Question

[EveryTongueConfess]

Hi guys,
I was talking to my friend about Theistic Evolution and he brought up a very interesting question, that perhaps might sound beginner to you...so sorry if it does.

He pictured Evolution as a continuum progressing slowly as we evolve from our ancestors
So basically his argument was that as we came from an ape-like ancestor when did we aquire a soul?
Was there ever a point where a child had a soul and the parents didn't?

Please answer so I can get back to my friend
Thanks guys

 

[gluadys]

Hi guys,
I was talking to my friend about Theistic Evolution and he brought up a very interesting question, that perhaps might sound beginner to you...so sorry if it does.

He pictured Evolution as a continuum progressing slowly as we evolve from our ancestors
So basically his argument was that as we came from an ape-like ancestor when did we aquire a soul?
Was there ever a point where a child had a soul and the parents didn't?

Please answer so I can get back to my friend
Thanks guys

The basic answer is that we don't know. Scripture is understandably silent on this question. (It doesn't even answer the question of when the developing human embryo acquires a soul.)

As a soul is spiritual we cannot determine the existence of a soul via either genetic analysis or fossils. So science is silent on this question as well.

Of course, then there is the whole question of whether humans are the only species to have souls. Originally, the soul was thought to be what animates or give life to anything living. ('anima' is the Latin word for 'soul') and theologians spoke of vegetative, animal and rational souls. Only humans were thought to have rational souls, but since humans are also animals they also had animals souls, and since they are at least as alive as plants, they also have vegetative souls. I am not sure why this way of thinking about souls fell out of fashion, but it offers a way in which one might see a soul evolving along with the body. The simplest organisms have only vegetative souls. Animal souls (which include all the functions of a vegetative soul) appear with animals and rational souls (which include all the functions of vegetative and animal souls) appear with humanity. One might even consider the possibility of transitional forms.

But we can't check any of this out. There is no way to test one idea against another. So, basically, we still don't know.

 

[Mallon]

The soul is a mystery. We can't even measure it in living humans, let alone fossil humans. Some think the soul was acquired gradually through evolution, and others think the soul was infused by God all at once. We have no way of testing these two ideas, so, in the end, all that can ever be said is that we don't know.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here's where it happened, no great mystery:

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. (Gen 2:7)​

When they say it's a mystery it means they don't like the answer

Bara’ is used in Genesis to express the creation of humans as well as other beings. Three times the verb is used in Genesis 1:27; then in the same sense it is repeated in Genesis 5:1, 2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; and in Isaiah 45:12. The Scripture thereby stresses that humans are exclusively the product of God’s creative act. Since the account in Genesis 2:7 specifies that mankind was formed (yatsar) from the dust of the ground, it may be concluded that the verb bara’ in reference to humans at least describes a formation using pre-existing material. It was a shaping and transforming of dust into a body that the word bara’ summarizes. The use of this verb yatsar should probably be understood figuratively because creation was by divine decree. (see Bara’)​

Have a nice day
Mark

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[Mallon]

Here's where it happened, no great mystery:

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. (Gen 2:7)​

When they say it's a mystery it means they don't like the answer

The reason why evolutionary creationists don't accept that answer is because it makes the unwarranted assumption that Genesis 1 and 2 are historical narratives and because all the evidence from God's creation contradicts the idea that man was created de novo.

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

Ok thanks guys
so basically we don't know...
but how does that go along with the idea of Evolution

Basically what makes a human special if they have no soul
and so at what point did we aquire a soul?
Did God just choose a location in time and gave the first human a soul while the parents didnt have one?

Well I guess my problem with this is since Evolution is a continuous process ... was there a time where the child had a soul and the parents didn't? - Obviously we don't know for sure, but in my mind that is .. wierd and would be strange
Meh
well thanks guys

 

[Mallon]

Basically what makes a human special if they have no soul

Some would argue that having a soul is what makes us human.

and so at what point did we aquire a soul?
Did God just choose a location in time and gave the first human a soul while the parents didnt have one?

Maybe. How could we ever know? And does it matter? I think what matters more is that we know that we have a soul that God sees worth saving, rather than how we acquired it.

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

Fair enough

 

[mark kennedy]

The reason why evolutionary creationists don't accept that answer is because it makes the unwarranted assumption that Genesis 1 and 2 are historical narratives and because all the evidence from God's creation contradicts the idea that man was created de novo.

Seriously?

Geneology: In Hebrew the term for genealogy or pedigree is "the book of the generations;" and because the oldest histories were usually drawn up on a genealogical basis, the expression often extended to the whole history, as is the case with the Gospel of St. Matthew, where "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ" includes the whole history contained in that Gospel. (Smith's Bible Dictionary)

So Genesis 5:1, "the book of the generations of Adam," wherein his descendants are traced down to Noah; Genesis 6:9, "the generations of Noah," the history of Noah and his sons; Genesis 10:1, "the generations of the sons of Noah," Shem, Ham, and Japhet, the oldest and most precious existing ethnological record; Genesis 11:10-26 "the generations of Shem," Genesis 11:27 "the generations of Terah," Abram's father; Genesis 25:12 "the generations of Ishmael," Genesis 25:19 "the generations of Isaac"; Genesis 36:1, "the generations of Esau"; Genesis 37:2, "the generations of Jacob"; Genesis 35:22-26, "the sons of Jacob," etc., repeated Exodus 1:1-5; also Exodus 46:8, a genealogical census of Israel when Jacob came down to Egypt; repeated in Exodus 6:16, etc., probably transcribed from a document, for the first part concerning Reuben and Simeon is quoted though Levi is the only tribe in question. (Fausset's Bible Dictionary)
​

By the same criteria Matthew could be rejected as historical. I mean why have a genealogy of Adam if he is figurative?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Melethiel]

Just playing devil's advocate...

Is Adam really, in a very literal sense, the son of God? (or did the meaning of the term "son of" suddenly change between the rest of the generations and the last one?) Or is the purpose of the genealogy in Matthew to trace the lineage of Christ back to both God and Man?

 

[Mallon]

By the same criteria Matthew could be rejected as historical. I mean why have a genealogy of Adam if he is figurative?

The genealogy of Matthew isn't historical. The author of Matthew cut generations out of the genealogies presented in the Old Testament in order to make them fit a numerological scheme, thereby bringing honour and attention to people of significance. Numerology was important to the ANE people, certainly moreso than the historically accurate descriptions so loved by neocreationists.

 

[mark kennedy]

The genealogy of Matthew isn't historical. The author of Matthew cut generations out of the genealogies presented in the Old Testament in order to make them fit a numerological scheme, thereby bringing honour and attention to people of significance. Numerology was important to the ANE people, certainly moreso than the historically accurate descriptions so loved by neocreationists.

Just because it's incomplete does not mean it's not historical, that's absurd.

The New Testament provides two genealogical tables for Jesus, one by Matthew and one by Luke. These tables differ at significant points. Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience and Luke for a Gentile audience. Matthew was concerned to show that Jesus legally descended from David and was therefore a descendant of Judah to whom the messianic kingship was promised. Matthew treats the legal descent of Jesus and limits the lists to three groupings of fourteen generations, allowing himself to make omissions.

Luke follows the natural descent with greater detail. He takes the list back to Adam, as it was a central theme in his Gospel to set forth the universality of the gospel. Jesus is indeed the Son of Abraham and the Son of David, but He is also the new Adam who comes to redeem not only Israel but men and women from every tribe and nation. Tracing the Genealogy of Jesus​

You want to reduce even the New Testament genealogies to some mystical 'numerological scheme'? Seriously?

There is nothing 'neocreationist' about Jesus Christ being the 'son of Abraham', 'son of Adam' or 'son of David', it's essential....I'll tell you what...I'll save the rest for the common forum. See you in June Mallon and we can talk about this some more.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

You want to reduce even the New Testament genealogies to some mystical 'numerological scheme'? Seriously?

Not me. The author of Matthew. Your own source says as much.

 

[Papias]

The opening post wrote:

He pictured Evolution as a continuum progressing slowly as we evolve from our ancestors
So basically his argument was that as we came from an ape-like ancestor when did we aquire a soul?
Was there ever a point where a child had a soul and the parents didn't?

Simple answer: Yes.

My understanding of the Catholic position is that this is indeed the case, where at some point a child had a soul who's parent's didn't, and that this was a direct intervention by God.

Papias

 

[shernren]

Here's where it happened, no great mystery:

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. (Gen 2:7)​

When they say it's a mystery it means they don't like the answer

Or perhaps, as I've said before, they know their Bible better than the typical convinced creationist.

Gen 2:7 does not set humans apart from animals because "living soul" is a translation of the text with imported presuppositions. The same term that is used to describe Adam in Gen 2:7 is used to describe every other animal in Gen 2:19:

... then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature (chay nephesh, H2416 H5315).
[Gen 2:7 ESV]

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature (chay nephesh, H2416 H5315), that was its name.
[Gen 2:19 ESV]
​

You can see that a more accurate translation shows no difference between Adam and the animals (based on this passage alone).

 

[hedrick]

Christians who accept evolution don't necessarily agree with each other. For better or worse, this approach is sufficiently new that there's no agreed doctrine of theistic evolution. Those who are closest to a literal reading of the Bible would say that there is a literal Adam and Eve, who were the first with human souls. As you move from that, you get into complex areas where I don't think there is agreement. Examples:

* Are there animals with souls? I don't think Christianity requires us to deny that there is something like a soul in some animals. If so, then there could have been a continuous development, where the line between animal and human is somewhat arbitrary. I think at the current time, which would include the Bible starting with Adam and Eve, there's a fairly sharp distinction between humans and everything else. But at a time when other hominids existed, there might not have been such a sharp line. Suppose Adam and Eve represent, not the first time there is some new part or capability, but the first time God dealt with humans as responsible creatures. In that case, his Word would literally be responsible for making us fully human. I would be more inclined to take a view like this than to say that God gave Adam and Eve some kind of new invisible part. See the next point.

* But is the soul a separate thing in the first place? As you may know, some Christians think the term "soul" describes us as thinking, responsible beings, but doesn't represent a separate thing. You can make a case that this is the Hebrew view, and that the idea of a soul as a separate thing trapped in the body is really a Greek import. After all, the creeds talk about the resurrection of the body, not the immortality of the soul. (Of course under this understanding, the human soul is still capable of everlasting life.)

So my view is that the human soul is not a separate part which exists only in humans. I suspect that animals have, to varying degrees, some of the same capabilities as humans, although as noted above I think currently there is a significant difference between humans and even the closest animals. But I would see the soul not as a part, but as referring to humans as beings responsible before God. That is something that is created by the Word. Adam and Eve would represent the first to be given that. Since the words Adam and Eve have generic meanings (mankind, living one), this need not have been a single pair, although it certainly could have been.

This saves us from the problem of saying that there is some magic point in evolution where suddenly a soul appears as a physical or metaphysical part or capability. I would assume that evolution is a reasonably continuous process.

This can also be applied to judgement. I have always been suspicious of final judgement as resulting in eternal conscious torment. Rather, withdrawl of the Word would result in the person involved no longer being a human soul.

 

[lucaspa]

Christians who accept evolution don't necessarily agree with each other. For better or worse, this approach is sufficiently new that there's no agreed doctrine of theistic evolution.

Yes, there is. See the quotes in my signature.

Evolution may only have been well-articulated in 1859, but Christianity has grappled with the idea of conflicts between extrabiblical evidence and scripture from the very beginning. Augustine of Hippo in the 400s articulated the basic idea of theistic evolution: scripture cannot contradict God's Creation. If there is an apparent conflict, then the interpretation of scripture is wrong.

John Calvin in the early 1500s in is Commentary on Genesis restated this. The Catholic Church faced the problem of what to do when the church incorporates a scientific theory as part of its theology when it confronted heliocentrism of Copernicus and Galileo. Although it seems that the Catholics came down on the side of the primacy of scripture, in actuality it was the reverse. Never again would the Catholic Church deny extrabiblical evidence that contradicted an interpretation of scripture.

Those who are closest to a literal reading of the Bible would say that there is a literal Adam and Eve, who were the first with human souls. As you move from that, you get into complex areas where I don't think there is agreement. Examples:

None of the examples are part of theistic evolution nor are unique to it. Instead, they are questions that get asked whether God created by creationism or by evolution.

The fallacy in your thinking is the premise that souls are material and, therefore, evolved. However, standard Christian doctrine is that souls are immaterial and infused by God. Souls are not part of evolution.

It would help if people who think about evolution would actually read Darwin. Darwin addressed the issue of souls and put souls outside evolution:

"He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul.... Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library The Descent of Man

If so, then there could have been a continuous development, where the line between animal and human is somewhat arbitrary.

Humans are animals. In anthropology today, the term "human" is applied to any species in the genus "Homo".

Suppose Adam and Eve represent, not the first time there is some new part or capability, but the first time God dealt with humans as responsible creatures.

This supposes that Adam and Eve were real. They were not. They are allegorical figures.

God doesn't have to put a soul into just 2 individuals. God can put a soul into each individual of an entire population at the same time. So, sometime in the evolution of hominids -- we don't know when -- God puts a soul into each and every individual alive at that point. No big deal.

I suspect that animals have, to varying degrees, some of the same capabilities as humans, although as noted above I think currently there is a significant difference between humans and even the closest animals.

Can you specify that "significant difference"? Biologists have been trying for quite a while, but every time they come up with an idea -- such as tool making or language -- that is supposedly unique to humans, it turns out that other species have it.

I submit that the "significant difference" you see is not biological, but technological. You are making the same mistake lots of people have made: thinking that a difference in technology means a biological difference.

Instead, consider the idea that humans have 2 small differences from all other species: the ability to make tools to make tools and fine control of speech so that there are nuances to their vocalizations. From these 2 differences arise all human technology. The fine vocalizations offer better communication of ideas since a wider range of vocalizations permits a wider range of words to describe more ideas.

This saves us from the problem of saying that there is some magic point in evolution where suddenly a soul appears as a physical or metaphysical part or capability.

We don't have to say that unless you assume that soul is a material entity which has to evolve. In the Adam and Eve story God infuses a soul directly. Why couldn't He have done so at some point in evolution?

 

[Science/Faith]

Although this is pure speculation maby our souls evolved alongside our physical form. From simpler animal spirits to the modern Homo Saepien soul, and if thats true maby it means that Whales or dolphins have human like souls? Anyway I believe one day we will have the knowledge necessary to find out.

 

[mark kennedy]

Christians who accept evolution don't necessarily agree with each other. For better or worse, this approach is sufficiently new that there's no agreed doctrine of theistic evolution. Those who are closest to a literal reading of the Bible would say that there is a literal Adam and Eve, who were the first with human souls. As you move from that, you get into complex areas where I don't think there is agreement. Examples:

The fact that Adam and Eve were the first is not a serious question in the Scriptures:

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.(ICor 15:44-49)​

Paul says the same thing in Romans 5 and the creation of Adam has never been in question. At least it wasn't until the advent of Darwinism.

* Are there animals with souls? I don't think Christianity requires us to deny that there is something like a soul in some animals. If so, then there could have been a continuous development, where the line between animal and human is somewhat arbitrary. I think at the current time, which would include the Bible starting with Adam and Eve, there's a fairly sharp distinction between humans and everything else. But at a time when other hominids existed, there might not have been such a sharp line. Suppose Adam and Eve represent, not the first time there is some new part or capability, but the first time God dealt with humans as responsible creatures. In that case, his Word would literally be responsible for making us fully human. I would be more inclined to take a view like this than to say that God gave Adam and Eve some kind of new invisible part. See the next point.

How about we take the simple, direct and original intent of the authors of the Scriptures?

* But is the soul a separate thing in the first place? As you may know, some Christians think the term "soul" describes us as thinking, responsible beings, but doesn't represent a separate thing. You can make a case that this is the Hebrew view, and that the idea of a soul as a separate thing trapped in the body is really a Greek import. After all, the creeds talk about the resurrection of the body, not the immortality of the soul. (Of course under this understanding, the human soul is still capable of everlasting life.)

I don't know what you are talking about here, the immortality of the soul is a profoundly Biblical doctrine. Now we do not stay separated, in death the soul and the body are separated but in the resurrection they are reunited for the power beyond the grave in the final judgment. Even the children of perdition are resurrected so the separation of the soul and the body is not complete in the New Testament as it was in Grecian culture that made sharp distinctions between the two.

So my view is that the human soul is not a separate part which exists only in humans. I suspect that animals have, to varying degrees, some of the same capabilities as humans, although as noted above I think currently there is a significant difference between humans and even the closest animals. But I would see the soul not as a part, but as referring to humans as beings responsible before God. That is something that is created by the Word. Adam and Eve would represent the first to be given that. Since the words Adam and Eve have generic meanings (mankind, living one), this need not have been a single pair, although it certainly could have been.

One could speculate endlessly about things that the Scriptures are silent about, the soul of animals being a prime example. Genesis and the subsequent discussions of Adam and Eve in the New Testament focus on our lineage from Adam and it's effect on humanity as descendants of Adam. There is a reason that there is so little discussion of this in the Church prior to Darwinism, it was never a question.

This saves us from the problem of saying that there is some magic point in evolution where suddenly a soul appears as a physical or metaphysical part or capability. I would assume that evolution is a reasonably continuous process.

The same naturalistic assumptions that are the core of evolution would reject the reality of the soul, angels, heaven/hell and even God. When they do attempt to contrive a theology its a debased philosophical scheme that simply redefines everything, including and especially God.

This can also be applied to judgement. I have always been suspicious of final judgement as resulting in eternal conscious torment. Rather, withdrawl of the Word would result in the person involved no longer being a human soul.

You are describing something called soul sleep, it's a false doctrine. I know the reality of hell is unpleasant but did you know that only one person in the Bible actually discusses hell? Would you like to know why?