• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,270
2,996
London, UK
✟1,004,721.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

You are very trusting of what you think is the established scientific view. In practice the theory of macroevolution is not properly scientific e.g. demonstrable by repeatable scientific experiments. It is an example of analogous rationalisation based on things which we can demonstrate.

That said the biblical question in the background of your essay from my perspective is who did Adam and Eves children marry and why is there not any evidence of a single genetic ancestor 6000 years ago. If God had created a broader number of humans outside Eden at the same time as Adam and Eve (Genesis 2) as is implied by Genesis Chapter 1 then that would resolve this problem.

But then as you say we would have to look at what was special about Adam and Eve, what did it mean for them to be made in the image of God. You suggest a theological model for this which you can then superimpose onto what you regard as the biological evidence. The possibility exists that some kind of spark of intelligence originated in this special relationship which included language and conversation with God and each other which Adam and Eves children then more widely propagated throughout mankind.

Of course you realise this theory given what I said above could even be a young earth creationist reading and does not have to lend itself to an affirmation of evolution or even an Old earth as in Theistic Evolutionist or Old earth creationist accounts.

The problem I have with the view is that Genesis 1 clearly states that men and women plural were also made in the image of God. So there is something inherent to their makeup that distinguishes them from the beasts. It seems to me then that Adam and Eves history with God and in effect in-house training in the presence of the Divine might be the extra quality that they then brought to the rest of the human race if these were created separately and outside Eden. They also brought death and the fall with them.

If Adam is the first man because He was the first to be created, the first to know God and also the first to fall. He would be the one who in a sense activated the dormant humanity in the wider humanity that God had created in his image. This theory would then spare Adam and Eves children from the charge of either incest or bestiality.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Genesis 1 doesn't exactly qualify. Can you not see the vast stylistic differences between Genesis 1 and, say, Genesis 12?
Genesis 1 is a straightforward linear account of the creation of the world. It is short, very concise and unambiguous.
Who says God even intended to teach science or give a literal chronological account of creation?
You realize that one thing doesn't have a blasted thing to do with the other, right? The Bible is not a science book.
And who exactly are you to pronounce what is or isnt heresy?
I do have my opinion, and in that opinion teaching contrary to the Scriptures is heresy. Or you could call it false teaching. Or you can call it expressing a wrong opinion in an authoritative manner. It all comes out the same. The Bible says one thing, you say another.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I absolutely believe the fall was a literal historical event. That doesnt mean a talking snake seduced Eve into eating a magical fruit from a magical tree. The fall was a real historical event described in a non-literal way.
So what is your unbiblical story of the fall of man?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,488
10,856
New Jersey
✟1,340,095.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Genesis 1 is a straightforward linear account of the creation of the world. It is short, very concise and unambiguous.
And wrong. I get tired of Christians who don't believe in cosmology, evolution, archaeology, global warming, vaccines. (Of course not all conservatives reject them all.) There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that it's what you think it is. It's multiple documents by different people with differing views, all telling us how God has worked with them. By turning it into a history textbook you miss its actual content. If I believed it was actually intended the way you think it is, I wouldn't be a Christian. I don't think I'm alone.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EpiscipalMe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 1, 2017
1,763
1,299
USA
✟194,090.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married

I'm with you. Allegorical interpretation renewed my faith.
 
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,392
✟170,432.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Curious: the name 'Adam' in the BIble can mean 'red, ruddy.' Apparently, beginning in the Upper Paleolithic period, humans began coating the bones or bodies of their dead with red ochre, a practice which became widespread for thousands of years. The biblical account says that Adam was made from the dust of the earth. Makes me wonder if this isn't rather a memory of earlier burial practices in connection with a RETURN of the body to the earth.

Adam was a gatherer at first. Gather cultures began to disappear in the Neolithic era. Adam's sons were farmers and shepherds, vocations that did not appear until the Neolithic Revolution. Adam himself became a farmer after the expulsion from Eden.

Jewish legends of Adam make him a fantastical character of mythologic proportions.

These elements are among some that lead me to the hypothesis that Adam was not a single historical person but an archetype of paleolithic humanity.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,392
✟170,432.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Certain things are taken for granted in the Biblical narrative of Genesis 1 thru 10.
Naming animals requires abstract thinking and language.
Loss of innocence presupposes conscience.
The sacrifices of Cain and Abel imply domestication of grains and animals. Cain's son, Enoch, built a city. This requires domestication of grains and resulting population increase.
Five generations after Cain we have the creation of metallurgy, musical instruments. The Bible indicates that copper and iron were smithed.
The building of the Ark would have required a means of measurement and some degree of mathematics.
Noah planted a vineyard. This requires the domestication of grapes.

Most of these things can be dated. Some are harder to date and rest on best guesses.

Domestication of grains and livestock occurred during the Neolithic Revolution, about 12,000 years ago (Cain and Abel could be no earlier than this IF they were the first.) In the Near East, this started in the Zargos Mountains, between the Black and Caspian Seas. The Indo-European language groups have their roots in that region. Anthropologists believe that animal husbandry and agriculture spread from here to Europe, India and parts of Africa spread from here. Egyptologist David Rohl believes 'Eden' was also in that region.

The first cities were built in Mesopotamia about 9500 years ago. If Cain was the first city builder, he would have lived this long ago.

Viticulture appears to have originated in the region of Georgia and Armenia about 7000 years ago. If Noah was the first, he could have lived no earlier than this date.

The earliest use of metal in the Near East appears to have been about 7000 years ago in Armenia. The earliest man made iron artifacts in the Middle East are from about 4500 years ago in what is now Turkey. This is the same region as the other developments above, but it much later than any of the others. Hard to see how Tuval-Cain would fit into this timeline. BTW, it has been suggested that the name of the Greek god of the forge, Vulcan, is derived from the Hebrew 'Tuval-Cain.'

Archbishop Ussher and many Christians believe that Adam was created about 6000 years ago. As you can see, there was already a lot goin' on by that time.

Now, doesn't Genesis appear to be 'general history' without being literally true? I am speaking specifically about the first 10 chapters.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,488
10,856
New Jersey
✟1,340,095.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I'm with you. Allegorical interpretation renewed my faith.
What worries me is that it's like we live in different worlds. It's beyond just theological opinion. It's different history, laws of nature. The problem is that there really aren't separate worlds. The one we're actually living in is the one explained by actual science, actual history, actual medicine, etc. There can't be separate Christian science and history, without conspiracy theories.
 
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,409
3,198
Hartford, Connecticut
✟358,553.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

You arent bothering with Humphrey's explanation, as no explanation can be given. And viewing Adam and Eve, created not from birth, but from clay and the other from rib, is an independent topic from whether or not the earth was created as an already aged planet.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,409
3,198
Hartford, Connecticut
✟358,553.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Biological evolution is covered in completely different fields of science than the big bang or even abiogenesis. Theyre independent fields of study. And with that, 99% of this post is irrelevant.

"Then somehow, on a ball of sterilized rock, there came forth the interaction of chemicals, and *POOF* magically, goo life began."
"He says the first man was made fully fomed out of the dust of the ground. Evolution says no."

What is dust but chemicals? Regardless, this again is independent of biological evolution. Biological evolution pertains to evolution of life that already exists. It does not speak on how life originated.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,409
3,198
Hartford, Connecticut
✟358,553.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

The theory of evolution regards evolution of life (descent with modification) after life already exists. It does not speak on how life first came to be. It amazes me how many people have this misconception and conflate biological evolution with the big bang or abiogenesis.
 
Reactions: bangmegafan
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I get tired of Christians who don't believe in cosmology, evolution, archaeology,
It's funny that you include a theory of origins with actual fields of science.
I haven't seen any Christians who deny cosmology or archaeology. In fact, archaeologists have benefited greatly from the history recorded in the Bible.

global warming,
News flash: It's called climate change now, since there hasn't been warming in 17 years.
vaccines.
Only Jehovah's Witnesses, as far as I know,
There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that it's what you think it is.
Only the actual text, which I can quote and you cannot.
It's multiple documents by different people with differing views, all telling us how God has worked with them.
I get it. You don't believe the Bible is the word of God. You believe that Jesus, whoever He was, was obviously mistaken in believing that its words came from the mouth of God.
If I believed it was actually intended the way you think it is, I wouldn't be a Christian.
Oh, I think you would be more like Christ, because Christ quoted Genesis and said "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?" Nobody told Christ, who knew Adam personally, that Adam and Eve had evolved.
 
Upvote 0

Purity Clarity Parkes

Active Member
Jun 4, 2017
69
66
35
Melbourne
✟22,869.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That said it is important to distinguish between the science of evolution and he philosophy of darwinism. Darwinism asserts the emergence of biological complexity from random genetic variattion in a fundamentally unguided process. I reject the very existence of randomness and would assert absolute determinism in all physical phenomena.
Dont confuse the science of evolution with the naturalistic philosophy so often built upon it.[/QUOTE]

I beg your pardon, however, God put mankind over animals (Genesis 1:26).
Would it make sense to make the ruler of animals an animal him/herself.
Besides, God made humans separately. From memory, Genesis 2:7 states that 'man' was formed from the dust of the ground. Symbolic or not, the dust of the ground would not refer to the womb of and ape.
Just food for the mind.
Purity
 
Upvote 0

AlexDTX

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
4,191
2,817
✟351,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The creation of Adam and Eve is the central topic. First, I used that example to show that God can and did create fully mature entities. Second, evolution is a direct refutation of the creation of Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve being the first created people, there is no need for God to become the man Jesus Christ. It is because of their sin that we all sin because we are all Adam and Eve. The perfect life of Christ creates a new humanity, one that is a partaker of the divine nature, and all who receive the new birth are Christ. For Christians who have the new birth to embrace theistic evolution shows a lack of understanding of the basics of salvation. Unless, of course, they are Christians in name only and do not know the Living God through the new birth. In that case they remain in their sins and their faith is vain.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,488
10,856
New Jersey
✟1,340,095.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Symbolic or not, the dust of the ground would not refer to the womb of and ape.
Just food for the mind.
Purity
Changes between generations are small. They cumulate over time. So we don't have something like a modern ape having something like a modern human as a child. I agree, however, that trying to interpret Genesis as being somehow consistent with actual history is not possible. As you say, forming a human from the dust of the earth is inconsistent with what happened.

We have to face the fact that the Bible's account of that period isn't history.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,409
3,198
Hartford, Connecticut
✟358,553.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

If the central topic is about Adam and Eve, then you shouldnt be bringing up time dilation and theoretical physics.

You are arguing from a perspective of scripture, in a way that is purely independent of any scientific understanding. I give you credit for standing up for Christ in a way which you feel is righteous. But if you arent fighting that fight on scientific grounds, then you are not in a position to challenge science.

Everyone in this room wants to fight for Christ. Everyone wants His truth to be known. If you arent familiar with the science, you need to be careful in how you speak for it. And likewise, for those who are not familiar with scripture, they need to be careful in how they speak for it as well.

As a scientist though, and as someone who is interested in representing Christ in a righteous way, for those who are boldly standing against modern geology and biology without an understanding of it, im telling you that youre going about representing Christ in the wrong way. Earth and life are Gods creations, and just as we ought to be careful in how we approach our understanding of scripture, so too should we be careful in our approach to understanding and representing Gods creation.
 
Upvote 0

AlexDTX

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
4,191
2,817
✟351,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Yes, and scientists are not God. The creation is more than just the physics we can perceive with our senses. Science ignores God and the spirit world. Instead they come up with nonsense such as string theory and multiverses.

The title of this thread is "Adam and Evolution: A Reconciliation". The topic is Adam. The poster of the thread, ALoveDivine, is trying to reconcile evolution with the creation of Adam. I am on topic. The topic is not about science. The writer is trying to incorporate the thinking of the world into Scripture. They are antithetical.

But I really have no more interest in this discussion. I am done with it.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,409
3,198
Hartford, Connecticut
✟358,553.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

And you are not God either. You are the one who is ignoring God in ignoring His creation and thinking you know His creation based purely on a personal interpretation of His word.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,409
3,198
Hartford, Connecticut
✟358,553.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Exactly
 
Upvote 0

4x4toy

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
3,599
1,772
✟138,525.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So you DO believe God has fingers? Funny how you refuse to plainly answer the questions.

Shall we try again?

1. Does God have fingers?

2. Are the stars lights affixed to a solid dome firmament, above which is water?

There is no doubt in my mind , who/what carved the original 10 commandments , who/what wrote Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin on the wall of the Babylonian King . Who wrote on the ground while waiting on the Samaritan womans accusers and who formed/molded man out of the dust ?

2. God stretches out the heavens like a curtain and they are still being stretched out, can't you understand plain scripture ?
 
Upvote 0