Theistic evolutionists: was Adam a specific person?

[Aggie]

There's something I'm curious about this forum's Christian theistic evolutionists: do you consider Adam to have been a specific person? As I understand it, there are two points of view about this, and I'm curious which of the two is more popular.

The first view is that Adam was not a specific person, and instead is meant as a metaphor for all of humanity. This is the view presented in Peter Enns' book The Evolution of Adam. The shortcoming of this view is that Paul clearly refers to Adam as having been a specific person in a few of his epistles, especially in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. If one accepts this view about Adam, it seems necessary to say either that Paul was mistaken about the meaning of this part of Genesis, or that he used an argument that he didn't personally believe because he felt it would be persuasive to his audience (which is Enns' view).

The second view is that Adam and Eve were specific people, but were descended from earlier hominids, and that they were the first primitive humans to be subject to God's laws. Tim Keller argues for that view in this paper. The shortcoming of this view is that seems to clash with what we know about human history and genetics. There's no point in human history when our ancestors consisted of a single pair of individuals, so Adam and Even would've had to not be the only people alive at the time. A more difficult issue is the genetic evidence that humans interbred with Neanderthals, and that Neanderthal DNA makes up a few percent of the human genome. Would humans and Neanderthals both be descended from Adam and Eve (meaning Adam and Eve were Homo heidelbergensis or something more primitive), or did Adam and Eve's descendants interbreed with a species that God considered non-human?

My goal for raising this question is not to criticize Christian theistic evolutionists; I'm genuinely curious how they answer it. Also note that although I know this topic would probably be better suited for Origins Theology, in my understanding that section is Christians-only, so as a Deist I can only ask this question here rather than there.

 

[Blue Wren]

He was not, no.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I believe Adam and Eve were the first spiritual people with a soul. There were other people, those that Cain went out into and found his wife.

 

[Aldebaran]

From what I read in the book of Genesis, Adam is referred to as an actual person who spoke, talked with God, ate fruit in the garden, had a rib that was taken from his chest by God to create a woman, had children with Eve, and eventually died at age 930.

 

[morse86]

What is it with people going to the "world's philosophers" and their "corrupt research" to understand the things of God?

Can the natural man understand the things of God?

1st Corinthians 2:14:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

Peter Enn thinks the bible is full of myths and errors. He is a "philosopher" of the world.

 

[Aggie]

Those of you who are answering one way or another, I'd appreciate knowing how you resolve the issues I mentioned in my OP. If Adam and Eve weren't specific people, why does Paul refer to them as though they were? And if they were, did their descendants interbreed with Neanderthals, or did they live long enough ago that both humans and Neanderthals were among their descendants?

 

[Aldebaran]

Those of you who are answering one way or another, I'd appreciate knowing how you resolve the issues I mentioned in my OP. If Adam and Eve weren't specific people, why does Paul refer to them as though they were? And if they were, did their descendants interbreed with Neanderthals, or did they live long enough ago that both humans and Neanderthals were among their descendants?

They were, and their descendants interbred with angels, producing the giants that were mentioned in the OT.

 

[morse86]

Those of you who are answering one way or another, I'd appreciate knowing how you resolve the issues I mentioned in my OP. If Adam and Eve weren't specific people, why does Paul refer to them as though they were? And if they were, did their descendants interbreed with Neanderthals, or did they live long enough ago that both humans and Neanderthals were among their descendants?

There are no neanderthals, those are just malnourished humans or "vain imaginations" by man when they find a piece of bone in the dirt. Nearly all of them are hoaxes....mostly for "glory" and $$$ funding.

The bible is just saying through one man came death (Adam), through one man (Jesus) came life.

Romans 5:19:
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[morse86]

They were, and their descendants interbred with angels, producing the giants that were mentioned in the OT.

Sorry, but angels cannot marry.

"Sons of God" always refers to the Saints. You can look up each occurrence, it always points to the believers.

The Sons of God, instead of marrying within the church, went out and seeked women of this world and became corrupted.

Men of Reknown are "Kings". And giants are just tall people (I think they were something like 8 feet, the bible documents this).

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There's something I'm curious about this forum's Christian theistic evolutionists: do you consider Adam to have been a specific person? As I understand it, there are two points of view about this, and I'm curious which of the two is more popular.

The first view is that Adam was not a specific person, and instead is meant as a metaphor for all of humanity. This is the view presented in Peter Enns' book The Evolution of Adam. The shortcoming of this view is that Paul clearly refers to Adam as having been a specific person in a few of his epistles, especially in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. If one accepts this view about Adam, it seems necessary to say either that Paul was mistaken about the meaning of this part of Genesis, or that he used an argument that he didn't personally believe because he felt it would be persuasive to his audience (which is Enns' view).

The second view is that Adam and Eve were specific people, but were descended from earlier hominids, and that they were the first primitive humans to be subject to God's laws. Tim Keller argues for that view in this paper. The shortcoming of this view is that seems to clash with what we know about human history and genetics. There's no point in human history when our ancestors consisted of a single pair of individuals, so Adam and Even would've had to not be the only people alive at the time. A more difficult issue is the genetic evidence that humans interbred with Neanderthals, and that Neanderthal DNA makes up a few percent of the human genome. Would humans and Neanderthals both be descended from Adam and Eve (meaning Adam and Eve were Homo heidelbergensis or something more primitive), or did Adam and Eve's descendants interbreed with a species that God considered non-human?

My goal for raising this question is not to criticize Christian theistic evolutionists; I'm genuinely curious how they answer it. Also note that although I know this topic would probably be better suited for Origins Theology, in my understanding that section is Christians-only, so as a Deist I can only ask this question here rather than there.

First of all, bear in mind that we must evaluate the evidence and speculate within the parameters left us by the evidence and remember that speculation is only speculation.

That said, if I were making the movie of Adam and Eve, I would have Adam pulled aside from the new species of Homo Sapiens, placed in the garden, and issued the first soul . . . and the trigger event is his contemplation of eternal things. Eve is created from his rib, the fall occurs . . . and when Adam and Eve leave the garden and communicate with the others of their species, the others also come to be ensouled.

It would be a great movie! Can someone pay for the production costs?

 

[hedrick]

I don't think it's feasible to maintain that a literal Adam and Eve existed.

As to Genesis, they clearly are described as individuals in Gen 2+. I would take that story to be a traditional one included in the Bible because it showed the Hebrew's understanding of their relationship to God, but not because it was history or biology. But I don't support reading it as some kind of symbol for a group. That's misconstruing it as history.

As to Paul, he was speaking of the implications of Genesis. Plenty of mainline writers and preachers quote the creation story and talk about its implications. They almost always discuss it in its own terms. That is, they treat Adam as an individual, because that's clearly what the story says. When doing exegesis of non-literal parts of the Bible, you don't constantly say "you know this is non-literal." That is understood.

Did Paul actually understand that Genesis was not literal history? I don't see any way to be sure.

 

[juvenissun]

There's something I'm curious about this forum's Christian theistic evolutionists: do you consider Adam to have been a specific person? As I understand it, there are two points of view about this, and I'm curious which of the two is more popular.

The first view is that Adam was not a specific person, and instead is meant as a metaphor for all of humanity. This is the view presented in Peter Enns' book The Evolution of Adam. The shortcoming of this view is that Paul clearly refers to Adam as having been a specific person in a few of his epistles, especially in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. If one accepts this view about Adam, it seems necessary to say either that Paul was mistaken about the meaning of this part of Genesis, or that he used an argument that he didn't personally believe because he felt it would be persuasive to his audience (which is Enns' view).

The second view is that Adam and Eve were specific people, but were descended from earlier hominids, and that they were the first primitive humans to be subject to God's laws. Tim Keller argues for that view in this paper. The shortcoming of this view is that seems to clash with what we know about human history and genetics. There's no point in human history when our ancestors consisted of a single pair of individuals, so Adam and Even would've had to not be the only people alive at the time. A more difficult issue is the genetic evidence that humans interbred with Neanderthals, and that Neanderthal DNA makes up a few percent of the human genome. Would humans and Neanderthals both be descended from Adam and Eve (meaning Adam and Eve were Homo heidelbergensis or something more primitive), or did Adam and Eve's descendants interbreed with a species that God considered non-human?

My goal for raising this question is not to criticize Christian theistic evolutionists; I'm genuinely curious how they answer it. Also note that although I know this topic would probably be better suited for Origins Theology, in my understanding that section is Christians-only, so as a Deist I can only ask this question here rather than there.

It would be an absolute mess if we put Adam (and Eve) into the process of human evolution. TE people know that very clearly. So, the only solution for them is: They are not real person. Adam and Eve are only figures used in a spiritual lesson.

 

[Strathos]

I don't think it's feasible to maintain that a literal Adam and Eve existed.

As to Genesis, they clearly are described as individuals in Gen 2+. I would take that story to be a traditional one included in the Bible because it showed the Hebrew's understanding of their relationship to God, but not because it was history or biology. But I don't support reading it as some kind of symbol for a group. That's misconstruing it as history.

As to Paul, he was speaking of the implications of Genesis. Plenty of mainline writers and preachers quote the creation story and talk about its implications. They almost always discuss it in its own terms. That is, they treat Adam as an individual, because that's clearly what the story says. When doing exegesis of non-literal parts of the Bible, you don't constantly say "you know this is non-literal." That is understood.

Did Paul actually understand that Genesis was not literal history? I don't see any way to be sure.

Pretty much my feelings too.

 

[Rhamiel]

There's something I'm curious about this forum's Christian theistic evolutionists: do you consider Adam to have been a specific person? As I understand it, there are two points of view about this, and I'm curious which of the two is more popular.

The first view is that Adam was not a specific person, and instead is meant as a metaphor for all of humanity. This is the view presented in Peter Enns' book The Evolution of Adam. The shortcoming of this view is that Paul clearly refers to Adam as having been a specific person in a few of his epistles, especially in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. If one accepts this view about Adam, it seems necessary to say either that Paul was mistaken about the meaning of this part of Genesis, or that he used an argument that he didn't personally believe because he felt it would be persuasive to his audience (which is Enns' view).

The second view is that Adam and Eve were specific people, but were descended from earlier hominids, and that they were the first primitive humans to be subject to God's laws. Tim Keller argues for that view in this paper. The shortcoming of this view is that seems to clash with what we know about human history and genetics. There's no point in human history when our ancestors consisted of a single pair of individuals, so Adam and Even would've had to not be the only people alive at the time. A more difficult issue is the genetic evidence that humans interbred with Neanderthals, and that Neanderthal DNA makes up a few percent of the human genome. Would humans and Neanderthals both be descended from Adam and Eve (meaning Adam and Eve were Homo heidelbergensis or something more primitive), or did Adam and Eve's descendants interbreed with a species that God considered non-human?

My goal for raising this question is not to criticize Christian theistic evolutionists; I'm genuinely curious how they answer it. Also note that although I know this topic would probably be better suited for Origins Theology, in my understanding that section is Christians-only, so as a Deist I can only ask this question here rather than there.

Hello, I am a Roman Catholic
the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were our first parents, the two individuals who are the ancestors of all mankind

I used to be a very firm believer in theistic evolution, in which God guided evolution to the point when two people were made and then He infused them with souls and made them in a state of grace and they rebelled

in that case
the 7 day Creation story would be a myth
myths are used to convey truth in a way that people can understand

now in this scenario, there were some humans who mixed with Neanderthals

well maybe Adam and Eve were even before Homo Sapiens or Neanderthals? some common ancestor of both? In that case both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals would be "made in the image of God" persons
that seems very possible

or maybe Adam and Eve were Homo Sapiens and some of their descendants slept with Neanderthals?
I mean, that would be kind of weird, but it happens I guess...

 

[sfs]

Pretty much my feelings too.

Me too.

 

[Aggie]

As to Paul, he was speaking of the implications of Genesis. Plenty of mainline writers and preachers quote the creation story and talk about its implications. They almost always discuss it in its own terms. That is, they treat Adam as an individual, because that's clearly what the story says. When doing exegesis of non-literal parts of the Bible, you don't constantly say "you know this is non-literal." That is understood.

I'm curious if those of you with this perspective could go into more detail about it. In Romans 5:14, Paul says that "death reigned from Adam to Moses". As far as I know, all Christians consider Moses to have been a specific historical person. But if Paul wasn't meaning to suggest that about Adam, how can his statement "death reigned from Adam to Moses" have any meaning?

 

[hedrick]

I'm curious if you could go into more detail about this perspective. In Romans 5:14, Paul says that "death reigned from Adam to Moses". As far as I know, all Christians consider Moses to have been a specific historical person. But if Paul wasn't meaning to suggest that about Adam, how can his statement "death reigned from Adam to Moses" have any meaning?

For all humans from the beginning until God's covenant. It's not like Paul envisioned humans before Adam who are exempt from death. From Adam is from the first human.

The question of Moses hasn't been dealt with as often as Adam. But archaeologists will generally tell you that Exodus is legendary, at least to some extent. That doesn't mean that Moses is non-existent. There may well be some history behind it. But Christians who are open to historical and scientific evidence might well consider that there's at least some doubt about the historicity of Moses.

Note that the folks I'm talking about obviously don't believe in Biblical inerrancy. Hence they probably don't believe in the inerrancy of Paul either. Paul is an important interpreter of Jesus, who we continue to quote. But that doesn't mean that he necessarily knew what parts of the OT were historically accurate.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

St. Paul was as unsure, as was Jesus -- Adam was a product of historical fiction.

 

[Rhamiel]

Hedrick
I think that the Creation story might be myth, it is written in a mythic style
of course "myth" does not mean untrue, a myth is a way to tell truths in a way we can understand
but Moses and the Exodus are clearly written as history

but then again, I have a lot of Creationist sympathies

 

[Oncedeceived]

Those of you who are answering one way or another, I'd appreciate knowing how you resolve the issues I mentioned in my OP. If Adam and Eve weren't specific people, why does Paul refer to them as though they were? And if they were, did their descendants interbreed with Neanderthals, or did they live long enough ago that both humans and Neanderthals were among their descendants?

I don't think that Neanderthals interbred with Humans. I remember a study that showed they didn't.