Theistic evolutionists: was Adam a specific person?

[sfs]

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, - See more at: 14 Bible verses about Depravity Of Man

Mark 7:21 Verse Concepts

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
- See more at: 14 Bible verses about Depravity Of Man
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.


Ps 51: 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Ecc 7: 20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not

Those are a few from elsewhere that show sin is inherited and universal in man.


"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, - See more at: 14 Bible verses about Depravity Of Man
Mark 7:21 Verse Concepts

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
- See more at: 14 Bible verses about Depravity Of Man

No mention of Adam there. Are you agreeing with me?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The old TOTAL depravity gig. I guess, we'll have to be packing away the chandeliers for today -- don't want any of that nice crystal breaking.

 

[Papias]

Whoa, looks like a whole thread on this important topic, and no one mentioned this relevant position: That Adam was indeed a historical person, and that this is consistent with all the data from science.

One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with modern science, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution.

Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line – including a line of “God divinely creating a soul” in one. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. Think of that mayflower club, which only allows members who are descended from the few people who came over from Europe on the mayflower. That club today has thousands of members, and in a few thousand years or so, literally everyone on earth will be descended from those on the mayflower. The same holds true for an individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus, if you have a few kids, it is very likely that in a few thousand years, literally everyone on earth will be descended from you as well. It's all a mix. So, coupling that with the thing above about the literal Adam, it all works well.

Make sense?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

I didn't say he did. His creative readings are more obvious in other places. For example, in I Corinthians 9:9-10 ("Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain"), he simply rejects the obvious meaning of the command and replaces it with something wholly foreign to the original text. Or in I Corinthians 10:4 ("for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ") he adopts a traditional Jewish interpretation of the wilderness wandering, in which there was a portable rock that followed the people of Israel around, giving them water -- something that's not at all present in the Biblical text -- and then spiritualizes that interpretation, making the rock to be Jesus (whether literally or allegorically is not clear).

But in fact he does treat Adam and Eve (or at least Adam) quite creatively. The whole idea that all humans are sinful because of Adam's sin seems to be Paul's invention. It's not in the Genesis account, and it doesn't appear elsewhere in other Jewish writings (including the Old Testament, where Adam is almost completely absent after the early chapters of Genesis).

That is fine, as long as Paul does think that Adam is a real person. Whatever his theory is based on that, is something else.

 

[juvenissun]

Whoa, looks like a whole thread on this important topic, and no one mentioned this relevant position: That Adam was indeed a historical person, and that this is consistent with all the data from science.

One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change.

So, you do agree that human is not an ape. That is some sort of progress.

 

[dad]

No mention of Adam there. Are you agreeing with me?

There was mention of being in sin from before birth. Jesus didn't die for nothing.

 

[dad]

The old TOTAL depravity gig. I guess, we'll have to be packing away the chandeliers for today -- don't want any of that nice crystal breaking.

Thought your stuff didn't stink?

 

[sfs]

That is fine, as long as Paul does think that Adam is a real person. Whatever his theory is based on that, is something else.

Paul probably did think Adam was a real person. Paul had all kinds of erroneous beliefs.

 

[sfs]

There was mention of being in sin from before birth. Jesus didn't die for nothing.

Which has what exactly to do with the question?

 

[dad]

Which has what exactly to do with the question?

Man is born into sin. The curse is where sin entered the world.

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Whoa, looks like a whole thread on this important topic, and no one mentioned this relevant position: That Adam was indeed a historical person, and that this is consistent with all the data from science.

One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change.

So, you do agree that human is not an ape. That is some sort of progress.
__________________

Thanks for bringing this up so it can be clarified. Humans are, of course, apes, just as we are mammals and vertebrates. (except perhaps AV, who claims to be neither mammal nor ape - I don't remember if AV denies being a vertebrate).

Yes, I used "ape to human" as a shortened version of "non-human ape to human ape" thinking that everyone would be smart enough to know the full version.

Best-

Papias

 

[Rhamiel]

Papist, I pointed out in post #14 that the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were historical persons

 

[juvenissun]

Juvi wrote:

Thanks for bringing this up so it can be clarified. Humans are, of course, apes, just as we are mammals and vertebrates. (except perhaps AV, who claims to be neither mammal nor ape - I don't remember if AV denies being a vertebrate).

Yes, I used "ape to human" as a shortened version of "non-human ape to human ape" thinking that everyone would be smart enough to know the full version.

Best-

Papias

A good classification should not allow this kind of mistake.

 

[Papias]

R-

Yes, I did see that, and thanks for pointing that out.

Post #14 responds to a post that says that the "transitional ape" idea doesn't fit reality because it posits that at one point the hominid population was made up of only two members, but doesn't seem to fully address that criticism.

Thus, I wanted to point out that the "transitional ape" idea never requires the population to be just two people, and hence is fully consistent with reality.

Also - regarding neanderthals - our interbreeding with them is quite clear. In fact, my DNA shows that I'm 2.9% neanderthal myself. I don't see that as relevant one way or the other on the topic of Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve were before the Homo sapiens/Neanderthal split, then Adam's descendants simply bred with another group of humans. If it was after, then Adam's descendants simply bred with some non-human hominids (neanderthals). I'm not sure why it matters either way.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Papias]

Juvi wrote:

A good classification should not allow this kind of mistake.

No Juvi, when someone denies reality, it is not the fault of reality. It is the fault of the reality denier.

 

[RickG]

No Juvi, when someone denies reality, it is not the fault of reality. It is the fault of the reality denier.

 

[Papias]

R wrote:

Hello, I am a Roman Catholic
...
I used to be a very firm believer in theistic evolution

Hi again. Since the last few popes, as well as other Vatican statements, have strongly supported theistic evolution, might I ask where you are now?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Rhamiel]

R wrote:



Hi again. Since the last few popes, as well as other Vatican statements, have strongly supported theistic evolution, might I ask where you are now?

In Christ-

Papias

I recognize Theistic Evolution as an acceptable position to be held

but after meeting several really holy Catholics who are believers in Creationism, I am now more favorable to that position
before I met them, all of the Protestant Creationists I knew were like "you have to believe this or you do not really believe in the Bible"
these guys were like "hey, I am kind of a simple person, this makes sense to me" and were really cool about it

also, in retrospect, when I was firm in Theistic Evolution, it was a source of pride for me, I was sooooo much more intellectual then those Fundamentalists....

so now basically I say I do not care
I know God made everything
if it was made in 7 days, or 4 billion years, does not really make any difference to me

 

[HitchSlap]

Sorry, but angels cannot marry.

"Sons of God" always refers to the Saints. You can look up each occurrence, it always points to the believers.

The Sons of God, instead of marrying within the church, went out and seeked women of this world and became corrupted.

Men of Reknown are "Kings". And giants are just tall people (I think they were something like 8 feet, the bible documents this).

And who could forget the Nephilim, huh?

 

[sfs]

Thus, I wanted to point out that the "transitional ape" idea never requires the population to be just two people, and hence is fully consistent with reality.

Yes, it's quite possible to believe in a historical Adam and Eve and still accept the scientific conclusion that humans have always had a fairly large population.