The historicity of Adam

[Dewi Sant]

To what extent must it be affirmed that Adam, the proto-man, existed in accordance to the Genesis narrative.

I ask this because it is firmly attested by the writings of church fathers that Adam existed literally.

Is it required of Orthodox persons to discredit modern scientific opinion concerning the age of the Earth and the gradual evolution of hominids?


Yes, I know this topic may cause a lot of attention, and people may think "why is he questioning these things".
I trust that in Orthodoxy people are allowed to question, therefore, I do not apologise.

 

[inconsequential]

I have heard variations from pious Orthodox that range from literal Genesis to God taking an early hominid and imbuing it with a soul. Even heard an argument that those hominids were a source of spouses for Adam's children since incest was forbidden.

I don't know about an official Church position so I can't say.

 

[cosmicom]

I think there´s not contradiction in Genesis and modern science.

According to modern scrience, the evolved man, the culture, the writtings, the civilizations, began in middle east few thousands of years ago, before that the man was pre-historical

well, according to bible, God inspired breath in dust, and then ONE man, ADAM received soul, and ONE woman, EVE, was created from his rib. Those were our fathers Adan and Eve, we receive original sin from (NO christian can deny this). God commited them to be farmers.

Before that? I think that maybe that "dust" means prehistorical man, a man created by god as hunter (In Genenis the creation of man is related two times, one as hunter and other as farmer), after God created: 1º sub-acuatic life 2ºreptiles 3ºbirds 4º mammals (i dont remember if that is the correct order). t

I just believe that Adan and Eve, our forefathers, were so real and walked in this land as I am and I do.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Those were our fathers Adan and Eve, we receive original sin from (NO christian can deny this). God commited them to be farmers.

That depends on what you mean by that (we receive original sin from).

 

[jckstraw72]

Adam and Eve and their descendants are celebrated as Saints on the 2 Sundays before Nativity when we celebrate the righteous of the Old Testament. I find that to be pretty conclusive.

 

[jckstraw72]

I have heard variations from pious Orthodox that range from literal Genesis to God taking an early hominid and imbuing it with a soul. Even heard an argument that those hominids were a source of spouses for Adam's children since incest was forbidden.

I don't know about an official Church position so I can't say.

just for clarification, incest was not yet forbidden:

St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Genesis 20:3, Fathers of the Church vol. 82, p. 37
Don’t be surprised at this, dearly beloved: [Scripture] has so far given no list of women anywhere in a precise manner; instead, Sacred Scripture while avoiding superfluous detail mentions the males in turn, though not even all of them, telling us about them in rather summary fashion when it says that so-and-so had sons and daughters and then he died. So it is likely in this case too that Eve gave birth to a daughter after Cain and Abel, and Cain took her for a wife. You see, since it was in the beginning and the human race had to increase from then on, it was permissible to marry their own sisters.

 

[cosmicom]

That depends on what you mean by that (we receive original sin from).

According to saint Paul, death came from one man, Adan, as everlasting Live cames from one man, Christ, so Christ is new Adam.

No way Adam didnt exist, he was so real as you and me, with a heart, limbs, lungs, eyes etc as you and me, but he was created pure, without death; Adan sinned so we received death from him, and spiritual weakness, because we inherite his original sin.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

According to saint Paul, death came from one man, Adan, as everlasting Live cames from one man, Christ, so Christ is new Adam.

No way Adam didnt exist, he was so real as you and me, with a heart, limbs, lungs, eyes etc as you and me, but he was created pure, without death; Adan sinned so we received death from him, and spiritual weakness, because we inherite his original sin.

Death was a consequence of that sin. We are NOT born with guilt of that sin, however we suffer from the consequences of it. I was not in the garden, were you? The East has a completely different teaching on this than does the West.

 

[AndrewEOC]

Christians (maybe especially Orthodox Christians) desperately need to recognize that science has been making enormous strides in uncovering the history of humanity and previously-unknown laws of the universe, before clinging to a literal interpretation of Genesis and taking a generally hostile stance towards modern science. We are not sinking back into pre-modern ignorance of the physical world any time soon, in fact incredible developments e.g. truly artificial life/genetic engineering can be expected in the near future, so I suggest we reconcile ourselves to this reality.

 

[Dewi Sant]

I do not believe it is un-Christian to read the glorious story of Salvation as pertaining to Adam as being allegorical.

In a podcast I listened to recently it was proposed that the early church did not consider the Genesis account of creation to be literal and that it was a development with Augustine and his doctrine of 'Original Sin' which began the literalistic trend.

Staniloae for example accommodates the advances of the scientific method with the affirmation of the theology of the age of salvation, from Adam to the Kingdom. Staniloae is radical in that he considers human reason to be part of the doxa (glory) of being made in the Image of God.


I am trying to reconcile the wonders of accounting for Creation (as a theological task). With the belief of the Church in the physical man of Adam.
I can believe Adam to be allegory for the primary state of humanity, a narrative character perfect for revealing the light of Salvation to Israel (and thus the Church).

 

[Dewi Sant]

Christians (maybe especially Orthodox Christians) desperately need to recognize that science has been making enormous strides in uncovering the history of humanity and previously-unknown laws of the universe, before clinging to a literal interpretation of Genesis and taking a generally hostile stance towards modern science. We are not sinking back into pre-modern ignorance of the physical world any time soon, in fact incredible developments e.g. truly artificial life/genetic engineering can be expected in the near future, so I suggest we reconcile ourselves to this reality.

I will find a quote by Staniloae which affirms the spirit of your thought

 

[ArmyMatt]

Christians (maybe especially Orthodox Christians) desperately need to recognize that science has been making enormous strides in uncovering the history of humanity and previously-unknown laws of the universe, before clinging to a literal interpretation of Genesis and taking a generally hostile stance towards modern science. We are not sinking back into pre-modern ignorance of the physical world any time soon, in fact incredible developments e.g. truly artificial life/genetic engineering can be expected in the near future, so I suggest we reconcile ourselves to this reality.

no one takes a hostile attitude toward science. science can never prove or disprove something like the age of the earth or the first man or anything along those lines. some folks, myself included, trust the Fathers and the saints when it comes to this, because even those who are post Darwin affirm the literal teaching. Elder Joseph of Vatopedi monastery had a vision that creation happened exactly how Moses wrote it down. for me, that is enough.

saying that, you can be Orthodox and believe in evolution and an older Earth, I know plenty who do although I disagree with them, and many of them are far more pious than I am, some of which are on this forum. so yes, personally you can be Orthodox and believe in this

and please, no one post some vid by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo. a guy who schismed his way to the episcopate is not a great defense for Orthodox doctrine concerning creation.

and, one last sidebar, could we move past the whole anti evolution = anti science? just because someone comes to a differing conclusion, does not mean they are anti science.

 

[inconsequential]

just for clarification, incest was not yet forbidden:

St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Genesis 20:3, Fathers of the Church vol. 82, p. 37
Don’t be surprised at this, dearly beloved: [Scripture] has so far given no list of women anywhere in a precise manner; instead, Sacred Scripture while avoiding superfluous detail mentions the males in turn, though not even all of them, telling us about them in rather summary fashion when it says that so-and-so had sons and daughters and then he died. So it is likely in this case too that Eve gave birth to a daughter after Cain and Abel, and Cain took her for a wife. You see, since it was in the beginning and the human race had to increase from then on, it was permissible to marry their own sisters.

I tried to point that out to them but they were convinced that incest itself was a cause of physical deformity rather than the modern proliferation of genetic errors and increased likelihood of a deformity in modern relatives. Originally there were no genetic errors or very few.

 

[AndrewEOC]

no one takes a hostile attitude toward science. science can never prove or disprove something like the age of the earth or the first man or anything along those lines. some folks, myself included, trust the Fathers and the saints when it comes to this, because even those who are post Darwin affirm the literal teaching. Elder Joseph of Vatopedi monastery had a vision that creation happened exactly how Moses wrote it down. for me, that is enough.

We can't prove it in so far as we can't travel back in time to observe how it happened. But we can use evidence available today to draw conclusions about the past to the point of reasonable certainty.

and, one last sidebar, could we move past the whole anti evolution = anti science? just because someone comes to a differing conclusion, does not mean they are anti science.

Really? Have you read Genesis, Creation, and Early Man? I'm guessing you have because that's usually a source Orthodox creationists rely on in these debates.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We can't prove it in so far as we can't travel back in time to observe how it happened. But we can use evidence available today to draw conclusions about the past to the point of reasonable certainty.

that's only if you assume that the laws of physics today are the same that they always were, and that the Fall was not a supernatural change that affected the cosmos. if it was, your assumptions are incorrect just like how if not mine are. either way, neither can be proven or disproven.

Really? Have you read Genesis, Creation, and Early Man? I'm guessing you have because that's usually a source Orthodox creationists rely on in these debates.

yes I have. I have also read St Nektarios Christology where he takes apart evolution when comparing Christ to the New Adam. so yes, I have read that, but it is not what I have only read.

 

[AndrewEOC]

that's only if you assume that the laws of physics today are the same that they always were, and that the Fall was not a supernatural change that affected the cosmos. if it was, your assumptions are incorrect just like how if not mine are. either way, neither can be proven or disproven.

The scientific theory rests on the assumption that the laws of physics have held roughly constant since the Big Bang. Much of what we know about the fundamental nature of the universe, including atomic and molecular behavior, simply doesn't compute if we assume variability in natural laws through history- and the structure of the universe currently ONLY makes sense through this lens, taking into account the theory of relativity and expansion of space. It is nonsensical from a scientific perspective to just say, "well, maybe science has only been science for x number of years."

 

[jckstraw72]

We can't prove it in so far as we can't travel back in time to observe how it happened. But we can use evidence available today to draw conclusions about the past to the point of reasonable certainty.



Really? Have you read Genesis, Creation, and Early Man? I'm guessing you have because that's usually a source Orthodox creationists rely on in these debates.

but Fr. Seraphim is not anti-science in the least -- he had a very scientific mind and a great love of the sciences.

 

[jckstraw72]

I do not believe it is un-Christian to read the glorious story of Salvation as pertaining to Adam as being allegorical.

In a podcast I listened to recently it was proposed that the early church did not consider the Genesis account of creation to be literal and that it was a development with Augustine and his doctrine of 'Original Sin' which began the literalistic trend.

Staniloae for example accommodates the advances of the scientific method with the affirmation of the theology of the age of salvation, from Adam to the Kingdom. Staniloae is radical in that he considers human reason to be part of the doxa (glory) of being made in the Image of God.


I am trying to reconcile the wonders of accounting for Creation (as a theological task). With the belief of the Church in the physical man of Adam.
I can believe Adam to be allegory for the primary state of humanity, a narrative character perfect for revealing the light of Salvation to Israel (and thus the Church).

i wonder what the person doing that podcast would have to say about St. Theophilus of Antioch, St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose, etc

 

[Knee V]

The scientific theory rests on the assumption that the laws of physics have held roughly constant since the Big Bang. Much of what we know about the fundamental nature of the universe, including atomic and molecular behavior, simply doesn't compute if we assume variability in natural laws through history- and the structure of the universe currently ONLY makes sense through this lens, taking into account the theory of relativity and expansion of space. It is nonsensical from a scientific perspective to just say, "well, maybe science has only been science for x number of years."

St Paul teaches us that creation was unwillingly subjected to corruption and the bondage to decay. Thus the corruption and decay to which creation is currently bound was not always there, and there was a time when the world was somehow different than it is today, just as Christ was "different" after the Resurrection (and we caught a glimpse of that at the Transfiguration).

 

[Dewi Sant]

i wonder what the person doing that podcast would have to say about St. Theophilus of Antioch, St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose, etc

The podcast was a BBC philosophical discussion with Lord (Melvyn) Bragg.
It was on the life and legacy of Pelagius.


What I did find interesting was the assertion that the Early Church held a more allegorical understanding of the creation account.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010dstl