The Wild Human Theory – Adam was not the first Hominid
by James Fratzia May 2017
The “Wild Human Theory” arises from an examination of the Biblical evidence in Genesis 1-11, especially seeking a better understanding of Genesis 4-6. There are intriguing Biblical clues in those chapters suggesting that Adam was not the first Homonid1. In particular it arises from the possibility of an alternative to both traditional ‘Sethite’ and ‘supernatural’ explanations of Genesis 6:1-4.
God provided humans with capabilities when he made us in His image, particularly a spirit which can relate to Him and a mind/language which can use reason to deduce things (both intuitively and scientifically) from that which exists and accessible to us. Both the Bible and scientific discipline are looking at the same thing when they look at the origins of man. The Bible explains why man was created and reveals non-random intelligent intervention by God which complements and helps identify mechanisms in the existence of humans which naturalistic explanations do not satisfy 2 3. Furthermore, the Bible is selective in it’s narrative but it’s scope is cosmic in relation to homonid paleoanthropology. This paper not an attempt to harmonise Biblical narrative and naturalistic understanding of the origins of humanity. It seeks to provide an alternative to traditional theological narratives which is not exclusive of non-atheistic scientific anthropology. Furthermore, it provides an explanation from the Biblical narrative for the cognitive explosion which accompanies the emergence of truly modern Homo sapiens around 40,0000 years ago.
To begin with, there are a number of points to consider from the Biblical account.
adam & Adam
The Hebrew word for man is adam. There is also a specific Adam whose creation by God is described in Genesis 1 & 2. Therefore, adam can be both a generic term for humanity and a specific name for an individual human. The controversy which will arise is that the “Wild Human Theory” requires the Hebrew word adam to be even more generic, much in the same way that a the genus homo in scientific taxonomy may refer to more than one species of the family Homonidae. The first question being asked is could not the Hebrew word adam referring to man incorporate man more broadly to include quite different groups (not necessarily species) able to interbreed and produce offspring.
The garden of Eden is a specific alternate reality within the geographical reality of the wider world. Like a ‘bubble’ in the conventional time-space reality of the created universe. Inside is Eden, outside is ‘wild’. It has a specific location described in Genesis 2:8-14. God put man into this garden called Eden, Genesis 2:15. What is outside of the garden on the remaining surface of the earth? Let’s called that place the wild earth, the place which God has alsready populated with plaants and animals, and is the subject of our modern s cientific investigation, a reality in which humanity lives today and with which we are familiar.
One of the curious things about the reality of Eden is that spiritual beings from the spiritual realm appear to have physical form within it an interact with physical humans. For example, the serpent is clearly not a snake but a magnificant sepentine being as described in Ezekiel 28:13-17 who is eventually cast down to the ground out of heaven. It is a place where God who “is spirit“, John 4:24, walks in physical form “in the cool of the day”, Genesis 3:8, and directly relates to humanity.
In this garden’s reality there is no such thing as shame for nakedness, presumably because the potential exploitation of nakedness by humans is not part of Adam and Eve’s makeup. When humanity ‘hides’ from God because of their nakedness, they are no longer appropriate for the garden, Genesis 2:25, Genesis 3:11.
This garden no longer exists in that geographical location. It has similarities with the ark which saves Noah and the animals from the flood because it is a separate reality, ‘fit for purpose‘, separating them from the ‘wildness‘ outside.
The creation of Adam
In Genesis 1:26 , whom is God adressing when he says, “us“? Is this a trinitarian statement (there are many in Scripture) or could He be referring to those witnesses whom God tells were present at the creation of the physical realm to Job, Job 38:7 ? The parallism here suggests the “sons of God” who “shouted for joy” at the glory for God’s creation are also the “morning stars” who “sang together“. God appears to be referring to spiritual beings created before humans.
If in Genesis 1:28 God is speaking to an adoring heavenly assembly of created spiritual beings, could He not be filling them with even greater wonder as he takes a pre-existing homonid animal, an adam (or man), and makes this homonid into Adam, a man made in God’s “image“, with status above the created spiritual beings, with the responsibility to be a reflection and representation of God’s rule over the physical creation by giving them “dominion“?
Could the pre-existing man be ‘human’ animal-man (a homonid), sufficiently closely biologically related to Adam that Cain and Lamech could find wives and fill a city and rule over them (discussed later)? Obviously, from Genesis 1:28 this is not God’s intention for them when he tells Adam and Eve to “be fruitful” and to “multiply” and “to fill the earth and subdue it“. Could this be the horrific behaviour on view in Genesis 6:1-3 which seems to follow the principle that each “kind” of creature propagate with like “kind” which we see Genesis 1: 11-12 ; Genesis 1:20-21.
It has always been curious that even though Genesis 1:27 give us an account of the creation of humanity – both “male and female He created them“, Genesis Chapter 2 seems to go back to the creation of humanity and makes it clear that amongst the animals “for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him“, Genesis 2:20, until God creates Eve from Adam, Genesis 2:21-24. Why does the Bible go to such detail to explain this appropriateness of Eve for Adam after a search of the animals? This should already be obvious, unless of course there are homonid animals, ‘wild humans’, who are not suitable and whom the descendants of Adam (lets say they can also be described as “sons of God“) breed with in Genesis 6:1-4 and prompt God to act in the Flood. Adam must not breed with “wild humans”, he must only breed with His own kind, Eve, the new human creation in God’s image – Adam’s own ‘kind.’.
It is also curious to note that God makes Eve from Adam and he makes Adam from the “of the dust of the ground”, Genesis 2:7. Though it may be implied, no-where else in the creation story does God explicitly make a creature out of pre-existing material. This does not exclude stages in the development of life, similarities between creatures or even exclude the possibility of a directed evolution of one form from another. But in the creation of Adam and Eve, it is clear that pre-existing material was the basis of their formation. Is this documented in Genesis simply to indicate that God made Adam and Eve as a new homonid in a biological context where other homonids existed? Indeed, is this evidence for directed intentional stages in new life based on the foundation of what has already been created which atheistic naturalists believe to be a random evolutionary process under natural mechanisms4?
Another curious statement in the creation of Adam and Eve is “then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it” Genesis 2:15. The obvious question to ask is “took man from where to put him in the Garden? 5. If one is willing to ask the question, the answer is that God took Adam from outside the Garden. That is the place into which he casts Adam and Eve at the end of Genesis 3. It is the place of the events of Cain, and Lamech and Genesis 6. It is the place of death and dying and suffering. The reality of our current human habitation – outside the Garden. It would be reasonable to expect that if “wild humans” existed, that is where they would be found.
the naming of the animals
This narrative in Genesis 2:19-20 is curious. Traditional theological understanding revolves around an expression of the new creature’s exercise of ‘rule’, reflecting the image of God. However, it also expresses the distinction of the newly created Adam from the other creatures, including other homonids and ‘wild‘ humans.
This passage is clearly related to the search for a suitable ‘helper‘ for Adam (Genesis 2:18, Genesis 2:20). Why would the process of finding a suitable helper involve a survey of other creatures, if the cohort of other creatures did not include ‘wild‘ humans? ‘Adam‘ is special, different, higher than ‘wild’ creatures (including pre-existing humans) and in need of a suitable ‘helper‘ (Genesis 2:18, Genesis 2:20) to ‘image‘ God adequately and appropriately. Adam is not simply an animal, and the male Adam alone is not completely man (adam) in God’s image. Adam is unique amongst the animals and qualitatively distinct but alone is incomplete as an imager of God..
Hence the passage does at least two overarching things. It demonstrates the unique distinction between Adam and other creatures, and it anchors the ‘image‘ in a collaborative relationship between the male and the female who together have already been declared by God in Genesis 1:27 to be ‘man‘ (or adam) in God’s ‘image’.
There is a distinction between Adam and his helper later in scripture based on this narrative. However, the anatomical and derivational language in Genesis 2:22-25 is unlikely to refer to a sex-based ‘authority‘ distinction between male and female within this ‘image‘ which is a common theological interpretation. This is because the description most simply is providing the basis for an essential collaborativeness of the two sexes as imagers of God. Furthermore, it is the breaking of this collaborative image which is the essence of the serpent’s work in Genesis 3 to generate rebellion by man against the Creator. Many issues around this failure to collaborate/cooperate between the sexes are reflected in other misunderstood passages of Scripture (for example Paul’s argument about Eve’s sin in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is essentially an argument about acting unilaterally – just as it is not good for Adam to be alone [Genesis 2:18], it is not good for Eve to act alone, and women in Ephesus are doing so in teaching roles). But this will be addressed in another paper.
the line of Cain
Cain is the son of Adam and Eve and is considered a son of God, in God’s image to rule. Cain’s corruption results in the exercise of his rule over his younger brother leading to a desire to dominate 6, and eventually Abel’s murder. It is curious that when called to account by God, Cain’s fear is that he will be killed by other humans, Genesis 4:14 . He then proceeds to build a city for his son, Genesis 4:17 , presumably to satisfy his desire to rule. Eventually we see a glimpse of this corrupted ‘rule’ in one of his descendants, Lamech. Lamech is explored in another paper available on this website7 here http://126.96.36.199/~thedebri/articles/solid-food/lamech/.
There is a sense then, that the incidents regarding Cain and Lamech describe corruption of the capability to ‘rule’ which is at the very least on view when God makes humainty in His image, Genesis 1:28 .
From where does Cain get his wife? There does not seem to be an account of the women arising from Adam and Eve once they are cast out of the garden. Perhaps they are his sisters. To follow the same logic, the inhabitants of the city which Cain builds must therefore be his relatives. However, a plain reading of the text suggests Cain’s wife is a human who exists outside of the line of Adam and Eve. Certainly there is no evidence that his descendant Lamech’s wives are his relatives from the line of Adam and Eve. Even th man Lamech kills is not named, suggesting his origin is not important and outside of the line of Adam and Eve.
It seems probable, following this alternative thinking that the people whom Cain fears might kill him may not actually be descendants of Adam and Eve – perhaps they may be angelic beings sent by God to avenge Abel, but Gods response in ‘protecting’ Cain, Genesis 4:14 , suggests otherwise and human.
the line of Seth
There is no good evidence to say that this line was ‘righteous’. But it certainly appears to be contrasted to the line of Cain, with Cain and Lamech clearly being unrighteous. The statement at the end of the account of Cain’s line that After Seth’s son Enosh was born “men began to call upon the name of the Lord”, Genesis 4:26, does not mean that the line of Seth called upon the name of the Lord, nor that there were some of Adam’s descendants in Cains line who did not “call upon the name of the Lord“.
The account of the geneology of Adam in Genesis 5 follows the line of Seth through to Noah, presumably the same Noah who is righteous and survives the flood in Genesis 6. We are specifically told that many of these descendants had both sons and daughters. Certainly the male and female breeding stock to fulfil God’s purpose for man created in His image to be fulfilled without any inappropriate procreation with Wild Humans. However, this is not excluded in the passage. Only Enoch was righteous and did not die, Genesis 5:21-24. All the rest died , and with each generation their life span decreased.
Why did their life-span decrease? Biologically, increasingly diseased genetics exposed to the degrading effects of living on the earth, disease and injury could have contributed. But if their genetic code steadily incorporated “Wild Human” genetic code, it would have corrupted very quickly. It is tantalising from a biological viewpoint to accept this possibility as the explanation for the rapidly decreasing life span between Adam and Noah. In view of the geneology of Lamech in Genesis 4 it is almost certain that Noah’s father in Genesis 5 is a different Lamech.
The passage does not render Seth’s line righteous, nor does it exclude engagement of at least some of the individuals in this line engaging in the same polygamy and inappropriate procreation with “Wild” humanity.
It is reasonable to ask what is going on here? It is quite a peculiar passage and difficult to exegete. In the end, it is this passage that has prompted the formation of the “Wild Human Theory“ as an alternative to the traditional explanations for the identification of the ‘sons of God‘ and the ‘daughters of men‘ and their offspring. These can be summarised as follows :
Perhaps the sons of God are spiritual beings (angels) who had fallen. Attracted to the human women in the earthly realm, they cohabited with them, and produced hybrid offspring, the Nephilim, who corrupted the earth, causing God to send a Flood to wipe everyone out except Noah’s family who were unblemished. This is a plain reading which is supported by the following :
- multiple passages in the old testament use the term ‘sons of God’ to refer to angelic beings, eg Job 1:6; 2:1;38:7; Daniel 3:25 ,Psalm 29:1;89:7
- Early Jewish interpreters Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (1:3:1) , Philo of Alexandria (early first century A.D.) , many rabbinical authorities , Genesis Apocryphon, among the Dead Sea Scrolls,
- Early Christian interpreters also took this position : Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ambrose
- Opposed by Augustine in De Civitate Dei 15, A.D. 413-426
- Extra-Biblical literature. Some believe these passages are mythological equivalents of other Ugaritic, Sumerian, Hittite and Akkadian texts where not only are gods attracted to humans but there is a creation and Flood account as well.
- Apocryphal and/or pseudoepigraphical writings
- 1 Enoch (200 B.C) – 200 angels lusted after human women and produced giants,
- The Book of Jubilees, (100 B.C), angels coming to earth to help humankind and became consumed with lust and produced a race of giants (7:21-25).
- The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs – angels being punished for their sin.
- 2 Enoch 18 – angels being punished for their sin.
- 2 Baruch 56- angels being punished for their sin.
- One view identifies a strategy by Satan to corrupt the seed of the woman by mixing the seed of the woman with angelic creatures to thwart the promises of God. Christ’s statement that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35,36) does not preclude the angels who came down to earth from marrying nor potentially having a capacity to produce another species through women . However, angelic beings are not male (they don’t have gender which is a function of sexual reproduction), it is unlikely they could reproduce if God has created biological walls so that even non-angelic creatures breed only within their ‘kinds‘.
- New Testament Evidence
- 1 Peter 3:19,20 If Christ preached to the ‘spirits in prison’ from the time of the Flood, he is likely to be proclaiming their doom – the simple explanation is that even fallen angels were active at the time of the Flood without co-habitation with human women and does not support their identification with the ‘sons of God‘.
- Peter 2:4-6 Involvement of the angels who sinned in Genesis 6:1-4 does not require their equivalence with the ‘sons of God‘ as the ones who breed with the ‘daughters of men‘. The pattern of human disobedience in response to the varied activities and/or promptings of spiritual beings (even disobedient angels) is already established in the garden (though the serpent is best described as something other than an angel). Furthermore, even f the ‘spirits’ is referring to fallen angels the nature of their sin is not identified. They are held for divine “judgment” in ‘tartarus‘ (the only time this ‘holding’ place from Greek mythology is used in the Bible)
- Jude 6-7 These verses explicitly refers to “angels who left their proper habitation” and it is implied that they similarly gave themselves “over to immorality and gone after strange flesh” and thereby are held for divine “judgment”. However, even though it is a commonly held view that Jude derives this from the inter-testamental period and in extra-biblical literature to refer to angelic co-habitation with human women, the implication is dismissed when a plain reading of the text of Jude is made in Greek. The passage uses the word (Greek : τουτοιs) to link the angelic judgement in a similar manner to Sodom and Gomorrah’s judgment8. Sodom and Gomorrah were characterised by rape, homosexuality and the desire to have sex with men who were actually angelic beings. However, the homosexual desire for the angelic beings may have been a mistaken supposition by the men that the angels were men. After all they were present in human form. These angels were not fallen. They did not have sex with the men nor seek it. So, grammatically and contextually, the similarity must be in terms of judgment, not in terms of the nature of the sin (which for the Sodomites was sexual and for the angelic beings is undisclosed). Going after ‘strange flesh‘ often used to relate these verses to angelic sex with human women in Genesis 6:1-4 does not appear to refer to the angelic sin in the passage in Jude, but does refer to human sin in Sodom and Gomorrah.
This is a more likely explanation. It is supported by the following :
- Biblical use of the term ‘son(s) of God’ may to refer to humans eg Hosea 2:1 , Deuteronomy 14:1 , Hosea 11:1 , Isaiah 43:6 , Hosea 1:7.
- Even though the writer of Genesis uses the term ‘angels‘ 15 times elsewhere in Genesis, this is not the case in in Genesis 6:1-2. If angels were meant why doesn’t the writer say angels.
- Many early Jewish interpreters 9
- Some interpreters argue they are the human righteous line of Seth which is not supported adequately in the text. It seems more likely to be the entire line of Adam and Eve through both Cain and Seth’s lines, with few who are righteous (only Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Noah are clearly righteous, and maybe Seth and or his son Enosh was also because when he was born “men first began to call upon the name of the Lord” Genesis 4:26).
One of two (or more) human kinds?
The “Wild Human Theory” postulates this possibility which arises from consideration of the described inadequacies of both the angelic and the traditional human interpretations:
- Even though the classification of the ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’ into two different categories does not necessarily mean they are a human and non-human group, the juxtaposition provided in the Bible is suspicious for some sort of significant difference 10. The offensiveness of the interbreeding in the context of God’s command to multiply and fill the earth in Genesis 1:28 (and reiterated after the Flood in Genesis 9:7) suggests that they may be different ‘kinds‘11 of ‘human‘ groups – “Adam’s“ lineage and a pre-existing wild “adam“.
- Even though the interbreeding in Genesis 6:1-4 is used as the demonstration of devotion to sin which precipitates the Flood (Genesis 6:6), God blames “man” for the sin and not the “sons of God“, nor “angels“, nor “giants/nephilim“. This is a very strong observation. Once again, it appears that the offense is the interbreeding between two ‘kinds‘ of “man” who are not meant to interbreed – Adam’s line and adam (‘wild humans‘)
- The explicit description of the giants/nephilim may exist to highlight the possibility of other homonid ‘kinds‘ explained later.
The Wild Human Theory
In Genesis 6:1, the increase in humanity includes both wild humanity with whom at least Cain’s line have been breeding, and the degenerating line of Seth, their life-span degeneration most likely due to increasing moral and genetic corruption due to imitation of Cain’s line regarding procreation with ‘wild’ humans.
It may be significant that we are told that ‘daughters were born to them‘ because we have already been told in Genesis 5 that Seth’s line were producing both “sons and daughters“. This may be a deliberate statement identifying one category of daughters who are of Adam’s line, and one who are not of Adam’s line. In other words, breeding within Adam’s line was commanded and intended but interbreeding with wild humans was not intended.
In Genesis 6:2, what is it that makes the “daughters of men“ to be “beautiful“? I would suggest it is an improved phenotype resulting from an improved genotype because of the breeding of the line of Adam with wild humans. The “sister of Tubal-Cain .. Naamah” , Genesis 4:22, may be an example of such a beauty 12 when compared to Lamech’s wives, and wild human females generally. Nevertheless, it is probably reasonable to consider the “daughter’s of men” are not equivalent to the daughters born to Seth’s line who’s parents presumably are all of Adam’s line. and arguably a deliberate distinction is being drawn between Chapters 5 and 6.
Clearly, interbreeding at will (they “chose” whomever they wanted) between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men“, based on the beauty of the women is a big problem. Why would this be so if God expects humanity to “multiply and fill the earth” and “sons and daughters” are born to the entire lineage of Adam, along both Cain and Seth’s lines? There must be something very wrong going on here. God is certainly disturbed by this breeding. The distinction between the two groups itself is enough for this to be described as some sort of interbreeding between different kinds, and the offspring are best described as hybrids. The important observation here is that they are not treated as the same ‘kind‘.
Genesis 6:3 represents a clear disapproval by God of this interbreeding. A dichotomy might be visible here based on one group of humans in the line of Adam who exist as a distinct humanity in God’s image because of God’s Spirit, Genesis 2:7, and another who do not have God’s “Spirit” in their life because they are not in God’s image and are best categorised with ordinary animals. It is possible that interbreeding between these groups of humans is being described as a “striving” or a sort of “abiding” of God’s spirit with that part of humanity who are simply flesh. Or perhaps it is simply God recognising that after all, humans created in Adam’s line have progressively become more animal (flesh) than spirit in their behaviour and their lifespan adjusted to reflect this degeneration .
It is more satisfying to also recognise a degredation of the genome of Adam’s lineage by interbreeding than simply the traditional theological explanation that it is simply morale decay that is reflected in their decreasing life-spans. Simple exposure to the physical environment and the biome of the earth’s surface is degrading to human genes, but not as quickly as is described in Genesis 5. So it appears more complete to acknowledge the possibility of a more rapid degradation by the incorporation of ‘wild human’ genes.
The “giants” or “Nephilim“, in Genesis 6:4 may actually be the hybrid offspring who were “mighty men“, “men of renown“, or they may be a totally separate homonid group present at this time (and afterwards until Philistines are finally destroyed by Israel’s king David). If they are the hybrid offspring then they are giants compared to the ‘wild humans’. Lamech is possibly a glimpse into one of these hybrid people, Genesis 4:19-24 13. Clearly, the hybrid phenotype would be superior because the genotype is superior. However, it makes more sense that the ‘giants‘14 are not the hybrids, with their identification here providing context, particularly for the war against them in the history of Israel’s conquest of the promised land 15. The reason it makes more sense is that the Flood, which soon comes and ends the interbreeding between the sons of God and the daughters of men, does not destroy the “giants/nephilim” 16. The Flood appears to be precipitated by, and intended to end, the interbreeding and destroy the hybrids specifically. It does so by wiping out the wild humans with whom the ‘sons of God‘ were inappropriately breeding.
The hybrids are described as “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown“. In other words, people who’s name is remembered, people who wish to make a name for themselves. This is almost certainly a negative against them. We should be reminded of the human motivation in building the Tower of Babel, Genesis 11:4.
The suggestion that the “giants/nephilim” are not the hybrid offspring of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” in this interpretation raises the possibility that the ‘nephilim’ are homonids of a different “kind“. They may represent other homonid species generically, or they may be another specific homonid species. For example, homo Neanderthalis is said to have last existed in what is now Palestine 49,000 years ago 17. This appears to be an explicit Biblical reference that adam (man) was not the only homonid in anthropological pre-history.
Nevertheless, faced with the state of humanity in Genesis 6:5 expressed in this interbreeding, God “was sorry that He had made man on the earth“, Genesis 6:6. The phrase “on the earth” seems to qualify God’s sorry and focus it on general human existence (adam) – the ‘wild’ humanity. The next phrase “He was grieved in His heart” is more personal and probably refers to the line of Adam which has almost entirely been corrupted by this inbreeding, so that it now almost invariably shares the same “evil inclination all the time” which we subsequently recognise characterises “the giants“. The description of God’s emotion as grief is appropriate because Adam was made to be his ‘imager’ on earth, had been placed in Eden to have “face to face” fellowship with God, and had a destiny to extend God’s rule as His steward in visible form across the entire earth (and universe).
God’s response in the next few verses is entirely pragmatic. He decides to destroy almost everything which is corrupted, including the wild humans and the line of Adam through both Seth and Cain, and the hybrids. However, he will not destroy the “giants” and “Noah” and his family, Genesis 6:9-13.
The Hebrew word describing Noah is rendered as “unblemished“, or “perfect” or “righteous” depending on the English translation. The Septuagint uses “τέλειος” which may be translated unblemished, untarnished and perfect. This should not simply be seen as a spiritual or moral level. Certainly Noah “walked with God“, (in a sense figuratively doing what Adam once did in the Garden of Eden). Noah was not “corrupted” as “all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth“, Genesis 6:12. Noah was not engaged in the interbreeding, he was not a hybrid and his line was purely of Adam through Seth. Therefore, Noah did not have wild human genes. We are probably meant to see this in the emphasis place on the preservation and separation of each “kind” of flesh Noah is to take into the ark, Genesis 6:19-21.
The flood was generalised (or local) enough to destroy all all flesh “in which is the breath of life“, Genesis 6:17. Again, it is Adam’s line who exist because God breathed life into Adam which should be seen as the primary targets. All except Noah and his family. The wild humans are secondary targets to prevent Noah’s descendants from interbreeding with them. The flood is the end of all other homonids, except for the giants. The remaining giants will be destroyed in the conquest of the promised land, Joshua 11:21-23, 1 Samuel 17:4. God achieves his intent with the Flood. It would be a mistake to think that God tried to eliminate evil, or to stop sin. That does not appear to be the intent. The intent is to stop the interbreeding between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men“.
The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are not the righteous line of Seth (breeding with the unrighteous line of Cain), they are not angelic beings (in this verse); they are Adam’s line through both Cain and Seth. The ‘daughters of men‘ are ‘wild humans‘ – a different ‘kind‘.
After the flood, all humans are Adam’s descendants and there is no interbreeding with other homonids. The remaining homonid group are the sons of Anakim (Numbers 13:32-33) – the nephilim/rephaim/giants who are deliberately exterminated in the conquest of Canaan by Joshua and David. Their destruction is designed because of their implied and described (Deuteronomy 3:1-11)18 implacable alliegence to other ‘gods‘ 19and their corrupting effect on humans 20. It is at this point that the only remaining group of humans is us – Homo sapiens – and we are God’s rebellious ‘imagers’ with inherent dignity and faculties that separates us from all other creatures and render us worth saving by a loving creator God through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Secular Scientific Correlates
Though Homo sapiens is said to have emerged in Africa between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago21, around 30,000 to 70,000 years ago something is said to have happened to the species Homo sapiens during the ‘Middle Stone Age’ 22. There was a “spectacular and relatively sudden – apparently revolutionary – emergence of language, consciousnessand culture in our species”23. This took various forms 24 :
- Boats or rafts, which allowed them to reach Australia by crossing the sea
- Needles: this allowed humans to sew things together, making new clothes, boots, tents, etc. This made it possible for them to endure extreme cold climates.
- Oil lamps: this allowed them to explore caves and produce cave art
- Constant innovation of spear points and knives (which had prior had been consistently the same)
- First evidence appeared for art, religion, trade and complex societies.
There are various theories seeking to explain it. A summation of Richard Klein’s25 26 position argues that “Middle Stone Age humans evolving in Africa may appear anatomically modern, but did not become cognitively modern until the Later Stone Age/Upper Palaeolithic…… symbolic culture emerged some 50,000 years ago, caused by a genetic mutation that re-wired the brain“27. None of these explanations are entirely satisfactory and this sudden cognitive change, followed by the displacement and eradication of other human species is a great mystery which “The Wild Human Theory” purports is explained in the Bible. This stimulus is the creation of Adam and his line in God’s image in the context of the existence of other homonids.
“Symbolic culture is the ability to learn and transmit behavioural traditions from one generation to the next by the invention of things that exist entirely in the symbolic realm. Symbolic culture is the cultural realm constructed and inhabited uniquely by Homo sapiens and is differentiated from ordinary culture, which many other animals possess..Symbolic culture is a domain of objective facts whose existence depends, paradoxically, on collective belief…From a Darwinian standpoint, symbolic culture has proved hard to explain. One difficulty is that the concept itself often seems unsettling and philosophically unacceptable to natural scientists. “28.
Scientific equipoise requires the possibility that an influence outside the natural realm caused this to occur. Discounting this possibility raised by the Bible is scientifically illogical and represents a form of naturalist belief or religion in itself.
The ‘Wild Human Theory’ argues there are at least three or four different groups of human-type creatures in Genesis 4-6. There are the descendants of Adam through the lines of both Cain and Seth culminating in Noah and his family, there are the multiplied ‘wild’ men from Genesis 6:1 whose daughters are fair and are taken by the “sons of God”, their offspring who were ‘heroes of old’, ‘men of renown’, and the giants or Nephilim (unless they themselves are the hybrid offspring, a conclusion which is unclear from the passage). Interbreeding between the lines of Adam who are made in the image of God, and the ‘wild’ humans who are not, is the sin which prompts the great flood. Noah and his family (eight souls) are the only survivors. The giants/nephilim are not eradicated until the conquest of Canaan completed by under Joshua and King David.
Share this Post
- . Any of various primates of the family Hominidae, whose only livingmembers are modern humans. Hominids are characterized by an uprigh tgait, increased brain size and intelligence compared with other primates, aflattened face, and reduction in the size of the teeth and jaw. Besides themodern species Homo sapiens, hominids also include extinct species of Homo (such as H. erectus) and the extinct genus Australopithecus. In someclassifications, the family Hominidae also includes the anthropoid apes. “homonid”. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 11 May. 2017
- the fossil record is inadequately explained by atheistic naturalistic theories. In particular, it is inadequately explained by ‘evolutionary theory’ for a number of reasons. These include the argument that there is no direction or design in evolution, that it is a natural process which results in random selection simply based only upon prevailing environmental features and fitness to survive and compete, that long periods of stability in the fossil record with relatively sudden change is due to relatively sudden environmental influences which are not clearly matched by other evidence, and that the lack of transitional forms is just a matter of sample size. More significantly problematic are the arguments that that biological barriers (such as the formation of DNA, cellular machinary in a complete cell, multicellular organisms, species transition etc) are overcome in some way by the evolutionary process of natural selection and random mutation.
- God is sometimes described using building analogies in Scripture, laying foundations then the next step. Indeed, he uses such a description in correcting Job 38:4-7
- The garden’s location is described in Genesis 2:813
- Septuagint Genesis 4 7 Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him.
- the Greek form of similar, τουτοιs, is feminine form and therefore applies to the feminine nouns here which are the cities, not the angels who have masculine grammatical forms
- See a succint summary of this by Don Stewart https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_724.cfm
- biological, spiritual and or other
- remember there is an emphasis on the ‘kind‘ of plant and animal breeding after its ‘kind‘ in Genesis 1:12,21,24, 6:20
- Naamah means pleasant in Hebrew : http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Naamah.html#.WRjwE2iGOUk
- the account of Lamech is more fully dealt with in http://188.8.131.52/~thedebri/articles/solid-food/lamech/
- an explanatory parenthesis – ‘Nephilim‘ not referring to the ‘sons of God‘, nor the ‘mighty men‘, and the “mighty men” simply refers back to the ‘sons of God‘, not the ‘Nephilim‘
- This conquest of Canaan is led by Joshua and appears to be governed by the strategy of genocidal extermination of the remnants of the Nephilim/Rephaim/Anakim (sons of Anak), Joshua 11:21-23. It is concluded by David in conquest of the Philistine cities and prefigured when he kills the giant Goliath, 1 Samuel 17:4 ff
- According to Michael Balter in Science, Jan. 28, 2015, Humans and Neandertals likely interbred in Middle East – http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/humans-and-neandertals-likely-interbred-middle-east
- Og, the king of Bashan, was a giant connected to the Babylonian God Marduk (Nimrod) in Genesis 10:6-12. The dimensions of Og’s bed (not his own dimensions of course) matched those of the fertility chamber in the Babylonian Ziggurats
- real spiritual powers in rebellion against God and involved in the rebellion and corruption of humans
- perhaps even potentially interbreeding with them though this is not indicated in the Bible
- Mellars, P. A., K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef and C. Stringer, eds. (2007). Rethinking the Human Revolution: new behavioural and biological perspectives on the origin and dispersal of modern humans. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. ISBN 978-1-902937-46-5
- In the 1970’s it was thought to have happened 40,000 years ago in Europe but the exact timing and location remains a matter of investigation : see “When Did the Human Mind Evolve to What It is Today?”, Smithsonian.com
- popularised in a book called Sapiens by Dr Youval Noah Harari and noted by Awais Aftab August 27, 2013 quoting notes from A Brief History of Humankind by Dr. Yuval No h Harari
- Klein, Richard G. (2000). “Archaeology and the evolution of human behavior”. Evolutionary Anthropology. 9: 17–36. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(2000)9:1<17::AID-EVAN3>3.0.CO;2-A
- Klein, R. G.; Edgar, B. (2002). The dawn of human culture. New York: John Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-25252-8