Question about Adam and Eve

gluadys said:

There are a number of questions that have to be explored to come to any sort of an answer here.

I would like to suggest two.

1. What does it mean to be human? What makes a human "human"?

2. How does sin spread from Adam to all men?

There are two answers to the first question depending on whether we are thinking in terms of our animal nature or our spiritual nature.

In terms of our animal nature, what it takes to be human is to have a certain set of biological characteristics. And I agree with you that evolution does not permit the appearance of two literal individuals as "human" in this sense. The first humans would be a population of humans and the transition to this population from a pre-human population would be a slow process over many generations such that we could not clearly point to any one generation as the first human generation.

If Adam and Eve were literal individuals, they were not the only humans in existence at the time, but part of a biologically human population.

However, are we human solely by virtue of our biology? Maybe it takes more than biology to make a human "human"?

When we look to see what distinguishes humanity from our near animal relations, it is not the physical differences which strike us, but the spiritual differences: self-awareness, consciousness of our mortality and a yearning for eternal life, a moral sense of right and wrong, and -- most importantly--an awareness of a spiritual reality that transcends the physical world and gives it order and purpose i.e. God.

If it is this complex of spiritual sensitivity that is the real mark of being human, then there is no problem in thinking that God gifted two individuals among a population of merely biological humans with this "image of God". In that sense, even though Adam and Eve were the same biological species as the rest of the population, they and only they were fully "human".

btw, I personally do not believe that Adam and Eve were literal individuals, but I think the above is a reasonable explanation of how they could be within a framework of evolution.

Question two can be handled similarly. Notice that Paul does not actually say that sin spread from Adam. He says that death spread to all men because all men sinned. Nowhere does the bible say we inherit sin from Adam through our parents.

The connection of sin with biological reproduction stems from an interpretation of original sin developed in the 4th century by Augustine of Hippo.

What if sin does not spread biologically, but in some other way?

Personally, I like the analogy of language. We all inherit the language of our parents. But the parents we inherit our language from do not have to be our biological parents. They can be adoptive parents. They can even be adoptive parents of a different country speaking a different language than our biological parents. A child born in China, adopted by a family in France, will inherit French, not Chinese, as their mother tongue.

Now language is a good thing to inherit and sin is not. But why can sin not spread in the same way. All of our parents are sinners and surround us with an example of sinful attitudes and lifestyles. Even the most exemplary parents are not totally free of sin, and beyond the family we have many more models of sin in neighbours, teachers, friends, and the whole array of pseudo-experience in films, TV programs, etc.

We are programmed to imitate the adults around us. That is how we learn language and all sorts of behaviour. It is inevitable that we will also learn sin in the same way. We cannot avoid learning sin in a sinful world where everyone we meet is in some way a sinner.

So, it is not strictly necessary that we have a biological connection to a particular ancestor to inherit sin.

Click to expand...

SNPete said:

One thought I had on the issue came to me in college years ago. I took a course on evolution and one thing really struck me. The professor pointed out that the oldest known Cro Magnon (sp?) fossils at the time came from the middle east in the fertile cresent area-circa 50,000 BC. Further, it was pointed out that for the Cro Magnon humans to be sucessful you had to have a Cro Magnon male and female at the same place at the same time and the reproduce sucessfully for eight generations to establish the specie.

I do have a question whether there are any transitional Homo Erectus/Neanderthal/Cro Magnon fossils.

My point is that based on what I learned it would appear that modern humans appeared at a point in time in the same place and sucessfully established themselves. I would call that a work of God.

BTW it did not appear that the professor was a Christian.

Click to expand...

SpiritMeadow said:

My argument would be thusly:

First of all DNA research suggests in fact we are descended from a literal "eve", so in some sense the story is true. But I think the real answer is that when man became sentient, his very evolution to that stage enabled him to choose based on self interest. He could choose to withhold food for himself and not give it to others who hadn't caught anything. He could kill to secure a cave from another instead of sharing. That was sinful. He acted in a self-serving manner disregarding his brother. Animals are assumed to act from instinct so we can't attribute such choosing to them nor sinful acts. So sin has entered the world through the very evolution of man. this idea is not original to me btw. I have it on my cite as a blog.
"Evolution and Original Sin" located at http://iowamusings.blogspot.com look down the Oct. blog archive to find it.

Click to expand...

Willtor said:

The "Eve" that geneticists are talking about is not Eve from the Bible. If I'm not mistaken, she is the most recent common ancestor of all human mitochondrial DNA. Not that she was the first human woman or even the first woman with mitochondria. As for the rest, I think that's quite a reasonable position.

Click to expand...

traversinginfinity said:

First of all, I like the idea of an historical-metaphorical approach to interpreting Scripture, so I have no problem with believing in evolution. In fact, I have believed in evolution for several years since my high school biology class.

However, I've also always believed in a literal Adam and Eve because of direct New Testament references to the fall of man with Adam, specifically in Romans 5 where it says that mankind fell in Adam and was restored in Christ, the New Adam.

But it occurred to me recently.. it seems that if one is to believe in evolution, it makes the idea of "first humans", i.e. a literal Adam and Eve, impossible, because in order for their to be first humans, they would have been born of non-humans. If we say that Adam was born of a human father and mother, then Adam was not the first human. At some point we would have to draw a line, but how is that possible? If we say that Adam and Eve were the first humans, then we have to say that their parents were animals who didn't have human souls.

And if Adam and Eve were not literal people, then how do we understand the fall of mankind? If we are not all descended from the same two people, then why does the Bible say that sin is passed on throughout all of our generations?

It would seem that the entire population of humans would have had to fall into sin individually. Is that the only explanation?

Does it makes sense to believe in evolution and also believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Thanks in advance for your responses, I look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

Click to expand...

JAL said:

If you hold to the traditional Protestant and Catholic view (as I do) that Adam was the cause of each person being born with a sinful nature, there is only one solution as to how this is possible. See post#1 on this thread:

http://foru.ms/t6252325&page=3

By the way, I'm an OEC who agrees with the poster on this thread (i.e your thread) that views "humanity" as a special psychological complex which includes a conscience. Thus even though Adam and Eve were not the first homo sapiens (biologically), they indeed were the first homo sapiens classifiable as "human" or "men" in the biblical sense of man as the image of God.

Click to expand...

Macca said:

Again I ask if Paul is correct in 1 Cor.5 "21 So you see, just as death came into the world through a man," where did all the previous beings go?

Click to expand...

Macca said:

Physical death, spiritual death and eternal death.
None of these existed before Adam and Eve's sin.

Click to expand...

gluadys said:

We know from physical evidence that bacterial, vegetative and animal death preceded the existence of humanity. There are various indications that the death spoken of in Corinthians and similar passages is spiritual death.

Even if physical death is included, the text is consistent with limiting that to human death with no implication that non-human death was unknown before the fall.

btw I do not agree that 1 Cor. 15:20 speaks of eternal death, for it speaks of a death from which there is hope of resurrection. There is no resurrection from eternal death.

Click to expand...

Macca said:

You are obviously speaking from an old earth age.

Click to expand...

According to Genesis 2:4 When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. 6 Instead, springs came up from the ground and watered all the land. 7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.
Holy Bible : New Living Translation. Ge 2:4-7
There is no indication of how long it was between creation and the fall.

29 Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.” And that is what happened.
Holy Bible : New Living Translation.
Ge 1:29-30
So from this passage we see that no animal was eating another. This passage suggests a difference between the life of the animals and the 'life' of the plants; so as man and animals were eating the seeds and fruit, this was not included in 'death'.
There was, at this time no human or animal death, until after the fall of man, when God taught Adam to sacrifice animals and use the skins for clothing.
Again in Gen. 9: 1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons and told them, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth. 2 All the animals of the earth, all the birds of the sky, all the small animals that scurry along the ground, and all the fish in the sea will look on you with fear and terror. I have placed them in your power. 3 I have given them to you for food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables. 4 But you must never eat any meat that still has the lifeblood in it.
Holy Bible : New Living Translation. Gen. 9:1-4..

Click to expand...

Do we presume that God created thousands of each animal or creature, or simply one pair of them, (as with humans)?
God started again with one pair of 'unclean' creatures after the flood; so why would creation be any different?

Click to expand...

Mick116 said:

Adam and Eve could have been literal people, specially chosen by God, perhaps the first to have a spiritual relationship with God, though not the first humans.

Or, Adam and Eve could be characters used in a story to teach us theological truth.

Click to expand...

RustandWind said:

Please, read Romans 5. Adam and Eve were not figurative to any of the Bible authors.

Click to expand...