Any Christians believe in macroevolution?

[nebulaJP]

UPDATE - NEW TOPIC: Were the authors of the books of the Bible that follow the book of Genesis literalists with regard to the Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel and Noah stories in Genesis or did the authors of post-Genesis books consider these particular stories allegory/fiction?

A. The authors believed these stories in Genesis had literally happened.

B. The authors believed these stories in Genesis were allegory/fiction.

C. Other due to (insert comment here).

Note: In order to keep replies shorter please only quote the individual verses you are commenting on, if any. Thanks.

NASB:

1 Chronicles 1:1-27
(Genealogy from Adam to Abraham)

Luke 3:23-38
(Genealogy from Adam to Jesus)

Job 31:33

“Have I covered my transgressions like Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,

Hosea 6:7

But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

Romans 5:14

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45

So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Jude 1:14

It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “ Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,

1 Timothy 2:13

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

1 Timothy 2:14

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

2 Corinthians 11:3

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

1 John 3:12

not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous.

Jude 1:11

Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

Hebrews 11:4

By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.

Hebrews 12:24

and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Matthew 23:35

so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Luke 11:51

from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.’

Isaiah 54:9

“For this is like the days of Noah to Me, When I swore that the waters of Noah Would not flood the earth again; So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you Nor will I rebuke you.

Ezekiel 14:14

even though these three men, Noah, Daniel and Job were in its midst, by their own righteousness they could only deliver themselves,” declares the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 14:20

even though Noah, Daniel and Job were in its midst, as I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “they could not deliver either their son or their daughter. They would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.”

Matthew 24:37

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.

Matthew 24:38

For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

Luke 17:26

And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:

Luke 17:27

they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Hebrews 11:7

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

1 Peter 3:20

who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

2 Peter 2:5

and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

 

[Incariol]

If you are a Christian who believes, as I do, that our species evolved from earlier hominid species, how do you reconcile this belief with your Christian faith?

Fairly easily.

It is generally agreed that anatomically modern homo sapiens originated in Africa about 200, 000 years ago. Conversely, it can be inferred from the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23 - 28 that Adam and Eve are purported to have lived about 6,000 years ago.

It seems to me that if macroevolution is our origin, a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve cannot be true. And to me, if the story of Adam and Eve is untrue in a literal sense, Christianity falls apart.

These are the types of questions I have when I accept that the story of Adam and Eve is untrue.

At what point in our evolution did we get an immaterial soul that is capable of living on after the death of the body? Do only members of "homo sapiens" get souls? What about other hominid species that buried their dead, wore clothes, used tools, had the ability of speech, cooked their food, etc.? If these other intelligent hominid species had immaterial souls capable of living beyond the death of the body, does that mean that intelligent species who are not of the homo genus (dolphins for example) get an afterlife as well?

When did Sin enter the world and who committed the first sin? Was it an individual homo sapiens or was he or she of another hominid species? What was the nature of this sin and how would the hominid who committed it know that he or she was committing the Original Sin, causing the Fall of Man and so on. Wouldn't this be unfair? If "sin" is a completely made up concept, as I believe it is, then why did Jesus sacrifice himself on a cross?

 

[nebulaJP]

Fairly easily.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Jase]

If you are a Christian who believes, as I do, that our species evolved from earlier hominid species, how do you reconcile this belief with your Christian faith?

What's there to reconcile really? Genesis is not intended to be scientifically accurate. It's an ancient theological Jewish story, not a book on Quantum Mechanics and Evolutionary Theory.

It is generally agreed that anatomically modern homo sapiens originated in Africa about 200, 000 years ago. Conversely, it can be inferred from the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23 - 28 that Adam and Eve are purported to have lived about 6,000 years ago.

Doesn't mean the geneologies are accurate or complete. Or that they were ever intended to be literal.

It seems to me that if macroevolution is our origin, a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve cannot be true. And to me, if the story of Adam and Eve is untrue in a literal sense, Christianity falls apart.

How so? Adam is Hebrew for mankind. Why can't Adam and Eve represent all of humanity, and that homo sapien is God's pinnacle creation on this planet? Jews have been taking Genesis allegorically for centuries. Not sure why so many Christians have trouble grasping reality. Even Saint Augustine warned Christians against claiming Genesis was literal in the face of evidence against a literal view. It makes Christianity look ridiculous.

At what point in our evolution did we get an immaterial soul that is capable of living on after the death of the body?

Obviously only God knows that answer. Maybe he bestowed the first homo sapiens with it, but didn't bestow any of our other biological ancestors.

Do only members of "homo sapiens" get souls? What about other hominid species that buried their dead, wore clothes, used tools, had the ability of speech, cooked their food, etc.? If these other intelligent hominid species had immaterial souls capable of living beyond the death of their bodies, does that mean that intelligent species who are not of the homo genus (dolphins for example) get an afterlife as well?

Some people argue that animals will be in the afterlife. We have no clue, but I'm not sure why it's necessarily relevant. At some point during human evolution, God bestowed our species with a soul, rationality, logic, and intelligence. Our species was therefore made in God's image.

When did Sin enter the world and who committed the first sin?

Well, sin is a transgression against God. One would need to know what going against God means to commit a sin. So whoever the first human was that God spoke to and gave instructions would be the first capable of sinning.

Was it an individual homo sapiens or was he or she of another hominid species? What was the nature of this sin and how would the hominid who committed it know that he or she was committing the Original Sin, causing the Fall of Man and so on. Wouldn't this be unfair? If "sin" is a completely made up concept, as I believe it is, then why did Jesus sacrifice himself on a cross?

I don't believe in Original Sin. It doesn't exist in the Old Testament, and arguably doesn't exist in the New. Augustine was the one who essentially created that doctrine. It doesn't exist in Judaism.

We have free will, meaning all of us are at some point going to do something God doesn't like. Therefore, all of us sin and must be redeemed. Who the first sinner was is irrelevant.

 

[Jazer]

Fairly easily.

Rom 5 12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--" We know that the wages of sin is death. That does not mean there was no death in the world before Adam, there was no sin in the world before Adam. Adam and Eve were historical people that lived 6000 years ago. Clearly we know that there was death in the world before 6,000 years ago.

 

[Jazer]

Doesn't mean the geneologies are accurate or complete. Or that they were ever intended to be literal.

The experts say the geneologies are literal and complete. People that do not know what they are talking about that have studied it for maybe all of 5 min may say otherwise. Also science and what we know about the neolithic revolution would verifiy that the geneologies are literal and complete. In fact I do not know of any geneologies anywhere that have been falsified by DNA research. That is one of the number one hobbies right now and a LOT of people put a LOT of time, effort and energy into it. In my family we have incredible detailed geneologies going back to 800AD. The Bible has the geneologies going back to Adam 6000 years ago.

 

[nebulaJP]

Doesn't mean the geneologies are accurate or complete. Or that they were ever intended to be literal.

Jase, thanks for the reply. If this genealogy of Jesus in Luke is inaccurate, incomplete and not meant to be taken literally why do you believe anything else about Jesus in the New Testament is?

 

[Jase]

Jase, thanks for the reply. If this genealogy of Jesus in Luke is inaccurate, incomplete and not meant to be taken literally why do you believe anything else about Jesus in the New Testament is?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? The geneologies can be inaccurate, or maybe based on some fictional characters while Jesus and the Apostles were still real. I think the rise of Christianity and the testament of some of Jesus' followers is sufficient for me anyway, to believe in him. That which I can't prove, I take on faith.

However, the Genesis geneologies vary depending on which text your using. The Masoretic, Samaritan, and Septuagint have inconsitencies in their dates of the Genesis geneology. Most Christians are only familiar with the Masoretic version, since that's what modern Bible's are based off of. Adam could certainly be a representation of mankind and still fit in Jesus' geneology - indicating Jesus is part of mankind, and his mission is to save humanity.

 

[nebulaJP]

Jazer, do you believe in a literal interpretation of Adam's creation? Was Adam created through macroevolution or directly by God? If Adam was created directly by God, were there already other homo sapiens on the planet at the time that were created through macroevolution?

 

[nebulaJP]

Why is it an all or nothing proposition?

It doesn't have to be but it is for me personally with so much of the Bible being allegorical or misleading.

For example, it looks like a real genealogy, but you're saying it may be made of fictional characters. God, Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, David, Nathan, Joseph, Judah, Levi, Mary and (Joseph) are all in the genealogy leading up to Jesus. These are fictional characters? At what point in history do the characters get fictional? Was Seth real? If so, who was his father? Not Adam, the abstract representation of mankind, right?

 

[Jazer]

Jazer, do you believe in a literal interpretation of Adam's creation? Was Adam created through macroevolution or directly by God? If Adam was created directly by God, were there already other homo sapiens on the planet at the time that were created through macroevolution?

The Adam we are talking about is the Adam in Ch 2. of Genesis [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. I do not see any referance to time in this passage. It could have taken God millions or billions of years to form man out of the ground. Although I think it is the breath of life and the living soul that makes man different in the age or era we live in now. I do not believe in "macro" evolution. God knows the end from the begining and He has a plan. Life is not random, an accident, error or based on mutations. Theistic Evolution seems to be growing. More and more people are willing to accept that maybe God used Evolution to create man. [/FONT]

 

[nebulaJP]

Jazer, if you believed in Theistic Evolution, would you say that Genesis 3:20 is untrue? "Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living" (NASB)

 

[Jazer]

Jazer, if you believed in Theistic Evolution, would you say that Genesis 3:20 is untrue? "Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living" (NASB)

The words "of all" is not in the origional Hebrew text. They were added because just the words "mother" and "living" does not make any sense. They were very liberal to add the word "all" when it was not in the origional Hebrew. We know that Eve was the mother of the Hebrew people. We have the geneologys, so we know exactly who she was the mother of. Science has their own Eve and that is different from the Eve in the Bible.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (5752) (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. [/FONT]

 

[nebulaJP]

The words "of all" is not in the origional Hebrew text. They were added because just the words "mother" and "living" does not make any sense. They were very liberal to add the word "all" when it was not in the origional Hebrew. We know that Eve was the mother of the Hebrew people. We have the geneologys, so we know exactly who she was the mother of. Science has their own Eve and that is different from the Eve in the Bible.

If "mother living" doesn't make sense then why would it be in the Bible and why refer to the Hebrew people as the "living?" Why not the "chosen" to differentiate them from Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Canaanites, Persians or Syrians? "Living" kind of has the connotation of people who are alive.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are a Christian who believes, as I do, that our species evolved from earlier hominid species, how do you reconcile this belief with your Christian faith?

It is generally agreed that anatomically modern homo sapiens originated in Africa about 200, 000 years ago. Conversely, it can be inferred from the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23 - 28 that Adam and Eve are purported to have lived about 6,000 years ago.

It seems to me that if macroevolution is our origin, a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve cannot be true. And to me, if the story of Adam and Eve is untrue in a literal sense, Christianity falls apart.

These are the types of questions I have when I accept that the story of Adam and Eve is untrue:

At what point in our evolution did we get an immaterial soul that is capable of living on after the death of the body? Do only members of "homo sapiens" get souls? What about other hominid species that buried their dead, wore clothes, used tools, had the ability of speech, cooked their food, etc.? If these other intelligent hominid species had immaterial souls capable of living beyond the death of their bodies, does that mean that intelligent species who are not of the homo genus (dolphins for example) get an afterlife as well?

When did Sin enter the world and who committed the first sin? Was it an individual homo sapiens or was he or she of another hominid species? What was the nature of this sin and how would the hominid who committed it know that he or she was committing the Original Sin, causing the Fall of Man and so on. Wouldn't this be unfair? If "sin" is a completely made up concept, as I believe it is, then why did Jesus sacrifice himself on a cross?

Good questions --

 

[AlexBP]

At what point in our evolution did we get an immaterial soul that is capable of living on after the death of the body? Do only members of "homo sapiens" get souls? What about other hominid species that buried their dead, wore clothes, used tools, had the ability of speech, cooked their food, etc.? If these other intelligent hominid species had immaterial souls capable of living beyond the death of their bodies, does that mean that intelligent species who are not of the homo genus (dolphins for example) get an afterlife as well?

When did Sin enter the world and who committed the first sin? Was it an individual homo sapiens or was he or she of another hominid species? What was the nature of this sin and how would the hominid who committed it know that he or she was committing the Original Sin, causing the Fall of Man and so on. Wouldn't this be unfair? If "sin" is a completely made up concept, as I believe it is, then why did Jesus sacrifice himself on a cross?

I do not know the answer to these questions. I instead approach the issue of immortal souls and original sin in this way. We humans can look at our closest neighbors on the evolutionary tree: chimpanzees and gorillas and the like. We can see that they are purely animals. They have no ability to think and no moral sense, and hence it would be meaningless to praise or blame them for anything that they do. Humans beings, and the other hand, can think and have a moral sense, so one can rationally praise of human for ding something right and blame a human for doing something wrong. If we find that all human beings (except small children) do things which are morally wrong, then that is original sin. G. K. Chesterton gave an alternate phrasing of the idea in this essay:

Lastly, there is a word to be said about the Fall. It can only be a word, and it is this. Without the doctrine of the Fall all idea of progress is unmeaning. Mr. Blatchford says that there was not a Fall but a gradual rise. But the very word "rise" implies that you know toward what you are rising. Unless there is a standard you cannot tell whether you are rising or falling. But the main point is that the Fall like every other large path of Christianity is embodied in the common language talked on the top of an omnibus. Anybody might say, "Very few men are really Manly." Nobody would say, "Very few whales are really whaley." If you wanted to dissuade a man from drinking his tenth whisky you would slap him on the back and say, "Be a man." No one who wished to dissuade a crocodile from eating his tenth explorer would slap it on the back and say, "Be a crocodile." For we have no notion of a perfect crocodile; no allegory of a whale expelled from his whaley Eden.
​

So if you ask me the precise date and manner in which our caveman ancestors crossed over from the animal mode of existence to the human mode, I can't give you any answer, but it doesn't trouble me. After all, we can do multiplication and no animal can. The fact that I don't know the precise date at which our caveman ancestors started doing multiplication doesn't put into doubt the result of two times two.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if you ask me the precise date and manner in which our caveman ancestors crossed over from the animal mode of existence to the human mode, I can't give you any answer, but it doesn't trouble me.

So we're mutant copy errors, made in the image and likeness of God?

 

[Mikecpking]

If you are a Christian who believes, as I do, that our species evolved from earlier hominid species, how do you reconcile this belief with your Christian faith?

Simple, really. A belief in macro-evolution as a Christian shows me 'how' God created man, all the species and common decnt that there are shed loads of evidence for. Interestingly, the bible calls all animals and humans "nephesh" and all are formed from dust, all have ruach-breath in them. So, essentially, humans and animals are made from the same 'stuff', so to speak. What is different about humans and animals is what AV stated correctly is 'image'. That means at some point in history (for me) is that there was a kind of prehistoric pentecost where God's image was recieved. So, attributes like spirituality, creativity, moral choices came into being.

It is generally agreed that anatomically modern homo sapiens originated in Africa about 200, 000 years ago. Conversely, it can be inferred from the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23 - 28 that Adam and Eve are purported to have lived about 6,000 years ago.

It seems to me that if macroevolution is our origin, a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve cannot be true. And to me, if the story of Adam and Eve is untrue in a literal sense, Christianity falls apart.

These are the types of questions I have when I accept that the story of Adam and Eve is untrue:

At what point in our evolution did we get an immaterial soul that is capable of living on after the death of the body? Do only members of "homo sapiens" get souls? What about other hominid species that buried their dead, wore clothes, used tools, had the ability of speech, cooked their food, etc.? If these other intelligent hominid species had immaterial souls capable of living beyond the death of their bodies, does that mean that intelligent species who are not of the homo genus (dolphins for example) get an afterlife as well?

Actually, the idea of getting a 'soul' is not biblical. The bible states both humans and animals are souls (Gen 2;7, 2:19). Also the notion that people having an immaterial soul is simply not found anywhere in scripture. The bible speaks about a resurrection, not immortality of the soul.

When did Sin enter the world and who committed the first sin? Was it an individual homo sapiens or was he or she of another hominid species? What was the nature of this sin and how would the hominid who committed it know that he or she was committing the Original Sin, causing the Fall of Man and so on. Wouldn't this be unfair? If "sin" is a completely made up concept, as I believe it is, then why did Jesus sacrifice himself on a cross?

At some point, there was a point where the relationship between God and man broke down. There is good evidence that Adam could have been a neolithic farmer. Here is an intersting link:

Denis Alexander « A Faith To Live By

Also, if you can find the publication:

EKV Pearce 'Who was Adam?' Paternoster 1969.

 

[nebulaJP]

We can see that they are purely animals. They have no ability to think and no moral sense, and hence it would be meaningless to praise or blame them for anything that they do.

The problem I have with the idea that we wouldn't know right from wrong without God or our humanity or our souls comes from observing my cat. She is 18 years old, 6 & 1/2 pounds, very intelligent and adorable. When we're playing, I touch her and she tries to scratch my hand before I can pull it away. She seems to know there are boundaries when playing this game; she would never swipe at my FACE for example. Even when she does scratch me on my hand or forearm, she makes sure not to scratch me too hard (although I have had visible scratch marks from this game!). She knows there is a limit to how deep she can claw into my skin (not very!). When I'm laying on my couch watching TV she is usually resting right beside me with her head less than a foot from mine. I have never been afraid that my cat, with her sharp claws, would scratch me in the eye in an attempt to start a game. She knows that the proper way to start a game is to swipe at my arm with her paw, nails retracted. She also knows that it is unacceptable to lick my food when I'm out of the room but she does anyway (Grrr!).

She seems to know the principles or rules of right conduct and make the distinction between right and wrong very well. In other words, she seems to have morality. This leads me to believe that any animal with a large enough brain can figure out the golden rule through extrapolation (although my cat probably doesn't think about it in those terms!). I reckon my cat, using her apparent, feline version of common sense, knows that she wouldn't appreciate me scratching her eye out and thus refrains from doing this to me (thankfully!).

After all, we can do multiplication and no animal can.

Agreed but many animals can add or subtract. For articles about it Google: Can Animals Do Math, no quotation marks.

 

[Jase]

It doesn't have to be but it is for me personally with so much of the Bible being allegorical or misleading.

For example, it looks like a real genealogy, but you're saying it may be made of fictional characters. God, Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, David, Nathan, Joseph, Judah, Levi, Mary and (Joseph) are all in the genealogy leading up to Jesus. These are fictional characters? At what point in history do the characters get fictional? Was Seth real? If so, who was his father? Not Adam, the abstract representation of mankind, right?

Well, part of the problem is you're looking at the Bible as a singular book. It's not, it's dozens of books, that originally had no page or verse numbers. Each book stands on its own merits.

I believe Abraham was a real person. Seth and Noah may have existed or been based on real people, although I'm not sure I agree Seth was the son of the first 2 humans on Earth. There are many supposed historical figures we can't prove ever existed. We just don't have the evidence to claim an answer either way.