Regarding your genealogical model of Humanity (with God creating a primeval couple Adam&Eve of Image Bearers) and my model (with God creating a primeval population of Image Bearers) you state:
To discuss this question I think the teaching of Jesus Christ in (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) is crucial:
Jesus unites Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 to declare that in the beginning humans “created in the Image of God” received a clear commandment regarding Marriage: “What God has joined together, man must never separate” (Matthew 19:6).
This has a twofold meaning:
-
To be “Image Bearer” means to be endowed with free will, aware of God’s law, and capable of moral agency and sin.
-
Since the beginning of Humanity Marriage is intended by God as Original Sacrament between Image Bearers to the sake of being fruitful and multiply the community of Image Bearers, that is, God’s Kingdom on earth.
This has the important following implication for your genealogical model:
The basic assumption of your model is that a genealogical descendant (GD) of the primeval genealogical couple (Adam&Eve) could get married with a non-genealogical descendant (NGD) of Adam&Eve.
From the teaching of Jesus Christ regarding Marriage we are led to acknowledge that NGD should be an Image Bearer.
Hence either NGD was Image Bearer from the beginning of her/his own existence or became Image Bearer through the encounter with GD.
In either case we are led to conclude that there were Image Bearers other than Adam&Eve and their genealogical descendants, which is my basic assumption.
So to this extent our both models seem to be theologically equivalent too.
Regarding original sin:
I definitely reject “The notion of God deciding to manufacture souls with original sin, by fiat”.
In this respect my basic assumptions are the following:
- God never violates the freedom of His creatures.
- God is NOT the author of sin.
- God wants to redeem human sinners.
I will expand on these assumptions with pleasure. However, since me too “I do not make God an author of sin” it may be convenient you briefly refer to the “better options” you have in mind, because I have the feeling we are not far from each other.
Again thanks in advance for any suggestion that may help to improve the preceding formulations.