Evolution and Evil

[Job 33:6]

They were certainly in the genus Homo, which is who biologists consider human. My personal take, based on the genetics and apparently frequent interbreeding, is that they are a biological race of H. sapiens, with us as a second race. There were at least two other races, according to this view, one being Denisovans and one as of yet unidentified. But it's not the view of every scientist in the discipline.

My thought is that Adam and Eve were archaic H. sapiens or possibly H. erectus (a species pretty much identical to H. sapiens in postcranial anatomy), and that a number of races descended from that ancestral pair of humans.

I think this is fine, scientifically. But one of the reasons I wouldn't think of Adam and Eve as including the other various homo species, is that Genesis, even the earliest parts of Genesis, contain verses about things like pipes, tents, string instruments, tools of bronze and iron, domesticated livestock etc., right there in Chapter 4 alongside Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel.

However, Homo Erectus dates back, something like 100+ thousand years ago, going back to something like 2 million years ago.

I prefer something like, Adam and Eve being supernaturally chosen, or elected in a sense. That way we can hold onto the typical timeline of various hominid species, while also not having to worry about bronze or iron tools millions of years ago.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think this is fine, scientifically. But one of the reasons I wouldn't think of Adam and Eve as including the other various homo species, is that Genesis, even the earliest parts of Genesis, contain verses about things like pipes, tents, string instruments, tools of bronze and iron, domesticated livestock etc., right there in Chapter 4 alongside Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel.

However, Homo Erectus dates back, something like 100+ thousand years ago, going back to something like 2 million years ago.

I prefer something like, Adam and Eve being supernaturally chosen, or elected in a sense. That way we can hold onto the typical timeline of various hominid species, while also not having to worry about bronze or iron tools millions of years ago.

That's certainly possible, and not inconsistent with scripture. And while it might be possible to have technology somehow speeded up, Able was a herdsman, and since domestic sheep would have to evolve over time...

 

[The Barbarian]

However, Homo Erectus dates back, something like 100+ thousand years ago, going back to something like 2 million years ago.

Yes. The point is, that it's really difficult, if not impossible to tell very late H. erectus from archaic H. sapiens. So maybe 100,000 years ago.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes. The point is, that it's really difficult, if not impossible to tell very late H. erectus from archaic H. sapiens. So maybe 100,000 years ago.

Here is another question. If we know that much of these narratives do not match scientific concepts. Age of the earth, the flood being global or, ancient cosmology in general. Why bother trying to make Adam align with something like this?

A few observations:
-Adam and Eve are never mentioned in Genesis chapter 1, so we aren't sure if they even would be the first people in the Bible.

-issues of incest of they are literal historical people.

-All people in the OT are made of dust. So it is not as though the Bible is telling us something about biology or Adam to begin with.

Context is ANE which doesn't correlate well with science:
-The iron age more closely aligns with the time of Moses, probably not coincidentally thought to be the author of Genesis

-the literary introductions of Genesis 1+2, and the genre and background of these stories, match up quite nicely with things like the epic of Gilgamesh or Egyptians creation stories. About 4,000 years old.

-ancient cultures that share the same cultural background, also are relatively young. Egyptian creation texts that align with Genesis also date back to some 4,000 BC.

____
With these concepts not aligning with science, why not presume Adam and Eve not to align with science as well? Even if we moved them up to 4,000 BC, I don't think that it would change much, theologically.

Ultimately, it seems to be a pretty complicated. It may be easier to conclude them to be non-historical such as in views presented by Tremper Longman III.

Tremper Longman Responds to Justin Taylor on the Historicity of Adam

Today’s guest post is from Tremper Longman III, who is the Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College. Dr. Longman recently filmed some courses for Logos Mobile Ed, and we had a chance to chat with him about the historicity of Adam. In 2009, Justin Taylor on The Gospel...

www.logos.com