• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,722
2,915
45
San jacinto
✟206,674.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I rather think that the material/physical universe is, in its fundamental elements, non-physical. Science can call it strings or code or something, Leibniz would call it monads.
I'm not sure there's enough of a clear definition to make an evaluation one way or the other. Sciene has long since abandoned the historic understanding of "matter" to the point where calling it physical or material is always going to be a moving target. I agree that "physical" is a poor category and that what is at "bottom" is likely far less...concrete.
Something being physical is just our experience - like touching something. But the experience as such created by our brain is also non-physical.
If I understand you correctly, i agree. Physical, as a word, is only properly understood as related to our sense experience. Speculation about ontology doesn't really render us with concepts that are...conceivable. We cannot truly fathom what a quark or a muon are "like" outside of existing within mathematical models. We can't even come up with clear conceptual models, at a certain point the complexity involved outstrips our ability to understand.
 
Upvote 0

Jerry N.

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2024
659
235
Brzostek
✟40,696.00
Country
Poland
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
You are right. It hasn't been a mainstream view of the church. I'm just saying that it has strong explanatory function.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,409
3,198
Hartford, Connecticut
✟358,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You are right. It hasn't been a mainstream view of the church. I'm just saying that it has strong explanatory function.
Does it?

I think it sounds kind of odd. So is your idea that when Adam receives the breath of life, all these souls for every person of all time were also created, and that we were all up in heaven before being born?
 
Upvote 0

Jerry N.

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2024
659
235
Brzostek
✟40,696.00
Country
Poland
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Does it?

I think it sounds kind of odd. So is your idea that when Adam receives the breath of life, all these souls for every person of all time were also created, and that we were all up in heaven before being born?
No, I’m not Mormon. What I’m saying is that there seems much evidence that humanoid creatures existed before and with Adam. I’m not stating it as fact, because I’m on the fence with creationism and evolution. I don’t think animals have a soul that needs salvation, but Adam and all people after him do. The theory would link creationism and evolution in that Adam was the first to receive a soul that is eternal making him truly human. This would correspond to the rapid advancement of humans about 6000 years ago (some say 10000). Then if you take the Catholic idea that the soul enters the body at conception, the process would continue after Adam and possibly through his children who took humanoids as mates. I’m just speculating, because the theory of evolution has no room for the eternal soul in need of salvation, and creationism has no room for the humanoids that lived before the flood.

If I remember correctly, you suggested a video that generally described the theory I just outlined. The problem I have is with the first soul (not naphesh, which I think is the spirit of life in general in animals).
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,409
3,198
Hartford, Connecticut
✟358,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So in this idea, are you saying that souls pass on to Adams children when they breed with these "humanoids"? Or where is the conflict you're seeing with evolution?

You could consider that all of humanity was created with the imago dei in Genesis 1:26-28, not just Adam.
 
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Jerry N.

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2024
659
235
Brzostek
✟40,696.00
Country
Poland
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
The problem I have with evolution is that the whole plan of salvation is based on avoiding spiritual death, which is damnation of the soul, and evolution cannot account for it nor can it. I have considered “that all of humanity was created with the imago dei in Genesis 1:26-28, not just Adam,” but for reasons described in other post, like quotes from Paul and Christ and OT prophets, it would seem that one Adam and one Eve makes more sense. So Cain had to marry his sister or somebody else. Humans have genes of other human-like species. Evolutionists might be wrong, but I don’t think they are falsifying data. Like you, I think the questions about evolution and creation can be rectified, once a person considers that both might be partially true, without throwing stones at each other. I have respect for science and the Bible.

Adam had a soul, and we have souls, animals don’t have souls, so I was trying to work it out. I don’t think I will meet my favorite pets and hundreds of farm animals in heaven.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,409
3,198
Hartford, Connecticut
✟358,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What is "one Adam" but in Hebrew "one-humanity"? You do know that Adam, when described by Paul, is explicitly described typologically, right? That's what Adam means. That's where he got his name from. From the Hebrew word adam, which means humanity.

And it is a fact that all of humanity is created in the imago dei in Genesis 1. Not just Adam, unless you think he is transgender. No mention of Adam, an individual man, is ever made in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:26-27 NIV
[26] Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” [27] So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

So if your plan is to tie the imago dei to ensoulment, then this isn't exclusive to just Adam.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jerry N.

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2024
659
235
Brzostek
✟40,696.00
Country
Poland
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
I certainly understand what you mean, Genesis 3:13 in Hebrew would indicate that the “you” is singular, if I understand it correctly. Adam and Eve are certainly types, but they could also be individuals. As a farmer, I had rams called Ram. Eve certainly had a soul too, even though she was made from Adam’s side. So her soul could have been transmuted from Adam. I’m not claiming that the ensoulment could not have been a group of people, nor do I understand how souls are formed; however, Europeans have Neanderthal DNA and souls. Did God give souls to Neanderthals and Homo sapiens? At some point the DNA was 50/50. Imago dei for a group creates a few more questions than it creates answers. I’m not Catholic and don’t believe in original sin, but we all have a soul with the propensity for sin. Did it come from our parents or does God give everybody an altered soul? I don’t intend conflict, but it is puzzling to me.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,604
European Union
✟236,159.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
we all have a soul with the propensity for sin. Did it come from our parents or does God give everybody an altered soul? I don’t intend conflict, but it is puzzling to me.
God does not give souls, we become souls when our body and God's spirit merge into one living being.

Our inclinations to sin are:
a) metaphysical (rooted in our imperfections, for example we do not know everything so we make wrong decisions)
b) from our (animal) bodies - instincts to fight or flight, aggressiveness, sexual instincts, territoriality, hunger etc. - all needed for the survival of the species, but being sinful in an organized society with laws and rules
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jerry N.

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2024
659
235
Brzostek
✟40,696.00
Country
Poland
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
So what part of us is saved by the grace of God? Animals make mistakes, but they don’t sin. Chewing on my shoe is wrong by the standards of the household, but it is not sin.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,409
3,198
Hartford, Connecticut
✟358,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

I think the point here is that if it's typological, then that includes all of mankind. Regardless of if Adam and Eve were real people or not.

The Bible doesn't clarify what genetic makeup qualifies as human. I'm not sure that's a question that anyone can answer. It only states that all of humanity was created in the imago dei. If God chose to create mankind in His image at a time in which there were half homo sapiens, half neanderthals walking around, then it is what it is. Those would be "human".

The Bible isn't written with scientific language distinguishing species.
 
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Jerry N.

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2024
659
235
Brzostek
✟40,696.00
Country
Poland
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Okay. If you have anything to add, I’ll try to keep my eyes opened for it. Maybe somebody else might shed some light on it. I don’t always get notifications, but I try to check the thread from time to time.
 
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,604
European Union
✟236,159.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So what part of us is saved by the grace of God?
Our soul.

Animals make mistakes, but they don’t sin. Chewing on my shoe is wrong by the standards of the household, but it is not sin.
Sin is just a label and quite dependent on context. For example, aggressiveness in nature may be needed, aggressiveness in your home is sin.

Animals are similar to small children in their cognitive abilities. Do children sin by doing something wrong? Chewing a shoe is obviously nothing serious, but what about attacking a baby and hurting him seriously? Or killing a cat or another dog?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jerry N.

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2024
659
235
Brzostek
✟40,696.00
Country
Poland
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Animals don’t sin when they kill. We may not like it, but they are doing what God designed them to do. They have no concept of sin or evil or redemption. Children sin after they come to an understanding of right and wrong beyond mere punishment and reward. Animals never get there. There is a thread somewhere on the forum about the age of accountability. There are many versions of replies.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,604
European Union
✟236,159.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If we define sin as mistakes or animal instincts in beings with already developed specific level of cognition abilities, then I agree that animals do not sin.
But they can still die for their missteps, for example if they challenge the pack leader, try to take someones female or something. As our society defined some deeds as mortal sins, so also animal societies did. Even primitive animals like ants have perplexing societal rules, they even wage wars against another ants, individual lazy ants fake working or steal food etc. Fascinating stuff.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Jerry N.
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,208
7,305
70
Midwest
✟371,792.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Vey true. The thing is we now find ourselves in need of salvation. How we got here is not so important.

But the timeline is something like:
  1. Created in the image of God
  2. Conscious choice to disobey
  3. Alienation
  4. Lost
  5. Repent
  6. Redeemed
  7. Restored & more

Not just redeemed and restored but given access to life, future and identity never imagined.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,343
13,110
78
✟436,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
If you gave it some thought, I'm sure you would see that a literal Adam and Eve are entirely consistent with biological evolution. But since one's opinion on that matter is not what determines your salvation, it's not really important.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,549
29,071
Pacific Northwest
✟813,627.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
If you gave it some thought, I'm sure you would see that a literal Adam and Eve are entirely consistent with biological evolution. But since one's opinion on that matter is not what determines your salvation, it's not really important.

When I was a YEC I don't think I was able to really conceive of how the two could come together. Years later, and now looking at things; it's really not problematic at all. There are still complications that I don't pretend don't exist. But on this specific matter, it's hardly difficult to conceive of the possibility that at some point there is a clear distinction between the "mere animal" and the "rational creature". When this happened, exactly when--we might say--Adam and Eve lived is probably not the sort of thing we're going to know. But this isn't particularly difficult: from a purely evolutionary perspective at some point hominids became not only clever apes, but creatures capable of deep, complex self-reflective thought, creatures of reason, moral agency and moral reflection. That capacity for moral thinking, for deep complex self-reflection and contemplating one's own existence in the world is not something my dog has, it's not something even our weird cousins the chimpanzees have (who are, let's not pretend otherwise, incredibly clever and still incredibly intelligent).

I don't just have the capacity to do something wrong--I can recognize that what I did was, indeed, wrong. That my actions introduce something deeply problematic to the world--my actions actually wound, and I know they do--and I do them anyway.

There's clearly something very different about me--and all of us human beings--from all other animals. And I'm not convinced that science and a purely naturalistic methodology is capable of truly plumbing the depths of that. I am very clearly more than just the sum of my parts, I'm more than just an assemblage of atoms, more than bio-chemical machinery, I'm more than just the grey-matter between my ears, more than just a series of input-output responses to sensation and external stimuli. I have a soul. I'm me, I am myself. And I am a me that meets you, and you are you--you are yourself, another person. Personhood extends beyond material demonstration--but arises from something much deeper. And, as a Christian, I think the very clear answer, given to us by divine revelation, is that our own personhood is a gift from our Creator. He made us in His image.

So there was an Adam and an Eve, and we're all descended from them. And that doesn't negate the reality that, as we observe the fossil record, as we observe and study genetics and molecular biology, we see that all living things on this planet share common descent, that human beings share a very real genetic and biological common ancestor with chimpanzees, with all the other great apes, and that we see all manner of now extinct hominids who left behind their remains, fossils and even tools.

How all this works out to the jot and tiddle is, probably nothing we're going to figure out. But what we receive by Divine Revelation; and what we receive by natural disclosure are not two contradictory stories; they are both true stories. The Good Creator God, if we truly believe He is the Good Creator God, did not create a false universe, a lying universe, but a good and truthful universe. So if something is, indeed, objectively true about the universe in what the universe "tells" us through its own self-existent reality (e.g. I see a mountain, there really is a mountain, I see a river, there really is a river, etc) then it's true. To suggest otherwise indicates a willingness to believe the old Gnostic lie; that the material world is at best an illusion created by a false sub-god or at worst an evil prison created by an arrogant tyrant evil false god. But the Christian Confession is straight to the point:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Jerry N.

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2024
659
235
Brzostek
✟40,696.00
Country
Poland
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
This is very well written.
 
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0