Reconciling Adam and Eve with Evolution

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Yes I am sure. They lost everything and gained nothing that helped them.
Well, I'm not so sure. I think they came to know the truth, the reality of death and sin and suffering. They wanted to know as the gods know and well, now they do know the whole truth.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,691.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Well, I'm not so sure. I think they came to know the truth, the reality of death and sin and suffering. They wanted to know as the gods know and well, now they do know the whole truth.


How did that benefit them? They lost life and home and everything...Adam had to sweat in labor til he died, eve a virtual slave to Adam, more pain in childbirth....they went to hell basically, and died there.

There is nothing good in knowing "the whole truth".

Reminds me of the whole, "If I tell you I gotta kill you." thing....knowledge killed them. They were idiots.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
How did that benefit them? They lost life and home and everything...Adam had to sweat in labor til he died, eve a virtual slave to Adam, more pain in childbirth....they went to hell basically, and died there.

There is nothing good in knowing "the whole truth".

Reminds me of the whole, "If I tell you I gotta kill you." thing....knowledge killed them. They were idiots.
They went out of the security of some cozy paradise and into the big booming, buzzing, real world, where there is pain and suffering.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,691.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
They went out of the security of some cozy paradise and into the big booming, buzzing, real world, where there is pain and suffering.


The cartoonish exaggeration shows not only a lack of seriousness but also a lack of understanding the severity of their punishment. Besides, "the big booming, buzzing, real world, where there is pain and suffering" was the same place they originated from, home of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil plus the Serpent hisssssself...
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But it says they became like one of us, it also said they could no longer eat from the tree of life.

Not quite...
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever...

This verse says they had the ability to eat from the tree....although you are somewhat correct, they couldn't eat because they were removed from the tree.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Not quite...
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever...

This verse says they had the ability to eat from the tree....although you are somewhat correct, they couldn't eat because they were removed from the tree.

Amen, but that is NOT the end of the story. Adam and Eve were later "created in God's Image" or born again Spiritually in Christ. This means that our first father and mother will eat from the Tree of Life in the 3rd Heaven.

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God

 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,583
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
After a great deal of contemplation regarding the relationship of the science of evolutionary biology and population genetics with sacred scripture, and specifically the universal descent of man from Adam and Eve, I've formulated a "theory" of how these may relate. It is essentially a Covenantal Theory of Adam and Eve. I admit it is mere speculation, but I think it effectively bridges the apparent gap between evolutionary biology/genetics and sacred scripture.

1. Throughout biblical history, God deals with man by way of successive covenants.
2. God entered into covenant relationship with Adam and Eve.
3. Population genetics reveals to a high degree of probability that the population of homo sapien sapiens has not at any time dropped below aproximately two thousand individuals.
4. The bible clearly affirms the historicity of two individual humans from whom originate all modern humans.
5. Essential Christian doctrines, such as the universality of human fallenness, necessitate the historicity of this aforementioned original pair.

So what are we to make of these five points? I would argue that the answer is to be found by way of covenant.

The basics of the theory are as follows.

1. All life on earth, including human biology, has evolved by the decree and creative guiding providence of God as per the theory of evolutionary creationism.
2. As described by population genetics, there was in fact an original population pool of anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens likely to exceed two thousand individuals.
3. These "humans" though anatomically modern, were not in fact originally ensouled.
4. God in his providence elected two homo sapien sapiens, male and female, to be heirs of a divine covenant of works.
5. God sealed this covenant by way of the mystery of ensoulment, wherein he, in supernatural power, bestowed a soul upon this covenantal pair, thereby enabling the spiritual bond and freedom of will necessary to the relational essence of the covenant.
6. All modern humans are the genetic progency of this original covenantal pair, and are thereby heirs of this original covenant, whereby we inherit ensoulment, moral responsibility, as well as fallenness consequent the original violation of the covenant.

So basically, human anatomy evolved like all other life does. Yet all modern humans are descended from two elect homo-sapiens with whom God entered into a covenant, which he sealed by means of ensoulment. So Adam and Eve were two real individuals, from whom we all descend, AND we can embrace the scientific record of human evolution.
So you are saying that humans evolved according to science under the creative guidance of God IE God created the framework of evolution as a method for allowing life to adapt to their environment. You are saying that Adam and Eve were amount about 2000 other homo sapiens that existed at that time. They were chosen by God and ensouled and we are all decedents of them. So were the other 1998 homo sapiens who existed at that time who may have been around before Adam and Eve part of that covenant and also ensouled. As they are not decedents of Adam and Eve they would not be directly associated with them or the covenant. They surely would have produced their own lines of decent according to evolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -57
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,583
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Most churches I have gone to have taught that Genesis 1-2 emphasize an allegorical interpretation, without dismissing an historical one altogether. The bottom line is, I'm neither a theistic evolutionist or a creationist. I simply don't think it matters to Christian faith either way, I don't need to believe Adam sinned to know I am a sinner.
I agree, I think the concept of sin and redemption is what is important. It is hard to know the literal truth of what is meant by the Genesis story. What we do know is that it was written in a time that was different to us. They didn't have the awareness we have of the world for example. So they may have thought the world was just where they lived. So their perception would have been different and therefore affected the meanings and descriptions of many things and affected the ways they wrote about what was happening. I am sure if I get the concept of creation wrong in its details that this won't cause me to be condemned from God.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It's a great idea!

  • It solves all related theological problems.
  • It is fully consistent with the evidence from God's creation, found using science.
  • It affirms and supports scripture, especially Genesis.
  • It makes sense.

Also - it's not new. This is what I was taught in Christian School 30 years ago, and it's supported and taught by many denominations.

Despite that, it does seem to often be unknown to many Christians, especially creationists.

In Christ Jesus-

Papias
So then, where is all this evidence for evolution then?
And how can a Christian not be a creationist anyway?
How can a Christian choose to subscribe to naturalistic models?

I suggest you watch this video for the apparently absent perspective:


Don't be ignorant of why your brethren are creationists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,583
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,884.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As far as theistic evolution is concerned I think its important to get to know a bit about whether evolution is true in the first place rather than just accepting it because its the consensus. You have to remember that there are humans behind science and they are susceptible to having a skewed view of things as well. Evolution is a subject that can be interpreted in more than one way and I believe our beliefs can influence how we see that interpretation. The best way Satan can deceive is mixing a lie with the truth and evolution can take something that may be true such as micro evolution and use that to give it more creative power than it really has. So I think its important to decern what the evidence says and not go along with it just because some scientists say so. There are many scientists who are questioning the tenets of Darwin's theory as time has gone by through new discoveries.

At the end of the day God would have installed the mechanisms for whatever method used for how life can change and adapt. But this will mean that either way divine guidance has to be involved and not a self creating process through random mutations and natural selection which is a blind process associated with Darwin's theory of evolution. In other words what may look like a self creating blind process needed the hand of God and is actually a preset method that was intended for how life lives on planet earth.

So I wouldn't underestimate the power of personal belief in how it affects a persons views. Those who don't believe in God will always try to explain everything through a materialistic self creating processes of adaptations of trial and error as opposed to accepting some of the non adaptive processes which use preexisting genetic info and point to mechanisms already being established as part and parcel of life. Because large scale evolution is based on assumption belief can be a big factor in influencing those assumptions whether you believe in God or not. I think some can try to hard to have the best of both worlds.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hieronymus
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So you are saying that humans evolved according to science under the creative guidance of God .... You are saying that Adam and Eve were amount about 2000 other homo sapiens that existed at that time. They were chosen by God and ensouled and we are all decedents of them.

Yes, that Adam and Eve were members of much larger, interbreeding population. In fact, 2,000 is probably too small. At least many thousands very similar transitional ape/humans.

... So were the other 1998 homo sapiens who existed at that time who may have been around before Adam and Eve part of that covenant and also ensouled ?

The others were not ensouled. Only descendants of Adam and Eve were ensouled.

... They surely would have produced their own lines of decent according to evolution.

No. This isn't obvious to most people, but those of us working in genealogy, or biology, or similar fields are familiar with the fact that in a population, any given member in the past, in most cases, is the ancestor of everyone in the population after a while.

Let's use an example. Consider any person from a long time ago, say, Pharaoh Ramesses II. He lived around 1260 BC. He had a wife (Nefertari), and kids. Kids will have kids, and since all their descendants will be descended from Ramesses, the number will grow (you can also see this by the fact that Thomas Jefferson already has thousands of descendants after just 200 years, or the fact that there are today many millions of people descended from the few dozen passengers on the Mayflower).

So by 1000 BC Ramesses will have thousands of descendants, and simple math shows that by 800 BC his descendants will surpass the population of Egypt at the time. Of course, many of those will be double or triple descendants, but the upshot is that by then most people in Egypt then will be his descendant. Some of those people will live near the borders, or will have migrated over those centuries, so will be in neighboring countries (Assyria, Babylon, etc.) They too will have kids, and the same spread will happen, so by 600 BC a good chunk of the populations in those areas will be descended from them, and by 400 BC, most will be. The same goes for Asia Minor (Turkey), Greece and Italy by around 400 AD, and into Europe by 600 AD. Note that this happens regardless of whether or not the population is growing.

Continuing on, most of Southern Europe would be descended from Ramesses by 1000 AD (along with some of Northern Europe) and then most of Northern Europe by 1400 AD, and practically all by 1800 AD. Notice that you can do the same thing with most anyone from Ramesses time who had at least a few kids. You could also start in, say, Sweden and work south, or whatever, and still get a similar result.

So, being of mostly French and German Ancestry, I'm descended from Ramesses, as you likely are (unless you are not European, Middle Eastern or North African).

All that happened without there ever being a population bottleneck. Just like Adam and Eve, Ramesses & Nefertari were never the only ones on earth, yet, within a few millenia, everyone on earth will be descended from them. We agree that Ramesses and Nefertari, like all humans, evolved from earlier apes.

Now, imagine a population of hominids in Africa. At some point, say, a million years ago, designate two as "Adam & Eve". From a Christian standpoint, God gives these two the first souls - they are the first "full humans", even though they are very similar in most respects to everyone else at the time, and so their children can interbreed with the others. All their descendants also receive souls, and hence are also "fully human".

Now the same thing we saw with Ramesses happens, and within a few thousands years (say, by 960,000 years ago) everyone on earth is descended from them, and is fully human, and there never was a population bottleneck of just 2 people.

You many not agree with this situation described by many churches. Regardless, do you see how this works, being completely consistent in every material way with the evolutionary history accepted by science?

As far as theistic evolution is concerned I think its important to get to know a bit about whether evolution is true in the first place rather than just accepting it because its the consensus.

It's not "just because" it's the consensus, but rather that the fact that it is the consensus is part of how we decide if something is true, in addition to the evidence. For instance, It's the scientific consensus that the HIV virus causes the AIDS disease. In addition to that fact, some of us have looked at some evidence. Whether we have looked at evidence directly or not, most of us accept that the HIV virus is responsible for AIDS at least partly due to the scientific consensus. Do you agree?


You have to remember that there are humans behind science and they are susceptible to having a skewed view of things as well.

Certainly. Consider the idea that things are made of atoms. That idea is supported by scientists who are Atheists, as well as some that are Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and so on. The fact that atomic theory is supported by those of widely varying religion supports the idea that it is actually true, because it shows that it's support is not just due to some religious bias, but has actual evidence supporting it.

That's also true of evolution. In fact, the majority of those who support evolution in the United States are Christian. Evolution is supported by scientists who are Christians, Atheists, Jews, Hindus and so on. The fact that evolution is supported by those of widely varying religion supports the idea that it is actually true, because it shows that it's support is not just due to some religious bias, but actual evidence.

There are many scientists who are questioning the tenets of Darwin's theory as time has gone by through new discoveries.

Not really. There are millions of scientists, who are people, so of course you can find one here or there that support any idea, such as alien abductions, creationism, or whatever.

Practically all scientists (over 95%) support evolution and reject creationism, and that support has been constant since around 1950, because so many new discoveries have confirmed evolution, such as the whole field of genetics.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

The idea that "a growing proportion of scientists are rejecting evolution" is simply a creationist lie - often repeated over the years, but just as false now as it was in 1980, or 1985, or 1990, or 1995, or 2000, or 2005, or 2010.......

In other words what may look like a self creating blind process needed the hand of God and is actually a preset method that was intended for how life lives on planet earth.

Whether God set it up to work that way, or is constantly active behind the scenes (such as by making the beneficial mutations) isn't a big deal to me. After all, we all agree that it is God doing the creating, whether that's in the more deistic form of preset mechanisms, or in the ongoing form.

In Christ-

Papias
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So then, where is all this evidence for evolution then?

You can learn some of that evidence in any university or high school biology class. There are tons of whole lines of evidence, from many different fields, which all confirm evolution. A short summary of some of the main areas of evidence are here, though of course a full examination of all the confirming evidence for evolution would take many lifetimes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


How can a Christian choose to subscribe to naturalistic models?

Like that evil, atheistic subject of math, or gravity? How can a Christian accept atheistic gravity, which never mentions God at all? Doesn't gravity thus exclude God?

of course not. You are confusing methodological naturalism (that all sciences use) and ontological naturalism, which isn't required in any science.

OK, let's look at the difference between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism.


Ontological naturalism is the belief that only the natural world exists, and that there is no supernatural god or gods. It is roughly equal to atheism, and is NOT required in science. In fact a huge chunk of scientists explicitly believe in God.


That's completely different from METHODOLOGICAL naturalism. Methodological naturalism means that one tests for natural explanations first, and if those have sufficient evidence, then supernatural explanations are superfluous (not that they are excluded). An example - if you woke up and your bedroom was freezing, you'd check the furnace, and the thermostat, see if they are turned on, have electric power, have a clear and not clogged filter, aren't set to a cold temperature, etc. You'd do all of those before you conducted an exorcism to scare away the god of cold air. That's methodological naturalism, and that's how we all operate every day on most things. That's also all that is required in science.

Methodological naturalism is the only naturalism required by evolution, just like math, gravity, physics, or any other science. That's why evolution is no more atheistic than any of them.

I suggest you watch this video for the apparently absent perspective:

That video simply repeats the same distortions, falsehoods, and mistakes repeated by creationists for decades. If one is interested in them, the same points refuted a thousand times (PRATTs) can be found at many creationist websites. Do you seriously think that they are new to me, that I have seen (and corrected) each of them many times over the years?

In Jesus' name-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You can learn some of that evidence in any university or high school biology class.
I was brought up with that.
There are tons of whole lines of evidence, from many different fields, which all confirm evolution.
No, there is only proof of micro-evolution, not of DNA writing itself into specialized species.
Why do you think i don't believe in it anymore?

Please, do yourself a favour and don't be ignorant of why your brethren are not Darwinists:


But maybe you have no choice, because the Pope endorses evolution...

(edited, removed some sharpness and bluntness)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That video simply repeats the same distortions, falsehoods, and mistakes repeated by creationists for decades.
No, falsehoods by evolutionists.
Video is about Darwinism, not necessarily creationism.
Do you seriously think that they are new to me, that I have seen (and corrected) each of them many times over the years?
Yes i do seriously think they are new to you, otherwise you wouldn't just regurgitate fallacious naturalistic apologetics based on fallacious evidence.

In Jesus' name-
What does that even mean when Jesus lied about this according to you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,941
1,034
New York/Int'l
✟14,624.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
It would be interesting to see how evolution reconciles having an exterior made entirely of white light - the necessity of such a phenomenon, the energy considerations and biological "advantage" it provides. Adam and Eve had this when they were perfect (and naked, but couldnt see their bodies because of this raiment.) Christ had this. And, those of us who are blessed in the future with also have this "clothing" of real light radiating from our bodies. Why have we lost that? Do we believe in the transfiguration within evolution? Resurrection?
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, that Adam and Eve were members of much larger, interbreeding population. In fact, 2,000 is probably too small. At least many thousands very similar transitional ape/humans.

If that were true the Paul could not have said sin and death was a result of one man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tatteredsoul
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It would be interesting to see how evolution reconciles having an exterior made entirely of white light - the necessity of such a phenomenon, the energy considerations and biological "advantage" it provides. Adam and Eve had this when they were perfect (and naked, but couldnt see their bodies because of this raiment.) Christ had this. And, those of us who are blessed in the future with also have this "clothing" of real light radiating from our bodies. Why have we lost that? Do we believe in the transfiguration within evolution? Resurrection?

The more one digs into this subject the merging of evolutionism and the bible requires great changes to scripture.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist

So you are saying that humans evolved according to science under the creative guidance of God .... You are saying that Adam and Eve were amount about 2000 other homo sapiens that existed at that time. They were chosen by God and ensouled and we are all decedents of them.

*** Yes, that Adam and Eve were members of much larger, interbreeding population. In fact, 2,000 is probably too small. At least many thousands very similar transitional ape/humans.

False, since Adam was made from the dust on the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants, herbs and rain according to Gen 2:4-7. Adam was made with a superior intelligence which is like God's. Gen 3:22 When Adam's world (kosmos) was totally destroyed in the flood 2 Peter 3:6, Noah brought Adam's superior intelligence to this planet of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who had been on this Earth for Millions of years.

Humans (descendants of Adam) passed his superior intelligence to the prehistoric people who were already here when the Ark arrived. Gen 6:4 That is confirmed by the Scientific Fact that the 7 Billion Humans alive today have Adam's superior intelligence AND the DNA of prehistoric people. Here is the empirical historic evidence which NO evoutionist has been able to explain. Can you? http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html Of course not? If you could, you would believe Scripture instead of Darwin.
 
Upvote 0