Thank for your reply @Cody_G. Another good follow up post, clearly, you’ve done a lot of thinking about this. I’m also grateful for you taking the time to reply; I’m clear on where you are coming from now. Thank you for your patience.
Personally, I’m still not convinced that Gen 1 and 2 are talking about the same person. You are of course welcome to disagree with me, and I am happy with that. My personal opinion is that what is required of us is to believe that God is the creator of all things, the exact means or mechanism he used to do that is open to friendly discussion. What I take issue with is when folk want to make a complex argument in which there are a range of options seem, a, simple and/or, b, make holding one of those options a test of orthodoxy. Rather, I am of the opinion that (within reason) a Christian can hold whatever view of the creation of man/Adam that they like so long as they have thought through the implications of said view and do not dogmatic push it on other as THE view which is faithful to Scripture.
I have come to the conclusion about the relationship between Gen 1 & 2 by examining a range of evidence (a non-exhaustive list, in no particular order):
-
Textual evidence - the lack of continuity between Gen 1 & 2, especially in the presentations of God and the order of events.
-
Linguistic evidence - the ambiguous use of אָדָם (adam, in its various forms) in Gen 1 compare to the more specific uses in Gen 2 and following chapters.
-
Ancient Near Eastern Literature - Comparison between Gen 1-2 and similar creation epics of the time imply that Gen 1 might have more to do with God creating a world-temple for himself and images (plural) to fill that temple than the material origins of the universe and life on earth. Again Gen 2 might have more to do with God creating a Garden holy of holies to dwell in and Adam being appointed priest to serve in it than the material origins of the human race through one man.
-
Anthropology - All signs seem to point to humans originating out of Africa not the middle-east
-
Culture - Adam probably wasn’t even the man’s real name since the original account would predate the emergence of Biblical Hebrew. This is likely true even if one assumes YEC since then the most likely origin of the Hebrew would be the Babel incident not Eden. The passages say they all spoke one language it gives no indication that this Language was biblical Hebrew and that it remained unaffected after the babel event.
-
Science - fossil record, common decent, comparative embryology, astronomy, physics, geology, and many more all appear to point to a account of the origin of the universe, life and humanity than the events than Gen 1.
Having settled on this position (Gen 1 tells of God ‘making’ an undisclosed number of humans in Gen 1). I am now working through the implications of that position.
One of the implications of my position is how I understand Gen 5:1-3,
This is the written account of Adam’s family line.
When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind” when they were created.
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
The way I read it is as follows:
-
Line 1: A general introduction to the content of the section, the genealogy of Adam
-
Line 2: A brief restatement of Gen 1:26-27, which links Adam to undisclosed group of human ‘made’ in the Gen 1.
-
Line 3: The start of Adam’s genealogy proper.
As result, I also read the account of Cain in Gen 4 differently. And so there are implications for how I understand Cain’s fear of others, his move to Nod, his building enterprise and, of course, where he got his wife. Whilst t is entirely possible that Cain married his sister, incest is a sin and it wouldn’t be the only one outlined in Cain line, murder and polygamy also appear. But far more problematic is that fact that God set up Adam’s line knowing that Adam’s most direct descendants would have to engage in sexual activity with his only family members only for him to later outlaw incest as morally detestable under the law. And so I suggest that Cain married a women living among the community of humans on the edge of Eden or in Nod.
I’m not saying my position is without problems nor that I must be right and you must be wrong, I am simply putting it forward a valid option among many to explain not only the origins of humans, but also Cain actions and attitudes in Gen 4, and where he got his wife. Two biggest issues I still need to work through are 1. death prior to the fall and 2. the the New testament witness about Adam, 3, Making arguments based on ‘possibles’ and ‘might be’ can sound a bit wishy-washy (even to me sometimes). I won’t lie, these issues require some careful consideration and may even force me to consider another option entirely. If that is the case, no big deal.
So having both of us laid out our position, and our views on Cain, I wonder…
-
Are you willing to agree with me that my position above is a possible way of making sense of the relationship between Gen 1 and 2?
-
Can you see that the relationship between Gen 1 and the chapters that follow might not be as simple as it first appears?
-
Are you happy to admit that there may be more that one way of making sense of Cain’s actions in Gen 4 and were his wife came from?
-
What would you say are the difficult implications of your position that you still need to work through? What would you say are the biggest weakness?
Thanks as always for the stimulating conversation @Cody_G, I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Blessings, Liam 