Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Job 33:6]

I am referring to Genesis 2:7 - Then the Lord God formed man (ha-adam). All of Genesis 2 refers to "the man" - ha-adam. Genesis 3:17 refers to the same man as Adam, or "the first man" (ule-adam).

So you think that Adam was not the first man? Ok. Then let's pick another man, the actual first one, the one that's in Genesis 1 and not mentioned by name, and name him Adam, which literally means "the first man". Who was that Adam's grandma?

Ule Adam or Ha Adam is not Adams name. Adam is his name.

I think that Adam was the first to be elected or chosen by God for priestly roles. Adam doesn't mean "the first man". It just means man or mankind. You can add Hebrew words in. But just like in the english language, if your name is Olga for example, I wouldn't call you "the first olga". That's not how you say someones name.

 

[Job 33:6]

Heres how I would say it:

- All humanity (Genesis reference) are animals, but not all animals are humanity.
- All humanity are made in God's image.
- All other animals are not made in God's image.

I would agree here.

"If Adam was the first man (his name is literally "the first man"), then who was Adam's grandma? She could not have been made in God's image, because Adam was the first person made in God's image. So she was not a person. Agree?"

I would re-write this. If Adam was the first man, that is, the first chosen by God as His priestly representative, then who is Adams grandma?

Lucy may or may not have been made in Gods image, the text doesn't clarify if Lucy was human or not.

 

[olgamc]

If grandma was not in God's image, she could have still been homo sapien.

Fair. So not all homo sapiens are made in God's image?

I would start over and use the terms "human" as per the Bible. Imago dei or an image bearer. And homo sapien.

So human = homo sapien and image bearer. Correct?

And I wouldn't use the term "people" because it's not specific to the Bible or to science.

ok, let's use human instead

I'm fine disagreeing here. I've heard plenty refer to chapter 2 as day 6. Eve is created at the end of chapter 2, so people try to cram all of chapter 2 into day 6, which never occurs with teledoths.

Oh really? Ok, well, I am not one of those people. Bible clearly says that God looked at everything that He had made and said "this is very good" and then rested. He would not have looked at a sinful cursed world and said "this is very good". In fact, as soon as man sinned, God set off to work again, redeeming his perfect creation.

 

[olgamc]

Ule Adam or Ha Adam is not Adams name. Adam is his name.

I think that Adam was the first to be elected or chosen by God for priestly roles. Adam doesn't mean "the first man". It just means man or mankind. You can add Hebrew words in. But just like in the english language, if your name is Olga for example, I wouldn't call you "the first olga". That's not how you say someones name.

No, but you could call me Holy because that's what my name means and I wouldn't mind.

Look at the Hebrew for Adam - Genesis 3:17 Lexicon: Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

 

[olgamc]

Heres how I would say it:

- All humanity (Genesis reference) are animals, but not all animals are humanity.
- All humanity are made in God's image.
- All other animals are not made in God's image.

I would agree here.

"If Adam was the first man (his name is literally "the first man"), then who was Adam's grandma? She could not have been made in God's image, because Adam was the first person made in God's image. So she was not a person. Agree?"

I would re-write this. If Adam was the first man, that is, the first chosen by God as His priestly representative, then who is Adams grandma?

No, that's my point. Don't re-write this. Forget chapter 2 for a second. Let's talk about some other Adam, the one that was the first man created. We can later decide if that other Adam and Adam from chapter 2 is the same person. For now let's just focus on chapter 1.

So if chapter 1 Adam was the first member of humanity, then his grandma was not a member of humanity. True? (This is not in the Bible, this is just logic)

 

[Job 33:6]

I am referring to Genesis 2:7 - Then the Lord God formed man (ha-adam). All of Genesis 2 refers to "the man" - ha-adam. Genesis 3:17 refers to the same man as Adam, or "the first man" (ule-adam).

So you think that Adam was not the first man? Ok. Then let's pick another man, the actual first one, the one that's in Genesis 1 and not mentioned by name, and name him Adam, which literally means "the first man". Who was that Adam's grandma?

Ha Adam may refer to the person "Adam", but Ha-Adam is not actually saying Adams name. It's just the words for the-man.

It would be like me telling you a story about how Humanity and his wife Life were the in a garden. Their names mean other things that depending on how the words are used, aren't actually their names at all.

So if it says "The man", its not saying a personal name. "The Adam" is not a personal name. "Adam" is his name.

Just like Job is a name, but someone wouldn't call me "the Job". So Adams name is not "the first Adam". That's 3 different words.

 

[olgamc]

Ha Adam may refer to the person "Adam", but Ha-Adam is not actually saying Adams name. It's just the words for the-man.

It would be like me telling you a story about how Humanity and his wife Life were the in a garden. Their names mean other things that depending on how the words are used, aren't actually their names at all.

So if it says "The man", its not saying a personal name. "The Adam" is not a personal name. "Adam" is his name.

Just like Job is a name, but someone wouldn't call me "the Job". So Adams name is not "the first Adam". That's 3 different words.

Right. That's what the English translators tried to do with articles and capitalizations and such.
adam is translated as "man" or "mankind"
ha-adam is translated as "the man"
ule-adam means "the first man" and is translated as "Adam"

3 variations on the word adam, with 3 different meanings. Hence, chapter 1 talks about mankind in general. Chapter 2 talks about a specific man, the man. And chapter 3 talks about the same man as chapter 2, but it calls him "the first man". Until chapter 3 my Bible says "the man and his wife" - there are no names yet.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, but you could call me Holy because that's what my name means and I wouldn't mind.

Look at the Hebrew for Adam - Genesis 3:17 Lexicon: Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

Yea so, Adam means "mankind". So if it says God created Adam, its just saying that God created mankind.
But if the text says "The Adam" or "To Adam", its referring to a person, but its still not actually saying his name.
Then in other verses Adam actually is used as a name without the definite article.

Alright, I'm going to move on. "The Adam" is not a personal name, nor is "The first Adam". The word "Adam" is the name, and Adam alone.

Just like if my name was George, my name is just George. It's not "the George" nor is it "the first George". My name is just George.

 

[olgamc]

Yea so, Adam means "mankind". So if it says God created Adam, its just saying that God created mankind.

No!!! They are 3 different words. Just like your name is Grace, which means grace. Grace is a name of an actual person, grace is a concept. Adam is a name meaning "the first man". Man/mankind in English would be adam, no capital. But there is no word adam in english, which is why they English translation says man.

If it helps, think about Esau, Isaac and Abraham and why they had the names that they had.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right. That's what the English translators tried to do with articles and capitalizations and such.
adam is translated as "man" or "mankind"
ha-adam is translated as "the man"
ule-adam means "the first man" and is translated as "Adam"

3 variations on the word adam, with 3 different meanings. Hence, chapter 1 talks about mankind in general. Chapter 2 talks about a specific man, the man. And chapter 3 talks about the same man as chapter 2, but it calls him "the first man". Until chapter 3 my Bible says "the man and his wife" - there are no names yet.

Well yea, so the variation that refers to "Adam" as a personal name, is not the same variation as the word that refers to humanity more broadly.

Adam as a personal name is not equivalent to "The man". Grammatically they're just different.

You said:
"If Adam was the first man (his name is literally "the first man"),"

And I'm saying, his name doesn't mean "the first man", it just means "man".

Otherwise Genesis 1 would say that God created the first man in His image (and not Eve or anyone else).

Ok, I'll move on, I see what you mean that the word "Adam" is used in various ways and in some instances, grammatically its used to identify "the man", although I'm not aware of a verse that explicitly identifies Him as the first, unless you're talking about new testament verses.

 

[Job 33:6]

No!!! They are 3 different words. Just like your name is Grace, which means grace. Grace is a name of an actual person, grace is a concept. Adam is a name meaning "the first man". Man/mankind in English would be adam, no capital. But there is no word adam in english, which is why they English translation says man.

If it helps, think about Esau, Isaac and Abraham and why they had the names that they had.

man or mankind in English would be man or mankind. You mean in Hebrew? Yes, in Hebrew humanity would be "adam".

Adam means humanity, it does not mean "the first man".

 

[Job 33:6]

No, that's my point. Don't re-write this. Forget chapter 2 for a second. Let's talk about some other Adam, the one that was the first man created. We can later decide if that other Adam and Adam from chapter 2 is the same person. For now let's just focus on chapter 1.

So if chapter 1 Adam was the first member of humanity, then his grandma was not a member of humanity. True? (This is not in the Bible, this is just logic)

alright, I'm going to move on haha, I don't think the discussion on Adams name is particularly significant.

Ok, I'm forgetting chapter 2.

Chapter 1 doesn't say that Adam was the first member of humanity. Is this a hypothetical?

 

[olgamc]

Yea so, Adam means "mankind". So if it says God created Adam, its just saying that God created mankind.
But if the text says "The Adam" or "To Adam", its referring to a person, but its still not actually saying his name.
Then in other verses Adam actually is used as a name without the definite article.

Alright, I'm going to move on. "The Adam" is not a personal name, nor is "The first Adam". The word "Adam" is the name, and Adam alone.

Just like if my name was George, my name is just George. It's not "the George" nor is it "the first George". My name is just George.

Wait, I think we are saying the same thing.

Genesis 1 - talks about adam or man/mankind or humanity in general
Genesis 2 - talks about ha-adam or the man, a particular member of humanity
Genesis 3 - talks about ule-adam, or Adam, or "the first man". Just like Esau means "hairy" and Isaac means "he laughs" and Abraham means "father of nations".

The important point here about the name is that God is known to rename people. He renamed Abram to Abraham or "the father of nations". He renames Simon to Peter or "the rock". God puts a lot of emphasis on accurately naming people to reflect what they are.

 

[Job 33:6]

alright, I'm going to move on haha, I don't think the discussion on Adams name is particularly significant.

Ok, I'm forgetting chapter 2.

Chapter 1 doesn't say that Adam was the first member of humanity. Is this a hypothetical?

Ok, let me re-read this.

"if chapter 1, I'll lower case it to help, if chapter 1's adam, or human, was the first member of humanity.

Well, adam, in Genesis 1 is not a singular term. It would be like saying "If Chapter 1's humanity was the first member of humanity..."

 

[olgamc]

alright, I'm going to move on haha, I don't think the discussion on Adams name is particularly significant.

Ok, I'm forgetting chapter 2.

Chapter 1 doesn't say that Adam was the first member of humanity. Is this a hypothetical?

Yes. Of all of humanity made in day 1, let's pick the first person and call him Adam. Oh forget it, call him George if you wish. LOL

So George is the first human that ever lived. George, by definition of human, is a homo sapiens and an image bearer. Are we on the same page now? LOL

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, so my hypothetical hat is on. All of humanity is made in day 1, got it.

The first person, lets call him George. Got it.

Ok so, let me pause here. When I read "God created mankind in His image", I do not think of this as um...the beginning of someones life.

So I would not say that George was the first person that ever lived, even if he was the first person created in Gods image.

Remember, when I hear "God created", I'm thinking something ex nihilo or supernatural. Like "Elected", God Elected humanity.

So here is what your thoughts sound like to me:

All humanity was elected in day 1. Lets pick the first person and call him George. So George was the first person who ever lived...

wait wait...

Do you see why that sounds strange to me? Election is not the same thing as biological living and breathing. So which do you mean?

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes. Of all of humanity made in day 1, let's pick the first person and call him Adam. Oh forget it, call him George if you wish. LOL

So George is the first human that ever lived. George, by definition of human, is a homo sapiens and an image bearer. Are we on the same page now? LOL

Election is not the same thing as biological living and breathing. So which do you mean?

So when you say "God made humanity", my perspective is that you are talking about something non-material. You're talking about something supernatural.

Just like when Jesus saves someone. A person is born again but scientifically nothing actually happens.

So When God "Made" humanity, I don't see that as equivalent to people coming to life in a biological sense.

And so we have to clarify this before I'm able to follow your train of thought.

 

[Job 33:6]

Election is not the same thing as biological living and breathing. So which do you mean?

So when you say "God made humanity", my perspective is that you are talking about something non-material. You're talking about something supernatural.

Just like when Jesus saves someone. A person is born again but scientifically nothing actually happens.

So When God "Made" humanity, I don't see that as equivalent to people coming to life in a biological sense.

And so we have to clarify this before I'm able to follow your train of thought.

And to clarify, the passage says that God made humanity in His image. But the text never actually says anything about how that happened. It doesn't say that God made people out of clay or out of chemical molecules, or through evolution or anything. The text gives no information about that.

It just says plainly, mankind was made in His image. And that was it. It doesn't actually specific a materialistic manufacturing occurrence. And if we look at a concordance for the word "made" or "created", that term means all sorts of things throughout the Bible.

Strong's Hebrew: 6213. עָשָׂה (asah) -- accomplish

Produce, Prepare, make a name for, attend to, aquire, appoint (like priests), use etc.

Imagine if it was translated as: and God said "Let us appoint mankind in our Image".

Imagine how differently we would think about that passage.

 

[olgamc]

Election is not the same thing as biological living and breathing. So which do you mean?

I don't see created as elected. Elected is elected. LOL But ok, if you see created as elected, then when was humanity created? And it's both biological and spiritual. In order for someone to be saved, or to become a new creation, someone has to exist biologically. Same with elected.

Would you agree that all animals, including homo sapiens, where biologically created on day 6? (I am not meaning literal 24 hour day, just day as a period). I think we agree here.

Ok, so then something supernatural happens and an animal becomes a person. So the status of an image bearer is given to him. Could have happened to one man, could have happened to many, it doesn't matter. The point is - one moment there are no image bearers, and the next moment there is at least one. Right? Ok, pick one individual from the crowd of these initial image bearers, and call him George.

 

[olgamc]

Imagine if it was translated as: and God said "Let us appoint mankind in our Image".

Sure. But it doesn't, because you can't appoint a look-alike if it doesn't look like you. It has to look like you first. And if you are God, you have to first make them look like you before you can appoint them as look-alikes.