As a Christian, I often got angry at science for trying to prove that Adam was not the first man when I was much younger. Science claimed that the first man, Adam, was too young to be considered the first man on planet earth. They claimed that the oldest upright man looking creature was a female called Lucy and that she was about 4.2 million years old. They also discovered another human fossil older than Lucy about two years ago that was about 4.4 million years old. If this is true, then how do we justify Adam as the first man, when he is not more than 10,000 years old according to Biblical calculations in Genesis 5?
First let us tackle the issue of age. One of the best things ever invented by science in the areas of geology and archaeology is carbon dating. Carbon dating is used to estimate the age of fossils and layers of rocks in the earth. So far, it has been very reliable. Also, in investigating or forensic science, investigators can analyze the state of a dead body and give a close estimate of the time of dead, how the person was killed, location of death if the body was moved, and who the murderer might be based on raw materials present on the dead body and bodily fluids and body parts left by the murderer. These results are even admissible in the United States court of law, and are found to be more reliable than eye witnesses or a photograph. It is based on the reliability and credibility of carbon dating and forensic science that I will take sides with science on this issue. I maintain that the oldest man should be older than the Biblical Adam, who should be about 8,000 years old, according to the book titled, “The political and Spiritual Purpose of the Holy Land”.
Secondly, we must tackle the origins of the oldest man. If carbon dating and forensic science says that the over 4 million years old human fossils are in Africa, why does the Bible even talk about Mesopotamia and a man who is just 8,000 years old? Well, a close look at the Bible reveals to all that the Holy Book never placed man in Mesopotamia until after the great flood in Genesis 11. This was when mankind migrated eastward and settled in Babylon. The problem all along with the Bible or creationism was never the words in it, but the interpretation by a powerful few to lead their audience towards their political agendas. If man got to Mesopotamia in Genesis 11 and they were moving eastward, then where were they in Genesis 1-10 in the west?
A look at the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2, talks about four rivers that flowed through it. The Tigris and the Euphrates are rivers still in the Mesopotamia, while Gihon (The Nile River) is still in Cush (Upper Egypt (bottom of Egypt), Sudan, and Ethiopia) till this day. Some old Bibles subtitled Cush as simply Upper Nile River (Lower Egypt). In Genesis 4, after God punishes Cain, he too went to the east of Eden. It appears that in earlier time there was a habit of moving eastward and science has proven that human migration went eastward from Africa, to the Middle East, into Euro-Asia, and then, the Americas. Eastern migration must have become a solution to over-population or yawning for a new beginning. This must be the reason why mankind decided to build a tower to reach heaven immediately after the great flood to alleviate over-population problems and to prevent them from spreading around the earth, like they said in Genesis 11. Considering the fact that Cush is to the west of Mesopotamia, it has the oldest human fossils, it has the Nile River or Gihon River, and humanity did not get to Mesopotamia until after the great flood in Genesis 11, I conclude that the Man of God’s creation was in Cush no matter how long the rivers flowed before the continental drifts.
Lastly, is the Biblical account wrong about creation? So far the Bible agrees with science that the land of creation and the Garden of Eden is in Cush. So the disagreement is the age of the original man. Let us see if the Bible can speak for itself, instead of relying on its preachers to do so. In Genesis 4, After God tells Cain that he was banished from Eden, Cain pleads with God that anyone who finds him will kill him. Who are these people? It should only be his parents left since Abel is dead, but his parents never touched him. God never tells Cain that he is being dramatic; he agrees with Cain that his life will be in danger, so he gives him a mark of protection. According to “The Political and Spiritual Purpose of the Holy Land”, it claims that in that part of Africa, like they still do today, tribal marks of identity is very important. It serves as a form of visa and passport to identify citizens and those of have the right to belong there. This was the mark Cain received and was now at peace to move on away from God and Eden. Cain in the land of Nod marries a wife and has a son. It is true that Adam had many children, but Cain could not have married his sister because by the time Cain left, Adam was childless. This is why Eve testified that her new child (not son) was going to replace Abel.
In the land of Nod, the people were already building cities, making musical instruments, making tools out of iron and bronze, marrying two wives, and naming inheritance after their children. So when Cain got to Nod from Eden, people were already collecting rent or money for homes, they were already playing music for entertainment, polygamy was already a trend, and they were already preventing other from encroaching on one’s inheritance. This means that the Bible speaking for itself agrees with science that the original man is older than Adam in Genesis 4, and that the original man has nothing to do with Mesopotamia in Genesis 11. According to “The Political and Spiritual Purpose of the Holy Land”, Adam must have been the first prophet or person mankind could record in Cush. It appears that there is a period of 4 millions years between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.