Explaining the fall of man through evolution

[Eluzai]

I'd realy like some help on this topic. I have a friend who's not a Christian and she completely believes evolution I have talked to her about creation but she doesn't realy seem to be open to it at all and that's ok.

But she has has asks realy awkward questions like: "When did the fall of man happen?" and these problems with evolution are making it hard for her to believe the Bible.

I have real problems explaining this and no evolution believing Christians I know can either.

Basically could someone please explain when the fall was? Were we homosapiens or what? When does genesis stop being a metaphor and become literal? How does that effect the inerrancy of scripture? When did we become concious (like Adam and Eve - if they existed) or were neadathals (sp?) concious or are all animals concious?

These questions might sound silly, but I realy don't understand how it all fits together. Thanks for any help

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What does it mean to be human?
How do you answer the question?

If you believe that Scripture is God's Word to humanity, then certain things need to be studied.
What does it mean to be made in the image of God?
What is the meaning of God's inbreathing of Adam? is this the same as ensoulment?

Christianity is ontologically dualist, meaning that we see man as the union of two elements that can not be reduced into the other, physical and spiritual. It is in our soul that we are made in the image of God, not our physical body, as God is spirit only. Our soul is made to be in fellowship with God, this is the takehome message of Adam and Eve. The inbreathing of God was the capacity to be related to, to be aware of God as a Person in an analogous manner that we are aware of other people.
I believe that a crucial difference between a liberal and conservative viewpoint of Scripture is the historicity of Adam, most liberals would see Adam as mythological or eponymous. Most conservatives would assert the historicity of Adam as a single real human being, in our space and time. If you hold to a high, inspired, authoritative, reliable Scripture then i think you find the doctrine of federal headship and the paralleliness of Adam and Christ as first and last Man requires this view of Adam. As such the argument becomes who was he and when was he?

The problem is making Adam the physical or genetic founder of the human race. I think the solution is to make Adam the genetic founder of the race -- Noah, Abram, Moses, David and most importantly Jesus. If so then a date of 10K ago for Adam is not a problem scientifically. And a date of 'image of God as mankind' of 250K or older is not a problem. God simply did not begin the covenant with humanity until 10K years ago. In this case, Adam is the first man in contact with God.

i see no significant problems with this and science or theology, except the doctrine that Adam was the founder of the human race, rather than the Hebrew race.

 

[Vance]

My thought is that there are a number of possibilities consistent with a theistic evolutionary point of view, any one of which would answer the question, but that it is impossible to know which it is until we get to heaven. The point is that we do not need to know the exact time or manner of the "Fall", only that as a result Man is no longer innately spiritually alive and in communion with God due to our selfish (sinful) nature. Thus, we need redemption, which God has provided in the form of His Son.

First, it could be that at some point (unknown), God chose from among humanity (or created separately) a literal Man and breathed a soul into him, thus giving him spiritual life, along with the free will to be able to choose to continue in that life, or to disobey God (resulting in spiritual death, loss of communion with God). This literal Adam could have then, along with a literal Eve, have been the exemplar of all humanity since all of us would have done the same thing.

Second, Adam and Eve could be "types" for all humanity at the time, and the events described in Genesis 2 would be non-literal explanations of actual, literal events. God breathed into ALL humanity (one translation of Adam is actually humanity), who lived in communion with in a Garden-like setting until their selfish nature overwhelmed them and they began to reject God's instructions for their own pride and pleasure. They were all thus turned out of the "garden" and forced to work incredibly hard as farmers and herders. This approach has an interesting angle in that we now know that the paleolithic man (before the neolithic revolution of farming, herding and fixed towns or cities), rather than living lives that were "nasty, brutish and short" actually were healthier, taller, stronger, and lived longer with almost no disease, plague or famine, and with a LOT more leisure time. This, according to most experts, was because they were in a solid balance with nature and the wild foods (animal and non-animal) were in sufficient abundance to allow for this lifestyle. Archaelogists and anthropologists believe that it would have taken some major motivation to cause them to abandon this lifestyle for the seeming "progress" of farming/herding, but they really don't have any consensus on what this "cause" really is. When Man is ejected from the Garden, God tells Man that he will have to work MUCH harder to eat, and Cain and Abel were described as a farmer and a herder. Cain also was described as founding a city. Just something to think about.

Third, God could have built into the evolutionary process a point in time when Man reached the critical mass when this communion with God was possible (with the breathing into Man being an allegory for God having created the entire process to lead to this point).

Which of these could it be? Are there more possibilites? Does it matter?

We know that what is important is that Man is sinful by nature, which prevents us from being in communion with God, and thus we are spiritually dead. We need a method of removing that sin so that we can regain spiritual life, and this can ONLY be done through the salvation power of Jesus' sacrifice.

 

[Eluzai]

So at somepoint in the past we were living on earth with a perfect relationship with God and then we decided to turn away from Him? Is the snake none existant or does it represent satan?

Also why did God put the Adam and Eve story into the Bible if He could just have said what you are saying straight forward and without the apple...?

 

[Vance]

So at somepoint in the past we were living on earth with a perfect relationship with God and then we decided to turn away from Him? Is the snake none existant or does it represent satan?

Also why did God put the Adam and Eve story into the Bible if He could just have said what you are saying straight forward and without the apple...?

Why write Aesop's fables rather than just tell the moral directly?

(and no, this does not mean the Bible is just a "fable", but is meant to show that the straightforward telling of a truth is not always the most effective way of conveying a powerful message).

I think if one of these scenarios is true, the way God wrote Genesis is actually a very effective method of conveying the truths of what happened. People relate more directly to events effecting individuals rather than groups, which is why typological stories, using types and symbols, are so effective.

 

[Micaiah]

So at somepoint in the past we were living on earth with a perfect relationship with God and then we decided to turn away from Him? Is the snake none existant or does it represent satan?

Also why did God put the Adam and Eve story into the Bible if He could just have said what you are saying straight forward and without the apple...?

You are relatively new to this forum from what I can see. You should be aware if you are not already that much of the debate is between those who believe that Genesis is an historical record of Creation and those who claim it is intended as allegory, or metaphor.

The writers of the Bible clearly intended and understood Genesis 1 and 2 to be understood as a record of real events and real people. A quick read of the chapter will show that it is in direct conflict with the theory of evolution. The only way it can be reconciled with evolution is to claim that it is not intended to be interpreted literally.

I'd realy like some help on this topic. I have a friend who's not a Christian and she completely believes evolution I have talked to her about creation but she doesn't realy seem to be open to it at all and that's ok.
But she has has asks realy awkward questions like: "When did the fall of man happen?" and these problems with evolution are making it hard for her to believe the Bible.

I have real problems explaining this and no evolution believing Christians I know can either.

Basically could someone please explain when the fall was?

The fall happened about six thousand years ago. This was established by a number of Christian scholars and scientists including Kepler after a review of the genealogies recorded in Scripture.

You can find many discussion about the history of the earth here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/history.asp

One of Ussher’s many projects was the writing, in Latin, of a history of the world covering every major event from the time of creation to AD 70. He published this 1600-page tome in Latin in 1650. An English translation was published in 1658, two years after his death.1
In preparing this work, Ussher first made the assumption that the Bible was the only reliable source document of chronological information for the time periods covered in the Bible. In fact, before the Persian Empire, very little is known about Greek, Roman, and Egyptian history, or the history of other nations. Much rests on speculation and myths. Dates in secular history become more certain with the founding of the Medo-Persian Empire (c. 540 BC).
For events before this time, Ussher relied solely on the data from the Bible to erect his historical framework. He chose the death of Nebuchadnezzar as a reliable date from which to anchor all the earlier biblical dates. Hence, working backward from that date, he ended up with his date for creation of 23
October 4004 BC.

taken from here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/archbishop.asp

Were we homosapiens or what?

No. The Bible teaches God created Adam and Eve from the dust of the ground. They were created in His image, and were the first people on earth.

Genesis 2
7And 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 being.

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23And Adam said:

"This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."

When does genesis stop being a metaphor and become literal?

Genesis is an historical record of real people and real events. It should all be interpreted literally as opposed to allegorically or symbolically. Have a look at the thread I started here http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10326628&posted=1 that deals with this in detail.

How does that effect the inerrancy of scripture?

Those who accept the historicity of Genesis do so because they accept the infallibility of the Scriptures. ie. we can trust the plain assertions of Scripture whether about science, history, or salvation, because they are inspired by God.

When did we become concious (like Adam and Eve - if they existed) or were neadathals (sp?) concious or are all animals concious?

Adam became conscious when God breathed life into his body.

You can find many discussions about Neandertals here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp

These questions might sound silly, but I realy don't understand how it all fits together. Thanks for any help

If you accept what Scripture plainly asserts, the questions are easy to answer, as you can see. I understand your confusion when you try to reconcile Scripture with some of the current scientific theories such as evolution.

Creation scientists have worked hard with little relatively little resources to demonstrate that when properly interpretted, the scientific evidence accords with what Scripture plainly asserts. You will find discussions on many aspects of science in this website. Answer In Genesis is a Christian organisation run by men who are well qualified scientifically, and who have a strong belief that the Scriptures are indeed the inspired word of God.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

 

[Vance]

Eluzai:

You can see that Micaiah is right, the question comes down to whether you believe that Genesis 1 and 2 must be literal, or can be read non-literally (the way many in the Church read Song of Solomon as an allegory for Christ and the Church, rather than straightforwardly, as a sensual love poem).

While most Christians accept that it can, and should, be read non-literally, there is a growing movement among evangelical fundamentalists toward literalism and, thus, YEC'ism. In your own country, however, the ministers and priests are solidly in favor of a non-literal reading, with 98% believing that Adam and Eve were not literal.

 

[Micaiah]

I, like many other Christians believe that we should interpret the Scriptures as the author plainly intended for them to be interpreted. The last chapters of the Bible have some highly symbolic language. That is clear from the way the book is written, and much of it should be interpreted in that way. As stated previously, Genesis is plainly intended to be interpreted literally.

 

[Vance]

As you can see, Micaiah likes the word "plainly" a great deal. :0)

Of course, if it was "plain", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Micaiah]

As you can see, Micaiah likes the word "plainly" a great deal. :0)

Of course, if it was "plain", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Here is an extract from the book of Revelation. This chapter incorporates language that is highly symbolic. It could refer to the persecution of the church, or Mary and Christ.

Revelation 12
The Woman, the Child, and the Dragon
1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.
3And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.


Satan Thrown Out of Heaven
7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them[1] in heaven any longer. 9So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. 12Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time."

The Woman Persecuted
13 Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. 14But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. 16But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.[2]

Those who accept the historicity of Genesis are sometimes wrongly accused of not recognising that there are passages in the Bible that are allegory, or claiming all passages of the Bible should be interpretted literally. I think you will find there are few YEC's who make these claims.

What we do say is that the type of interpretaion that should be adopted is normally abundantly evident from Scripture, and is the one that should be used. "If the plain sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense" is an oldie but a goodie.

If you choose to disregard a literal interpretaion of Genesis 1 and 2, it is easy to accomodate evolution, and an earth that is billions of years old. You then need to decide whether this interpretation was adopted because it was the one plainly intended, or because people want a way of accomodating popular scientific views on origins.

If you ignore what Scripture plainly teaches, then the answer to the questions you posed above become any ones guess. If you accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, there are specific and clear answers to these important questions.

 

[gluadys]

Basically could someone please explain when the fall was? Were we homosapiens or what? When does genesis stop being a metaphor and become literal? How does that effect the inerrancy of scripture? When did we become concious (like Adam and Eve - if they existed) or were neadathals (sp?) concious or are all animals concious?

We can't pinpoint a date for the fall, because we can't pinpoint a date at which the physically human species became spiritually human.

But we can say it was whenever a spiritually aware human (such as Adam) lost spiritual connection with God through pride and disobedience.

Perhaps, the more important question is not when was the fall, but what is the fall and how does it affect your life. In a symbolic sense, each of us is Adam and each of us incorporates the fall into our own life by repeating in our own way the sin of Adam. Romans 5:14

Genesis probably never becomes fully literal. Probably the patriarchs were real people, but the accounts of their lives in Genesis are rich in legendary details. So it is more a continuum from totally unhistorical people through people who are described with a lot of legendary overlay to people who are described in a sober, quasi-modern historical fashion.

It does not really affect inerrancy at all. Stories, fictional narratives, poetry, legends, etc. are not falsehoods. They are just not verified history.

As for neanderthals and animals, we can't really say. I would not be surprised if neanderthals were conscious, but I couldn't say whether they were ensouled. Some animals clearly have a higher level of conscious awareness than others---especially those that are more nearly related to us. Chimps and gorillas who have been taught to use language symbols exhibit an amazing capacity for reflectiveness and emotion.

http://www.koko.org/world/art.html

 

[Micaiah]

So at somepoint in the past we were living on earth with a perfect relationship with God and then we decided to turn away from Him?

Yes that must have been soon after the first creation week. Infortunately it didn't take long for man's gullibility, vanity, independence, and weakness to come to the fore.

Is the snake none existent or does it represent satan?

The snake was real. That is why the snake was cursed by God. It was evidently a tool in satans hand. It was a cunning creature:

Genesis 1

The Fall of Man

(1) 1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, "You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"

2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die."'

4Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

14So the LORD God said to the serpent:
"Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."

I think these verses are some of the hardest people to accept literally. These sites discuss the verses in detail, and answer most of the questions people raise.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/268.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3784.asp

I guess the main reason people view this account as fantasy is because we have details recorded of a meeting between the supernatural, and the natural. If you accept that this serpent was indeed a tool used by satan, and satan was the one that gave it the ability to speak, you have the set for a very paranormal encounter.

Also why did God put the Adam and Eve story into the Bible if He could just have said what you are saying straight forward and without the apple...?

Why indeed. "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...".
And could I also ask why would God say that He created the animals according to their kinds if they evolved?
Why would he say that the days of creation were delimited by an evening and morning, and call it a day if He intended to refer to lots of days?
Why would God say He made man from the dust of the ground and Eve from Adam in such detail, it they actually evolved?
Oh, by the way, Adam ate fruit from a tree. We don't know if it was an apple. Have a look at the above verses from Genesis 3.

 

[Alchemist]

Micaiah,

I understand that you are not an evolutionist, and that you strongly believe that the Bible teaches a recent, 6-day creation. But please look at the OP; Eluzai has already talked to his friend about YEC, she doesn't accept it. She wants to know how the concept of the Fall fits into a Christian evolutionist framework, so please, respect the OP and don't flood this post with reasons why you believe evolution contradicts the Bible. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion . But as Eluzai said:

I have talked to her about creation but she doesn't realy seem to be open to it at all and that's ok.

Maybe leave it for another post?

Peace,
Alchemist

 

[Micaiah]

But she has has asks realy awkward questions like: "When did the fall of man happen?" and these problems with evolution are making it hard for her to believe the Bible.

I have real problems explaining this and no evolution believing Christians I know can either.

Always happy to help when someone cannot work out why there seems to be no way of reconciling evolution with Scripture.

 

[Alchemist]

Always happy to help when someone cannot work out why there seems to be no way of reconciling evolution with Scripture.

Hi Micaiah,

I would argue there is most definitely a way to 'reconcile' evolution with Scripture; gluadys and Vance have already given answers to the question. I do understand your point, but I think it is moot for the OP. Might have to agree to disagree over this one.

To Eluzai,

You might want to check out the Catholic viewpoint on the Fall to see one example of how the doctrine of Original Sin fits in with scripture:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Also, you might be interested in this post I made on theistic evolution:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1133651-what-is-theistic-evolution-an-explanation.html

Many TE's have slightly different viewpoints on Original Sin and the Fall, just as different Christian denominations have different viewpoints (Orthodox for instance have a diffferent view than Catholics, who have different views than many Protestants), but these links should help you get a basic idea of how evolution and the Fall go together .

Peace,
Alchemist

 

[GodSaves]

"Slightly different" is a very conservative way to put it for a liberal.

 

[Alchemist]

"Slightly different" is a very conservative way to put it for a liberal.

Lol! It is really. We'd all agree on a few the main points though I'd think... that the death mentioned in Genesis is talking about spiritual death for a start .

 

[United]

I'd realy like some help on this topic. I have a friend who's not a Christian and she completely believes evolution I have talked to her about creation but she doesn't realy seem to be open to it at all and that's ok.

But she has has asks realy awkward questions like: "When did the fall of man happen?" and these problems with evolution are making it hard for her to believe the Bible.

I have real problems explaining this and no evolution believing Christians I know can either.

Basically could someone please explain when the fall was? Were we homosapiens or what? When does genesis stop being a metaphor and become literal? How does that effect the inerrancy of scripture? When did we become concious (like Adam and Eve - if they existed) or were neadathals (sp?) concious or are all animals concious?

These questions might sound silly, but I realy don't understand how it all fits together. Thanks for any help

Hi Eluzai,

Although you might not guess it from the previous posts, some TE's believe in a literal adam and eve (yes, "literal" TE's do exist!). They believe God breathed a soul into man to make him into his likeness. There is some conjecture on the date, but I have no real problem with this happening around 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. Did a form of "human" live before this date? Yes, but they did not have a soul and were not eternal creatures. Both OEC's and literal TE's take this perspective.

 

[Micaiah]

Hi Micaiah,


Also, you might be interested in this post I made on theistic evolution:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1133651-what-is-theistic-evolution-an-explanation.html

Peace,
Alchemist

This is the type of rationale I'm used to seeing from TE's:

Why do you not believe in a young earth?

In recent times, science has proven (almost) beyond doubt that the Earth is older than previously thought much older. Discoveries in numerous scientific fields, including astronomy, physics, chemistry and geology, have led scientists to believe that the Earth came into existance around 5 billion years ago. These discoveries, combined with knowledge from the fields of archaeology, paleontology, history, and biology, have led to the near-universal acceptance of evolution within the scientific community. As Christians, we must ask: Are the scientists wrong with regards to the age of the earth; their hypothesis having not been disproven (although many attempts have been made) for the last 200 years? Or are we wrong with our interpretation of the Bible; a book that, although we all believe is the word of God, we at times struggle to understand?

As theistic evolutionists, we believe that the latter is the case. It is not that we trust science more than the Bible. We just believe that if science appears to disprove the Bible, then we obviously aren't interpreting the Bible correctly. It is for this reason we accept an old-earth (and as a consequence, evolution). After all, if God did make the world very recently, how come He made it so scientists would think it was so old? Of course, none of us are really fit to answer this question, but most of us believe that God would not deliberately cause anyone to think the world was old unless it really was, and so accept an old Earth.

It is not that we trust science more than the Bible.

It is clear that you do trust man's interpretations of scientific evidence above God's word. That is why you reject a literal interpretation of the Genesis 1 and 2. and therein lies the point of contention.

 

[Bushido216]

Here is an extract from the book of Revelation. This chapter incorporates language that is highly symbolic. It could refer to the persecution of the church, or Mary and Christ.


Those who accept the historicity of Genesis are sometimes wrongly accused of not recognising that there are passages in the Bible that are allegory, or claiming all passages of the Bible should be interpretted literally. I think you will find there are few YEC's who make these claims.

What we do say is that the type of interpretaion that should be adopted is normally abundantly evident from Scripture, and is the one that should be used. "If the plain sense makes good sense, then seek no other sense" is an oldie but a goodie.

If you choose to disregard a literal interpretaion of Genesis 1 and 2, it is easy to accomodate evolution, and an earth that is billions of years old. You then need to decide whether this interpretation was adopted because it was the one plainly intended, or because people want a way of accomodating popular scientific views on origins.

If you ignore what Scripture plainly teaches, then the answer to the questions you posed above become any ones guess. If you accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, there are specific and clear answers to these important questions.

The "plain sense" doesn't make good sense because science has clearly shown the "plain sense" to be inconsistent with the realities of the situation.

Do I win?