Adam, eve, and Original sin

[bibleblevr]

I have recently adopted TE as my view on creation. I have yet to sort out the problems posed to this view by, the Garden of eden, the concept of original sin, and of course Adam and Eve, to my satisfaction. How do you guys understand these people, events and places in the context of both evolution, and Scripture. My main question is how and when did sin enter the world?

 

[gluadys]

I have recently adopted TE as my view on creation. I have yet to sort out the problems posed to this view by, the Garden of eden, the concept of original sin, and of course Adam and Eve, to my satisfaction. How do you guys understand these people, events and places in the context of both evolution, and Scripture. My main question is how and when did sin enter the world?

How is quite simple. At some point some human being (we can call him Adam) acted on his desires and against what he knew to be God's will, deciding for himself what is good and evil instead of trusting in God's judgment. [And, of course, it might have been a she].

When? There is no way of telling, because:

1. such an action - not to mention the psychology behind it -- leaves no physical record in human remains.

2. we don't know what the relationship is between Adam and humanity as defined by science. For example, is Adam the first H. sapiens or only the first who sinned? Or did sin enter the world before H. sapiens, perhaps through H. erectus or H. neanderthalensis? IOW how wide is the biblical concept of "humanity"? Does it include or exclude near evolutionary relatives? (I am not speaking of chimpanzees or even Australopiths here, but only species of the genus Homo.) We know, for example, that H. neanderthalensis buried their dead ritually and that suggests some sort of spiritual life.

Some TEs do understand Adam to be an actual individual person, possibly the first person who had a sense of self and God, or the first person with a soul (however that is defined). Personally, I prefer to understand Adam as a personification of humanity, such that we are all Adam and in Adam.

On this point one does need to distinguish between original sin and first sin. In classical theology, original sin is not a sinful act, but rather the predisposition toward sin that is part of all human nature. That is why even infants are said to have original sin. It is a state of being, not an action.

However, there would still be a specific act that was the first sin. We may not know precisely what it was or who did it or when. But we have a wonderfully accurate psychological and spiritual portrait of the meaning of that act for all of us in Genesis 3.

 

[Willtor]

My understanding of the passage is that there was a real time in history in which humanity lived in fellowship with God. Whether this involved two individuals or a village, or many societies is not at issue. That is, it might have been two individuals, but I don't think that's particularly relevant. St. Paul, for example, cites sin entering the world through Adam, but of course it entered through Eve in the story. So Adam is a good figurative character who represents a historical reality, whether that is one person or many.

During the initial period, the period in which humanity clearly and unambiguously bore the image of God, we were permitted to eat of the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life, I think, is essential to the story. It represents the Word of God (Who later became Incarnate). After all, by what do we live except every word that proceeds from the mouth of God? I think it's pretty obviously a reference to the Lord.

The Fall account, I believe, proceeds through many chapters and is indicative of what really amounts to a continuous Fall. This is not necessarily totally opposed to a particular critical moment in history, but it kind of tempers it. A couple of years ago, Gluadys pointed out that the ages of the people in the genealogies have a downward trend -- always falling short of a perfect 1000. This was pretty insightful. I have noted that after the initial Fall, in the second generation we have Cain murdering Abel. A generation later, we have Lamech doing something that he identifies as eleven times worse!

As all this applies to original sin, I don't know for sure. My intuition is that original sin comes through living amidst sin and evil. Sin permeates the human condition. This is consistent with the Fall account as I've presented it, though the latter by no means supposes the former.

 

[elopez]

I have recently adopted TE as my view on creation. I have yet to sort out the problems posed to this view by, the Garden of eden, the concept of original sin, and of course Adam and Eve, to my satisfaction. How do you guys understand these people, events and places in the context of both evolution, and Scripture. My main question is how and when did sin enter the world?

Well I don't think we could accurately put a date on when sin entered the world, though we can begin to understand how sin has entered the world.

Paul confirms that humanity is affected by Adam's first sin in Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned," and again in verse 19, "For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners."

So we can say that sin entered the world through Adam's first sin. We notice from verse 12 that two things have been brought onto all of mankind as a result of Adam's sin, the first is sin itself and the other death. Since death is the consequence of sin, it cannot be identical to sin, and so physical death cannot be the only thing as to result from the Fall, it must also be sin itself as scripture states. Thus it is both physical death and sin that affects mankind as a result from Adam's first sin, not one or the other, not neither, but both just as Paul indicates.

This sin that affects mankind is different from a normal sin as in one that is personally committed, rather this sin is contracted and transfused by means of natural heredity to the entirety of man. By means of conception is this sin brought about, so it is something inherit in man, something that we are all born with. This is better understood once an explanation on the origin of the soul is composed. The origin of the soul is the same of that of the physical body, and since the body is derived by natural hereditary, it follows that so too is the soul, since indeed both the body and soul are in unity. Our souls are derived from our parents just as our natural body is, which implies that only first man's soul was directly created by God and that no subsequent souls are created in such a similar fashion.

 

[solarwave]

I have recently adopted TE as my view on creation. I have yet to sort out the problems posed to this view by, the Garden of eden, the concept of original sin, and of course Adam and Eve, to my satisfaction. How do you guys understand these people, events and places in the context of both evolution, and Scripture. My main question is how and when did sin enter the world?

The way I see it, and I may be wrong, is that the creation story is metaphorical and represents everyone at all times.

So Eden is the state of not rebelling against God, then we all get to an age when we are tempted and do what we know is wrong and we fall from grace. So in this way both Adam and Eve represent everyone.

Original sin (not that I was ever taught that when I was a YEC anyway) can be seen as natural desires in our biology to want things we shouldn't or a corrupt society which helps us to sin.

So sin entered the world when the human who was capable of knowing good from evil decided to do evil.

 

[bdfoster]

I have recently adopted TE as my view on creation. I have yet to sort out the problems posed to this view by, the Garden of eden, the concept of original sin, and of course Adam and Eve, to my satisfaction. How do you guys understand these people, events and places in the context of both evolution, and Scripture. My main question is how and when did sin enter the world?

I think the first few chapters of the Bible are among the deepest and most loaded with meaning of anything ever written in human language. It is a very important passage of scripture. Christianity wouldn't "work" without dealing with sin properly. And I think we are obliged to use all the tools at our disposal to arrive at the best possible interpretation. I think it is wrong to ignore information we have that might be relevant to Biblical interpretation. Every time I read this passage I find a new layer of meaning and I can only hope my clumsy attempts at interpretation are useful in the smallest way.

My take on Adam and Eve, sin etc., and almost all Biblical interpretation is increasingly spiritual. The more I read scripture the more I think that everything is spiritual, and that God's intention in his word is mainly to reveal spiritual truth. I think that Adam was probably the first human to have moral accountability. People are always looking for what separates us from the animals. Some people say it's tool use. Some say it's language. Some say it's the mental capacity for religion. But often other animals are found that have those characteristics. Even Neanderthals and Homo Erectus may have practiced some form of religion. Brain size and mental capacity, even for religion, are physical attributes. It may be that nothing physical separates us from the animals, and the image of God, what truly separates us from the animals, is moral accountability. Adam and Eve were the first human couple to have it. They may have been real historical people, or not.

There were other humans around at the time. We are no more the biological descendents of Adam than we are the biological descendents of Abraham. But Paul tells we are Abraham's offspring, "He is the father of us all" (Romans 4). Abraham is the father of those who have faith in Christ. Adam is the father of all who sin. When we have faith in Christ we inherit Abraham's blessing. If we don't we inherit Adam's curse. Adam's sin brought death into the world. But that death is spiritual death not physical death, which was already here.

Paul tells us that Jesus was the second Adam (Romans 5). He had the same chance to sin or not to that Adam had. Jesus' righteousness brought life back into the world. But that life is spiritual life. Physical life was already here. Jesus' righteous life, death and resurrection reversed the effects of Adam's sin. Physical death was not the result of Adam's sin. If it were then Jesus' work on the cross was a failure, because we still die physically. We are saved from spiritual death because of God's mercy and grace, but not from physical death. Some might say Jesus will remove the curse of physical death by the resurrection. It's true we will be resurrected but that does not undo the fact that we will all suffer physical death. We will be resurrected (to glory), but so will the wicked (to judgment). The resurrection will affect all humanity, not just those whose sin debt has been canceled by Christ. I don't see how physical death can be a consequence of Adam's sin.

 

[Papias]

Yes, as TE's I think we do an overall poor job of getting the word out on what these theological concepts are. I think it's because we are busy repeating the easy answers to PRATTs like "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?".

There are many theistic evolution answers to these questions of the Garden, the Fall, Original Sin, the Flood, Jesus, the Atonement, just as there are creationist answers, depending on the person and denomination. However, I’ll give you answers that you’ll find to at least be common, if not exclusive.

The Garden: The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for the natural world before humans became fully conscious/able to think – our ancestor’s time as wild animals. It did not happen as a literal, single location “garden”, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones (37) is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

The Fall: The fall of man happened when man evolved enough mental capacity to make rational decisions, and decided to rebel against God. The consequences of alienation from God are the same. Note that a literal reading has the same issue over exactly “when” Adam became rational. Was it sometime during the molding process, or sometime during his existence before the fruit incident, or sometime during the “his eyes were opened” process, or what?

Original Sin: The Rebellion against God, which was only possible when humans evolved to be rational enough to understand that God exists. Obvoiusly, this isn’t possible for an Australopithicene (which was much like a modern chimp). All humans thereafter have the ability, and therefore at least sometimes the action, of rebelling against God. Compare this obvious, deeply powerful fact with the idea that original sin is tasting magical fruit? Which sounds more like a mature and realistic theology?

A Real, Individual Adam (and Eve)
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. 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", (such as some level of rationality) one individual will be the first to cross that line. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. This also means that this first rational human will of course be the first to be able to rebel against God, thus bringing Original Sin.
This “Adam” is not to be confused with “Y Chromosome Adam”, just as the first female transitional ape-human to be rational (Eve) is not to be confused with “Mitochondrial Eve”. Those two are scientific terms for individuals that likely lived thousands of years apart and never knew each other.

The Flood: The flood is a metaphor describing God’s sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It did not happen as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables 2000 years ago, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

The geneologies in Genesis: These are figurative, like Ezekiel’s army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons – not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph’s time to the unrealistic ~2 million Jews at the Exodus.

All these are the opinions of many Bible scholars, and theologians like the Pope and many Protestant theologians, not just the opinions of laypeople.

I hope they help.

Papias

 

[callmeMurph]

My main question is how and when did sin enter the world?

I was just thinking about this...perhaps this is a possibility, I'd like to hear what other people think.

So we evolved....and when we were intelligent enough to understand God that is when sin began. Adam, the first person who knew God, realized that God existed but then soon after disobeyed God. Possibly our sinful nature is the result of evolution, because we have the capacity to know God we are held responsible for our actions but maybe some of our more primitive/ingrained instincts override our intellect. Perhaps we often act based on our base instincts instead of by our more "enlightened" minds that can know God.

I think this approach brings up a couple questions....

What about humans who don't have the capacity to understand God, the mentally handicapped? I'd like to think that they don't apply, but it seems kind of wrong saying that they don't...but at the same time it doesn't seem really fair if they can never consciously choose to obey God. (This is probably a whole different discussion all together).

How exactly does Adam pass on the original sin? Does he? I don't think we could say this Adam (maybe someone would) was the father of the human race so I don't think we could say he passed on sin because of his actions. He was the first to know God so he was the first example....and he sinned. Other humans evolved just like him so they were born with the sinful instincts but also with the capacity to know God. Maybe thats what it is.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned - Romans 5:12
(Adam was the first to know God and he was the first to sin, more knew God after that and they all continued to sin just like Adam did as the first example, Jesus is the 2nd Adam because He is the 2nd example, the true example)

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. - Psalm 51:5
(My mother was sinful and conceived me and I was born with the same evolved instincts that caused me to sin).

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

This is called polygenesis and is a view that Catholics are not at liberty to hold to.

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. HUMANI GENERIS​

Papias knows this...

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Papias knows this...

That seems to be your new refrain lately, eh? "TEs know this!"

 

[mark kennedy]

That seems to be your new refrain lately, eh? "TEs know this!"

Guilty as charged...

 

[chris4243]

I think that before considering the story of Adam and Eve, it might help to consider the context first. The fossil record and evolution, and the order creation is said to have happened (also considering it would make little sense to create the mammals whale, bat, and cat on separate days) suggests that the story should not be taken literally. Interestingly, God saying "let there be..." and there was could be seen as supportive of something more like evolution (which naturally "lets there be" as God said) than direct design.

Then, there's the story of Adam and Eve, and then a description of a rather glorious society.

Then there's the Flood, but we know also from the fossil record and from the distinct lack of genetic bottlenecks 4,300 years ago that this can't be literally true either.

Given this context, I would not expect the story of Adam and Eve to be literally true either. Also genetic analysis of the paternally inherited Y chromosome and maternally inherited mitochondria suggest that our genetic "Adam" and "Eve" lived very far apart, and though I didn't check I also doubt there is a genetic bottleneck ~6,000 years ago in humans.

In any case, I was never too comfortable with the story because
1) if Adam and Eve did not know good and evil before eating of the tree, how could something they did in that state be condemned? And in any case I would think that knowing good and evil is a good thing, else how could evil be avoided?
2) I don't really think cursing the entire Earth and all of Adam's descendants is particularly appropriate for any sin, especially when God also tells others not to punish a son for the parent's sin. (Not that God doesn't have the authority to do this.)

I've read Genesis 1-3 repeatedly and talked to other people, but I'm afraid I have far more questions than answers. All I can say is that I'm certain the story must be metaphorical.

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

This is called polygenesis and is a view that Catholics are not at liberty to hold to.

Come on Mark, you know full well that the Catholic view of a literal, single, real, historical Adam is in no way polygenesis, and that Catholics are clear on both that and the rejection of polygenesis. I've described it many times, and your continued refusal to see that - even when the Pope himself says common descent of all life on earth is "virtually certain" shows that you either aren't listening over dozens of posts, or are an expert at the denial of evidence.

I've asked you over and over, but I'll ask again - do you finally see that the Pope has stated that commen descent (evolution of humans from microbes) is "virutally certain"?

Papias

 

[Mallon]

Ummmm... unless I misunderstood something, I'm pretty sure mark said that Catholics don't hold to polygenesis.

 

[Papias]

Yes Mallon, I was responding to that in my previous post - sorry it wasn't clear.

Mark refuses to understand that a real, historical, literal, single person Adam is fully consistent with evolution (inlcuding the evolution of humans from ancient apes). Because of that, Mark pretends that the real position of Catholicism against polygenism is somehow a statement that Catholics reject evolution - when of course that's not the case at all, even the Pope states that evolution of humans all the way from bacteria is "virtually certain".

Mallon, does that make sense? See how Mark is working to confuse things now?

Papias

 

[Research2]

My main question is how and when did sin enter the world?

At different times.

Note Romans 5: 13 -

''To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law''

- So sin was in the world long before Adam. If you read the previous verse the context is Adam, not Moses. Therefore the law, is the law given to Adam originally in the garden of Eden.

Pre-Adamites had already sinned before Adam.

This view above is not compatible with the theory of evolution though, since evolutionists believe in universal common descent, its only compatible with Old Earth Creationism.

 

[gluadys]

At different times.

Note Romans 5: 13 -

''To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law''

- So sin was in the world long before Adam. If you read the previous verse the context is Adam, not Moses. Therefore the law, is the law given to Adam originally in the garden of Eden.

To Paul, the "law" is the law given to Moses.

And if you read the following verse, Paul confirms this, for he explains that even though there was no law and no reckoning of sin, yet death reigned "from Adam to Moses" because, as he said previously, "sin was indeed in the world before the law."

So he is referring to the time from Adam to Moses as "before the law".

After all, even the book of Genesis is part of the law of Moses.

 

[Jazer]

I have recently adopted TE as my view on creation. I have yet to sort out the problems posed to this view by, the Garden of eden, the concept of original sin, and of course Adam and Eve, to my satisfaction. How do you guys understand these people, events and places in the context of both evolution, and Scripture. My main question is how and when did sin enter the world?

Science has an answer for this because science is close to maping out the whole human race using DNA. Adam and Eve were the first Hebrews. This period in time was the beginning of domesticated animals and man as a food producer. Science has done a lot of research and study on the transition of man from being a hunter gatherer to a food producer and the Bible sheds some light on this.

 

[hisgrace26]

How can the Gap theory be true if there was no sin until Adam?

Gap theorists would have to believe sin originated from Satan is that right? Wouldn't that contradict Romans 5:12? Can somebody explain this to me?

 

[Aman777]

How can the Gap theory be true if there was no sin until Adam?

Gap theorists would have to believe sin originated from Satan is that right? Wouldn't that contradict Romans 5:12? Can somebody explain this to me?

Dear Super, It's because the Gap Theory is UnScriptural and made up by men who cannot understand Genesis. Adam is the original sinner.

In Love,
Aman