Adam Didn't Do His Job

[localz]

If you find one, let me know.

Will do.

The way the Bible speaks, he's both.
I believe there was an Adam in the sense that there was a first human -- there had to be, even from an evolutionary POV. I believe the duties and qualities of Adam (the man) in Genesis, though, are representative of mankind.

Do you believe God revealed Himself to the first man, as well?

And what of Eve? Would the Lord have gone through all the trouble of evolution and natural selection and whatnot only to create the first woman through a miracle, or is this only metaphor for something else?

Finally (this is probably the last question I'll ask in this particular thread, for fear of de-railing it all), where does man begin? Was it with Homo neanderthalensis? Homo rhodesiensis? Or, did God's revelation begin with the "true" humans, Homo sapiens sapiens?

 

[Mallon]

Do you believe God revealed Himself to the first man, as well?

Yes. The Bible says that a knowledge of God is what sets us apart from the animals, and I believe this is what makes us human.

And what of Eve? Would the Lord have gone through all the trouble of evolution and natural selection and whatnot only to create the first woman through a miracle, or is this only metaphor for something else?

I believe much of the creation account, including the formation of Eve form Adam's rib, to be metaphorical for something else. Even the context in which Eve's creation is given is largely metaphorical. In the story, Eve wasn't created from Adam's rib because God just felt like it. God formed Eve from Adam because of the ramnifications such an act carries with it (helper, marriage, unity, etc.).
Note that, regardless as to whether any of this is historically accurate, the story itself, which was inpired by God, retains the spiritual truths (1 Cor 2:13) He intended.

Finally (this is probably the last question I'll ask in this particular thread, for fear of de-railing it all), where does man begin? Was it with Homo neanderthalensis? Homo rhodesiensis? Or, did God's revelation begin with the "true" humans, Homo sapiens sapiens?

If a knowledge of God is what makes us human, it's hard to tell. That quality doesn't preserve in the fossil record. I don't fret about such questions, though, because they are theologically unimportant. It really makes no difference to me whether Homo erectus knew God or not.

 

[localz]

Yes. The Bible says that a knowledge of God is what sets us apart from the animals, and I believe this is what makes us human.

I believe much of the creation account, including the formation of Eve form Adam's rib, to be metaphorical for something else. Even the context in which Eve's creation is given is largely metaphorical. In the story, Eve wasn't created from Adam's rib because God just felt like it. God formed Eve from Adam because of the ramnifications such an act carries with it (helper, marriage, unity, etc.).
Note that, regardless as to whether any of this is historically accurate, the story itself, which was inpired by God, retains the spiritual truths (1 Cor 2:13) He intended.

If a knowledge of God is what makes us human, it's hard to tell. That quality doesn't preserve in the fossil record. I don't fret about such questions, though, because they are theologically unimportant. It really makes no difference to me whether Homo erectus knew God or not.

Again, great points. I'm very glad I joined this board and this conversation, as now I have gained a much clearer picture of a theistic evolutionist's point of view. Of course, I'll have to do a lot of studying for it to be as clear as it could be, but this is a great start. I love to think, and you have given me much to ponder.

It was a pleasure, my friend.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually I believe he named all the animals. It says he did that. It is possible that God put the animal before him, he named them and then God moved them to the proper climate. As well, man was meant to stay in the Garden of Eden.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..."

Of course I would argue that man was not meant to leave Eden but that it refers to a spiritual relationship rather than a geographical location. After all we read in Revelation that the tree of life is still there for us 'in the paradise of God' Rev 2:7.

It could be possible that God created animals after the fall... for instance the people eating ones. It could also be possible that some animals were not created by God and those ones died in the flood.

Umm no. Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

 

[Assyrian]

He had to get to know them, but I'm sure it couldn't have taken more than five or ten seconds to determine if this animal or that animal would be of adequate help as a partner

That is just being speciesist. The warthog could have a wonderful personality but you would never know if you dismissed them on a first, brief, impression.

Anyway, Genesis 1:25-26 does not specifically state that man was created after the beasts of the earth, it only lists him afterwards, just as it names woman alongside man even though we know from the account in Genesis 2 that she was created some time after he.

You have a got an 'And it was so' and an 'And God saw that it was good', between the creation of the animals and man. You also have the extensive use of the Hebrew construction the waw consecutive, used to describe consecutive events. This construction is used in both chapters to describe mutually contradictory sequences of events.
Plants, birds, animals, man and woman
vs
Man, plants, animals and birds, woman
This only makes sense if one or both descriptions were not meant as literal history.

The wording is changed to suit each chapter's purpose.

The wording and order are changed to suit each chapters purpose. But yes, that is it. And it is the purpose of the chapters that are important, because the purpose is what God is saying to us.

As for the bird-water/bird-ground thing, you got me. I never even noticed that before.

Not just a different source but a whole different 'day'.

I will ask, though, do you believe Adam was a real man that truly existed at some definite point in history, or was he a representation of the human race as a whole in your view?

You will find a range of views on this. I think the key is in Adam's name. It means 'man'. The story of Adam is the story of all men who sin and fall short of the glory of God. I think the most important picture. Adam is us.

It may also show the beginnings of sin in the human race. God gave the human race, or developed in the human race, the ability to know him. Perhaps this describes a time when, like children, we did have an innocent relationship with God. As Mallon says this is not going to appear in the fossil record, nor do we know if it was a gradual process, or sudden. The point of the story is that our relationship with God was broken as we rebelled and went their own way.

Adam and Eve also give us a picture of God's plan for marriage. The whole rib thing is vivid illustration that man and woman are to marry and become 'on flesh'.

 

[mumluvsherboys]

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..."

Of course I would argue that man was not meant to leave Eden but that it refers to a spiritual relationship rather than a geographical location. After all we read in Revelation that the tree of life is still there for us 'in the paradise of God' Rev 2:7.


Umm no. Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

Yes thank you. God bless.

 

[JohnR7]

So it is said "The man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field." Genesis 2:20

There is somewhere between 10 and 50 million species on this earth.

It is a quantum leap to go from livestock in the garden to all the species on the earth. Adam may have been thrown out of the Garden, but there is no indication that he ever left the land of Eden.

You can check with Cain though, he left to go to the land of Nod. He might have named some animals there.

The thing is we know about biodiverse systems now. We know how a species from one biodiverse system becomes a part of another biodiverse system. Eden was just one biodiverse ecology. God's plan was for Eden to expand and fill the whole earth. There have been some delays, but God's purpose will still be realized. This whole earth will become a paradise as God intended for it to be.