Hope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH):

Just WHEN Was the Garden of Eden?

by Arnold Kennedy

FIRST ERROR -- “The Bible Teaches That Adam Was the First Man”

It is obvious that Answers in Genesis sees their view that Adam was the first man as an important foundational statement to their doctrines. All doctrinal direction in The Answers Book comes from this belief and this is where Answers in Genesis creates problems and then tries to answer its self-created questions. They even try to do this using scientific evidence. But Answers in Genesis only succeeds in promoting error in the matter of race!

Without any doubt at all, Answers in Genesis’s use of the phrase “The first man Adam” is an utter misuse of context because the context of 1 Corinthians 15 in which this is found is “resurrection” -- not “creation”. This resurrection subject starts at verse 12, and is still the same in verse 42, where the phrase, “So also is the resurrection of the dead,” is even closer to the phrase, “The First Man Adam”. The comparison in this passage is between the "natural" and the "spiritual"; between the "earthy" and the "heavenly", with “the first man Adam” referring to the Adamic Creation. The “we” and “they” in this passage are both plural -- and the context is still resurrection, not creation! The phrase, “the first man Adam” has absolutely nothing to do with the first singular individual man on earth!

When Adam was told, “Thou shalt surely die”, ask yourself if “Adam” here carries the meaning that only one singular “first man” died, or if the punishment included his offspring also, according to, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”. Does not the “in Christ” involve other than just one singular man”?

If “I speak as a fool” (using an expression Paul used), there were ever only two men on earth, namely “the first man” (v. 45) and “the second man” (v. 47). Fancy that -- Most people would agree that there were other people on earth between Adam and the Messiah! Yet, Answers in Genesis avers there have been only the two people!

Thus to base an argument on “The first man Adam” from 1 Corinthians chapter 15 must result in a wrong conclusion. Answers in Genesis says, “Defenders of the Gospel must be able to show that all human beings descended from one man and one woman -- as only those people who descend from Adam and Eve can be saved”. This is a decidedly odd statement for them to make, since “only those people who descend from Adam and Eve”, immediately implies there are other people who did not descend from Adam and Eve. The first statement in this quote in no way demands that there were not people before the “Adam” of Genesis Two. But the latter part of this quotation is absolutely true, because the “breath of life” was not in the “men and women” (plural) of Genesis One, as we will be seeing!

SECOND WRONG DOCTRINE. Noah’s Flood Covered the Whole Globe

In the Old Testament the differences between "earth" and “face of the earth" are very important...(e.g. where Cain went out from the “face of the earth” and became a fugitive and a vagabond in the “earth”). “The “face of the earth " is a limited area of the globe, and so is, “the whole face of the earth” -- it is also that limited area covered by Noah's flood. Cain did not leave the planet when he went from the “face of the earth” into the “earth”, did he? Although Answers in Genesis mentions the phrases, they will not point out the difference between “the face of the earth” and “the earth”, in order to claim that the entire globe was inundated.

Nor will Answers in Genesis accept other ways “earth” = 'erets is used. For instance, where Abraham was told to walk throughout the “earth”, did he walk around the whole globe or just that particular “earth” YEHOVAH God promised to him? So did the flood cover the globe or the whole of that particular “earth” of the context? Each race had its own “earth”, e.g. “The Land of Egypt” or “the Land of Israel”. To weakly say the flood covered the whole globe ignores these things and deceives people into thinking that Noah and his sons did not overspread those Genesis One para-Adamites who were not destroyed by the Flood.

Flavius Josephus (37 A.D. to c. 100 A.D.), the first-century Romano-Jewish scholar, historian and hagiographer who was born in Jerusalem to a father of priestly descent and a mother who claimed royal ancestry, recognized that Adam and his family were NOT the only ones to make it through the Flood -- notice!

"Now the sons of Noah were three -- Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded OTHERS who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, TO VENTURE TO FOLLOW THEIR EXAMPLE" (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter IV, Section 1).

Earlier, in Chapter 3, Josephus makes mention that

"...Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus:-- 'There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that MANY who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one [Noah] who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it...'" (ibid., Book 1, Chapter III, Section 6).

Race mixing was the cause of Noah’s flood, for we read:

Genesis 6:12: “And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth”.

This is referring to that “earth” occupied by the Adamites who now lived outside of The Garden of Eden, together with local para-Adamites. How had they corrupted themselves? (Heb. “spoiled).

The Adamite “sons of God” had mingled sexually with para-Adamite “children of men”, and YEHOVAH God moved to save Noah (and family) who had remained, “pure in his generations” (Genesis 6:9), in order to destroy the rest of the corrupted Adamites, and what they possessed.

Genesis 7:20-23: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth”.

The flood destroyed those corrupted Adamites with “the breath of life”, not all of the unmixed para-Adamites.

For more information be sure to download or request a copy of our article, Did Noah's Flood Cover the Highest Mountains?

THIRD ERROR. All Mankind is “OF ONE BLOOD”

KJV: "And hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9: “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD’S portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance."

Judeo-Christianity (including Answers in Genesis) refuses to accept either the first or the latter portion of this verse, and many others like it that say the same thing in both Testaments.

(3). Likewise, chapter 18 of The Answers Book uses a different definition of “race” than the Bible does. It ascribes different groups supposedly arising from Noah’s descendants as being a development over an undefined period of time, whereas the Bible presents racial origins such as, “the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon” (Genesis 19:37). The Moabites and Ammonites did not arise from any such undefined "development", and remain as specific races throughout the Bible, being precisely defined, rather than “undefined. The claim that all races come from Noah cannot hold water as it is based upon the manufactured wrong idea, “of one blood”. We can now look at an important paper about this:

From a Paper By J. O. Adams of Melbourne, Australia…

“The word "blood", Greek haimatos, as in the Stephens' text and the King James' Version, is omitted by practically all authorities. Bullinger states, "The texts omit "blood", and Scofield agrees with, "Blood" is not in the best manuscripts." Four of the six editors of the Stephens' text (A.V.) omit the word. It is also omitted by the following: Westcott and Hort, Panin, the Concordant Version, the Diaglott, Douay Version, the Vulgate, Revised Version, the Nestle Text and the Revised Standard Version, and by Ferrar Fenton. Moffatt has "from a common origin". Clearly then the consensus of opinion among authorities is that the word "blood" should be omitted as not being in the original manuscripts.

[INSERTED NOTE: There are other places where we can study the use of hice = one. These also show the addition of “blood” is wrong].

Adam then was the "one" from (or "out of") whom YEHOVAH God made “every” nation of Adamic men that should dwell upon the whole of the earth's surface". (Note the Greek preposition ek used here. This denotes "from, out of, of", etc. As in this verse, it is frequently used to denote origin.).

Paul was addressing “Greeks”, and knew that these people were from the outcast ten tribes of the House of Israel -- his "brethren" (= “of the same womb”).

(NOTE: YEHOVAH God is described as being, “our father” and “a father to Israel”. There is no contrary Scriptural direct statement).

"Therefore, being God's offspring, we ought not to suppose the Deity to be like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by man's skill and invention. Truly then, God, overlooking the times of ignorance, now declares to the men, that all of them, everywhere, are to repent” (i.e. "undergo a change in frame of mind and feeling").

(NOTE: Here “all” refers to “all” of the men of that context only. In both Hebrew and Greek, “all”, “every” and “whosoever” is always confined to the context people only).

"Because He has set a day in which He is going to judge the inhabitants of the earth in righteousness by a man whom He hath appointed, some scoffed, but others said, ‘We will also hear thee again concerning this’"

“There was not a man for cultivating the ground."

Genesis 3:20. Eve was so named because, she was “the mother of all living." She was the mother of those with, “The breath of life” only. Eve was certainly not the mother of the colored races of mankind. So too, Adam could be regarded as the father of "all living" -- but only of the race that came from him -- not of the pre-Adamite races without “The breath of life” (plural).

NOTE: The people “overspread” by Noah’s sons were the para-Adamites.

End of Paper...

FOURTH ERROR. “After their kind”

I will incorporate notes from a paper by Lawrence Blanchard (USA). This matter of “kind” is where The Answers Book is very wrong.

The first chapter of Genesis reveals that the Creator God set up His first Law of kind after kind, applying it to all of His creation: "trees bearing fruit after their kind". YEHOVAH God created different kinds of plants, trees, fishes, birds, and land creatures, each to reproduce “after its own kind”. At YEHOVAH's command, He established a law of nature that ensured racial purity or otherwise, separation of all creatures from other kinds.

Among the most prominent promoters of this theory is Answers in Genesis and their book, One Blood. The Biblical Answer to Race. The initial problem with One Blood theory is that its authors presume that their definition of the term "kinds" is the biblical definition. One Blood assumes that "kinds" refers to the general "families" of creation, such as all dogs or all bears, for example. As will be shown, however, the biblical definition of "kinds" is very similar to the science of taxonomy. A review of the taxonomical terms will be helpful to assist in the biblical understanding of "kind." Basic taxonomy breaks down the classification of all living things as follows: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Although "kind" is not a specific taxonomic term, it does relate to “genus" and "species."

The word "kind" is the Hebrew word miyn, appearing nine times in the first chapter of Genesis. It means "to portion out”; “a sort”, i.e. species." (Strongs #4327). According to Strongs, "kind" means "species." "Kinds" does NOT refer to general categories (families) of dogs or cats or birds. It refers to the subsets (genus and species) within these categories. This is illustrated by its usage within Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. For example, in the creation account of Genesis 1:11-12, there are many "plants" and "fruit trees" that were to reproduce "after their kind." Likewise, in verses 24-25 YEHOVAH God created many water creatures and "beasts of the earth" and "cattle" and every land creature "after their kind." There were many different species or kinds of plants, water creatures, and land creatures that YEHOVAH created, which were subject to the law of nature He set up in the beginning -- "kind after kind." This law is readily observed in nature (as opposed to domestication). The species stay within their own kind and reproduce after their own kind. As the saying goes: “Birds of a feather flock together”.

Further, this word "kind" is used in Genesis 6:20 when YEHOVAH God commanded Noah to take "birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind" on the ark to be kept alive. There were many different “kinds” or species within the region of the Flood. Genesis 8:7-10 reveals that Noah first sent out “a raven" and later "a dove," from the ark. These are not only two different Hebrew words indicating two different birds, but also they are categorized taxonomically in two completely different orders within the bird class. One is categorically clean and the other is unclean.

Returning to the Masoretic text and the Hebrew word miyn, the Mosaic Law (in Leviticus 11:13-19) continues the distinction between different "kinds" of unclean bird: "the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard", and "the kite and the falcon…every raven…." and so forth (See Deuteronomy 14:11-18). The eagle, vulture, buzzard, and kite are of the same family taxonomically, but each is a different genus or “kind”.

In Leviticus 11:22, there is a delineation between different kinds of clean insects, such as "locusts in its kinds”...and the “cricket in its kinds”, and “the grasshopper in its kinds”. Notice the plural "kinds", that is, many kinds or species of locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers. Again, verse 29 distinguishes between unclean animals and reptiles: "the mole, and the mouse, and the great lizard in its kinds”, that is, different kinds or species of mole, mouse and lizard. This is followed by verse 30 reading: "gecko, crocodile...sand reptile and the chameleon", inferring that all are of the reptile family, but comprise different kinds (genus) or species. The word "kind" in the Law clearly means different genera or species within a general category or family of bird, animal, or reptile.

From the above analysis of the use of the term "kinds" in Scripture, it can be readily seen that the biblical definition is quite broad. Depending on the context, "kinds" can refer to the taxonomical term "genus" (eagles, kites, vultures); or it can refer to that of "species" (kinds of locusts or kinds of grasshoppers). Therefore, it is correct to say that the Bible uses "kinds" to differentiate the species within a genus, as well as the variety of genera (plural of "genus") within a family. The biblical "kinds" can apply to the taxonomical terms of both "genus" and "species" BUT NOT TO “FAMILY”.

“One Blood's” premise is, therefore, skewed at the first instance by a misleading and otherwise untrue definition of the meaning of "kind," contrary to the Scripture's intention. Rather than "kind" referring to genus, or even the species within each genus category, as it is ascribed biblically, it is applied to the family of dogs, cats, or bears, for example. A corrected definition, however, would not only put One Blood's theory on hold, but also provide an emerging picture of what the Creator actually did in His creation. All species did not develop through natural selection from one pair of created plant or animal kind. YEHOVAH God created all the different varieties of creation -- every “kind” or specie of plant, tree, cattle, bird, reptile, fish, and so forth.

NOTE: This is what Answers in Genesis does.

Does “Kind” Refer to Mankind Too?

Now, of course, we have to face the matter of “kind” about man. Are there differing “kinds” of "men”? Modern geneticists have their reasons for claiming this. A first-time reader of the Bible with no church background would soon pick this. Race is an inescapable subject through the Bible. YEHOVAH God simply does not treat all races the same and never did! Even each tribe of Israel has a different destiny for the "last days". Only Israelites (from 12 tribes) are to be found within the New Jerusalem! Oh yes, there are many differing words for “man”, “men”, “people”, “nations”, "tribes" etc. which we will not look at now.

Earlier it was pointed out that the dove is a “clean” bird and the raven is an “unclean” bird. Both are birds, but are of differing “kinds”. So is there Biblical evidence that there is a clean “kind” of people and an unclean “kind” of people? It is clear-cut that if YEHOVAH God has a chosen (= bachar, or “elect”) race, then all other races must be “unchosen”. 1 Peter 2:9 tells the people he is writing to that they are “A chosen generation = genos”. Now these “chosen” people were commanded not to have sexual relations outside of a limited Semitic gene pool. This is very clear, but most churches declare that this matter has changed from one of race into one of belief, even if they cannot support this scriptually. Answers in Genesis likewise accepts this because it is a popular teaching. But in the New Testament the racial separation continues.

The addition of “thing” (akathartou, genitive, singular, neuter) at the end of this verse is grammatically justified. But, preachers wrongly use it in the sense of “things” rather than “people”. When we look at this verse, it is obvious that “them” signifies the separation of one people (not thing) from another. It is about people, as we see in the words “them” and “you”. In Greek, the word “separate” = aphorizo that means “to border off…to limit off…to separate and to sever from the rest”. In the next verse below we see how this word is used; it is used of the separation of Israelites according to whether they are sheep or goats. (Note: nations is a neuter noun whereas them is masculine and thus refers to the people within the nations).

This specifically mentions nations. Any such suggestion of election or national/racial separation horrifies some Church people because of the conflict between this and their wrong understanding of “God so loved the world” and similar Scriptures where they put the wrong meaning on “the world” and wrongly use the word “all”.

Going back to 2 Corinthians 6:16, we find the word “touch”. In this verse, “touch” = haptomai is a word used of carnal intercourse with a woman, like it or not (confirm this in 1 Corinthians 7:1-3). The “them” in this verse are “unclean” people that are not to be “touched”. “Unclean” = akathartou that shows that there is a difference between "clean" and "unclean" people, with the clean not to “touch” the unclean. Note here that in Acts 10:28, “but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean”, this is about men who are “allophulos” = “from a kindred tribe” (of Israel).

The “yoke” in 2 Corinthians 6:14 is with heterozugeo which means “a different sort” (Vine), or “one who is not an equal” (Thayer). YEHOVAH God also made clean and unclean animals and fish; each were born that way. They simply are different and are not equal.

(a) “it is not given to them to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom of God”, or

FIFTH ERROR. “Genesis One and Two are about the same event”

This is about the highlighted sentence on page 38 of The Answers Book which reads, “Genesis chapter two is not a different account of creation -- it is a more detailed account of the sixth day of creation”. Let us see why this is wrong, starting by answering the following question:

Without a thought, most people would answer by saying, “Why? At the beginning of course”. By “the beginning” they mean something like, “At the beginning of the Bible” as if it had something to do with the first man on earth.

Well, that only seems right since we find what is commonly called the Garden of Eden, is found in the second chapter of Genesis, and is not in the first chapter. It comes after the creation of men and women in Genesis One. But few people know that “Eden” occurs elsewhere in the Bible, and that it occurs concurrently with the Assyrian empire in the Ezekiel 31-32 passage below. Although this passage is symbolic, it immediately calls for a re-think of what we have believed, that is, that the Garden of Eden may not have been “at the beginning”. So we will take a look as to when it was. We can see in Genesis 1:27 that men and women (plural) were created and lived upon the earth. But when we come to Genesis Two, we find, “And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed” (Genesis 2:8). “Formed” has a different meaning to “created”, so “the man” here has little to do with those in males and females of Genesis One. In Genesis Two we have a “garden” = gan = an enclosure, which was “planted” for one man only in that one part of the earth specified. A “garden”, as a planted enclosure, cannot be the whole earth. It was made exclusively for one man, to start with.

When we take a good look into these things, we must conclude that the people created by the Elohim in Genesis 1 are different in many ways to that man, and thus his offspring, formed by YEHOVAH-Elohim as presented from Genesis 2:4 on. This is why the “Brotherhood of Man” doctrine of the humanists, together with those seduced by them, is not Biblical. Before we look at this further, let us consider the first part of these Ezekiel chapters to get a starting point:

Ezekiel 31:1: “And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third month, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness? Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters. The cedars in the Garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the Garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the Garden of God, envied him”.

There is much symbolism in these passages, such as Kings being like trees, and of “trees” being able to envy. However, from this account, long after the Garden of Eden, we can see that the “Garden of Eden” and “the Garden of God” are being presented as being contemporary with the civilizations mentioned in this passage. There is no reason to say that Ezekiel would be “out of line” with what existed at the time of Genesis Two.

We are going to see a number of other confirmations why The Garden of Eden was not “at the beginning”.

(1). In Genesis 2:13-14, we find, “And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria”. Here we find references to nations that existed at the time of the Garden of Eden, and thus before it.

(2). In Genesis 2:8, Where we read, “And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed”, the word “eastward” = qedem = "from that which was aforetime". This tells us the Garden was different from that which had gone before in Genesis Chapter One. (“Eastward” here is not the same word as “East” in verse 14).

(3). Chapter 1:25 of the Book of Jasher (referred to in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18), records, “And Cain hastened and rose up and took the iron part of his ploughing instrument, with which he suddenly smote his brother”. Iron is the product of a civilization, and this indicates the existence of civilizations such as Assyria and Egypt at the time of the Garden of Eden.

(5). Genesis 3:16 says, “And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD”. The Book of Jasher confirms this was going from one place to another, “At that time Cain went forth from the presence of the LORD, from the place where he was”. This indicates that YEHOVAH’s presence was not found outside of the Garden, and that Cain went from one place to another.

(8) The ancient Vedic scriptures of India also tell the story of the coming of what they, (and the Bible), call “the holy seed” who are described as being the “tall white ones”, and as being “sons of God”, a phrase not unknown in both Testaments. But the matter of this “holy seed” (see Ezra 9:2, Isaiah 6:13, Daniel 8:24, 12:7) as the line through Adam-Noah-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob/Israel as “the holy people”, (Deuteronomy 7:6, 14:2, 14:21, 28:9, Isaiah. 62:12, Daniel 12:7, etc) is denied today by almost every church, and also by Answers in Genesis. In Exodus 19:8 and 1 Peter 2:9 these “holy people” are described as “an holy nation”. Most of the Bible is about, and is addressed to, this one people. Much of the story of the Bible is about the attempts to destroy this holy seed, primarily by race mixing, and unbelief in whom they are, as YEHOVAH God’s people. These holy people were conceived that way, and did not become such in the way modern evangelism says.

(9) Chinese records from the flood period, (the reign of King Yao), record floods in the Hwang Ho river, as the Tarim Basin drained. This is the same area mentioned in the Vedic Scriptures where the Sons of God came from. Chinese history was not interrupted by Noah’s flood, and neither was that of Egypt, India, South America or Africa, and so the flood did not cover the areas of the globe these were living in.

What this means of course is that the “Garden of Eden” of chapter 2 of Genesis is about something different from what we find in Genesis chapter 1, and that “The Garden of Eden” was long after Genesis chapter 1.

It is interesting that The Bible Timeline by Thomas L. Robinson Ph.D., MD. dates the creation of men and women in Genesis One but then dates Genesis 2:15 about Adam and Eve being placed in the Garden of Eden as being not until the year 3941.

Theologians have muddied the waters claiming that different people must have written Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, because the two chapters are not consistent. That they are inconsistent is true, but it is their claim that the two chapters are different accounts of the same event is what is not true. If they were an account of the same event, whatever would they do with accounts like that of Ezekiel, and the multiple differences between the two? To clear this up, it is necessary to make some comparisons between Genesis 1 and 2, since they reveal two different orders of origin at two different times. This is confirmed by the different words in Hebrew used for “man” and we can find the two major words as “kinds” contrasted within single verses in places through the Bible.

(4). In Genesis 1, male and female were “created” together on the sixth day. In Genesis 2, Adam was “formed” as the first act and before other species, whilst Eve was made as the last act and after other species.

(5). In Genesis 1 male and female were created together with the objective of filling that “earth”, which by inference, means to spread out all over it. In Genesis 2, Adam was formed to live in a specific location namely Eden, a garden bounded by four rivers. There are neither rivers mentioned in Genesis One, nor any mention of a garden. Adam was planted firmly in a “garden” bounded by four rivers; presumably a long way from the sea.

(6). In Genesis 1, man was made with the purpose of "having dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”. In Genesis 2 Adam was formed with the specific purpose of being a gardener in Eden and "to dress it and keep it”.

(8). In Genesis 1, the beasts of the earth were created (wild animals), whilst Genesis 2 the beasts of the field were made (domesticated animals). The use of the term "field" indicates that the beasts of the field were to live in an enclosure (the Garden of Eden) and not to roam free like the beasts of the earth. (Note the important difference between “earth” in Genesis 1 and “field” in Genesis 2).

(9). In Genesis 1, fruit trees were created before man, whilst in Genesis 2 trees pleasant to the sight were made after the formation of Adam. The use of the phrase: "trees pleasant to the sight” once again indicates a purpose of cultivation with a need, as with all cultivation in a Garden, of being dressed and kept.

(11). In Genesis 1, the high flying migratory birds were created, those which fly above the earth in the “open firmament of heaven"; the stork, pelican, albatross, eagle, etc. These birds traditionally still live in the wild open spaces. In Genesis 2, birds were made requiring a different environment -- the shrubbery and trees of a garden.

(12). In Genesis 1, the food for men was herbs, whereas in Genesis 2 the food was fruit. Adam’s later punishment was being condemned to eat herbs.

(13). In Genesis 1 there is no mention of punishment for not eating something, as we find in Genesis 2, “male and female” are nakar and nequbar. These are collective nouns that distinguish between the sexes, whereas in Genesis 2 the words are ’iysh and ’ishshah, or “husband” and “wife”.

(19). In Genesis 1, mankind as “male and female” are created, whereas in Genesis 2, a man (singular) is first made. The latter was not told to subdue anything, but rather he was to tend to a garden. The “you” in Genesis 1:29 is “second person plural”, which confirms plurality. The man of Genesis 2 is eth-ha-adam which is used as a proper singular name.

It is to be noted that the first tablet comes to an end with: "Thus the heavens and earth were finished”, revealing that the whole of the creation in Chapter 1 was at an end. We are not directly informed of the length of time that took place between the first and second tablets, but many clues exist.

In Genesis 2:5 we are told the situation. The opening order of formation in Chapter 2, was a time, "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew”. The use of the term "of the field" in both these cases reveals that there was, as yet, no enclosed area, no field, no garden in existence. These statements indicate a time period between creations when only "grasses, green herbs and fruit trees” grew. No cultivated plants existed. These were to follow after the formation of the Garden of Eden, wherein cultivated plants could be planted and grown.

Archaeology reveals that for a a period of man's history on the earth there was "no man to till the ground”. This pre-agricultural phase relates to the time period prior to the last six thousand years. Cultivation came later. Experts tell us that all ancient cultures record that agriculture was a "gift of the gods". This marked the end of one epoch and the start of another.

Vast amounts of time therefore could separate the events of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. During such a time period "before every plant was in the field” and when there was "not a man to till the ground', the pattern of existence would have been determined by the food sources available. In Genesis 1, “fruit trees" and man's "dominion" over the animals and fish ensure that he had a plentiful supply of food. According to the terminology of anthropologists, at this early stage in man's existence he was known as a hunter-gatherer. Adam, on the other hand, was a man to till the ground (Genesis. 4:2), as a gardener, a farmer and a horticulturist. As archaeology reveals, agriculturists emerged on the scene long after hunter-gatherers, namely about 6,000 years ago, or from about the time of formation of the Garden of Eden.

The descriptive material at the commencement of the second tablet, shows YEHOVAH God’s intention to make a garden first. Otherwise why the preamble about plants and water? But YEHOVAH God does not make the garden first. He first forms the gardener (Adam), then the garden, and then He puts the man in the garden, and in charge of the garden.

Adam named these “beasts of the field” as well as “cattle and fowl of the air”, so we can see these “beasts of the field” were not of the live-stock class. We can find biblical reference to "beasts of the field" that have human qualities, as opposed to “beasts of the earth” as animals. It was the "most subtle beast of the field" that "beguiled" Eve. Since these were created before Eve, they would have been aware of the prohibitions about the Tree. But after this we are again told, “But for Adam there was not found a help meet for him" (Genesis 2:20).

We need to look more closely at this situation. YEHOVAH’s purpose was to create a garden and have it "kept and dressed". “Beasts of the field” (as being human-like) need not be destructive in a garden, but "beasts of the earth” (as being wild animals) need to be kept out of a garden especially if one is planting herbs, etc.. The time gap between the forming of these “beasts of the field” and the subsequent "making" or cloning of Eve from Adam's body, may have been quite long...it is not stated, but it is clear that YEHOVAH God saw that Adam needed a help suitable for him. So later was Eve formed so that Adam and Eve could become the parents of all of their line as those containing the breath of life.

Plural “Gods” and a Singular YEHOVAH

One of the most interesting differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is that of the name of each manufacturer. In Genesis 1 the name is translated as "God" (Elohim -- plural)), whilst in Genesis 2 the name is translated as "the LORD God" (YEHOVAH-Elohim -- singular). Even the terminology of Genesis 1 “let us make man in our image" indicates the plurality of the Creators in Genesis 1. This term is used up to the end of the first tablet at Genesis 2:3. There is no mistaking the singularity of the personal name of God in Genesis 2, nor the use of the first person singular in Genesis 2:18 where it is written: "I will make a help meet for him".

To give some understanding that there are differences between “Elohim”, “The Elohim” and “YEHOVAH-Elohim”, we can see this where Jacob, after his wrestling with Elohim, said, “I have seen God (Elohim) face to face, and my life is preserved. In contrast we read of YEHOVAH, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus 33.20). It is safe to say that Answers in Genesis does not consider these differences.

Without making this separation, it would give rise to the appearance that the Creation in Genesis 1 and the formation in Genesis 2 narratives are about the same event. This further leads to the assumption that both creations are one and the same, or as some modern Bible notes wrongly claim that Genesis 2 is simply a repeat of Genesis 1, or part of it. We find that the story of Genesis 2 really starts at Genesis 2:4. wherein we read the name "The LORD God" or “YEHOVAH” for the first time.

In Genesis 1:1, the Elohim created the heavens (plural) and the earth, the heavens being the entire cosmos. The “earth” here is the physical planet and some of the things on it. But in Genesis 2:4, after the earth and heavens were finished, we read YEHOVAH-Elohim made a garden within what already existed, thus making an absolute contrast with Genesis 1 where the creation was out of nothing.

As has been pointed out, the popular view holds that Genesis 2:4 is not the start of the Genesis 2 narrative, but a summary of Genesis chapter 1. Genesis 2:4 starts: "these are the generations of”. This is a preface of what is to follow, not a summary of what has gone before. The structure of other verses in Genesis does not support the summary viewpoint that Answers in Genesis claims. Note that this style of opening announcement is also used to open other chapters or prefaces to subjects, for example:

Genesis chapter 5:1: "This is the book of the generations of Adam".

Genesis chapter 10:1: "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah”.

Genesis chapter 36:1: "Now these are the generations of Esau".

Eve -- and Adam's Rib

Eve (so we are told) was made from Adam's rib. The word "rib" (tsela') has been translated many ways. The most common translation is "chambers" as in “the chambers of the temple”, or we might say "cells". This statement is loaded with significance. Adam was made from the "dust of the ground". What is the Bible trying to tell us here? Until this day and age, an understanding of genetics and cell biology was not available. Translators had no idea of how to translate this word about the framework that supported everything, and because it was used biologically, they used the word “rib”, and used this word in only this one place. The same applies to “dust”. Without any knowledge of elements, molecules, atoms or electrons, the smallest thing they knew about what the ground was made of was “dust”.

Here we find evidence which proves that Adam and Eve could not be the parents of all mankind. Had nothing at all happened to upset this genetic situation, we would today have living among us a form or “kind” of mankind similar to each other in important ways. Something, of course, did happen to upset this genetic arrangement, but that is just part of the picture as we have only looked at the two origins in the first book of the Bible. In this we have seen that Genesis 1 and 2 differ in every respect. These differences include:

At the end of the Genesis 2 formation, we have literally a different "heaven and earth". This is what the Bible plainly tells us. Genesis 1 and 2 are perfectly explicit, and of themselves, conclusive of the fact that peoples existed on earth before Adam and Eve. We will come back to the “them” (plural) of Genesis 1:27 again shortly.

Let us try to picture the situation after the murder of Abel. According to existing and wrong popular belief which claims that Adam and Eve are the father of all, three people only existed on earth. These would have been Adam, Eve, and their remaining son, Cain. Upon discovering Cain to be a murderer, the LORD pronounces judgment on Cain and tells him that in future, he will be “a fugitive and a vagabond". Cain responds with the statement to the effect that this judgment is greater than he can bear, because as he states, "it shall come to pass that EVERYONE that findeth me shall kill me" (Genesis 4:14).

Who was in existence to find and kill Cain? Adam and Eve, his parents, presumably, did not need to find him, and distraught though they may have been at the death of Abel, there is no evidence that they would kill Cain. If Cain had been referring to his parents, surely he would not have used the term, "everyone". Thus who was "everyone" if no one else existed? Accordingly, and in response to Cain’s plea, we are told that the LORD marked Cain -- "and the LORD set a mark upon Cain lest ANY finding him should kill him" (Genesis 4:15). With different facial characteristics, Cain was “markedly” different!

For more information on the "mark of Cain", send for or download our article, The Mark of Cain.

(a) Genesis One Food ("Them” -- male and female -- plural -- Genesis 1:27)

In the Genesis 1 creation, God gave "herbs" and "fruit" to the para-Adamite peoples for food, as follows: “Behold I have given you every herb….(and) the fruit of the tree….to you it shall be for meat” (Genesis 1:29).

In the Genesis 2 creation, Adam did not eat "every herb" as did the para-Adamite peoples. Adam was commanded by YEHOVAH God what his food was to be, "and the LORD God commanded the man [singular], saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest eat freely" (Genesis 2:16), and "Every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food: the tree of life that is in the midst of the garden….” (Genesis 2:9).

Eve was not included in these verses, because she, as yet, did not exist. Thus the para-Adamite people ate "herbs" and "fruit”. Adam, and later Eve ate, "'fruit of trees pleasant to the sight" and no herbs. They also ate of the "tree of life". Why was Adamic man permitted to eat the "tree of life"? Because, "Adam was (the son) of God" (Luke 3:38).

A confirming factor, which reveals that Adam and Eve ate no herbs prior to their expulsion from the Garden of Eden is to be found in Genesis 3:18. After Adam and Eve's sin, YEHOVAH God ordained certain punishments for Adam and Eve, one of which was,"...and thou shall eat the herb of the field” (Genesis 3:18).

If, as Answers in Genesis and the majority claim, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are indeed the same story and that no para-Adamite peoples existed, who therefore was eating the "herbs", as ordained by God as a daily diet on the sixth day (Genesis 1:29)? And if you decide that the answer to the question is the Adam of Genesis 2, then you have to ask yourself why he was required to eat herbs as a punishment after leaving the Garden of Eden, if he had been eating them all along. It is clear that the “herb eaters” of Genesis 1 and those of Genesis 2 represent two distinct lines of people.

After being "driven" out of the Garden of Eden by YEHOVAH God, where he had eaten of the tree of life and of all fruits and trees pleasant to the sight, Adam's future eating of "herbs" would be a punishment indeed. In case Adam and his descendants got fed up with eating the same herb fare as everyone else outside Eden, and they decided to steal back in for a meal of the “every pleasant tree and the tree of life”, YEHOVAH after driving them out, "placed at the east of the Garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24). Note the use of the word "keep" in this context, which means, “to guard”. Originally the Adam of Genesis Two had had to “keep” the Garden, but now he was outside of it he was kept from it. From then he had to till that ground he was originally taken from.

When he was first formed, Adam was attuned to the mind of YEHOVAH God, living in harmony where YEHOVAH God had placed him. Being perfectly innocent and uninhibited, continual access to the “tree of life” was a normal part of his existence. The Garden also contained the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”, and he was forbidden to eat of this tree. He was warned that to do so would be punishable by death.

In the Adamic world, the Bible reveals only one source of immortality namely the "tree of life” located in only one place on earth, and that is in the Garden of Eden. It was placed in only one position in the Garden (in the midst), and there was only one tree in this position. Note, we are not talking about the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” that Adam and Eve ate from. The word, "immortality" does not appear in connection with the Adamic creation, but the phrase "live for ever" does appear and in only one verse, as follows:

Thus Adam was sent forth from the Garden of Eden to prevent his further access to the "tree of life" and from 'living forever". From this we can reasonably conclude that: Outside the Garden of Eden in the rest of the world there was no immortality because there were no "tree of life”. If one were removed from the Garden, and from being able to eat from the "tree of life", one would eventually die.

Adam and Eve sinned by eating from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. They were commanded by the YEHOVAH God not to eat of the "tree of life" any longer, and were sent forth from the Garden so “the tree of life” could not be accessed. None of this concerned the para-Adamite Genesis One peoples who did not have such a “garden”, or access to the “Tree of Life”.

A popular view maintains that prior to Adam's sin, there was no death in the world. Therefore, if there were para-Adamite peoples they would have been created to "live forever" like Adam and Eve. Such a view holds that, in the world created in Genesis One, “no death” means nothing died in beast, plant, microbe -- (all biological life) -- all lived without death. However, the seeds and fruits did die in the eating, so that destroys the argument.

Romans 5:12 and I Corinthians 15:21 are the verses put forward by those persons seeking to sustain the view that the sin of Adam and Eve brought the death of everything into the world. But what we read is, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression”, so death was a fact in the para-Adamites who did not sin the way Adam did. It was Adamic man who was designed to be sustained without death, not para-Adamite man. Adamic man was sustained in the garden by:

(2). Having immortality through access to the "tree of life”.

After the “fall" of Adam, he and his wife were denied access to the Garden of Eden and thereby denied access to the "tree of life". Without the sustaining power of "eating" of the "tree of life", Adamic man, like para-Adamite man outside the Garden, would die. Thus, as correctly described in the New Testament, Adam brought death to himself and his seed (offspring) by his sin; occasioning his separation from the "tree of life" and thereby incurring the sentence of death, because those who transgressed might take "also of the tree of life and eat and live forever” (Genesis 3:22).

Adam's sin caused death to enter into the world of Adamic man. Death for Adamic man resulted from his being expelled from Eden and being denied access to the "tree of life". It is to be noted that in Revelation, when the “seed of the woman" (Adamic man) regain their everlasting reward, the tree of life is again made available to them (Ezekiel 47:7+12, Revelation 2:7 and Revelation 22:2). Why? So that they can live forever, that is, they can have eternal life. This is why redemption can only apply to the line from the Adamic man for whom the Messiah came to redeem.

By the Middle Ages, Adam and Eve had, so the Catholic Church said, become the parents of "everybody". And the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts were one single creation according to them. This supports their one race concept and thus they call themselves the universal church. Thus the leaven of the Catholic Church has leavened almost all of the Protestant churches, so that they all now present the “Brotherhood of Man” doctrine, in accord with the dictates of World Government and the Catholic Church that backs it. This “universal church” tries hard to include the para-Adamite man in redemption and to make everyone else believe this is valid. This leavening doctrine has spread to Protestant churches, and now “the whole is leavened”.

Many point to Genesis 3:20, which states: "And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living”, as the primary evidence that Adam and Eve were the parents of "everybody". This is wrong because Eve was the "mother” of all those living with YEHOVAH’s breath, not of the others without it. This is because there are those with the spirit, and those "having not the spirit" (Jude v. 19). The latter is the "natural man" who "cannot receive the things of God" (1 Corinthians 2:14), but he may become very religious. What we believe about these issues in Genesis conditions what we believe throughout the entire Bible.

But let us examine this statement and its positioning in Genesis a little more closely. The name "Eve" means "life". This is the first place in the tablets of Genesis that we hear that "the woman" has now been named "Eve” which is a name not given by YEHOVAH God but by Adam himself. But look at the positioning of this verse in the narrative! Are we seriously to believe that in between YEHOVAH’s statement of the punishments Adam and the woman were to receive (verses 17, 18 and 19) and their being "clothed" and expelled from Eden (verses 21, 22, 23 and 24), that Adam turned to his wife and said (verse 20), "Oh by the way, I am naming you Eve because you are the mother of all living"? And of course, Eve was not Adam’s mother, was she?

Genesis One -- The First Biological Man, But Without “Spirit of God”

In Genesis 1:27 we read, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”. The word “image” = tselem carries the idea of being like something but empty of life, such as a statue has likeness but no life. Genesis Two is about taking one of these men and filling that emptiness in him with “the breath of life”.

“Man” here is the same word as in Genesis One, so this is not about a biological change. For Cain to marry a para-Adamite and produce children shows there are no essential biological differences. The difference is that they have no spiritual relatedness. Through the Bible we can see how dilution of the spirit content from race-mixing leads to the rejection by YEHOVAH God. The para-Adamites were not destroyed by Noah’s flood and are still about today, as are the mixtures. The thrust of World Government’s anti-Christ racial policies are to encourage Adamic/para-Adamic marriage, to dilute “the holy seed”, a term used solely of Israel, biblically.

There are seemingly endless arguments about Genesis Chapter three about how there came to be the two seeds, “The Seed of the Woman” and the “Seed of the Serpent”. That there are two seeds is the important fact. The mechanism of how Adamites came to have sexual relationships with para-Adamites is not so important. The New Testament tells us that this temptation is still “common” to the Israelite man today (who is “Caucasian”), and one that will lead him into idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:13).

These “people of the lands” mentioned were para-Adamite races or mixtures of the two peoples, and that is why even the children of Israelite (Adamite) and para-Adamites had to be divorced by a complete separation. This separation is still called for in the New Testament in 2 Corinthians 6:17, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the LORD, and touch not the unclean (thing); and I will receive you”. As seen earlier, the context demands that the added word (thing) are people, that is the para-Adamites “them” are to be separated from. The word “touch” has to do with sexual activity.

What should be done when there is found to be such a mixed race marriage? The Book of Ezra offers an answer in chapter ten. “And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange [Lit. foreign] wives”.

Some people claim that the “Trees of Eden” represent peoples, but it is not the purpose here to look at this or to identify the “seed of the Woman” as opposed to the “seed of the Serpent”. The Messiah confirmed this difference when he spoke about those “begotten from above” and those “begotten from beneath” as being distinct separate origins. Paul did the same when he talks about the “natural man” and the “spiritual man”. The point is that only one side of each pair have the capability to “see the Kingdom of God". This capability is not a matter which can be spiritualized as the churches do; this would be possible only if the Garden of Eden was the common starting point of all mankind.

The view taken of Genesis 1 and 2 conditions everything we believe about the Bible. If the Garden of Eden was not “at the beginning”, then we have to reconsider some issues, such as: Are the gospels right or wrong where we read in, Matthew 1:21, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he [through YEHOVAH's power] shall save his people from their sins” (i.e. who and who only?). Churches change this around to say people get saved and then become YEHOVAH’s people.

IS what the churches teach based upon the “Brotherhood of Man” doctrine today, right?

IS “everyone”, “all” and “whosoever” extended beyond each particular context? It is not grammatically correct to do this in either Hebrew or Greek.

IS the spiritualized interpretation of “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the LORD, and touch not the unclean (people)” of 2 Corinthians 6:17 in the New Testament right or wrong? (“Touch not the unclean” involves sex, in the Greek).

IS the popular use of the word “Gentiles” wrong (easily proved) -- since the words (un)translated as Gentiles are also used of Israel. The phrase “Jews and Gentiles” is supposed to cover all races, but the two parties involved are:

(1). The House of Israel …the “Greek”…the Uncircumcision.

(2). The House of Judah…”the Jew”………the Circumcision.

These total “all Israel” as Romans 11:26 says, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob”. The word “Jacob” could not include any para-Adamics or mixtures.

IS the Messiah really wrong when he said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel”. He would be wrong when he said to his disciples, “Go not but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”.

ARE mixed-race marriages are acceptable to YEHOVAH God’s plan? To the churches yes, but to YEHOVAH God they are NOT (see Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13).

To say the Tree of Life will be available to all races is not true. It was available only to the Adamic man, and in “the restoration of all things” access will be restored to the Adamic seed that is called “in Isaac” only (Revelation 22).

IS the Messiah wrong when he says some cannot hear his words? John 8:43-43, “Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word”.

ARE all people ordained to eternal life? Acts 13:48, “And when the Gentiles [Paul calls them, “Men of Israel”] heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the LORD: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed”. “Ordained” is in the passive voice and in the perfect tense, that is, it is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. Being passive means the individual does not do the choosing.

IS it given to everyone to understand the mysteries of the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God? (Matthew 13:11: “Unto them it is NOT given”).

DOES YEHOVAH God “foreknow” all peoples, or just Israelites? Romans 8:29 and Amos 3:2. (“Ye only have I known"). Was the Messiah sent to other than Israel? John 17:9, Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:24. (“I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel”).

CAN the names, “Israel”, “Abraham”, “Isaac”, “Jacob” and “the fathers” (of Israel) really be spiritualized through the New Testament?

IF YEHOVAH God says He hates any race for all generations, could they be part of the world YEHOVAH God “so loved”? (Romans 9:13, Malachi 1:1-3).

We can read about this “woman” of Rome in Revelation 17:1, and about her the Messiah says:

Most churches in their promotion of humanistic values are now supporting the anti-Christ powers seeking One World Government under man, not YEHOVAH God. In doing this they promote a concept and doctrine that the “Commandments of God” are “done away with”, replacing these with “The Commandments of men”. In this they are closing the gates to the eternal city to Israelites in the same way the Messiah told the lawyers they were doing in Luke 11:52.

Churches and organizations like Answers in Genesis, Alpha, Promise Keepers, Full Gospel Businessmen’s’ Fellowship International and such shore up belief in the humanistic and unbiblical “Brotherhood Of Man” doctrine (which also is a Hindu/Roman Catholic/Masonic and World-Church, World government belief). To do this, the impression must be falsely created that all races evolved from one single origin, and that all the differences between Genesis One and Two are not there. Answers in Genesis is one with these others in this matter, and thus has a false front. Thus they do not suffer persecution for what they present, from World Government sources! Rather, these forces back them! What does this tell us?

And so, what effect do the doctrines of modern churches and Answers in Genesis have in practical terms? Well, probably 90% of the members of churches are creationists, and that is no problem on its own. But if that view of creationism insists on adding doctrines that promote the universalism that which flows from the idea of one singular origin of all races, then any concept of the Biblical chosen race has to be discarded. Further to this, YEHOVAH’s purpose for choosing Israel as that race has to be modified by changing race to become a matter of belief instead. This paves the way for non-biblical multiculturalism which is a dogma of humanism, the World Church and World Government!

This is why the “when” in “Just When Was the Garden of Eden” is so vital to get right.

 -- Edited by John D. Keyser.

Hope of Israel Ministries -- Courage for the Sake of Truth is Far Better Than Silence for the Sake of Unity!

Hope of Israel Ministries P.O. Box 853 Temple City, CA 91780 www.hope-of-israel.org

Scan with your Smartphone for more information