Sin and Pre-Adamite Humanity

[jereth]

This is an attempt at continuing the discussion begun in "What was the first sin" thread (general OT area) in a more suitable place.

The big questions appear to be:
- How "human" was pre-Adamite humanity?
- Was pre-Adamite humanity "spiritual"?
- Was pre-Adamite humanity morally aware?
- Was pre-Adamite humanity responsible to God for their actions?
- Did pre-Adamite humanity commit moral wrongdoing, and if so, did they also then share in Adam's sin?
- How does pre-Adamite humanity relate to the Christian doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin?

 

[jereth]

A while back I jokingly wondered if all this really happened just because Adam gulped down some "contraband carbohydrate" ... I don't think that TEism necessarily denies original sin. I'll grant that it is possible to go from evolution, read the Bible, and then say "sin is something humanity evolved into on its own and sin is something we will evolve out of", and believe me, that scares me as much as it scares you. But I don't think the Christian idea of evolution necessarily leads to that.

In my view of things (which may or may not be Biblical - I haven't seen much solid evidence that it isn't) man's sentience is not found in Genesis 2 but in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 God breathed the breath of life into man, but that only made him alive on a status equivalent to other animals. We find the real man/animal difference in Genesis 1, where God declares that man is to be made in His image, literally as His "idol" or the physical representative of His spiritual power in the natural realm. When God elevated man by giving him this status, this enabled man to have a relationship with God whom he was representing.

Furthermore, God gave man alone of all creation the choice to either perform his duty according to God's plan or against God's plan. I believe that the giving of this choice is represented in God's giving of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If you think carefully about it, there was no biological or physical necessity for the tree of knowledge to be there in the garden. Our modern ecosystems do just fine without it. Therefore its presence must have had spiritual significance. Even those who take Genesis 2 completely literally and historically would not deny this.

The significance of the tree of knowledge is that God gave man a choice. God gave Adam and Eve that first choice as representatives of humanity, which would be reflected much later in how God gave Moses and the people of Israel that same choice - to obey or to disobey - and how Jesus' coming would ultimately force all people to choose again between obedience and disobedience.

And one day man decided that what he figured out on his own was far better than what God wanted him to do. Maybe it was a gradual process, maybe it was a split-second decision. But man decided that he wanted to make his own decisions - and suddenly everything came crashing down, man knew shame and hurt and the need for subterfuge and hiding from God and from a wounded conscience. And from then on sin, which had only been a possibility God gave in giving man freedom, became a reality in man's world, and as God turned from man's sinful presence man also turned from God and found sin much more attractive than God.

That's my picture of how sin started. To me it is not so important what the first sin is ... I don't see sin in the act of Adam's eating the fruit (since I don't believe that tree was even a reality, it seems more like a symbol), I see sin in his decision to do so.

.

 

[jereth]

A very important related question is: how does sin spread from person to person?

It seems that YECists almost universally believe (either implicitly or explicitly) that sin spreads genetically or biologically from parents to children. That's why they insist we must all be descended from Adam and Eve, who committed the first sin. That's how they make sense of Romans 5.

Problem is, the Bible nowhere teaches that sin spreads genetically/biologically. Indeed, if we interpret Genesis 3 literally, then the very first spread of sin -- from Eve to Adam -- did not occur biologically. Therefore it is clear that sin can and does spread "laterally" -- i.e. from one living person to another.

Also, it is very clear that righteousness does not spread biologically. It spreads laterally, and even backwards in time (eg. from Christ to Abraham and other OT believers).

Romans 5 puts sin and righteousness parallel to each other. So if righteousness can spread laterally, and forwards and backwards in time, why can't sin? This clearly removes the need for a literalistic/YECist conception of "the first sin", committed by Adam and subsequently spread to all his biological descendants.

Here's an alternative scenario:
Adam was a literal, historical figure living in neolithic Mesopotamia. He made a deliberate, conscious choice to oppose God's will (symbolised in the eating of the fruit). When this happened, sin spread laterally to the thousands of humans living at the same time, as well as backwards in time to every other human who had ever lived since man first appeared on earth. People living before Adam lived lives separated from God (i.e. in sin), but not through conscious choice (just as Abraham did not have conscious faith in Jesus Christ). Both pre-Adamite and post-Adamite humanity are sinners in Adam. (Just as pre-Christ and post-Christ believers are righteous in Christ.)

So we have the 'best of both worlds' -- a literal, historical Adam who committed a literal, historical sin (so YECs are happy), as well as the million years of human evolution (so TEs are happy)

.

 

[jereth]

Sin is separation from God. It is not an action or a thought (though an action or a thought can be said to be "sinful"). It is separation from God, itself. It is the alternative to unity with God. "Sinful" is sort of a misnomer because sin is not a thing like faith is a thing. Just as darkness is not a thing like light is a thing, sin is the absence of unity with God through faith. When a thing is sinful, one is really saying that it is faithless. It is contrary to unity with God.

Unity with God was a condition that God gave to Man. Whether through evolution or special creation, God created Man in His image and made Himself known to him. As Trinitarians, we understand that God created, not out of a need, but out of an overflow of love and the desire to share the relationship He already knew within Himself. Thus, God created us for our sake. This reveals something of the nature of love which inherently has an object towards which it acts. I think this is affirmed in the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ ("greater love hath no man...").

The first sin was necessarily a refutation of love. It was something faithless. Some thought or action which was not towards the Other, but towards the self. When Man chose to look upon himself instead of upon God, his act was faithless. The Genesis account indicates that there was someone already in existence that had broken fellowship with God, and that this someone used deception and appealed to Man encouraging him to look to his own ends. "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Of course, Man was already like God.

At any rate, the particular faithless decision was, by definition, contrary to the relationship between God and Man. __

.

 

[jereth]

Personally, I believe that the point of Genesis 3 is not that "man was once upon a time sinless, and subsequently became sinful", but rather "man ought to be righteous, but he has in fact been sinful right from the very beginning".

Whether you are a YECist or a TEist, you will believe that humanity has sinned from its first generation. The question then is: was the first generation Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, or a bunch of homo erectus 1 million years ago?

The clearest definition of sin in the scriptures is found in Romans 1:18 ff., where Paul teaches that the essence of sin is to recognise God's presence and power in the world, yet to turn from him and worship created things instead. I believe that even homo erectus was able to recognise something of God's power -- this means that homo erectus was "without excuse" when he rejected what little he could recognise of God, and therefore a sinner just like you and me.

As human recognition of God increased (as the human brain evolved greater intelligence), each succeeding generation continued to reject what it could recognise of God. When Adam finally came along 1 million years later, he was given a more thorough revelation of God and consciously rejected it, thus cementing the human condition.

Please note that the above is not meant to be a certain reconstruction of the history of sin. I do not believe we can be certain of what happened, because the Scriptures do not tell us. All we are given is a figurative story. But I believe that it is a viable and biblically consistent theory.

.

 

[jereth]

Not sure about the idea of sin spreading backwards from Adam. If Adam was an individual, was he the first with a God given spiritual nature? Without that could earlier men actually sin?

I agree the spread of sin is 'lateral' rather than genetically/biologically. We are not sinners because we share in Adam's death. If I read Paul correctly, we share in Adam's death because we sin. Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

While YECs like to talk about how utterly perfect Adam was and all he incredible things his perfect mind and body could do (like give names to every species in a single afternoon) I think the bible shows us someone with the moral developments of a 2 or 3 year old. Now there is nothing wrong with the moral development of a 2 or 3 year old, in a 2 or 3 year old anyway. Morality is something we learn. Heb 5:14 ...mature people, whose minds are trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. Adam, whether a single individual or the human race, had not had any experience of moral decisions before and the choice God laid before him was the simplest one around.

I find it interesting that the earliest religious and moral code in the bible is the simplest one of taboo, it is not a coming to a complex decision of what is morally right or wrong, or understanding how understanding how decisions would hurt someone else, but simply 'Don't eat that. God says no'.

What I also see is Adam being given a choice between the natural inclinations of his flesh, his hunger, and God's call. His flesh had done a very good job protecting and feeding his ancestors through their evolution and making sure the species survived to successive generations. But now God was calling man higher, and walking in the spiritual relationship with God he was being called to, would mean mastering the demands of the flesh. Gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh. Of course we read 'flesh' as 'our fallen sin nature', but what if it meant simply what it says, our human nature, which was very good while the human race evolved, but now holds us back from God's spiritual call? It sound very like the comparison between the law and the gospel, the law was very good and acted as a schoolmaster, but now that grace has come it can hold people enslaved (Gal 4).


I am still thinking through all this, but that is where I am at present...

.

 

[jereth]

I guess this is where TEs may disagree. There are 2 possible points of view:

A. The "Simple"Option
Adam represents a real, historical individual (or group of individuals). He and his contemporaries were the first generation who were endowed with a spiritual nature, and as a consequence, with real moral choice and the ability to know God. If he chose righteousness, he would have had eternal life.

Pre-Adamite humanity, on the other hand, were spiritual animals despite being anatomical humans. So they did not have moral capability or any consciousness of God. They died just like animals, and will not face judgment by God for their moral actions. They will not be resurrected or end up in heaven or hell -- no different from my pet cat.

When Adam chose to disobey God, sin came into the world, bringing death with it (Rom 5). In actual fact, of course, physical death was already a natural part of existence for Adam's ancestors -- so the meaning of "death" is really "spiritual death". Humanity (in Adam) had the choice to transcend spiritual death by choosing righteousness, but he didn't.

B. The "complex" option
This second option rejects the idea that there was some kind of sudden, miraculous transition from pre-Adamite humanity to post-Adamite humanity. Humanity was not given a "spiritual nature" suddenly. Spirituality, moral awareness, God-consciousness etc. developed gradually as part of the evolutionary process.

So now we have the problem: was pre-Adamite humanity sinful? This is what my previous post seeks to address. I believe that the answer can be "yes", because all that is needed for "sin" is some awareness of God's existence.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:18-21

Paul says here that God's presence has always been recognisable, and men have always rejected it. A homo erectus may not have perceived much of God, but if he rejected what little he could perceive, then he is a sinner.

So this is where I get the idea of Adam's sin spreading backwards in time. Pre-Adamite humanity did not have the same knowledge of God that Adam did -- yet they rejected what they did have. So they were also partakers in Adam's sin, and counted as sinners.

This is exactly parallel to Christ's righteousness (as in Rom 5). Pre-Christ believers (Abraham, David, etc.) only had a small glimpse of God's righteousness -- yet they had faith in what little they could understand, and were therefore counted as righteous. Thus we say that Christ's righteousness has spread backwards in time to them.

Which option is correct?
Personally I currently lean towards option B, because the scientific evidence appears to suggest that spirituality evolved gradually in humanity. There is good evidence that 100,000 year old humans practiced religious rites. So I don't think it makes sense to say that pre-Adamite humanity was non-spiritual, and post-Adamite humanity was spiritual.

.

 

[jereth]

I still have problems with sin spreading backwards in time. It seems to be totally unjust. People were either innocent, or guilty of their own sin. To condemn people as sinners based on what someone else did generations later is simply not right. The parallel with righteousness doesn't work because righteousness is a gift which is freely accepted by those who receive it. Condemnation as a sinner is not something anyone would want as an undeserved gift.

I lean more toward B the complex option myself. A lot depends on how the human spirit originated. The bible is clear it is a gift from God he gives to everyone, but that does not tell us how he gives this to us, either as individuals or as a species. I quite like the idea the the human soul/spirit/consciousness is an emergent property that came with the increased size and complexity of our brains. That doesn't mean it is not still the gift of God. While an emergent property, could point to a slow development of the human spirit, it also leave open a sudden leap forward as the new property clicks into place. (I am not wild about that line of thought because it leads to the idea that the human spirit only emerges in children too as their brains reach a certain size.)

I see two possible bases for as you call it some kind of sudden, miraculous transition from pre-Adamite humanity to post-Adamite humanity. One is a Pentecost type outpouring of a God given spirit to the human race, a spirit that returns to God when we die, unlike animal spirit which return to the earth when the body dies, (as the preacher suggested in Eccles 3:21). I think Pentecost is a good parallel here because we have seen God pour out a gift of a new spirit, (his own Holy Spirit in the case of Pentecost) on a large group of people without the need for any change in mental or biological development. The other possible basis for a sudden transition is the moral responsibility that comes with being given an actual command from God, temptation was only possible when there was a law to break though I think moral responsibility comes with moral awareness rather than law.

,

 

[jereth]

Personally, I believe that the issue of "original sin" is the biggest theological challenge for TEism, because (as I said earlier) TEism breaks down the Church's traditional formulation of the doctrine (i.e. the sin of an original couple spreading via biological heredity to the rest of the human race). We have a lot of work to do to formulate a new understanding of original sin, taking into account the dual "problems" of pre-Adamite humanity and Adam's human contemporaries. Until we can successfully do so, YECism has a big inroad with which they can discredit our theology.

I'm not suggesting that pre-ADamite humans are held responsible for sin other than their own. As I've tried to explain in previous posts, they were sinners because they rejected the knowledge of God that is evident from creation (Psalm 19, Acts 14:17, Romans 1:18ff.). In the judgment, this is what they will be punished for. It will be nothing more than they personally deserve.

In saying "Adam's sin spread backwards in time", all I'm really saying is that the "fullness" of Adam's sin was foreshadowed in the rejection of God's goodness from the very beginning of humanity ("immature" as this rejection may have been). This is just like saying that the "fullness" of Christian righteousness was foreshadowed in the "immature" faith of Abraham and David. I think "spread backwards" is an unhelpful phrase -- I apologise.


In my mind, these two things are contradictory. Either the human "spirit" is an emergent property of our material brains (which is virtually a proven fact of modern neuroscience), or it is a supernatural, intangible, immaterial "ghost in a machine". Cannot be both at the same time.

What exactly is this "outpoured spirit" that you propose? It cannot be our thought, our consciousness, our rationality, our emotion, our volition, our memory etc. It cannot even be our "religious nature". All these things have been demonstrated to be emergent properties of our brain. So what is it that Adam had that his father did not?


Are you saying that Adam's parents (and grandparents etc.) completely lacked any sense of moral awareness whatsoever? If Adam was as cognitively developed as his parents, how could there be such a sudden change in moral awareness? I find it hard to believe that a pre-Adamite human could have murdered or raped a fellow human without a pang of conscience. Similarly, it is near impossible to imagine that a race of beings could paint on cave walls and bury their dead while lacking moral awareness.

No, I think that we have to somehow factor into our theology of original sin the sinfulness of pre-Adamite humanity.

.

 

[jereth]

Somehow I don't find it as incredulous as you do (with all due respect). We see a lot of intelligence in the intellectual, social, aesthetic, etc. aspects in many, many other members of the animal family. Even "primitive" animals like ants and termites have clearly defined social systems, albeit biologically founded (instead of being based on "social rites" as we understand them - grooming and all); as we move up all sorts of advanced animals like chimps and dolphins display various levels of sophistry in tool-making, understanding human language (though probably more on the level of trained response than actual human-like understanding). And yet in spiritual terms we don't see them having any sort of relationship with God.

I don't consider it too much of a stretch to imagine that similarly, pre-Adamite humans (there has to be a more neutral term for them, I wouldn't call anything before Adam "human") may have graffitied their cave walls and buried their dead as highly developed social instinct. But the possibility of sin entered the world when God revealed Himself to man and established the relationship of being God's image with them. Notice that the concept of sin from birth, that even the newborn child is tainted by original sin, assumes that it is possible to assign some form of moral status to the newborn (sinner or not-sinner) even though the newborn has far less intellectuality or social ability compared to any normal person. This suggests to me the converse, that it could be possible for the pre-Adamite to have intellectuality or social ability comparable to a normal human, and still not have any moral relationship with God.

,

 

[jereth]

Hmm, I think I have to disagree on several counts (with all due respect).

Psalm 104:21
The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God.

I think this suggests that, at some level, animals do have a "relationship" with God. It may not be much more than "me need food, me receive food, me happy", and perhaps a feeling of "gratitude". But I would still call this a relationship. I do not think that relationship with God is all-or-nothing; I think it is a spectrum. The spectrum exists across species (eg. from ant to human) as well as within humanity (eg. infants and intellectually disabled/demented people vs. cognitively intact adults). The distinction between humanity and animals is not relationship with God (or lack thereof) per se, but something in the quality of this relationship.

Pre-Adam, humans may not have had a "complete" revelation of God along the lines of "I am YHWH, your creator, you must worship me." But, as intellectually capable beings, they must have recognised that something made the world and gave them life, and that they therefore owed something to this "higher power". When they instead turned and bowed down to rocks and trees, this was in every sense of the world "sinful".


Strongly disagree (again, with all due respect). I believe that if they were genetically, biologically, anatomically, physiologically and intellectually human, then they deserve to be called "human". No scientist would call a member of homo sapiens anything other than "human".

OTOH, I am willing to make the distinction (as some do) between homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens divinus [i.e. God conscious human]. The former is pre-Adamite and the latter is post-ADamite. But both are human IMHO.


I guess it all depends on how you interpret Genesis 2-3. If you think it is fairly literal story about God establishing some kind of unique covenantal relationship with a specific individual "Adam", who prior to this had absolutely no knowledge of God, and Adam subsequently committed a literal sin (which literally caused the entire human race to turn sinful), then you may end up with your viewpoint. This is also the viewpoint that I formerly held.

There are some problems, though.
- Firstly, the more I read Gen 2-3, the less literal I think it is. In my mind, it is moving more and more towards "general story about humankind" and away from "actual history of one single man" (This is a subjective feeling, I admit.)
- Secondly, if God established a unique covenant with Adam in Mesopotamia in ~6-10k BC, and called him the first "spiritual human", how did this "spiritual humanity" spread instantly to Australian aborigines and American indians who were Adam's contemporaries? I find that a difficult question to answer satisfactorily?
- Thirdly, when Adam committed his literal sin, how did this "sinful status"/original sin spread instantly to the aborigines and indians?
- Fourthly, as alluded to above, I have real trouble imagining how Adam's ancestors could be completely ignorant of spiritual and moral matters, given that they were as well developed as he was. I'm sure they would have had some conception of "spirit world" and "right vs. wrong", even if not from God.
- Fifthly (related to above), if pre-Adamite humans made moral choices based on their own societal ethical framework, surely God must hold them accountable for this?

As a result of these (and other) considerations, I have gradually shifted towards a view where consciousness of God -- and rejection of Him -- developed gradually during human evolution, rather than appearing suddenly in Adam's generation. This is not to say that I reject the idea of a literal Adam, and some kind of covenantal relationship made with him by God. But I feel that it is very difficult to maintain the idea that pre-Adamite humans were a bunch of soul-less beings, considered animals by God.

If I have at all misunderstood your position, please let me know.

.

 

[jereth]

Original sin is a question we need to deal with. In one way we have an advantage in that the doctrine of original sin has already been radically challenged and changed once, the Reformation threw out the traditional Catholic view of sharing in Adam's guilt which was washed away by baptism, to sharing in his fallen sin nature. Now this does answer to the question of why people have a propensity to sin, whose inclination to sin is so strong no one lives a righteous sinless life. But while original sin is a plausible answer to the question, is it actually the scriptural answer? What does the bible say is the reason for our sin?


I see what you mean now. I think instead of saying the fullness of Adam's sin was forshadowed in earlier rejections of God's goodness from the very beginning of humanity, I would say Adam was a figurative picture of humanity from the beginning. In fact he is a figurative picture of sinful humanity now too, which is why Paul can say all died (present tense) in Adam. But the historic rebellion against God in Genesis, shows the creation and fall of the human race, so Adam would cover the human race from it's first inkling of moral awareness to the fullness of our rebellion against God.



This depends on what is the difference between mind/soul and the spirit. I do not know the answer to this and am suspicious of the overconfident answers given to this question on basically very little scriptural foundation and more than a touch of Greek philosophy. The view that the human spirit is that part of us that can communicate with God fit beautifully here but is probably too good to be true.

The biblical tendency to use terms interchangably does not help. I like the writer of Ecclesiastes's view that animals do have spirits which perish when they die (clearly an emergent property of their organic structure) while humans have a spirit that returns to God when we die.
Eccles 3:21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?
Eccles 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Zech 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit [ruach] of man within him:

Interestingly this could be a reference to the creation of Adam, though the Hebrew adam is so vague translations seem to stick to 'man'. But the context is the creation, so 'Adam' seems reasonable. If so Zech is not taking the Genesis account literally. Gen says God formed [yatsar] Adam out of the dust, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (assuming this refers to Adam's spirit), Zechariah says God formed the spirit within him. The other interpretation is that God forms the spirit within each person. Of course I don't think the two interpretations are mutually exclusive, if the creation of adam refers to all mankind.

Anyway, this ties up with Ecclesiastes, God giving each person his Spirit. He form it in us in our mother's womb, but in some very special way, the spirit is from him and returns to God when we die. It is from God in a way the spirits of animals are not, they are purely a manifestation of the organic structure.

God who formed the spirit within me also knitted me together in my mother's womb Psalm 139:13. So yes there is plenty of room for natural processes and emergent properties, but there is something from God in the human spirit too. I see no problem with the human spirit arising as an emergent property along with emotion volition etc., even the beginnings of a religious nature, but which was exchanged / transformed / added to, becoming our God given spirit, perhaps in another parallel, as our mortal bodies will be transformed into spiritual ones as Paul said in 1Cor 15.

A few other verses on the human spirit:
Job 12:9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life [nephesh] of every living thing[chai] and the breath[ruach] of all mankind.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath [neshamah as in Gen 2:7] to the people on it and spirit[ruach] to those who walk in it:
Ezek 18:4 Behold, all souls [nephesh] are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.
Heb 12:9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits [pneuma] and live?



The parallel is that God can pour out something spiritual across a whole group of people, giving some sort of spiritual gift to a large number. What that something is I can't say. I cannot even tell you what the human spirit is. Certainly it wasn't the Holy Spirit. But the bible uses both the picture of the spirit being formed within us, and it being in some way from God.

The difference is a spirit that in some sense returns to God when we die instead of decaying.




Good point. I would say that even as children develops, there can be a growing moral awareness before we reach a stage of actual moral responsibility. Isaiah 7:16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Moral awareness is probably a continuum, but moral responsibility seems to be a distinct stage reached along the continuum of moral awareness.

Sorry if this is a bit waffly

.

 

[jereth]

Original sin is a question we need to deal with. In one way we have an advantage in that the doctrine of original sin has already been radically challenged and changed once, the Reformation threw out the traditional Catholic view of sharing in Adam's guilt which was washed away by baptism, to sharing in his fallen sin nature.

I'm not sure I fully agree with this. There are some Protestant traditions that continue to believe that all humanity shares in Adam's guilt (though of course not the "washed away by baptism" bit).

Calvinist/Reformed view = "we are sinners at birth"
Arminian/Wesleyan view = "we are sinners when we commit our first sin"

But yes, you're right, the Church has in some sense changed its mind about Original Sin.

What does the bible say is the reason for our sin?

Ephesians 2:1-5 is the best biblical answer I can think of. We sin because of the devil, the world's influence, and our inborn corrupt nature. Now, how these things work together is a mystery I'm not sure the BIble explains.

I would say Adam was a figurative picture of humanity from the beginning. In fact he is a figurative picture of sinful humanity now too, which is why Paul can say all died (present tense) in Adam. But the historic rebellion against God in Genesis, shows the creation and fall of the human race, so Adam would cover the human race from it's first inkling of moral awareness to the fullness of our rebellion against God.

I would agree to everything you say here. Only problem is, some TEs believe that Adam was a historical person who initiated a historical Fall, and this is recorded for us in symbolic language in Genesis 3. (I sense shernren might be in that boat, maybe Willtor too ??? sorry guys if I'm wrong) So these people will want to know: what is the relationship between historical Adam's sin and pre-Adamite humanity?

This depends on what is the difference between mind/soul and the spirit. I do not know the answer to this and am suspicious of the overconfident answers given to this question on basically very little scriptural foundation and more than a touch of Greek philosophy.

Absolutely!

The view that the human spirit is that part of us that can communicate with God fit beautifully here but is probably too good to be true.

Agreed. I think that is an unbiblical idea. Greek, like you said.

The biblical tendency to use terms interchangably does not help. I like the writer of Ecclesiastes's view that animals do have spirits which perish when they die (clearly an emergent property of their organic structure) while humans have a spirit that returns to God when we die.

I wouldn't pin too much doctrine on this, personally. As you say, the terms are used interchangably, and it is all pretty vague what the Hebrews really thought about spirits and souls. Sometimes "spirit" (ruach) just seems to mean "breath", and the only reason why it's translated "spirit" in English seems to be our pervasive Greek influence. As far as I'm concerned, what clearly separates animals from humanity is "the image of God", and this has nothing to do with spirits, souls, etc. The question we come back to then is -- when did the "image of God" first appear? Literal Adam in 4004 BC or sometime earlier in evolution? Or gradually?

Gen says God formed [yatsar] Adam out of the dust, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (assuming this refers to Adam's spirit),

I'd personally avoid reading "spirit" into this verse. It's just plain, simple "breath of life".

Zechariah says God formed the spirit within him. The other interpretation is that God forms the spirit within each person. Of course I don't think the two interpretations are mutually exclusive, if the creation of adam refers to all mankind.

Again, “spirit” might just mean plain old “breath” here.

God who formed the spirit within me also knitted me together in my mother's womb Psalm 139:13. So yes there is plenty of room for natural processes and emergent properties, but there is something from God in the human spirit too. I see no problem with the human spirit arising as an emergent property along with emotion volition etc., even the beginnings of a religious nature, but which was exchanged / transformed / added to, becoming our God given spirit,

Fair enough. Personally, I’d be careful using the word “spirit” (for reasons outlined above), but yes, we could certainly postulate some kind of non-material entity that God unites to our materially based conscious self. But this sort of idea is very difficult for me to accept, since I am a thorough-going materialist when it comes to human nature. I really am very uncomfortable with the old Greek idea of an immaterial immortal substance.

A few other verses on the human spirit:
Job 12:9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life [nephesh] of every living thing[chai] and the breath[ruach] of all mankind.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath [neshamah as in Gen 2:7] to the people on it and spirit[ruach] to those who walk in it:
Ezek 18:4 Behold, all souls [nephesh] are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.
Heb 12:9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits [pneuma] and live?

Hmmm, but doesn’t the Bible apply the words “nephesh” and “ruach” to both animals and mankind? Doesn’t that undermine your argument that there is an ontological distinction between animals and mankind?

Here’s one for you to ponder:
When you hide your face, they [animals] are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your spirit [ruach], they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. Psalm 104:29, 30

Hmmm, doesn’t sound like much difference b/w animals and humans here eh?
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]As I have moved from YEC to OEC to partial TE to full TE, these issues played in my mind over and over again. I used to like the idea that Mr. Adam of Eden, Mesopotamia, born 4000 BC , suddenly received the image of God (the homo sapiens to homo divinus idea). But when I thought about it carefully, the difficulties with this position piled up. (See my response to shernren above.) At the end of the day, you just have to imagine Adam and (say) Adam's great grand-father standing side by side. They look the same, speak the same, smell the same, behave the same, think the same. How then can we call one a spiritual animal and the other a spiritual human?

It is interesting at this point to note the Hugh Ross OEC vs. AiG debate regarding neanderthals and homo erectus. Hugh Ross believes that these pre-Adamite hominids were sub-human, whereas AiG argues forcefully that they were fully human. (Of course, AiG thinks neanderthals and erectines are descendants of Adam, don't ask me how.) But when reading this debate, I find myself convinced by AiG.

(My brain hurts! -- or perhaps it's my emergent spirit-mind that is hurting! Either way, time for bed)


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Assyrian]

I'm not sure I fully agree with this. There are some Protestant traditions that continue to believe that all humanity shares in Adam's guilt (though of course not the "washed away by baptism" bit).

Calvinist/Reformed view = "we are sinners at birth"
Arminian/Wesleyan view = "we are sinners when we commit our first sin"

But yes, you're right, the Church has in some sense changed its mind about Original Sin.

Do Calvinists believe we share in the actual guilt of Adam's sin in the garden, or simply that we are born 'totally depraved' as a result?

Ephesians 2:1-5 is the best biblical answer I can think of. We sin because of the devil, the world's influence, and our inborn corrupt nature. Now, how these things work together is a mystery I'm not sure the BIble explains.

Ah yes, the world, the flesh, and the devil, as they say. That is what I would think too. How things got that way is another question we need to look at. Is our flesh corrupt because we were born that way, or does it become enslaved when we sin? It seems to me reading Genesis that 'the flesh lusted against the spirit' from the very start and that Eve found the command of God opposed to the desires of her flesh. I remember reading that John's phrase 1John 2:16 lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, exactly matches the temptation in Gen 3:6 the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise... That suggests that instead of Adam and Eve being morally perfect, their 'flesh' was just as much opposed to the ways of God as ours is. Of course on top of that we have the world and the devil and once you sin you get ensnared in it, but the basic flesh part seems the same. I would say the desires of the flesh are good in themselves, but if we want to follow God we must rule them rather than letting them rule us. I would even think God was calling man beyond the physical and psychological he had evolved to, and into something greater. Would it be too much to suggest that when God told Adam and Eve to take dominion over every living thing, they should really have begun with themselves? (I talk about Adam and Eve as literal people because that is the way we get meaning out of the parable, it is not saying Adam Eve or the prodigal son were real individuals.)

I would agree to everything you say here. Only problem is, some TEs believe that Adam was a historical person who initiated a historical Fall, and this is recorded for us in symbolic language in Genesis 3. (I sense shernren might be in that boat, maybe Willtor too ??? sorry guys if I'm wrong) So these people will want to know: what is the relationship between historical Adam's sin and pre-Adamite humanity?

In a way we both face the same question, God's relationship with pre-Adamite humanity, or God's relationship with adam when we were less evolved. Was God's relationship with a moral homo erectus the same as we would have with a pet dog? In which case can we ask if God's pets will get to heaven? Of course the mystery of faith is how we can be anything more than pets to God either.

Absolutely!
Agreed. I think that is an unbiblical idea. Greek, like you said.
I wouldn't pin too much doctrine on this, personally. As you say, the terms are used interchangably, and it is all pretty vague what the Hebrews really thought about spirits and souls. Sometimes "spirit" (ruach) just seems to mean "breath", and the only reason why it's translated "spirit" in English seems to be our pervasive Greek influence. As far as I'm concerned, what clearly separates animals from humanity is "the image of God", and this has nothing to do with spirits, souls, etc. The question we come back to then is -- when did the "image of God" first appear? Literal Adam in 4004 BC or sometime earlier in evolution? Or gradually?

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Does this tell us that a hen shares in the image of God? If the image of God was something he created through evolution, then maternal love and even self sacrifice of animals displays something of his image.

I'd personally avoid reading "spirit" into this verse. It's just plain, simple "breath of life".

Again, “spirit” might just mean plain old “breath” here.

Mind you, if both refer to spirit, or if both refer to breath, you still have Zechariah giving a non literal interpretation of the 'God breathed...' in Genesis.

Fair enough. Personally, I’d be careful using the word “spirit” (for reasons outlined above), but yes, we could certainly postulate some kind of non-material entity that God unites to our materially based conscious self. But this sort of idea is very difficult for me to accept, since I am a thorough-going materialist when it comes to human nature. I really am very uncomfortable with the old Greek idea of an immaterial immortal substance.

I understand the tendency, however that would surely put TEs in the Sadducee camp rather than the more Pharisaic belief in spirits and the NT jumps heavily into the Pharisee camp on that one. Ecclesiastes does seem to teach that our spirit is something that returns to God when we die, something well, spiritual.

I agree with you on the immortality of the soul being a Greek concept, but the bible does seem to speak of the reward and punishment after death, even before the resurrection.

Hmmm, but doesn’t the Bible apply the words “nephesh” and “ruach” to both animals and mankind? Doesn’t that undermine your argument that there is an ontological distinction between animals and mankind?

Except that the writer of Eccles seemed to think there was a difference between the ruach of man and animals, theirs returns to the dust, ours to God.

Here’s one for you to ponder:
When you hide your face, they [animals] are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your spirit [ruach], they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. Psalm 104:29, 30

Hmmm, doesn’t sound like much difference b/w animals and humans here eh?

It doesn't compare men and animals here so we don't know to what extent men would be the same, or different, though it is a very interesting verse in a creation Psalm, talking about animals dying and a continuous process of creating (bara) new animals.

As I have moved from YEC to OEC to partial TE to full TE, these issues played in my mind over and over again. I used to like the idea that Mr. Adam of Eden, Mesopotamia, born 4000 BC , suddenly received the image of God (the homo sapiens to homo divinus idea). But when I thought about it carefully, the difficulties with this position piled up. (See my response to shernren above.) At the end of the day, you just have to imagine Adam and (say) Adam's great grand-father standing side by side. They look the same, speak the same, smell the same, behave the same, think the same. How then can we call one a spiritual animal and the other a spiritual human?

I think if you read Adam as an individual the answer to that one would be the God given spirit Adam had but his grandfather didn't, It would not be the only time one generation received a blessing the previous generation hadn't. Then again, Glen Morton would say God completely rebuilt the homind he called Adam.

However, Genesis tells us twice that 'adam' is plural and both male and female.Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make adam in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion...Gen 5:2 male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name adam, in the day when they were created. To me this says Adam is supposed to be read as a parable about humanity and not the story of the first individual.

It is interesting at this point to note the Hugh Ross OEC vs. AiG debate regarding neanderthals and homo erectus. Hugh Ross believes that these pre-Adamite hominids were sub-human, whereas AiG argues forcefully that they were fully human. (Of course, AiG thinks neanderthals and erectines are descendants of Adam, don't ask me how.) But when reading this debate, I find myself convinced by AiG.

I have only ever glanced at that particular bunfight. Speculations about neanderthals and h.erectus is all very fine, but actually arguing about it would make me want to get a pin and count the angels on it very carefully, before I stuck it in someone

(My brain hurts! -- or perhaps it's my emergent spirit-mind that is hurting! Either way, time for bed)

Just keep evolving, you'll get there.

 

[jereth]

Do Calvinists believe we share in the actual guilt of Adam's sin in the garden, or simply that we are born 'totally depraved' as a result?

Not 100% sure. My impression of reformed theology was that we share in Adam's guilt, but I could be wrong.

Here's the Westminster confession (chapter VI):
I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

Is our flesh corrupt because we were born that way, or does it become enslaved when we sin? It seems to me reading Genesis that 'the flesh lusted against the spirit' from the very start and that Eve found the command of God opposed to the desires of her flesh. ... That suggests that instead of Adam and Eve being morally perfect, their 'flesh' was just as much opposed to the ways of God as ours is.

Interesting thought, and raises an interesting question. Was it always God's plan for humanity to fall? Most creationists (including OECs) would find the idea very hard to stomach. But in theological circles, especially those of the Calvinist/reformed tradition, this idea is quite natural. From the very beginning of time, God planned to redeem humanity in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the fall of humanity was an essential part of his overall plan. Creationists might say that he put the tree in the garden knowing that man would eat it. TEs would instead say that man was never created with a "morally perfect" nature, but rather with a "fleshy" nature inclined to sin if given the chance. We then have an inevitable fall, paving the way for the glory of Christ.

I would say the desires of the flesh are good in themselves, but if we want to follow God we must rule them rather than letting them rule us. I would even think God was calling man beyond the physical and psychological he had evolved to, and into something greater.

Yes. We could envisage Adam (= primeval man) as a prototype for Israel. Called to follow God, but unable to overcome the desire of the flesh by his own efforts. Only Christ, with his gift of the Spirit, enables humanity to finally overcome the flesh (Romans 8).

In a way we both face the same question, God's relationship with pre-Adamite humanity, or God's relationship with adam when we were less evolved. Was God's relationship with a moral homo erectus the same as we would have with a pet dog? In which case can we ask if God's pets will get to heaven?

I guess that at some point in hominid evolution God began to hold humans responsible as humans, and no longer as animals. When was this point? I suspect we won't know until we meet Jesus, but we could take a guess.

Was it at ~10,000 BC (the neolithic revolution) -- i.e. the setting of biblical Adam? I really don't think so.

Was it 50-100,000 years ago? (Hugh Ross's Adam). More likely.

Was it much earlier -- perhaps when homo erectus first appeared >1 million years ago? Possibly.

Luke 13:34 ... Does this tell us that a hen shares in the image of God? If the image of God was something he created through evolution, then maternal love and even self sacrifice of animals displays something of his image.

Something of his image. But the full image only comes with humanity -- I think that is clear from Scripture.

I understand the tendency, however that would surely put TEs in the Sadducee camp rather than the more Pharisaic belief in spirits and the NT jumps heavily into the Pharisee camp on that one.

IMO, what was primarily wrong about the Saducees was that they rejected the idea of the resurrection. That's where Jesus and Paul disagreed with them. Pharisees were right because they hoped for the resurrection. Now, if we have an emergent soul, there is nothing unbiblical about the idea that the soul remains in some kind of stasis (just like the body) between death and resurrection. In fact, that is far more biblical than the idea of an immortal soul.

Ecclesiastes does seem to teach that our spirit is something that returns to God when we die, something well, spiritual.

I don't think so. Again, I don't think we should pin too much theology on a few verses in Eccl. Firstly, we need to read Eccl for the kind of literature it is -- one man's questions about life "under the sun", not a dissertation on the nature of man. Secondly, I think that we should translate "spirit" as "breath", since the picture is obviously based on Genesis 2:7. The "breath" going back to God is just a way of saying that the life which God once gave he is now taking back.

I agree with you on the immortality of the soul being a Greek concept, but the bible does seem to speak of the reward and punishment after death, even before the resurrection.

Where? I think Luke 16 is designed to address a particular Jewish mythology, and is, in any case, a parable.

Except that the writer of Eccles seemed to think there was a difference between the ruach of man and animals, theirs returns to the dust, ours to God.

But isn't this verse a question: Who knows...? And in the larger context, it seems the writer is saying here than man and animals are much the same (verses 18-20)

It doesn't compare men and animals here so we don't know to what extent men would be the same, or different,

Yes, but the basic picture seems to be the same as Gen 2:7. Body from dust, breath (i.e. life) from God.

Then again, Glen Morton would say God completely rebuilt the homind he called Adam.

??

However, Genesis tells us twice that 'adam' is plural and both male and female. To me this says Adam is supposed to be read as a parable about humanity and not the story of the first individual.

Agreed.

 

[relspace]

Since I am a Theistic Evolutionist who believes in a literal Adam and Eve, these are quite important questions as far as I am concerned.

- How "human" was pre-Adamite humanity?

Depends on how you define "human". If your definition is in terms of physcical characteristics, then I would say there was not much difference. But I think that if we were to meet them there would be little confusion. Our mind would instinctively and automatically classify them as animals.

- Was pre-Adamite humanity "spiritual"?

All life is spiritual. Life is a process of interaction between spiritual and physical. All living things (except fallen man) have an intimate relationship with the creator (according to their capabilities for such a relationship).

- Was pre-Adamite humanity morally aware?

Not greatly more or less than chimpanzees and gorillas are morally aware. Archeologists and biologist may detect differences which might be considered signicant in the pursuit of their sciences but if non-scientists met them they would classify the moral awareness of these pre-Adamite humans as more similar to that of the chimpanzees and gorillas than as similar to the human being.

- Was pre-Adamite humanity responsible to God for their actions?

Free will and responsibility is a property of life. Humanity was simply given life in greater measure through the introduction of abstract ideas and concepts, and thus humanity has a correspondingly greater measure of free will and responsibility.

- Did pre-Adamite humanity commit moral wrongdoing, and if so, did they also then share in Adam's sin?

"Moral wrongdoing" is a loaded abstract concept which is inapplicable to animals including pre-Adamite humanity. Living things evolved in unfruitful directions and were destroyed much in the same way that a gardner might prune a tree, or an animal breeder might select the best of his animals for breeding.

- How does pre-Adamite humanity relate to the Christian doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin?

Pre-Adamite humanity was simply fertile ground in which the seeds of greater life in Adam and Eve could spread and grow. By the sin of Adam and Eve the seeds which spread and grew were tainted, greatly increasing their (pre-Adamite humans) life and awareness while twisting it and giving it a self-destructive bent (a mixed blessing).

 

[shernren]

Yes, I am one of those folk who believe in a historical Adam and Eve and a historical Fall event. Of course, I hold this belief with a grain of salt, knowing that this reading really stems from my previous involvement with YECism and a lack of any really good reason to let go of it.

 

[jereth]

Since I am a Theistic Evolutionist who believes in a literal Adam and Eve, these are quite important questions as far as I am concerned.

Yes indeed, they are of utmost importance to all TEs!

Please note that I am unsure exactly where I stand on these issues, and everything below has some degree of devil's advocacy. Thanks.

Depends on how you define "human". If your definition is in terms of physcical characteristics, then I would say there was not much difference. But I think that if we were to meet them there would be little confusion. Our mind would instinctively and automatically classify them as animals.

But that is just a (subjective) human classification. Teh question is: how does God classify pre-Adamite humans? Can we know the answer with certainty from the Bible alone?

All life is spiritual. Life is a process of interaction between spiritual and physical. All living things (except fallen man) have an intimate relationship with the creator (according to their capabilities for such a relationship).

Fully agreed.

Not greatly more or less than chimpanzees and gorillas are morally aware. ...if non-scientists met them they would classify the moral awareness of these pre-Adamite humans as more similar to that of the chimpanzees and gorillas than as similar to the human being.

Is there any known scientific evidence (archeological, etc.) to support this? I've read that humans have been burying their dead and painting on walls for at least 100,000 years. That's very different from gorillas/chimps.

Free will and responsibility is a property of life. Humanity was simply given life in greater measure through the introduction of abstract ideas and concepts, and thus humanity has a correspondingly greater measure of free will and responsibility.

Yes. But we do not believe that Animals will face the judgment of God (eternal life vs. hell). What about Adam's parents? Will they face judgment for their actions?

Pre-Adamite humanity was simply fertile ground in which the seeds of greater life in Adam and Eve could spread and grow. By the sin of Adam and Eve the seeds which spread and grew were tainted, greatly increasing their (pre-Adamite humans) life and awareness while twisting it and giving it a self-destructive bent (a mixed blessing).

[/quote]

Could you please explain in more detail exactly what you think changed between Adam's biological father and Adam himself? What made Adam stand out from his ancestors as the first ever true "human"? And was this change accomplished by divine miraculous act or not?

How exactly do you interpret Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 3?

Thanks.

 

[relspace]

everything below has some degree of devil's advocacy

So noted. And I also will be frank in admitting that my answers are based on philosophy rather than scripture. And by philosophy I mean, in particular, my own study of the metaphysical implications of contemporary physics.

But that is just a (subjective) human classification. Teh question is: how does God classify pre-Adamite humans? Can we know the answer with certainty from the Bible alone?

Now upon this I heartily disagree. I think that in many ways our mind automatically processes subtle data into a very accurate impressions, especially where other human beings are concerned. I am saying that the difference would be observable and obvious and that this perception would be an accurate apprehension of the reality. Psychologists could no doubt justify their science by finding ways to measure the difference.

Is there any known scientific evidence (archeological, etc.) to support this? I've read that humans have been burying their dead and painting on walls for at least 100,000 years. That's very different from gorillas/chimps.

I do not think that burying their dead is any more significant than a cat burying its wastes. The cave paintings (only 30-40 thousand years old) are far more significant but are not necessarily conclusive. It will be difficult to find scientific evidence before written languange, for you cannot draw pictures of abstract concepts.

Yes. But we do not believe that Animals will face the judgment of God (eternal life vs. hell). What about Adam's parents? Will they face judgment for their actions?

No. They are no different than the other animals.

Could you please explain in more detail exactly what you think changed between Adam's biological father and Adam himself? What made Adam stand out from his ancestors as the first ever true "human"? And was this change accomplished by divine miraculous act or not?

Depends on whether you consider hearing the voice of God to be a divine miraculous act. I believe that God rather literally adopted Adam and Eve (orphaned or separated from their biological parents) and spoke to them, teaching them things that their biological parents could not have done. But which human parents have taught their children ever since. Being treated as person by another person. In more concrete terms you could say it was ideas that changed them. What made them human were abstract concepts like love, good, evil, truth (and justice? honor?). There is a symmetry and realism in this which I like, for in this idea, the transformation of homos-sapiens to human is a lot like the beginning and spread of a religion.

How exactly do you interpret Genesis 2:7 ?

Well I do not think that Adam was a magically animated golem of dust. And most people will go so far as to interpret "dust" to mean matter. But then why not go a step further to equate "dust" with organic matter, and while we are at it, instead of interpreting the word "formed" as some hollywood special effect magic, why not with a process that is more consistent with every case of creating life in our experience, which is always an interactive process reflected in words like: cultivated, raised, bred, trained, and taught. I do not think that living things by their very nature can be created in any other way. In other words, the method of creation is not independent of the result.

Anyway into this biological matter God breathed the breath of life. But the divine breath in the Biblical scripture is consistently a reference to the word of God or inspiration. It is the word of God which makes us human. But the word of God which was given to Adam and which has been taught by every parent since has been twisted by the effects of sin. And so God created a correction for its replacement in the written word of the Bible.

The form and nature of a living being derives from inherited information. Our body is built from the information contained in our DNA, but our mind is first constructed from the verbal (and body language?) "information" inherited from our parents, which originally came from God by way of Adam and Eve.

How exactly do you interpret Genesis 3?

Well this is a separate issue and but the names "Tree of Life" and "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" are nothing like the names we have for plants and trees, so these names shout symbolism to me more than anything else in the Bible. I do not believe that these are litteral trees placed there for the testing of Adam and Eve, but natural aspects of human life according to the plan of God. Anyway here is my own particular interpretation.

The basic idea is that Adam and Eve were innocent of their sexuality and just children. God was their adoptive parent (speaking to them since they were born), teaching them to love all things in creation. Yet Adam and Eve were not yet mature enough in their love to be ready for parenthood as God envisioned (loving their children with sufficiently selfless parental love). The idea was that after they had sufficient spiritual maturity, when they would be ready, then God would teach them to have children. I thought their behavior after the event was particularly significant. When God asked them if they ate of the tree they successively pointed the finger at others blaming them and taking no responsibility for their actions. There was little enough love lost between them when the situation was even a little difficult.

Lucifer deduced that if he could influence Adam and Eve to become parents before they were ready then He could keep all of mankind immature and under his influence from then on. And so the history of mankind is the history of children having children without the proper love or integrity to be the kind of parent that God was to Adam and Eve. Thus it was because of this orignal sin that nudity and sex became something shameful instead of the holy gift that God had meant it to be, and so Adam and Eve covered themselves in shame. Likewise mankind lacks the proper control over themselves in this activity which God desired them to develop.

One of the consequences was that God greatly multiplied the woman's pain in childbirth and I believe that this was to help protect the sanctity of the parent child relationship by making it so that we could not treat with the act of having children as carefree and thoughtless. Without this I can imagine uncaring women disposing of unwanted children the same way they go to the toilet. The difficult life in general was for simillar reasons, so that through suffering, men and women could learn some character, maturity, and working together for mutual support.

Sex has been so often been shrouded in euphemisms that it is quite plausible that that symbols would be used for it in a story like this. Suffice it to say that however he did so, Lucifer acquainted Eve with sexuality and she shared what she learned with Adam. So I find this idea that the original sin was to do with sex and not with merely breaking a meaningless rule, to be logical and convincing, BUT I am not in anyway inclined to try to convince anyone to believe as I do. It is an idle speculative opinion only and I put no faith in it at all.

 

[jereth]

So noted. And I also will be frank in admitting that my answers are based on philosophy rather than scripture. And by philosophy I mean, in particular, my own study of the metaphysical implications of contemporary physics.

Sounds interesting... One day you'll have to tell me more

Now upon this I heartily disagree. I think that in many ways our mind automatically processes subtle data into a very accurate impressions, especially where other human beings are concerned. I am saying that the difference would be observable and obvious and that this perception would be an accurate apprehension of the reality. Psychologists could no doubt justify their science by finding ways to measure the difference.

With all due respect, I still find that I can't agree with you here. Our "impressions" of other people are subjective, and determined in part by socio-cultural factors. When white people arrived in Australia and the New World, their impression of the indigenous peoples were that they were less evolved. Modern genetics has now shown this impression absolutely wrong.

When we meet people with severe intellectual disability, or people with Down's syndrome, our deepest instinct is to classify them as "less human". But in God's eyes this is false.

So yes, if we met Adam's biological father, we may well feel that he is a savage beast, not a human. But this man may be as much in the image of God as we are.

I do not think that burying their dead is any more significant than a cat burying its wastes. The cave paintings (only 30-40 thousand years old) are far more significant but are not necessarily conclusive. It will be difficult to find scientific evidence before written languange, for you cannot draw pictures of abstract concepts.

Whatever the case, we're still dealing with a great deal more advancement than chimps and gorillas. That's all I was saying.

Depends on whether you consider hearing the voice of God to be a divine miraculous act. I believe that God rather literally adopted Adam and Eve (orphaned or separated from their biological parents) and spoke to them,

Personally, I would consider this a miraculous act. In other words, we couldn't explain it naturalistically.

teaching them things that their biological parents could not have done. But which human parents have taught their children ever since. Being treated as person by another person. In more concrete terms you could say it was ideas that changed them. What made them human were abstract concepts like love, good, evil, truth (and justice? honor?). There is a symmetry and realism in this which I like, for in this idea, the transformation of homos-sapiens to human is a lot like the beginning and spread of a religion.

I have every respect for this point of view. 3 years ago, I was inclined to think this way myself. But the problems eventually became insurmountable.

For instance, how do you account for the spread of "humanity" to other peoples living on earth at the time? I presume you believe that Adam lived in Mesopotamia. When and how did humanity spread to the Americas, or the Pacific Islands, or Australia? Surely there must have been a considerable lag in some areas, where "people" remained "animals" for hundreds of years after Adam was adopted by God.

What about the spread of sin worldwide? When and how did this occur?

Can I please ask: roughly when do you think Adam and Eve lived?

Well I do not think that Adam was a magically animated golem of dust. And most people will go so far as to interpret "dust" to mean matter. But then why not go a step further to equate "dust" with organic matter, and while we are at it, instead of interpreting the word "formed" as some hollywood special effect magic, why not with a process that is more consistent with every case of creating life in our experience, which is always an interactive process reflected in words like: cultivated, raised, bred, trained, and taught. I do not think that living things by their very nature can be created in any other way. In other words, the method of creation is not independent of the result.

I like your reasoning.

Anyway into this biological matter God breathed the breath of life. But the divine breath in the Biblical scripture is consistently a reference to the word of God or inspiration. It is the word of God which makes us human. But the word of God which was given to Adam and which has been taught by every parent since has been twisted by the effects of sin. And so God created a correction for its replacement in the written word of the Bible.

Personally, I am not inclined to such an allegorical interpretation. I think Genesis 2:7 is simply a description of human life as dead matter being animated by the power of God (cf. Ezek 37). But I do respect your view.

Well this is a separate issue and but the names "Tree of Life" and "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" are nothing like the names we have for plants and trees, so these names shout symbolism to me more than anything else in the Bible.

Absolutely.

I do not believe that these are litteral trees placed there for the testing of Adam and Eve, but natural aspects of human life according to the plan of God. Anyway here is my own particular interpretation.

Thanks for providing me with your view. You have obviously put much thought into it.