THEORIES OF GENESIS by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Sep 1, 1881

THEORIES OF GENESIS.

By Editor

UNDER the head, "Another Theory," a writer in the Sabbath Recorder says:—

At the College Anniversary at Milton, Wis., I heard the theory advanced that "Adam was not the first man, but only the first of a series;" assuming that the Bible has a missing link, which should tell of men, even of nations, prior to Adam, otherwise, "Cain could not have had a wife, nor any to help him build a city," etc. As I looked around the assemblage, and saw those who are often heard to speak lightly of the Bible, both as a record, and an inspiration, I could but regret that this interesting orator of the day could not have found Moses' Genesis sufficient in itself to explain away the difficulty.

And then the writer proceeds to project another theory more wild than all the rest, starting off as follows:— "When God created man, 'male and female, and called their name Adam.' (see Gen. 1:26-28 and chap. 5:2), it seems man was male and female in one person. This was seen not to be most conducive to man's happiness. Gen. 2:18, 20."

We cannot imagine any excuse for such vagaries; the record of Genesis gives a brief view of the works of the first week of time, including the creation of man, and the making of the Sabbath, embraced in chapter 1, and to verse 4 of chapter 2. Then follows a more extended view of some of the same events, especially of the creation of man and woman, introductory to the account of his fall and the consequences. The term "man" is used generically, and includes both man and woman. The wording of Gen. 1:27 shuts out all possibility of mistake: "In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Surely it is trifling with the inspired record to refer them to "one person."

The theory of the speaker at Milton was faulty in the extreme. But there is no "difficulty" in Genesis that needs to be "explained away," only as it is created by the inventions of men.