groups who had different names for God, as the liberal scholars continue to maintain!

From the Introduction to Genesis in the Evangelical Catholic Study Bible:

The origin and authorship of Genesis: The British scholar P. J. Wiseman, C.B.E., in his New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis, thoroughly demolishes the old liberal modernist view of the late origins of Genesis and the JEDP “documentary theory” of the Graf-Wellhausen school of “higher criticism,” and offers conclusive evidence that Genesis is a collection of histories written by those who actually lived the events beginning with Adam himself. Wiseman proves that the phrase, “These are the generations of . . .” found throughout the book, denotes the personal history of the one so named, and is not an introductory but a concluding identification to the particular document. This collection called Genesis thus includes not only the personal written records of Adam, Noah, Shem, Terah, Isaac, Jacob and Esau and Moses, but a written record of creation from Elohim/God Himself left to Adam after his creation. Indeed, the Lord God Himself gave witness to Isaiah of this very record made at the very beginning of creation: “Come near unto Me, and hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning [but plainly and openly]; from the time before it was done [the founding of the earth] I was there” (Isaiah 48:16).
Peter affirms that Adam wrote the part of Genesis in which is found the redemption text of 3:15-16 (Acts 3:21). That he was the author of Genesis 2:23 ... was a common belief in Jesus’ day. This means Adam, who states in 5:1 that what had preceded was his own personal written history, was a very real person with superior intelligence and with the skill and knowledge to understand and communicate. The inscription, “These are the histories of the heavens and the earth,” closing out chapter one, clearly distinguishing this from the following history of Adam, means this record came directly from the Creator and probably in the same form in which Moses received the Ten Commandments. Evidence also reveals that this entire collection of documents was handed down to Moses on a sequentially “numbered” series of clay tablets from which Moses compiled it in its present form and for which he has from the beginning rightly been given credit. A convincing scholarly summary of Wiseman’s significant research by Damien F. Mackey of the California Institute for Ancient Studies can be found at www.specialtyinterests.net/Toledot . On the uncertainty of radiocarbon dating beyond 3,000 years, by which anthropologists have attempted to determine the antiquity of man apart from the Biblical record see:
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible The Chronology of Genesis chapter five and the time of Adam’s creation have been discussed in the Introduction to this Study Bible.

....



Taken from: http://www.newamplifieddouayrheims.com/blog/did-adam-write-the-account-of-the-creation-of-eve-the-fall-and-his-sons-cain-and-able/

Was Adam a Caveman?

by Dr. David Livingston  

Modern anthropology teaches that "man" has been developing for a very long time -- as much as five million years. On the other hand, the Bible indicates that man has only been around for a few thousand years. Can the two positions be reconciled, or must one be rejected with only the other being acceptable? Which position does the scientific evidence really support? How did modern anthropologists arrive at their conclusions? Let us examine the origins of modern evolutionary thinking that is behind the theoretical statements about "early man" being hundreds of thousands of years old and some of the finds used to support this belief system; we will contrast them with the Biblical version of the origins of man. Man's Life Directly from God A display in the Field Museum in Chicago showing early concepts of Neanderthal Man. Although still in use, it is hopelessly out of date. What does the Bible actually say about the origin of man? Genesis 2:7 says, "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." Notice first in this verse that man was not created out of some lower form of life (ape, chimpanzee, or hominid) as some theistic evolutionists claim. He was made, or fashioned, by the very hand of God out of 'aphar - inanimate dust, dirt, or clay. The Hebrew word for "formed" is the word used when a potter shapes his vessels. As a pottery vessel is lifeless, so man's body was originally lifeless. Life in man's body came directly from God's spirit, or "breath." When God gave life to man, he became a "living soul." To further emphasize that man was not related to lower forms of life, this "living soul" is the same kind of life animals have (Genesis 1:30, 7:22). That is, although man is infinitely above animals, his "animal life" came directly from God, not from some other animal. Thus, the Bible portrays an anti-evolutionary beginning for man. There is no way to reconcile the philosophy of human evolution with the Biblical narrative of the creation of man by God. The "Development" of Man Another area of major conflict between the Bible and evolutionary philosophy is in the development of man. Evolutionary anthropology postulates a scenario of early man as brutish with low intelligence. The theory is that over many tens or hundreds of thousands of years "man" evolved enough intelligence to move into caves, accidentally learned to make and use fire, and after tens of thousands of years as a hunter-gatherer, he eventually domesticated grain and animals. Of course, the accouterments of civilization did not appear until relatively recent times -- within the last five thousand years. The Biblical scenario is much different, with man highly intelligent from the beginning (Genesis 4:1-4). When Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, came with their sacrifices, Cain was a "tiller of the ground." The text does not say that Cain brought in wild wheat or wild barley. It says he brought that which he had raised by farming, his produce of the ground = "domesticated" crops. Thus domesticated grain or vegetables are available at the beginning of man's existence. (The Hebrew is not clear as to what he actually brought.) Next, the text does not say that Abel brought wild sheep; it says he was a "keeper of sheep." He offered from the flocks of his field = "domesticated" animals -- in the very beginning. Domestication implies a long process of change from a wild to a tame state. But the Bible seems to imply that God created some things wild and some things for man's use -- already "domesticated," and intelligent man used them immediately. Even if God did create them "wild," Adam and his descendants"domesticated" them very early, not over a long period of time. In the Biblical account, man knew how to talk from the very beginning, knew how to use fire, knew how to do all kinds of things that we are given the impression took hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary development. Not long after the events related in Genesis 4:1-16, Cain's close descendants exhibited all the elements of "civilization." Lamech's son, Jabal, was the "father" of those that live in tents and have livestock. This indicates knowledge of the cultivation of fibrous plants and weaving, and, of course, the continuation of raising domesticated animals. Jabal's brother, Jubal, was known as the developer of both stringed and wind musical instruments which would, of necessity, include the knowledge of music composition, and probably included other fine arts as well. A stepbrother, Tubal-cain, forged implements of bronze and iron. Bronze is not copper only; it is an alloy of both copper and tin. This indicates an early knowledge of smelting and metal combinations. And, with the knowledge of smelting, iron was already in use. So we see that according to the Bible, arts and industry had already developed during the very lifetime of the first man and woman -- Adam and Eve were still living at this time, as well as Cain. Can Discoveries of Early Man Be Reconciled with the Biblical Account? How can one reconcile scientific theories with the third and fourth chapters of Genesis, and even the second chapter of Genesis, where we have the activities of Adam and Eve and their children? These first people appear to be highly intelligent. They knew how to make fire from the very beginning -- they offered sacrifices. Furthermore, on the face of it, it seems that it was not very long ago. Can that be reconciled with modern archaeological discoveries? In what follows, we will examine the evidence presented for prehistoric man in museums in the U.S., and in the British Museum of Science. One should examine museum evidence for himself, being careful to read everything in the display captions. We will consider two models: one is the evolutionary model, the other is the creation model. If there is a third model, it might be that man came to earth from some other terrestrial body. But that possibility reverts to one or the other of the first two models. Either God made more beings or man evolved from some lower form of life. If evolution can be falsified and it can be shown that the evolutionary story for man's origin lacks evidence to support it, then one of the two models will have been displaced, leaving only one. It is not necessary to prove creation. Nor is it likely that we will find evidence for creation anywhere but in the Bible (except for several ancient near eastern creation myths); it happened such a long time ago. There can be no question that accepting the creation model is a matter of faith. On the other hand, evolution is a statement of faith also because, as will be seen, there is little, if any, evidence for it. Stone-Age Is Not Necessarily Early Was the Stone-Age a period of time long ago? Not necessarily, there are people living in the Stone-Age today in many places. They know how to make stone tools and weapons. Because people used stone implements does not mean they lived a very long time ago. Time magazine pictured people in Surinam who live in the stone-age. They are called "Stone-Age Tribesmen." In Mindanao, Philippines, National Geographic magazine (August 1972) introduced the world to the Tasaday people who live in caves and are in the Stone-Age. The title of the article was, "First Glimpse of a Stone Age Tribe." The Tasaday are stone-age cavemen, but they are intelligent people. They can make a fire by simply twisting a stick. They know a lot of other things that we do not know, we know a lot of things they do not know. The fact that they do not know what we know does not make them unintelligent. One must remember this concept as he investigates stone-age people. The following quotation from the National Geographic, (mentioned above) shows how completely fooled anthropologists were about the Tasaday,"They were making stone axes and, catching my fascinated stare, a man rose and brought them to me. They were crude, as crude as the oldest tools of the European Paleolithic." Paleolithic is the Old Stone-Age. "Paleo" is old; "lithic" is stone. These are not Neolithic -- New Stone-Age people, nor are they Mesolithic -- Middle Stone-Age people; they are Paleolithic. Yet, they are making implements today, this very moment, that as soon as they are finished, look to experienced anthropologists as though they are several hundred thousand years old! Since the intensive research on the Tasadays by experienced anthropologists was conducted, it has been discovered that the "stone-age" Tasadays of the Philippine Islands are frauds. They were only acting out the part of stone-age, cave men, apparently as a tourist gimmick. Yet they were the subject of a full length article with pictures in the National Geographic. They completely fooled experienced anthropologists who went to study them. But there are legitimate stone-age people today. In New Guinea, Borneo, Africa, Central America, and other places where civilization has not yet gone, men still use stone implements of all kinds. Throughout history, in every generation, some people have used stone implements and lived in caves. Not everyone, of course, but in any age there are always some stone-age cavemen. It was this way even as America developed. Indians used stone implements while "civilized" settlers used metal implements and firearms. It was true in the Middle Ages as well as at the turn of the first millenium. It was also true that, while the empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia flourished with high civilizations, some around them used stone implements and lived in caves. Even the Israelites lived in caves from time to time (Judges 6:2). Somehow, if one uncovers evidence of the stone-age, he has to prove that those remains are actually from a very long time ago by some other means than the fact that stone implements were in use. When caves are excavated, one should not assume that he will find remains of earliest, or even early, mankind. Finally, when it is said,"The Stone-Age was a period in man's development a long time ago -- hundreds of thousands of years ago -- now we are in the modern period," it is not necessarily so. Cavemen Today In Cappadocia, Turkey, a large area with unusual geological oddities has been developed as a cave-city. Everyone in the area lives in caves hand-hewn into these strange geological formations. But they have electricity and wear clothes. Actually it is a nice place to live. In the summer it is cool, and in the winter it is warm. No one thinks of these people as having regressed. As a matter-of-fact, these are very inexpensive dwelling places, unusually well insulated and highly habitable. You might think that it's that way only in Turkey. But today along a stretch of the Rhone River in France, many families live in caves. Pictured at left is a "caveman" and his family. Behind him is what looks like a stone house. It is actually the blocked-up entrance to a cave in the hillside. Along the Rhone River, for 50 miles there are dozens of French families living in caves. In the morning they climb into their Renaults and Peugeots and go to work, returning in the evening to their caves and a normal life - with electricity and other modern niceties. In our country people have realized with the energy crunch that perhaps a cave is not such a bad place to live. A man in Phoenix, Arizona (pictured at right), found a cave nearby on a hillside, modified and furnished it. People in Phoenix are jealous of this man because he is in a cave which did not cost him anything except a little refurbishing. What I am trying to point out is that we are not so intelligent. We build our houses on top of a hill, and the wind and cold in the winter drive us out because it is so hard to heat. But cavemen, using their heads, utilized these ready-made shelters. They were every bit as intelligent as we are. Natural caves like this, found by the hundreds in Israel, are used to shelter animals. In a similar cave, it is believed the Son of Man was born. There are thousands of caves in Palestine. Shepherds use them to shelter their animals at night. Caves were used as stables in ancient times, while travelers stayed in a building above. Thus the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was probably born in a cave. In Nazareth a huge church has been built over a cave because this cave was, traditionally, the grotto of Joseph and Mary, the cave where Jesus may have lived as a child. So Jesus, in one sense, could have been a "caveman." Whether it is true that Jesus actually grew up in this very cave or not, someone in Nazareth did. So much for Stone-Age caveman! Even though some people lived that way does not mean that they lived a long time ago, nor that these were brute hominids developing into Homo sapiens. Their remains, when found, may not be very old! An Evolutionary Myth There is a myth in human evolutionary theory which says that as the brain increases in size, intelligence increases. Based on this theory, the chimpanzee with a smaller brain is less intelligent, and modern man with the largest brain, is the most intelligent (picture at right). In the American Museum of Natural History in New York City one can find a display which says, "Intelligence is the most outstanding trait of the hominids. The best index of it available to us in the fossil record is the brain size as measured by the capacity of the bony brain case." Above that caption are various brain models(seen at left) with the cubic content of each brain represented by a cylinder with stripes. What is most astounding is that Neanderthal Man had a larger brain than modern man. In this exhibit, Homo sapiens (at top of photo) has a brain size of 1,450 cc, while Neanderthal (just below it) has a brain size of 1,625 cc. Now what do we make of the statement, "The larger the brain, the greater the intelligence?" If that were true, Neanderthal Man should have gone to the moon and we should be back in caves. How inconsistent the statement below the display is, compared with the actual display! Another myth is that a low, sloping forehead is an indication of less intelligence. This falsehood is not as strong an idea among evolutionists, but the transitional forms from ape to man are always shown with low, sloping foreheads. Neanderthal man is always shown with a low, sloping forehead. But a bust of a Roman ruler of Egypt a little after the time of Christ has a low, sloping forehead. He could not have been an unintelligent man. Indeed, even King Gustav of Sweden, on a 100 Kroner banknote, has a sloping forehead (see picture to right). This characteristic is no indication of a lack of intelligence. Impressions Rather than Facts Consider a display in a museum which begins with modern man, then points back toward an ape ancestor. (There are no actual connections between them.) The skulls in the display are simply lined up and pointed backward to give the impression that man came from apes. It is easier to produce artistic impressions than to present factual data. Evolutionists often deny that they say, "Man came from an ape." But in the British Museum of Science in London, one of the largest natural science museums in the world, a display once and for all belies that fact (assuming it is still there). No evolutionist should deny saying that man comes from an ape. Here, in a museum seen by thousands of people every year, a sign plainly says, "Man is an animal." In another section one discovers a caption claiming that "all human beings are animals, mammals, primates, and apes." Other displays declare that we are related to apes and that our closest living relatives are probably gorillas and chimpanzees (see display to right). The next time someone denies that they say we came from apes, simply tell them the British Museum of Science is telling that to thousands of people every year. Another representation is found in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Here one can see a painted impression that man and ape come off the same stem (picture to left). It looks like they branched off from the same ape-like ancestor. But it does not display the missing links -- it is not a case of one "missing link"; there are no connections at all! Paucity of Evidence for Human Evolution A Time/Life children's book in the Emergence of Man series says, "It is now a proven scientific fact that man was millions of years in the making. The path of his evolution is marked by dead ends and new beginnings, the waysides strewn with relics of his various forms. Although many of these remains are at best minimal, they are enough to sketch out the key stages of his march through time. The chief problem facing anthropologists today is to fill in the gaps." Wait a minute! Read that first sentence again, then the last. How can it be a "proven fact" if the biggest problem is to fill in the gaps? Several museum displays will be examined to see what is used to prove human evolution. At Fossil Man's Hall of Fame in the Field Museum in Chicago, a caption reads, "In the study of human evolution there will always be room for differences of opinion and for doubt. Although occasional finds of fossil human remains may contribute greatly to knowledge of human development, theories of human evolution should not be based on specimens that are exceedingly fragmentary and lack important parts. Is evolution based on specimens that are exceedingly fragmentary and lack important parts, or do they really have solid evidence? The principles are: the evidence should not be fragmentary, and the specimens should not lack important parts. Let us examine the actual evidence -- from all over the world -- presented in museums. Most of the examples are well-known; almost everyone has heard of them. Java Man First let's look at Java Man, or Pithecanthropus erectus -- "erect ape man." The remains were found in a gravel bed on the island of Java, Indonesia. The man who found them in the 1890s was Dr. Dubois, an ardent evolutionist, who went to Java to find a missing link. And guess what -- he found it! But how did he find it? He dug through a gravel bed as big as a gymnasium for a full year, finding dozens of bones -- animal bones and human bones -- but he selected only three for Java Man. It was not a burial; they were just random bones, and probably the three bones are not even associated with each other. But he came back to Europe announcing, "Here is the missing link!" Today school children everywhere know about Java Man; they are told about it from the early grades in public schools. One of the bones is a thigh bone (seen at left). It is on display in the American Museum of Natural History. It has an accretion on it, a calcium deposit, which can be ignored. Notice the dark bone and a (white) modern bone behind it for comparison. There is no difference except that the darker bone is larger. Scientists agree that the dark bone, the bone of supposed Pithecanthropus erectus, is exactly like a modern leg bone, and, as seen in the picture, it obviously is. The jaw bone has been judged by scientists to be a modern jaw bone. The skull cap has a low, sloping forehead. Dr. Dubois originally thought it was a human skull cap, but before he died, he finally agreed with his accusers that it was actually the skull cap of a gibbon, a great ape, and not human at all. Dr. Dubois claimed that Pithecanthropus erectus -- Java Man -- is a "missing link" 500,000 years old. Where did he get that figure? He simply pulled it out of the air; there is no support for it. Why must our children be required to learn about Java Man in school, as if he were one of the pillars of human evolution? The entire evidence available is only two modern bones and the skull cap of an ape, not even from a burial but found scattered throughout a gravel bed. It is ludicrous that anyone should be expected to believe that this is an authentic missing link. Peking Man Next, consider highly-touted Peking Man, supposedly 400,000 years old. What about him? We cannot show any remains of Peking Man because they were all lost in World War II. A display in the Field Museum in Chicago says 40 individuals were found. It says they were "from 350,000 to 500,000 years ago according to different geological estimates." What is another word for estimate? A "guess." They guess they are that old. But the next paragraph falsifies the first one because it says, "The cranial capacity of the known specimens range from 850 cc to 1,300 cc, an average of 1,075 cc; the upper end of the range overlaps with modem man." So they are small, modern men. The following paragraph reads, "The limb bones of Homo erectus, including both Java Man and the Peking varieties, are indistinguishable from those of modern man." So how can it be said they are 350,000 to 500,000 years old? They may be only a few thousand years old, for all we know. They are no different from modern man, so what does this show us about missing links and about human evolution? Nothing. The bones have disappeared anyway. So much for another pillar of human evolution - Peking Man! Nebraska Man A third example is Nebraska Man. It was reconstructed from one tooth found in Nebraska in 1923. In 1925, at the famous Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow held up this very tooth as evidence of human evolution. The London Illustrated News (6/24/1922), out of that one tooth, reconstructed a complete man and woman and published a drawing seen on the front page (pictured at left). The problem with all this is that in 1927 scientists took a better look at that tooth and realized it was the tooth of a peccary - a pig (Science 66:579). This is a case of a pig making a monkey out of a man! Piltdown Man Evolutionists do not like to be reminded of Piltdown Man. Maybe that is because he was featured as a pillar of human evolution in museums around the world until the 1950's. Piltdown man was discovered about 1910 in England. In the early 1950's researchers did some detective work and discovered that finds associated with Piltdown Man were planted by someone at the spot where the skull was found. There is an elaborate display of what detectives found in the British Museum of Science. When the jaw bone and pieces of the skull bone were dated it was found that the jaw bone was only a little over 500 years old, and the skull was only 600 years old. When first found, it was claimed that Piltdown Man was 500,000 years old. After more investigation, it was concluded that Piltdown Man was a hoax; he was deliberately planted by somebody who was anxious to prove evolution (see Recommended Readings). Now everyone knows that he was a fake. In the meantime, he had been used as one of the pillars for human evolution. Take away Piltdown Man, wipe out Nebraska man, Java Man and Peking Man; they were all modern men or hoaxes. What is left of the original specimens used to formulate theories of human evolution? Not much. Heidelberg Man Heidelberg Man has been presented as one of the best examples of human evolution. All that is available, however, is a jaw supposedly 500,000 years old found in the 1860's in Germany. The jaw was found in a gravel quarry at a depth of about 80 feet. This quarry is located in a river valley. You would expect a river, the Neckar River in this case, to deposit many feet of gravel as it floods year after year. Instead of dating it 500,000 years old because the jaw was found 80 feet deep in river gravel, there is no reason to think it is more than a few thousand years old. For instance, in Korea we excavated some pottery from the pre-Christian era near the surface of the ground. But, in the nearby river bed, while excavating the basement for a bank building, the very same type of pottery was found at a depth of 25 feet -- 25 feet of deposit in only a little over two thousand years! Scientists generally agree that the Heidelberg jaw is modern. lts apparent young age does not support the theory of human evolution, even though it has been used as one of the main supports for it. Neanderthal Man Neanderthal Man in the Field Museum (most recent concept). Compare with earlier version at the beginning of this article. Next consider Neanderthal Man. First in importance, is that we find Neanderthal remains in burials. At the Carmel Caves in Israel, several actual burials were excavated. One of them has been mounted in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, and is identical to modem man. Most astonishing here, is that buried next to Neanderthal Man, is modern man. Instead of being separated by tens of thousands of years, it looks like they were contemporaries. For many years, Neanderthal Man was represented as an imbecilic, bent-knee'd, stoop-shouldered type in the Field Museum in Chicago. But over the years researchers have developed a new view of Neanderthal Man. This new view is prevailing, fortunately. That is, that Neanderthal is really a modern man, one of us. Note the new display in the Field Museum showing an erect, intelligent person (picture at left). At the Smithsonian Institution (in Washington, DC) is this very important statement, "Because Neanderthal and modern man share these two important characteristics, an average brain size of 1,330 milliliters and burial of the dead, they can be grouped together in the same species, Homo sapiens" Neanderthals, then, were Homo sapiens -- modern man. At another display (pictured at right) the caption under a skull replica says, "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis." Most people are not aware that modem man used to be called Homo sapiens, whereas he is now called "Homo sapiens sapiens" because "we have a new brother". Our brother is Homo sapiens neanderthalensis; he is a modern man, just as we are, with living examples still found here and there. Neanderthal Man can no longer be a "missing link". Cro-Magnon Man with his sophisticated art forms and paintings (examples are well known cave paintings), is even more advanced than Neanderthal Man, and was obviously a highly intelligent race of modern man. What has happened to the pillars on which the original theories of human evolution were built? We have examined most of the evidence on which the theory was originally based, and found it entirely lacking. Other early examples only make the situation worse; later examples do not help the theory, rather they bring it more than ever into question. The Biblical Story of Man's Creation Has No Competitor There is no need to doubt what the Bible says about the creation of man. God created him out of the dust of the earth. It is a matter of faith; we cannot prove it. But our connection is with God, not with monkeys and apes. God made apes. He made man. But He did not take an ape and make a man. He made man special out of the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life; so our life has come directly from the Lord. You and I are a special creation. Finally, for Christians, the special creation of Adam (the first man), by God, is of primary importance. Both Adam and Jesus must be historical persons for two reasons at least: First, "For as in Adam all died (spiritually), even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (I Corinthians 15:22). (See also Romans 5:12f.) It would have been pointless for Jesus Christ to give his life for sinners if there was no original sin by the first man Adam (per Genesis 3). Secondly, Jesus' very own genealogy begins with Adam (Luke 3:23-38). It is very difficult to understand how anyone could claim to be a Bible believer and maintain that the first man, Adam, was made from a brute beast. The diagram above, drawn by a German evolutionist, comes to its climax in a black ape becoming a black man, becoming a brown man (also illustrated in other pictures herein), who then (according to the theory of evolution and depicted in other photos above) becomes a white man. This evolutionary theory has fostered much racial persecution over the years. Hitler even picked up on this theory, claiming even "white" was not high enough, that we must be "Aryan". Some even today hold to this conclusion. This diagram is from an older publication but illustrates the origins of this theory and some of the thinking behind some racial attitudes. It has been included in order for you to better understand one of the serious problems that the theory of evolution has caused and why we believe that God's creation of us is so important. As stated above, you and I are a special creation. For Further Reading. "Getting at Our Roots," "Lucy and Dating Fossil Finds." 1991 ABR Newsletter, May-June. Bowden, M., 1977 Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Kent, England: Sovereign Publ. Cousins, Frank W., 1971 Fossil Man. Emsworth, England: A.E. Norris & Sons. Gish, Duane T., 1985 Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publ. Weiner, J.S., 1980 The Piltdown Forgery. New York: Dover Publ.

Homepage Articles


© 2003 David Livingston    

....

 

Taken from: http://davelivingston.com/adamcaveman.htm