Question about Adam and Eve

[traversinginfinity]

First of all, I like the idea of an historical-metaphorical approach to interpreting Scripture, so I have no problem with believing in evolution. In fact, I have believed in evolution for several years since my high school biology class.

However, I've also always believed in a literal Adam and Eve because of direct New Testament references to the fall of man with Adam, specifically in Romans 5 where it says that mankind fell in Adam and was restored in Christ, the New Adam.

But it occurred to me recently.. it seems that if one is to believe in evolution, it makes the idea of "first humans", i.e. a literal Adam and Eve, impossible, because in order for their to be first humans, they would have been born of non-humans. If we say that Adam was born of a human father and mother, then Adam was not the first human. At some point we would have to draw a line, but how is that possible? If we say that Adam and Eve were the first humans, then we have to say that their parents were animals who didn't have human souls.

And if Adam and Eve were not literal people, then how do we understand the fall of mankind? If we are not all descended from the same two people, then why does the Bible say that sin is passed on throughout all of our generations?

It would seem that the entire population of humans would have had to fall into sin individually. Is that the only explanation?

Does it makes sense to believe in evolution and also believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Thanks in advance for your responses, I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

 

[Willtor]

Some people think so. I'm uncertain on the matter but here are some possibilities:

1. Adam and Eve were historical individuals who were not the progenitors of all of humanity.

2. Adam and Eve represent individuals in various historic groups as a sort of a generic fall account. Also, possibly, they represent the groups themselves, or one particular group.

3. Adam and Eve represent all of early humanity. Possibly, this lends itself to an interpretation that treats Gen. 1-11 as a sequence of fall accounts. (I lean heavily on this one because it the passage looks to me like a prolonged and continuing fall)

4. Adam and Eve are mythological characters designed for the story that teaches the reality of the image of God present in humanity and contrasts it with the fallen-ness of our nature.

These are not all mutually exclusive. In any case, it seems that in thinking about Romans 5:12, one can place the emphasis of the verse on Paul's statement that sin spread to all men because all men sinned. This would be consistent with Paul taking Adam as a representative of all men. Another point is that if Paul didn't distinguish between a mythological and historical narrative then the verse's value is in saying that all men have sin as taught in the Genesis narrative.

 

[gluadys]

First of all, I like the idea of an historical-metaphorical approach to interpreting Scripture, so I have no problem with believing in evolution. In fact, I have believed in evolution for several years since my high school biology class.

However, I've also always believed in a literal Adam and Eve because of direct New Testament references to the fall of man with Adam, specifically in Romans 5 where it says that mankind fell in Adam and was restored in Christ, the New Adam.

But it occurred to me recently.. it seems that if one is to believe in evolution, it makes the idea of "first humans", i.e. a literal Adam and Eve, impossible, because in order for their to be first humans, they would have been born of non-humans. If we say that Adam was born of a human father and mother, then Adam was not the first human. At some point we would have to draw a line, but how is that possible? If we say that Adam and Eve were the first humans, then we have to say that their parents were animals who didn't have human souls.

And if Adam and Eve were not literal people, then how do we understand the fall of mankind? If we are not all descended from the same two people, then why does the Bible say that sin is passed on throughout all of our generations?

It would seem that the entire population of humans would have had to fall into sin individually. Is that the only explanation?

Does it makes sense to believe in evolution and also believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Thanks in advance for your responses, I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

There are a number of questions that have to be explored to come to any sort of an answer here.

I would like to suggest two.

1. What does it mean to be human? What makes a human "human"?

2. How does sin spread from Adam to all men?

There are two answers to the first question depending on whether we are thinking in terms of our animal nature or our spiritual nature.

In terms of our animal nature, what it takes to be human is to have a certain set of biological characteristics. And I agree with you that evolution does not permit the appearance of two literal individuals as "human" in this sense. The first humans would be a population of humans and the transition to this population from a pre-human population would be a slow process over many generations such that we could not clearly point to any one generation as the first human generation.

If Adam and Eve were literal individuals, they were not the only humans in existence at the time, but part of a biologically human population.

However, are we human solely by virtue of our biology? Maybe it takes more than biology to make a human "human"?

When we look to see what distinguishes humanity from our near animal relations, it is not the physical differences which strike us, but the spiritual differences: self-awareness, consciousness of our mortality and a yearning for eternal life, a moral sense of right and wrong, and -- most importantly--an awareness of a spiritual reality that transcends the physical world and gives it order and purpose i.e. God.

If it is this complex of spiritual sensitivity that is the real mark of being human, then there is no problem in thinking that God gifted two individuals among a population of merely biological humans with this "image of God". In that sense, even though Adam and Eve were the same biological species as the rest of the population, they and only they were fully "human".

btw, I personally do not believe that Adam and Eve were literal individuals, but I think the above is a reasonable explanation of how they could be within a framework of evolution.

Question two can be handled similarly. Notice that Paul does not actually say that sin spread from Adam. He says that death spread to all men because all men sinned. Nowhere does the bible say we inherit sin from Adam through our parents.

The connection of sin with biological reproduction stems from an interpretation of original sin developed in the 4th century by Augustine of Hippo.

What if sin does not spread biologically, but in some other way?

Personally, I like the analogy of language. We all inherit the language of our parents. But the parents we inherit our language from do not have to be our biological parents. They can be adoptive parents. They can even be adoptive parents of a different country speaking a different language than our biological parents. A child born in China, adopted by a family in France, will inherit French, not Chinese, as their mother tongue.

Now language is a good thing to inherit and sin is not. But why can sin not spread in the same way. All of our parents are sinners and surround us with an example of sinful attitudes and lifestyles. Even the most exemplary parents are not totally free of sin, and beyond the family we have many more models of sin in neighbours, teachers, friends, and the whole array of pseudo-experience in films, TV programs, etc.

We are programmed to imitate the adults around us. That is how we learn language and all sorts of behaviour. It is inevitable that we will also learn sin in the same way. We cannot avoid learning sin in a sinful world where everyone we meet is in some way a sinner.

So, it is not strictly necessary that we have a biological connection to a particular ancestor to inherit sin.

 

[traversinginfinity]

Thank you both! That was very helpful.

I think now it is starting to make more sense not to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, or rather to believe that it's unimportant whether Adam and Eve were literally real. It's the metaphorical meaning that is important.

I'm still not sure about how sin is transmitted, though. I have always believed that we are literally conceived and born into a fallen state, a state of separation from God. I will have to do more reading about the doctrine of original sin and alternative interpretations.

Thanks again!

 

[Willtor]

To more adequately stress my own view, now that you've read the most balanced thing I can write ( ), I move against strongly declaring either way or the other regarding the historicity of the two individuals in question. I don't know whether Gluadys will disagree with me. She's a smart cookie.

 

[gluadys]

To more adequately stress my own view, now that you've read the most balanced thing I can write ( ), I move against strongly declaring either way or the other regarding the historicity of the two individuals in question. I don't know whether Gluadys will disagree with me. She's a smart cookie.

I'll agree. I long ago gave up on a literal Adam and Eve myself, but I don't make a big issue of it because I can see ways to incorporate a literal Adam and Eve into an evolutionary scenario if that is important to you.

I just don't find any theological need to do so.



P.S. Thanks for the compliment.

 

[crawfish]

I'll agree. I long ago gave up on a literal Adam and Eve myself, but I don't make a big issue of it because I can see ways to incorporate a literal Adam and Eve into an evolutionary scenario if that is important to you.

I just don't find any theological need to do so.

I really like this (and the previous post). It sums up my beliefs quite well. There is scant need for one to accept the literalness of Genesis if one accepts that the spiritual messages are God-breathed. Taken either way, the consequences are the same to our belief of Christ.

The most compelling argument (to me), for a real Adam comes from the genealogy in Luke. Why would Luke trace Jesus' ancestry to a non-existent person? The answer is quite simple - Luke, writing a gospel meant for the Gentiles, needed an indication that Christ came for ALL men and not just Jews. (Matthew, on the other hand, was written for Jews, and needed to track him back to Abraham to show the purity of his "Jew-ness".) If Adam only represents the beginning of man, then Luke has shown through the genealogy what he was intending.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think the other question that needs to be asked is what is sin.

If all the law hangs on love God/love neighbor, then sin is failing to love God/love neighbor. (I am becoming convinced that these two laws are indistinguishable -- are one law.)

So when we want what we want when we want it regardless of how it affects our fellows, we sin. I think this ties neatly into the biological imperative to sustain the species.

I would suspect from watching penguins (think March of the Penguins), apes, and what not, that it is probable that sapience is impossible without sin.

Hence to whatever degree some ancestor had sapience, our ancestor was capable of sin. In a real sense, whoever was the First Man sinned first.

 

[SNPete]

One thought I had on the issue came to me in college years ago. I took a course on evolution and one thing really struck me. The professor pointed out that the oldest known Cro Magnon (sp?) fossils at the time came from the middle east in the fertile cresent area-circa 50,000 BC. Further, it was pointed out that for the Cro Magnon humans to be sucessful you had to have a Cro Magnon male and female at the same place at the same time and the reproduce sucessfully for eight generations to establish the specie.

I do have a question whether there are any transitional Homo Erectus/Neanderthal/Cro Magnon fossils.

My point is that based on what I learned it would appear that modern humans appeared at a point in time in the same place and sucessfully established themselves. I would call that a work of God.

BTW it did not appear that the professor was a Christian.

 

[gluadys]

One thought I had on the issue came to me in college years ago. I took a course on evolution and one thing really struck me. The professor pointed out that the oldest known Cro Magnon (sp?) fossils at the time came from the middle east in the fertile cresent area-circa 50,000 BC. Further, it was pointed out that for the Cro Magnon humans to be sucessful you had to have a Cro Magnon male and female at the same place at the same time and the reproduce sucessfully for eight generations to establish the specie.

Cro-Magnon is Homo sapiens. Cro-Magnon refers to a culture not a species. Also the singular of "species" is also "species".

Species do not begin with single pairs. They begin as a population diverging from an ancestral population.

I do have a question whether there are any transitional Homo Erectus/Neanderthal/Cro Magnon fossils.

Check out the talkorigins FAQ on hominid fossils. It is quite informative.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

My point is that based on what I learned it would appear that modern humans appeared at a point in time in the same place and sucessfully established themselves. I would call that a work of God.

Yes, the place was Africa and the time about 200,000 years ago. I would agree it was a work of God.

 

[Macca]

Thank you both! That was very helpful.

I think now it is starting to make more sense not to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, or rather to believe that it's unimportant whether Adam and Eve were literally real. It's the metaphorical meaning that is important.

I'm still not sure about how sin is transmitted, though. I have always believed that we are literally conceived and born into a fallen state, a state of separation from God. I will have to do more reading about the doctrine of original sin and alternative interpretations.

Thanks again!

On the literal Adam and Eve; if they are not literally the first human beings, how can Paul write "21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man.
Holy Bible : New Living Translation.1Cor.5:21
Also the question arises; where did all the beings other than a literal Adam and Eve go?
According to Paul there was no death until Adam and Eve's sin.

 

[zeke37]

According to Paul there was no death until Adam and Eve's sin.

although I do not believe that mankind was part of any evolution, nor that Adam and Eve were the first people, can you show me this with scripture please?

 

[Macca]

although I do not believe that mankind was part of any evolution, nor that Adam and Eve were the first people, can you show me this with scripture please?

I presume you are referring to the sin of Adam and Eve?
Found in Gen 3.

 

[Mallon]

On the literal Adam and Eve; if they are not literally the first human beings, how can Paul write "21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man.

Read on in verses 18 and 19 to see what kind of death Paul was talking about.

 

[Macca]

Read on in verses 18 and 19 to see what kind of death Paul was talking about.

I have missed your meaning.Either Paul is referring to dying or he's not.

 

[shernren]

On the literal Adam and Eve; if they are not literally the first human beings, how can Paul write "21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man, now the resurrection from the dead has begun through another man.
Holy Bible : New Living Translation.1Cor.5:21
Also the question arises; where did all the beings other than a literal Adam and Eve go?
According to Paul there was no death until Adam and Eve's sin.

I have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; even so, I will die physically one day (barring a Rapture). What kind of death has Jesus rescued me from? What kind of death did Adam bring?

 

[Macca]

I have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; even so, I will die physically one day (barring a Rapture). What kind of death has Jesus rescued me from? What kind of death did Adam bring?

Of course your physical body will die; that happens to all beings.
The meaning of death, in Bible context, is separation; there are three deaths referred to in scripture.
1/ physical death. When our bodies and our spirits are separated.
2/ Spiritual death.Separated from God. We were born spiritually dead because of Adam and Eve's sin.
3/ Eternal death. Eternal separation from god. If physical death comes to us while we are spiritually dead, we go to eternal death.
If you have accepted Jesus as Lord, then you may experience physical death; you will certainly not experience eternal death.
So Adam brought spiritual death to us.

 

[Mallon]

I have missed your meaning.Either Paul is referring to dying or he's not.

He is referring to dying. Just not physical dying. In the previous verses I directed you do, Paul elaborates that he is speaking of spiritual death, not physical death. In verses 18 and 19, Paul speaks of being "justified" and made "righteous", which are matters of the spirit, not of the body. He also says in Rom 6:13, "Present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life." If Paul's audience was not already physically dead, what sense would this have made to them? The obvious answer is that they were spritually dead.

 

[zeke37]

Adam brought flesh death...

Christ brings everlasting Life forever in spiritual bodies.......and when we accept Him truthfully....we avoid the 2nd death...which is that of the soul...

 

[SpiritMeadow]

First of all, I like the idea of an historical-metaphorical approach to interpreting Scripture, so I have no problem with believing in evolution. In fact, I have believed in evolution for several years since my high school biology class.

However, I've also always believed in a literal Adam and Eve because of direct New Testament references to the fall of man with Adam, specifically in Romans 5 where it says that mankind fell in Adam and was restored in Christ, the New Adam.

But it occurred to me recently.. it seems that if one is to believe in evolution, it makes the idea of "first humans", i.e. a literal Adam and Eve, impossible, because in order for their to be first humans, they would have been born of non-humans. If we say that Adam was born of a human father and mother, then Adam was not the first human. At some point we would have to draw a line, but how is that possible? If we say that Adam and Eve were the first humans, then we have to say that their parents were animals who didn't have human souls.

And if Adam and Eve were not literal people, then how do we understand the fall of mankind? If we are not all descended from the same two people, then why does the Bible say that sin is passed on throughout all of our generations?

It would seem that the entire population of humans would have had to fall into sin individually. Is that the only explanation?

Does it makes sense to believe in evolution and also believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Thanks in advance for your responses, I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

My argument would be thusly:

First of all DNA research suggests in fact we are descended from a literal "eve", so in some sense the story is true. But I think the real answer is that when man became sentient, his very evolution to that stage enabled him to choose based on self interest. He could choose to withhold food for himself and not give it to others who hadn't caught anything. He could kill to secure a cave from another instead of sharing. That was sinful. He acted in a self-serving manner disregarding his brother. Animals are assumed to act from instinct so we can't attribute such choosing to them nor sinful acts. So sin has entered the world through the very evolution of man. this idea is not original to me btw. I have it on my cite as a blog.
"Evolution and Original Sin" located at http://iowamusings.blogspot.com look down the Oct. blog archive to find it.