Adam and Theistic Evolution

[charityagape]

I have a question. In theistic evolution, who are Adam and Eve? Are they real people, the real first man and first woman, or are they poetic representations of an evolutionary process God may have used to create man?

 

[philadiddle]

I have a question. In theistic evolution, who are Adam and Eve? Are they real people, the real first man and first woman, or are they poetic representations of an evolutionary process God may have used to create man?

there are different views of theistic evolution that deal with this. some beleif in adam and eve and some think they are just allegory. personally, i haven't decided what i believe in that area yet

 

[charityagape]

This is key to me. I've heard the whole thousand years like a day etc, And while I can very well imagine that the time taken to create is irrelevent to God, I can't see Adam and Eve as allegory. Then there's the detailed listing of decendents described in Genesis 5.

 

[philadiddle]

This is key to me. I've heard the whole thousand years like a day etc, And while I can very well imagine that the time taken to create is irrelevent to God, I can't see Adam and Eve as allegory. Then there's the detailed listing of decendents described in Genesis 5.

the thousand years is like a day thing isn't even valid argument. the only point to that verse is that time is nothing to God.

Genesis 1-6 is allegory. Once the isrealites are mentioned it is talking about history.

I have a question for u. Why is it key to you that Adam and Eve must have been literal for Jesus death and resurection to be our salvation? A literal adam and eve is not Christianity. Jesus life and death and resurection is what Christianity is all about. Many YECs forget this.

 

[artybloke]

A literal adam and eve is not Christianity.

A lot of YEC's labour under the notion that Adam had to have been real because "sin" is some kind of inherited disease passed on from Adam to the present. Personally, I don't buy this, and I think it derived from St Augustine never quite have rid himself of his Manicheanism. The Orthodox, of course, have never believed in this.

Also, of course, Jesus mentioned them by name. So maybe he thought they existed; or maybe he was just using them as examples, the way one might refer to mythical or fictional characters as in: She's a real Mrs Malloprop. It was a Herculean effort. etc etc...

To me, Adam and Eve are simply representative of the whole human race. In fact, the words themselves are really more like mankind and womankind than actual names.

I'm not sure I'd call Genesis 1-6 allegory, but it certainly is "symbolic" rather than "literal" in its literary genre.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not sure I'd call Genesis 1-6 allegory, but it certainly is "symbolic" rather than "literal" in its literary genre.

Yes, there are many different kinds of literary genres that are predominantly figurative and/or symbolic. In common speech we do not necessarily discriminate among them, but for students of literature each of them is defined by particular characteristics: allegory, drama, oracle, legend, myth, saga, epic, metaphor, symbol, apocalypse, poetry, type, etc.

Idenfication of "literal" vs. "non-literal" is further complicated by the fact that one tends to penetrate the other. A text may be predominantly historical but also contain a figure of speech or an allegorical illustration. Another text may be poetic but contain references to history or to facts, or at least what the poet believes to be facts. When Dante wrote his Divine Comedy, his portrayal of the different circles of heaven and hell was his own invention. But he also believed that the circles themselves were real, for this was the scientific teaching of his day. Similarly, when the psalmists wrote of the "foundations" of the earth, they were not just being poetic. They understood the foundations to be actual created phenomena.

As to the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, the correct literary term is "myth". Although in common speech, "myth" often has the sense of "false", this is not its meaning when speaking of a literary genre. C. S. Lewis refers to this kind of biblical story as "true myth" in contrast to the false myths of Israel's pagan neighbours. So even identifying the literary form as myth does not tell us whether Adam and Eve were specific individuals or representative figures portraying all humanity. Personally, I think the latter approach is correct and more theologically sound.

One reason I consider this approach correct is that there is nowhere in the story where "ha-adam" must be a proper name. You can tell the whole story of Genesis 2-3 using only the term "man" without a name. The woman is not given a name until the very end of chapter 3, and then it is a symbolic name denoting her function as a woman.

Another is alluded to by artybloke. Augustine and other early Christians thought of original sin as something inherited in the same way as our physical characteristics are inherited, something transferred to the embryo by its parents, just like its nose or its thumb. Clearly, ever since Mendel, this is not a serious possibility. Original sin is not genetic. It is a spiritual condition, not an DNA sequence located on a chromosome. It is a description of the human relationship vis-a-vis God prior to coming to Christ.

Since no physical relationship of parent to child is necessary for original sin to be a factual condition, it is not necessary that a literal genealogical link from Adam to Christ be established. The relationship is of type to anti-type, and that is how Paul is using it in his letters.

Note that this does not mean that all of Genesis 1-11 is myth. Genesis 1 is not myth. The geneologies are not myth. The flood story is myth and so is the story of the tower of Babel. Though there may have been a historical tower. (possible interpenetration of history and myth) And although Genesis 1 and the genealogies are not myth, they are not history either.

 

[charityagape]

the thousand years is like a day thing isn't even valid argument. the only point to that verse is that time is nothing to God.

Genesis 1-6 is allegory. Once the isrealites are mentioned it is talking about history.

I have a question for u. Why is it key to you that Adam and Eve must have been literal for Jesus death and resurection to be our salvation? A literal adam and eve is not Christianity. Jesus life and death and resurection is what Christianity is all about. Many YECs forget this.

Well how do you know that its real history once the isrealites are mentioned. Why is genesis 1-6 allegory, because it doesn't fit with secular science? Also, that does mean you believe what that humans are decended from evolution of other lesser species?

If g1-6 is allegory because it doesn't fit with science, what about the multitude of other things in the bible that don't fit with science? Including the most central issue of Christianity, the resurection of Christ.

 

[charityagape]

A lot of YEC's labour under the notion that Adam had to have been real because "sin" is some kind of inherited disease passed on from Adam to the present. Personally, I don't buy this, and I think it derived from St Augustine never quite have rid himself of his Manicheanism. The Orthodox, of course, have never believed in this.

Also, of course, Jesus mentioned them by name. So maybe he thought they existed; or maybe he was just using them as examples, the way one might refer to mythical or fictional characters as in: She's a real Mrs Malloprop. It was a Herculean effort. etc etc...

To me, Adam and Eve are simply representative of the whole human race. In fact, the words themselves are really more like mankind and womankind than actual names.

I'm not sure I'd call Genesis 1-6 allegory, but it certainly is "symbolic" rather than "literal" in its literary genre.

Does this then also include Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram.

Why the detailed list of generations.

 

[philadiddle]

Well how do you know that its real history once the isrealites are mentioned.

the isrealites were historically real. check at your local library in history books.

Why is genesis 1-6 allegory, because it doesn't fit with secular science?

it's funny you say secular science. science only deals with natural occurences. look it up at dictionary.com. There is no such thing as godly science.

Also, that does mean you believe what that humans are decended from evolution of other lesser species?

define "lesser species". the problem is that a lot of ppl think evolution is like a latter where things get "better". that's not evolution at all. it's like a tree where things get different and go on their own separate paths.
If you think humans are above animals why are we not the strongest, fastest, or toughest. we don't have the best vision, smell, or hearing. some even think dolphins are just as smart, they just don't have hands.

If g1-6 is allegory because it doesn't fit with science, what about the multitude of other things in the bible that don't fit with science? Including the most central issue of Christianity, the resurection of Christ.

i examine evidence. there is evidence of evolution. the resurrection of Christ is believed by faith, there is no evidence either way.

 

[charityagape]

Is there not convincing evidence that people just don't get up out of their grave? Ie the Resurection.

 

[gluadys]

Is there not convincing evidence that people just don't get up out of their grave? Ie the Resurection.

There is evidence that as a general rule people don't get out of their grave. There is no evidence one way or the other that a particular individual was not raised from his grave by the power of God. This applies not only to Jesus, but also to Lazarus and other individuals scripture names as being resurrected from the dead.

Check out inductive reasoning. Using inductive reasoning you can never rule out an exception to the general rule.

 

[charityagape]

So, miracles are possible as long as they're the exception to the general rule? Like returning from the dead, walking on water, feeding thousands with a sack lunch?

 

[charityagape]

BTW, I'm not debating or challenging, I'm really just interested in what people with different Christians beliefs than mine, think.

 

[gluadys]

So, miracles are possible as long as they're the exception to the general rule? Like returning from the dead, walking on water, feeding thousands with a sack lunch?

Right. And as long as there is no evidence that they did not happen. For example, if the apostles' testimony of the resurrection had been contradicted by the Romans putting Jesus' dead body on public display, that would invalidate the testimony of the resurrection as it would be irrefutable evidence that the resurrection had not happened. Since no such contradictory evidence exists, there is no evidence that the resurrection did not happen.

 

[charityagape]

Is there no conflict with a person's faith to make God accountable to man's understanding of what is true and observable with man's senses. Wouldn't God be beyond man's understanding?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So, miracles are possible as long as they're the exception to the general rule? Like returning from the dead, walking on water, feeding thousands with a sack lunch?

Miracles are only recognizable if the are exceptions to the general rules, it could be a miracle that the Earth didn't fly off into space today, but unless we knew that it was suppose to then we would have no idea that a miracle occurred.

 

[gluadys]

Is there no conflict with a person's faith to make God accountable to man's understanding of what is true and observable with man's senses. Wouldn't God be beyond man's understanding?

I don't understand the question. Could you rephrase it?

 

[charityagape]

I'll try. In truth I had a hard time writing it to begin with, I have the question but am finding it hard to phrase.

Let's try this: Hebrews 11 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.................(the rest also a great but a little off topic)

I guess it all comes down to belief on the inerrancy (sp?) of the bible. Man has observed certain things about his surrounds and come to certain conclusions, however God's word (and again I guess it comes to what you believe about the bible) has presented the creation of earth and man in a way that contradicts with man's understanding. So, if you believe God's word to be infallable, where does that place the observations of man? How can the created know more about creation than the Creator?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I'll try. In truth I had a hard time writing it to begin with, I have the question but am finding it hard to phrase.

Let's try this: Hebrews 11 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.................(the rest also a great but a little off topic)

I guess it all comes down to belief on the inerrancy (sp?) of the bible. Man has observed certain things about his surrounds and come to certain conclusions, however God's word (and again I guess it comes to what you believe about the bible) has presented the creation of earth and man in a way that contradicts with man's understanding. So, if you believe God's word to be infallable, where does that place the observations of man? How can the created know more about creation than the Creator?

Interesting, however, creation is also the word of God, is it not? Did not God speak it? So if creation looks one way and the Bible looks the other how would you balance it out? Are we reading creation wrong or the Bible?

 

[gluadys]

I'll try. In truth I had a hard time writing it to begin with, I have the question but am finding it hard to phrase.

Let's try this: Hebrews 11 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.................(the rest also a great but a little off topic)

I guess it all comes down to belief on the inerrancy (sp?) of the bible. Man has observed certain things about his surrounds and come to certain conclusions, however God's word (and again I guess it comes to what you believe about the bible) has presented the creation of earth and man in a way that contradicts with man's understanding. So, if you believe God's word to be infallable, where does that place the observations of man? How can the created know more about creation than the Creator?

This is a common confusion. It supposes that there exist two things in contradiction when there are really four things to consider. As you have presented it here the two things are:

1. God's revelation in scripture
2. Human understanding of God's creation.

If one interprets the creation accounts in scripture as reportage (i.e. a straightforward unadorned chronology of what happened when God created the universe), yes that contradicts what science has learned about the origin of the universe and its components.

But this does not mean that science contradicts God's Word.

This is because we need to take into account the other two realities as well, namely:

3. God's revelation in creation
4. Human understanding of scripture.

Now, we can agree that human understanding of God's creation is limited and fallible. What needs to be emphasized here is that human understanding of God's revelation in scripture is also limited and fallible. Would you agree?

And since all of us read scripture in light of our own limited and fallible understanding of scripture, it is incorrect to say that our human understanding of creation is out of step with scripture. Not unless we can guarantee that our human limited and fallible understanding of scripture is correct.

Where human understanding of creation is incorrect, yes, it is in disagreement with God's word. But it is also true that where human understanding of scripture is incorrect, that is also in disagreement with God's word.

By the same token, when our human understanding of creation and/or scripture is correct then it does not contradict God's Word. But remember that our understanding of scripture is just as likely to be wrong as our understanding of creation. And our understanding of creation is just as likely to be right as our understanding of scripture. So when one seems to contradict the other, we cannot assume that it is our understanding of creation that is wrong, while our understanding of scripture is right. It could just as easily be the other way around. So we need to scrutinize both to find where our error lies.

To sum up: we have two revelations from God.
1.God's revelation in creation (often called 'general revelation' for it is given to all humanity of every nation and belief).
2. God's revelation in scripture (often called 'special revelation' for it was given to those chosen to receive it.)

These two revelations are different in nature and purpose, but do overlap to some extent. Since both come from God, both are true and cannot contradict each other.

We also have the human side of both of these revelations. For our finiteness, and the limitations on our knowledge, and our ability to be misled in both sense and reason, means we do not receive either revelation in its pure form, but through the filter of our finite and fallible minds and spirits. So we have:
3. our human understanding of God's creation
4. our human understanding of scripture

Here is where error can occur. And as a consequence here is where the conflict lies. And as we come to better understanding of one or both, the conflict is also resolved.

As I see it, the inerrancy of scripture is a useless belief. Even if scripture is inerrant, it doesn't help unless we can guarantee that we can understand it without error. And being human we cannot. We don't even have to bring science into the picture to see that. For there are innummerable things that different Christian denominations disagree on that are based solely in scripture, and they cannot all be right.

But so far as science (human understanding of God's creation) is concerned, we should not assume that because it conflicts with our understanding of scripture it is therefore in conflict with God's word. It is just as likely--and where the science is very probable, even more likely--that the conflict is with a human and erroneous understanding of scripture. As you say, God understands his own creation. And if God tells us through his creation that it is very old (and we are quite sure that this is the message of nature), then it is incorrect to interpret scripture as telling us that it is young. Same goes for other alleged discrepancies between the testimony of science and the testimony of scripture.