Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

trophy33 · Jul 3, 2025

Jerry N. said:
Fine, when did that happen?

Hard to say. My guess would be in the first living cell, regarding biological organisms.

Job 33:6 · Jul 3, 2025

Jerry N. said:
Saying that you don’t have a soul or that you don’t care is the best argument that atheist use to dismiss the Christian message. There is nothing to save. I don’t think animals have a soul or it doesn’t need to be saved, but humans are different and need salvation in my view. If we were decedents of humanoids, then we changed from animals to humans at some point. In another thread, a man called the first humans Homo Divinicus, which I know has new age connotations, but it is significant to the creation of Adam and Eve.

You should know that in Genesis, animals do not have souls, but rather they in and of themselves are nephesh, or souls, in Hebrew. So I'm not sure that animals could be argued to not have a soul.

But this is a topic that early church fathers held a variety of views on. It's more of a secondary issue than it is a 1st order issue. Otherwise half the saints of the early church would be heretics.

HBP · Jul 3, 2025

trophy33 said:
I also think that all living beings (not just humans) are souls. I imagine it as water being poured into a vase. The specific shape of the vase will create a specific shape of the water.

Body is the vase, spirit from God is the water and the soul is the specific shape of the spirit created by the body or the connection of these two.

Perhaps a more interesting question is whether we have a body. Idealism - the notion that mind, not matter, is the fundamental stuff of the universe and that materiality is an illusion - is receiving increasing attention at the highest levels of science. It actually makes for a very tidy Christian theology. Our reality is essentially a construct of God's mind (bingo - creation ex nihilo), and we are individual constructs within the master construct. Bernardo Kastrup, although not a Christian, has written extensively on this.

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but the most believable (to me) attempt to preserve a literal Adam and Eve is that of Joshua Swamidass. The basic idea is that God created Adam and Eve from existing stock something less than 20,000 years ago and that all humans in the biblical sense are the genetic descendants of this couple. Even secular scientists agree that the science "works." The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry, Amazon.com.

I'm not promoting the idea, but even before reading Swamidass' work I had always been struck by the mysterious explosion in human sophistication that occurred, seemingly suddenly, a matter of no more than 10,000 years ago. Sites like Gobekli Tepe keep pushing that date back, and Swamidass doesn't insist on the 20,000 figure. If I were desperate to fit a literal Adam and Eve into my thinking, I'd lean toward Swamidass' theory.

It also kind of meshes with the most interesting YEC theory - i.e., the story of creation in Genesis is basically like a novel. When you read a novel, you enter into a fully-formed world. The author doesn't have to explain where everything came from. God, the theory says, created a fully-formed universe, so everything science discovers is accurate as far as it goes. Genesis is written from the perspective of Adam and Eve. When we read Genesis, we are entering into reality as Adam and Eve would have perceived it. Kind of nutty, yes, but unlike standard YEC theorizing it's impossible to disprove with science.

Jerry N. · Jul 3, 2025

trophy33 said:
Hard to say. My guess would be in the first living cell, regarding biological organisms.

My wife claims that parasites go directly to the organ they want to eat (e.g. lungs) without wandering around. However, I think we are much higher than any animal, because we can ask “Why am I here?” or “Where did I come from?"

trophy33 · Jul 3, 2025

Jerry N. said:
My wife claims that parasites go directly to the organ they want to eat (e.g. lungs) without wandering around. However, I think we are much higher than any animal, because we can ask “Why am I here?” or “Where did I come from?"

Because we have more complex bodies that have this ability, mainly more complex brain. Therefore our spirit can project his qualities more in us than in for example an ant.

Jerry N. · Jul 3, 2025

Job 33:6 said:
You should know that in Genesis, animals do not have souls, but rather they in and of themselves are nephesh, or souls, in Hebrew. So I'm not sure that animals could be argued to not have a soul.

But this is a topic that early church fathers held a variety of views on. It's more of a secondary issue than it is a 1st order issue. Otherwise half the saints of the early church would be heretics.

I’m familiar with the word “nephesh,” and you are absolutely right. However, animals don’t need it saved, and I was referring to the soul in the trichotomist sense that needs to be saved. Thanks for your post.

trophy33 · Jul 3, 2025

HBP said:
Perhaps a more interesting question is whether we have a body. Idealism - the notion that mind, not matter, is the fundamental stuff of the universe and that materiality is an illusion - is receiving increasing attention at the highest levels of science

Depends on the definition of body. I like the idea of Leibniz that the physical does not exist, it is all spiritual on the basic level - monads.

HBP · Jul 3, 2025

Fervent said:
IME, the literalist position is rarely held in what I would consider a child-like fashion, which is to say that it is not a guileless and humble acceptance without pride, but is instead held pridefully as if allowing oneself not to engage with critical evaluation is a laudable position. There is no child-like wonder at the mystery of the world, but a sense of being privy to secret knowledge that those who disbelieve are just too foolish to acknowledge.

Yes, I have noticed this, in spades. To be child-like is not to live in mindlessly accepting la-la land. Children are notorious for pushing the envelope: "Why is that, Daddy? Why is that - huh, huh?" I daresay I trust God in my everyday walk as much as the literalists do, but I also try to understand. I can trust while pretty continually asking "Why? What sense does that make?"

The sad part is, every forum with Christian in the title, many churches and a huge swath of the evangelical community operates as the lowest common denominator of biblio-centric literalism were the "real" Christianity and that the folks who hold this view are to be coddled and protected against anything and everything that might shake their biblio-centric literalism. It's precisely why the sociologist I referenced characterizes traditional religion (by which he means traditional Christianity) as obsolete: to the younger generations it simply isn't believable - yet those who view themselves as the keepers of the faith insist on promoting the least-believable version.

I recently received a warning here on another thread for a post, the offensiveness of which completely escapes me. In response to a goofy post about the theological implications of "bunnies," I pointed out that rabbits are part of the natural order, which is the domain of science, and that the study of them would be the same if there were no God at all. Apparently even in this obscure context, "no God at all" is too much for the ears of those who KNOW! KNOW!! KNOW!!! there is a God. Yeesh, how is it possible to have intelligent discussions where this sort of mindset has to be coddled and protected?

Jerry N. · Jul 3, 2025

trophy33 said:
Because we have more complex bodies that have this ability, mainly more complex brain. Therefore our spirit can project his qualities more in us than in for example an ant.

I understand, but I think it is more than that. I believe in life after death which would be the soul.

HBP said:
Perhaps a more interesting question is whether we have a body. Idealism - the notion that mind, not matter, is the fundamental stuff of the universe and that materiality is an illusion - is receiving increasing attention at the highest levels of science. It actually makes for a very tidy Christian theology. Our reality is essentially a construct of God's mind (bingo - creation ex nihilo), and we are individual constructs within the master construct. Bernardo Kastrup, although not a Christian, has written extensively on this.

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but the most believable (to me) attempt to preserve a literal Adam and Eve is that of Joshua Swamidass. The basic idea is that God created Adam and Eve from existing stock something less than 20,000 years ago and that all humans in the biblical sense are the genetic descendants of this couple. Even secular scientists agree that the science "works." The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry, Amazon.com.

I'm not promoting the idea, but even before reading Swamidass' work I had always been struck by the mysterious explosion in human sophistication that occurred, seemingly suddenly, a matter of no more than 10,000 years ago. Sites like Gobekli Tepe keep pushing that date back, and Swamidass doesn't insist on the 20,000 figure. If I were desperate to fit a literal Adam and Eve into my thinking, I'd lean toward Swamidass' theory.

It also kind of meshes with the most interesting YEC theory - i.e., the story of creation in Genesis is basically like a novel. When you read a novel, you enter into a fully-formed world. The author doesn't have to explain where everything came from. God, the theory says, created a fully-formed universe, so everything science discovers is accurate as far as it goes. Genesis is written from the perspective of Adam and Eve. When we read Genesis, we are entering into reality as Adam and Eve would have perceived it. Kind of nutty, yes, but unlike standard YEC theorizing it's impossible to disprove with science.

Swamidass' theory is very good and makes a lot of sense. I would not dismiss YEC out of hand, but Swamidass' theory and others like it have much more explanatory power.

Considering Idealism, there is a story of some famous writer who addressed his letters with house address, street, town, country, Earth, Solar System, universe, the mind of God.

That "quote" button and I don't get along. I meant it to be two posts.

trophy33 · Jul 3, 2025

Jerry N. said:
I understand, but I think it is more than that. I believe in life after death which would be the soul.

But what is the soul was the question. I think it is specifically, individually shaped spirit. Shaped by our body, but if saved, then probably being somehow fixed in its shape by some kind of spiritual body. Without that, I guess the spirit would lose its shape and so his self-awareness (and the soul would "die").

HBP · Jul 3, 2025

trophy33 said:
Depends on the definition of body. I like the idea of Leibniz that the physical does not exist, it is all spiritual on the basic level - monads.

We could really go off into the weeds here. Idealism goes back to at least the ancient Greeks, but the most well-known exponent was the famous Bishop Berkeley of the 18th century. Bernardo Kastrup insists idealism is more consistent with the scientific data than either materialism or dualism. Another increasingly popular notion is panpsychism, which also has ancient roots but has recently received increasing attention; here, the basic notion is that consciousness is built into the fabric of reality, so even a rock has some sort of incipient consciousness (hey, I talk to my car all the time!). Lastly, I just finished a very scholarly book where the multiple authors insist that panentheism is the real Christianity. Unlike pantheism, which says God is the universe, panentheism says God is separate from the universe but also infuses every nook and cranny of it. I really don't know enough about Leibniz' monadology to discuss it intelligently, but it must fit in here somewhere.

My own thinking is along the lines of idealism/panentheism. These simply make more intuitive sense to me, and are more scientifically plausible, than the orthodox view of a spiritual God who creates a material universe in which humans are uniquely blessed with something called a soul. I've owned enough cats and dogs to know the life force in me is not that different from the life force in them.

HBP · Jul 3, 2025

Jerry N. said:
Considering Idealism, there is a story of some famous writer who addressed his letters with house address, street, town, country, Earth, Solar System, universe, the mind of God.

At the other extreme we have crotchety old Samuel Johnson. On one of their walks, Boswell said that Bishop Berkeley's idealism was clever and impossible to refute. Johnson immediately responded, "I refute it THUS!" - and kicked a large rock.

trophy33 · Jul 3, 2025

HBP said:
a spiritual God who creates a material universe in which humans are uniquely blessed with something called a soul. I've owned enough cats and dogs to know the life force in me is not that different from the life force in them.

We can add also the simulation hypothesis, the holographic universe and other views.

However, I like views being formulated inside Christianity, like I mentioned for example Leibniz. Material universe existing in spiritual God is a bit strange idea, I agree. That is why I incline to agree that the physical things just appear so, but in their foundations, they are spiritual - without mass, space or time.

I also owned pets and I believe they were soul-ish similarly to me, just limited by their lower level of bodies.

Jerry N. · Jul 3, 2025

trophy33 said:
But what is the soul was the question. I think it is specifically, individually shaped spirit. Shaped by our body, but if saved, then probably being somehow fixed in its shape by some kind of spiritual body. Without that, I guess the spirit would lose its shape and so his self-awareness (and the soul would "die").

I tried to limit the definition of "soul" to that part that needs salvation.

trophy33 · Jul 3, 2025

Jerry N. said:
I tried to limit the definition of "soul" to that part that needs salvation.

Which is not saying much. It is rather localization than definition.

Do you have a system explaining what it is, how it came to be, what does "saving" it means, how it can die etc?

HBP · Jul 3, 2025

trophy33 said:
We can add also the simulation hypothesis, the holographic universe and other views.

However, I like views being formulated inside Christianity, like I mentioned for example Leibniz. Material universe existing in spiritual God is a bit strange idea, I agree. That is why I incline to agree that the physical things just appear so, but in their foundations, they are spiritual - without mass, space or time.

I also owned pets and I believe they were soul-ish similarly to me, just limited by their lower level of bodies.

One of my best friends, internationally famous in the UFO community, is a huge proponent of the simulation hypothesis. He has an entire non-theistic, non-religious "theology" constructed around it. When I point out that it's a PERFECT match for Christian theology, he doesn't want to hear about it.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 3, 2025

Jerry N. said:
Saying that you don’t have a soul or that you don’t care is the best argument that atheist use to dismiss the Christian message. There is nothing to save. I don’t think animals have a soul or it doesn’t need to be saved, but humans are different and need salvation in my view. If we were decedents of humanoids, then we changed from animals to humans at some point. In another thread, a man called the first humans Homo Divinicus, which I know has new age connotations, but it is significant to the creation of Adam and Eve.

Notice here, I didn't say I 'don't care' about whether or not I have a soul. No, all I intimated in my previous post is that the concept of a 'soul' isn't of prime importance to me. I'm more philosophically general than that. IOW---what prompted me to even pick up a bible and read it for the first time at the age of 17 was a question coming off my prior outlook, influenced as it was by Carl Sagan, and that question was, "Is there any way to survive death?" And of course, Jesus was the answer to my problem. That's oversimplication of all I thought at age 17, but it fits the bill.

Fervent · Jul 3, 2025

trophy33 said:
However, I like views being formulated inside Christianity, like I mentioned for example Leibniz. Material universe existing in spiritual God is a bit strange idea, I agree.

I don't find that strange, in fact I thnk it lines up pretty well with a Biblical understanding where statements like " For in him we live, and move, and have our being" can be made. More often I think there is a strong deist influence on people's ideas about God, fed into by the literalist insistence on a 7 day creation cycle. God didn't just create the universe and sit back, but is continually creating and sustaining the universe. As John of Damascus put it, God is existence. Or Thomas Aquinas, God is pure act...the essenee of being.

Job 33:6 · Jul 3, 2025

Jerry N. said:
Saying that you don’t have a soul or that you don’t care is the best argument that atheist use to dismiss the Christian message. There is nothing to save. I don’t think animals have a soul or it doesn’t need to be saved, but humans are different and need salvation in my view. If we were decedents of humanoids, then we changed from animals to humans at some point. In another thread, a man called the first humans Homo Divinicus, which I know has new age connotations, but it is significant to the creation of Adam and Eve.

Another popular view in early Christianity is that ensoulment occurs at the time of the quickening. When a baby is felt in the mother's womb. But this doesn't really relate to the question of a historical Adam.

The idea that ensoulment occurs first with Adam, and then that's when everyone else gets a soul, I'm not sure that this has ever been a popular view, as far as I'm aware.

I don't think the idea of Adam receiving a soul and then transmitting it to the rest of humanity has ever been a mainstream view of the church.

trophy33 · Jul 3, 2025

Fervent said:
I don't find that strange, in fact I thnk it lines up pretty well with a Biblical understanding where statements like " For in him we live, and move, and have our being" can be made. More often I think there is a strong deist influence on people's ideas about God, fed into by the literalist insistence on a 7 day creation cycle. God didn't just create the universe and sit back, but is continually creating and sustaining the universe. As John of Damascus put it, God is existence. Or Thomas Aquinas, God is pure act...the essenee of being.

I rather think that the material/physical universe is, in its fundamental elements, non-physical. Science can call it strings or code or something, Leibniz would call it monads.

Something being physical is just our experience - like touching something. But the experience as such created by our brain is also non-physical.

Like ice is just a colder form of liquid water, I also think that the material universe may be just "colder", slower, less vibrating, more "tight" spiritual reality. And I would say that science agrees, even though scientists would not call these fundamental particles spiritual, just without mass, space or time.

Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Critically Recalculating!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads