Gary T. Mayer is a retired Christian engineer. He has a BS degree from Grove City College, an MDiv degree from Trinity International University, and an online ThD from North Central Theological Seminary. Also linguistics classes taken at UND at Grand Forks and at UTA have assisted him in studies.
New Evidence for Two Human Origins
Mayer authored a book in 2007 (republished in 2009, 2015, and 2020, to be released very soon) titled New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile The Bible and Science. This book looks at how to understand Adam and Eve alongside Evolution.
The subject of human origins is a topic that not only feeds our curiosity; it also offers to be a topic that can bring us greater meaning to our lives. It has been assumed by many scientists and biblical scholars that the human race emerged from a single nucleus. Could this have been a wrong assumption? New evidence has come to light indicating that Adam and Eve's descendants married into an existing race. Where did this existing race come from? When and where did these two races merge? This book provides a thesis which answers all these questions and, in so doing, harmonizes the teaching of the Bible and the true teachings of science.
Contributions and Distinctives
Mayer's contributions are mainly in the area of biblical exegesis from the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Certain contributions below, however, combine biblical exegesis and mathematics to reveal the combining of two human creations into one current human race.
1. You can show from a mathematical analysis of the life spans found in the biblical genealogies that the descendants of Adam and Eve married into an existing human race! The following is an excerpt from my article on academia.edu:
First we make an assumption that states that the life span of the child will be the average of the life spans of his parents. This hypothesis is based on the finding that a person’s life span is dependent upon over 7,000 genes, a great number of genes. Since in some elements of the genome, the one parent’s gene will dominate his life span and in the other elements of the genome the other parent’s gene will dominate, the child’s potential genetic life span will become the average of his parents’ life spans. This may remind us that when we toss a coin many times, about half of the tosses will come up heads and half of them will come up tails. At the beginning of this mathematical exercise, it is not necessary to know whether or not the hypothesis that the offspring’s potential life span will be the average life span of its parents; this is because the results will only correspond with the patriarchs’ actual life spans and with Hebrew history if our original assumptions were true. And more importantly, the results will only correspond with the patriarchs’ actual life spans if the descendants of Adam and Eve married into an existing human race. Both assumptions must be true if the results of the calculations are what one would expect if the dual-origins thesis is true.
Our procedure will be to see if the actual life span of each patriarch falls near one of his most probable potential life spans. We also will compare certain peoples’ actual life spans with the potential life spans that we would expect to find based upon what we know about the biblical history of the descendants of Adam and Eve. If each generation falls near an expected most probable life span, generation after generation, then we can conclude that the descendants of Adam and Eve married into an existing race.1
To illustrate these calculations, let us assume that the descendants of Adam and Eve, who possessed an average potential genetic life span of 929 years, married into a pre-Adamic race, which 4 to 6 thousand years ago might have had a genetic makeup that would during that time produce a life span of about 60 years. If one of these ancestors of Noah married a pre-Adamite, this would yield an offspring of the average of 929 and 60 or 494 years. Then in turn if this person married a pre-Adamic person, their offspring would be the average of 494 and 60 or 277 years. If Noah, who was a pure Adamite with a potential life span of 929 years, married such an offspring, their son would have a potential life span that would be the average of 929 and 277 years. This would mean that their son would be expected to live the average of these two figures, which would be 603 years. Their son Shem lived to be 600 years (Gen. 11:10-11).
Suppose Shem married a wife who possessed this same potential life span of 277 years, this would mean that their son Arpachshad would have a potential life span of the average of 603 years and 277 years or 440 years. Arpachshad died at 438 years! Now if one were to calculate some of the most probable life spans for each of the wives that the patriarchs were to marry for the next nine generations and compare the resulting offsprings of these marriages with their actual life spans given in the Bible, would the actual life spans always be near some most probable life span of the calculated offsprings? Having done this, I can say, Yes. This is true for all eleven generations! These discoveries are detailed with bar graphs in my book. What is more, the overall decrease of the patriarchs' life spans levels out at the time of their stay at the Tower of Babel and then it begins again to decrease. And it decreases close to the average between their life span of 440 years that it held at Babel and 60 years, the life span of the pre-Adamites. All these coincidences cannot be by chance. We must conclude that the descendants of Adam and Eve married into an existing human race. It is also evident that the appearance of Adam and Eve with a life span thirteen times longer that the pre-Adamites was due to the creative Hand of God.
2. Genesis 2:4 must refer to the material preceding it; it simply cannot refer to chapter 2 due to Hebrew rules of syntax as they relate to the Hebrew conjunction waw. Here is what this verse says:
These are the generations [Heb., toledoth] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. [Italics indicate NASB’s alternate reading.]
The question that the translators must answer is whether to begin a new paragraph before this verse or after it (or for some who believe in the JEPD view they may want to cut the verse in two and place half with what comes before this verse and half with what follows it. The Bible Commentary states that the Jewish people had a way of answering this question by their employment of the conjunction;2 however, the commentary misstates the rule. An inductive study of this Hebrew conjunction reveals the following rules of interpretation taken from my book:
Case 1: If there is a conjunction before the formula, then the formula always looks forward (whether or not a conjunction follows).
Case 2: If there is no conjunction before the formula and no conjunction after the formula, then (except in 1 Chronicles 1:23-24 where its inclusion would cause misreading of the text) the formula looks forward.
Case 3: If there is no conjunction before the formula and a conjunction after the formula, then the formula refers backward.3
An extensive inductive study of the OT is included in appendix D of my book.
3. These rules of syntax for the waw conjunction also show that the Genesis 2:5 moves the narrative on to a subsequent creation account. Much can be said concerning the application of these rules; I include here the conclusion on the analysis of Genesis 2:4-5 from my book:
Please notice that the writers of the Scriptures were very conscious of their use of the conjunction; they never misemploy it. If the conjunction is included, the narrative never backtracks unless it is made plain that this is the case. In conclusion, when an early Hebrew reader read Genesis 2:4-5a, "These are the births of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that Jehovah God was making earth and heavens--And..." (Green4), this reader knew that this verse referred to the creation of mankind as recorded in Genesis 1. He knew this because no conjunction immediately precedes "[t]hese..." and because a conjunction begins the next clause. Then when he read Genesis 2:5 and 7, "[And]...no shrub of the field was yet in the…[land], and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the …[land]; and there was no man to cultivate the ground....Then [lit., And] the LORD God formed [better tr., a man] man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and [lit., the man] man became a living being," [NASB] he could have known that the narrative was moving on to a second creation of man. He could have known that the author could have used the formula, and it came about...and then he could have specified the relative time that the narrative was proceeding from, but the author didn't. He employed the conjunction to indicate that the “these” of verse 4 is referring to Genesis 1 rather than to Genesis 2f, but he did not indicate in any way that the narrative was not moving on in time. Therefore, the reader would have known that the narrative was moving on to a different setting subsequent to the events of Genesis 1 because narratives always move on unless it is otherwise made obvious to the reader, especially if the conjunction is included. Therefore, we must conclude that Genesis 2 describes a different creation of man from that narrated in Genesis 1. It becomes apparent that people have not realized that Genesis 2 records a different creation from Genesis 1 is due to the subtle absence of words rather than the addition of a word or words.5
4. Translations that render toledoth by “generations” in Genesis 2:4 are in error. It should be translated “descendants.” The following is an excerpt from my book:
Start of Excerpt
The formula “the generations of the heavens and the earth” would better be translated “the descendants of the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 2:4 says,
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. [Italics indicate NASB’s alternate reading.]
To further demonstrate that the people whom God created as recorded in Genesis 1 are different from Adam and Eve and their descendants, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the word “generations” (Hebrew, toledoth) as it is used in the clause “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth” (NASB’s alternate reading). This key Hebrew word comes from the Hebrew word yalad to which BDB gives a meaning, “bear, bring forth…be delivered of a child…beget.”6 The word yalad is used of animals and birds and to the “whole process of labor.”7
The word toledoth, which is usually translated generations, basically means descendants, but it means more than this. For one thing, if it refers to a particular grouping of descendants such as you would find in an official list of descendants, it may be translated “genealogies,” as the NASB translates it in some instances. “Lineages” possibly would have been a better translation of this word. An example of this translation of toledoth is in Genesis 10:32:
These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies [toledoth], by their nations; and out of these [families] the nations were separated on the earth after the flood. [NASB]
The word toledoth in I Chronicles 7:1-2 probably means genealogy as it is translated in the NIV:
The sons of Issachar:
Tola, Puah, Jashub and Shimron—four in all.
The sons of Tola:
Uzzi, Rephaiah, Jeriel, Jahmai, Ibsam and Samuel—heads of their families. During the reign of David, the descendants of Tola listed as fighting men in their genealogy numbered 22,600.
In Numbers 1:20, toledoth is translated by the NASB as “genealogical registration.” This shows its close meaning to the English word descendants. The NASB translates I Chronicles 7:1-2 as follows employing the English word “generations”:
Now the sons of Issachar were four:
Tola, Puah Hashub, and Shimron. And the sons of Tola were Uzzi, Raphaiah, Jeriel, Jahmai, Ibsam, and Samuel, heads of their fathers’ households. The sons of Tola were mighty men of valor in their [successive] generations; their number in the days of David was 22,600.
We can conclude that the word toledoth basically means successive generations; it probably never means simply births even though this is the meaning of the root of the word.
The word toledoth also includes the narrative which surrounds the genealogical list of names. Jamieson comments,
The Hebrew [toledoth] means generations, descents, lineage; and hence, as the early history of all Oriental nations was derived chiefly from the genealogical records of tribes and families, the word came by a natural transition to signify the narrative of any one’s origin and pedigree.”8
This is why the individual narratives of the book of Genesis were basically arranged according to the successive generations or descendants of the Hebrew patriarchs.
Genesis 2:4 says,
These are the generations [alternate reading] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. [Green’s literal translation reads: “…in the day that Jehovah was making earth and heavens.”]
When toledoth is used as it is in the formula these are the generations of…, it means these are the descendants of whatever has been stated in the formula. Context must determine its meaning, and its meaning must determine its translation.
BDB sees the use of toledoth in Genesis 2:4 to be a metaphorical use. Their comment is this: “Begetting of heavens and earth, i.e., account of heaven and earth and that which proceeded from them.”9 But a metaphorical interpretation empties this formula of meaning. Even the BDB paraphrase expresses that “these” “proceeded from” the heavens and the earth.
End of Excerpt
5. Much help in interpreting the OT can be gleaned from gaining the understanding that God's common practice was to name the part of a whole the same name as the whole.
TABLE 5: GOD’S COMMON METHOD OF NAMING10
Name of the Whole Name God Calls the Part Bible Reference
Heaven (sky and sun, moon and stars) Heaven (sky only) Genesis 1:8
Earth (both land and sea) Earth (land only) Genesis 1:10
Day (creation days) Day (12-hour day) Genesis 1:5
Man (mankind in general) Man (Adam and Eve and their descendants) Genesis 5:1-2
6. Genesis 5:1-2 is greatly misunderstood. It is telling us that God named Adam and Eve and their descendants by the term man, and that he did it at the time of the creation of Adam and Eve. Following is a quote from my book:
In verse Genesis 5:1, where it says, “In the day when God created man [’adam]…,” the Hebrew word ’adam should be translated into English as “Adam” because the context requires this. And context determines meaning. Because ’adam was used as Adam’s name right before this, it must be translated Adam. This, of course, is because the name “Adam” is the meaning left upon the mind of the reader, and, unless the author gives the reader a good reason to switch the contextual meaning of this word, the reader must assume that the meaning where the word is used last will retain its same meaning at its next occurrence. In verse 1, no reason is given to the reader to make a change in his interpretation of ’adam. Throughout all of verse 1, no mention is made of Eve or of man in general, except for the remote reference through the mention of “the generations of Adam,” which is too remote to be of significance. The word ’adam in Genesis 5:1, therefore, must be naming the particular man Adam. Another contextual support for this interpretation can be seen by noting that the opening sentence tells us that we are to read about the “generations” (descendants) of Adam; therefore, the reader will expect to be narrowing in on one person rather than dealing with all of mankind. Third, an astute reader of Hebrew would already know from reading Genesis 2:5 that Adam was created after the creation of the human race and in a different manner. As a result, he would not jump to the conclusion that the similarity of words in Genesis 1 and 5 requires that they are speaking of the same creation.
Verse 2 contains the plural pronoun “them.” “He created them male and female….” Does this mean that the word “man” in verse 1 must be a plural antecedent of this pronoun “them”? No. In verse 1, ’adam refers only to one person Adam; in verse 2, the author includes Eve into the discussion. In verse 1, Eve was still excluded from the scope of the narrative. The pronoun in verse 1 is in the singular: “He made him in the likeness of God.” The word “them” in verse 2 would normally have an explicit antecedent before it, however, in our case in which the reader had just read about the creation of both Adam and Eve, the inclusion of Eve in the antecedent of the pronoun “them” is to be understood from this and from the immediate mention of “male and female” in verse 2.11
Now the reader of Genesis will know how to interpret the phrase "the man" when he reads on. This will be invaluable information when he comes to Genesis 6.
7. Genesis 6:1-8 is also greatly misunderstood, but it can be interpreted quite easily if a few key words are properly defined, and if the thought of the author is followed step-by-step through the narrative. Genesis 6 begins as follows:
Now it came about, when men [lit., the man] began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God [better tr., the sons of the gods] saw that the daughters of men [lit., the man] were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man [lit., the man] forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless [better tr., therefore; Heb., waw], his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. (Gen. 6:1-3; NASB)
We have already noted that the Scriptures define “the man” in Genesis 5:1-2 to be Adam and Eve and their descendants. Now ‘the sons of God” can also be translated “the sons of the gods.” Some people think that “the sons of God” are the angels who fell; however, this is not possible because of the strong connotation that is carried with the phrase “sons of God.” The connotation is that the character of these “sons” is God’s character; therefore, the Holy Spirit would very probably not designate the fallen angels by this phrase. This phrase does not designate the descendants of Seth because Seth was the main branch of the descendants of Adam. It becomes best to see “the sons of the gods” to be the idolatrous pre-Adamites. This is why God was not happy with these marriages. Those who had begun “to call upon the name of the LORD [Yahweh]” were now freely giving their daughters in marriage to idol worshipers. God reasons that the descendants of Adam and Eve (“the man”) were also “flesh,” that is basically sinful. By the words “also is flesh,” God meant that as the pre-Adamic idolaters are sinful beings, so is the Adamic race sinful. God, therefore, decided not to protect them any more from marrying into the pre-Adamic race. But he warned them that their life spans would drop to 120 years. A slow mixing of these races, especially if the number of pre-Adamites were relatively small would result in the average life spans of the mixture leveling out at 120 years.
The passage goes on to mention giants:
The Nephilim [giants] were in the earth [better tr., land] in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of…[god] came into the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Gen. 6:4, NASB)
“[A]fterward” in Hebrew is two words and certainly must refer to a time after the giants were on the earth. It is not revealed where these giants came from, one guess based on this passage, would be that they were the result of a certain ratio of genetic material that resulted from the mixing of the races. This also may be the case because giants also arose after Noah’s flood when the descendants of Noah married into pre-Adamic people. Genesis 6:5-7 goes on to relate that God was displeased with the descendants of Noah, which the Hebrew text literally calls “the man.” Verse 7 says, “I will blot out [the] man whom I have created from the face of the land…” (NASB). God destroyed the descendants of Adam and Eve, except for Noah and his family. This judgment of God upon the descendants of Adam and Eve was hinted at in Genesis 5:1-2 because these verses tell us that the story of the descendants of Adam and Eve that goes from Genesis 5:1 to 6:8 makes up a book. Genesis is divided into sections according to groups of descendants. This section is the only one in which the heading mentions "book." Leupold explains, “‘Book’ (sepher) refers to any document, long or short, as long as it is complete in itself.”12 From God’s point of view, He eliminated the descendants of Adam and Eve, except the family of Noah. This way Noah could carry God’s antediluvian revelation to postdiluvian peoples. Genetically speaking we have lost our long life spans and also much of any other genetic advantages. But wasn’t Adam the first man? No, we shall next touch on this subject.
8. The Bible no where asserts that Adam was the first man. This can be understood if we take a good look at the context of various passages. Romans 5:12 does not teach that humans did not sin before Adam. Romans 5:12 does not teach that humans did not sin before Adam. An understanding of Paul’s use of the Greek article will reveal this. Chapter 12 of my book shows that when Paul is referring to sin against a command of God, he uses the article, but if he is not referring to more general sin, he does not. Adam sinned against a direct command of God. Sin before this by the pre-Adamites was not such a sin. Even Eve’s sin was a sin in ignorance and a sin committed before Adam sinned. Adam was chosen by God to be the tested human to show all people and the angels that mankind, both pre-Adamites and Adamites, are sinful, even rebellious. The judgment upon mankind was reckoned upon all people, those who lived before Adam’s creation and those who lived after Adam’s creation.
9. We must appreciate the observation that the Greek preposition ek is never used to refer to an ancestor further back than a parent of the offspring. Knowledge of this is important for the proper interpretation of Acts 17:26:
And He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation. (NASB)
An example of how the preposition ek is used where the word "descendant" is added is the following:
concerning His Son, who was born of [ἐκ] a descendant of [Greek genitive construction] David according to the flesh…. (Rom. 1:3, NASB; emphasis mine)
Instead of writing that the Son was born out of David, it says, “of a descendant of David.”
An example in which a distant ancestor is referred to, but employing the genitive, is the following:
By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him [God] faithful who had promised; therefore, also, there was born of [ἀπό] one man [Abraham], and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants as the stars of heaven in number, and innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore. (Heb. 11:11-12, NASB; emphasis mine)
The preposition ek would have been inappropriate because all these descendants were not begotten by Abraham and Sarah.
Now we can see that Acts 17:26 is not saying that the whole current human race came from either Adam or Noah because the preposition ek will not permit it. This is not the only reason for this conclusion, but it is the most important reason. My book contains further discussion.
10. First Corinthians 15:45 reads, “So also it is written, ‘The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit’ (NASB). This verse is not saying that Adam was the first man of the human race. Rather it is saying that Adam, the first man in Christ’s genealogy, became a human being and that Christ, the last man in Christ’s genealogy “became a life-giving spirit.” The context and focus of this verse is on Christ’s genealogy, not the entire world.
11. Did Paul teach that womankind all came from Adam through Eve? No. This erroneous belief came from these mistranslated verses:
For man does not originate from [ek] woman, but woman from man." (1 Cor. 11: 8, NASB)
For as the woman originates from [ek] the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God." (1 Cor. 11:12, NASB)
Paul is teaching the roles and responsibilities of the man and the woman. The woman belongs to the man; that is, she was created to be “a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18, NASB). But the woman’s privilege is to teach and shape the character of her sons. A more accurate translation (or paraphrase) would be the following:
For the man does not belong to [ἐκ] woman, but woman belongs to [ἐκ] man….For as the woman belongs to the man, so also the man is brought to adulthood through the woman, and, in fact, all things belong to God.
The Greek preposition [ἐκ] here should be translated by “belong.” This is all explained in my book.
12. Does the geneticists’ assertion that the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) lived many thousands of years ago mean that the dual-origins thesis must be rejected? I do not believe so due to three ways in which this problem of harmonization may be eliminated. (1) The discovery that present-day mtDNA allegedly all came from the female MRCA can easily be solved as explained in this quotation from my book:
It may be that biblical Eve’s mtDNA did not enter the human race through Noah and that all her other descendants were lost in the flood. As we explained in chapter 2, Noah’s sons did not marry a pure pre-Adamite woman but married a woman that had two ancestors of pure pre-Adamic blood. This was also true of Shem’s wife and probably the case with Noah’s two other sons’ wives. If Noah’s son’s wives’ mothers all carried the pre-Adamite mtDNA, Eve’s mtDNA would not have entered the human race through Noah’s descendants. If we are correct that God destroyed all the members of the mixed race in the flood, except Noah and his family, it is possible that none of Eve’s mtDNA would be found in the human race after the flood.13
(2) Since it has been thousands of years since the flood and two thousand years from the time of Christ, the presence of Adam’s Y chromosome may have been greatly diluted by the intermarriages with those who carry the MRCA's Y chromosome. And because the Y chromosome of every single possible ancestor of Adam and Eve has not been analyzed, a Y chromosome from Adam has not been found. This solution may also apply to the mtDNA. And (3) because the Bible says that Adam and Eve were named “Man in the day when they were created” (Gen. 5:2; NASB), Adam and Eve were basically copies of the pre-Adamitic people. Since the male MRCA dates 237,000 to 581,000 ya,14 the little amount of change in the DNA between Adam’s DNA and the MRCA’s DNA over the last 6,000 years from Adam, may not be detected by the geneticists. This may be why geneticists do not distinguish the Adamic Y chromosomes from the MRCA’s Y chromosomes. This solution may also apply to the mtDNA since the female MRCA lived 180,000 ya.15
13. I would be amiss if I did not share my method of viewing the days of creation as they are presented in Genesis 1. From my study I found that the best way to view the approach taken by the author (of course, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was to create a narrative that employs SIMPLIFICATION through CONSOLIDATION. His goal was to teach the Hebrews that they should be thankful to their Creator for certain cycles of nature that is a requirement for human life and a blessing to mankind. On day 1, God created the day/night cycle; on day 2, He created the water cycle; on day 3, the land and the life cycles of the plant species; on day 4, the luminaries, inhabitants of the heavens which provide cycles for the days and years, also providing a method of keeping dates; on day 5, the great sea creatures and the birds which inhabit the water and the air; on day 6, He created the continuously reproducing animals and man. His method of CONSOLIDATION can be seen by the fact that He created the day/night cycle on day 1, but He created the luminaries that produce this cycle on day 4. This indicates to the reader that each aspect of creation is presented separately from each other aspect of creation, but not necessarily in some exact expected order. Remember the plant kingdom evolved over many years, the animal kingdom evolved over many years, and the stars came into existence over many years. Since He consolidated the various aspects of creation each into a day, He could arrange the days almost in any order that he chose. His creation account became quite symmetrical.
1 Gary T. Mayer, "Patriarchal Life Spans and Other Evidences for a Literal Adam and a Pre-Adamic Race," https://www.academia.edu/43207170/Patriarchal_Life_Spans_and_Other_Biblical_Evidences_for_a_Literal_Adam_and_a_Pre_Adamic_Race.
2 Bishops and other clergy of the Anglican Church, ed. F. C. Cook, The Holy Bible according to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611), with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and a Revision [original, Rebision] of the Translation, cover title: The Bible Commentary, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1896), 1:37-38.
3Gary T. Mayer, New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science, (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2020), 370.
4The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, copyright © 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1985 by P. Green, Sr. This work was contained in the side column of Green’s work referenced below.
The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English, © 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1984, 2nd ed. 1986 by Jay P. Green, Sr. (Lafayett, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers).
Mayer, New Evidence for Two Human Origins. 97-98.
6The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., reprinted from the 1906 edition originally published by Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston),
8Jamieson, “Genesus-Deuteronomy,” A Commentary Critical, Experimental, vol. 1: pt. 1: 32 (Gen. 4:4-7).
10Mayer, New Evidence for Two Human Origins, 140.
12H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, vol. 2 (Columbus:Wartburg Press, 1942), part 1:230.
14Wikipedia, s.v. “Most Recent Common Ancestor,” last edited May 31, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor#Patrilineal_and_matrilineal_MRCA
15Approximate date from Dennis R. Venema and Scot McKnight, Adam and the Genome (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press), 204.