Thoughts on this proposal for a historical Adam and Eve?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

That’s how mythologized history works: a central kernel of historical fact with a theological meaning built around it by telling a story. I see no reason why the Garden story shouldn’t be considered mythologized history any less than other parts of Genesis 1 - 11.

Which is what comes from treating it as mythologized – or rather “theologized” – history: you find the lesson(s) by taking the text as it stands as though that is exactly how it happened. It’s quite common in ANE literature.

The thing about theologized history is that separating the “real” details from the “invented” ones is a fool’s errand, not so much because it is impossible but because it is irrelevant. As mythologized history, the Garden story is saying, “Here are two people who stand for us all, and this is their story”, and the story isn’t the events, it’s the theology.

Last poll I saw, something like 90+% of Christians agreed.

2 Likes
22

O wow . THeology by concensus. If 90% think it real, it must me!

Are you real?

Paul does not stand or fall by a real Adam.

And why shouldn’t Paul beleive in a real Adam? What makes Paul so different from any other writer in Scripture?

RIchard

23

The rivers being boundaries is a human tradition; the text can be read that these were the rivers that watered the Garden.

Trees that have a relational status for the interaction of God and man.

Yahweh walks around as a man all over in the Old Testament.

A talking nakhash; the serpent form for a “shining one” was common in the ANE.

You make God human by calling it “losing His temper”.

If, as the Garden story suggests, the job of humans was going to be to “gardenize” the entire world, the “curse” was that the native condition where some plants grow where they aren’t wanted isn’t going to get corrected. The curse isn’t that the ground changed, it’s that it was no longer going to get the benefit of rulership via divinely-ordained caretakers.

Ask the ancient rabbis – they had lots of ideas.
One was that given that the Garden lay within the area of the Flood, it vanished (relocated to Heaven, according to some!).

Where is that in the story?

Please try reading what people have posted (go back and read Vinnie’s post on the matter of original sin). You have this warped view of original sin that doesn’t match what the actual doctrine is.

Yes – or He would have corrected the rich young ruler.

Yes – and you’re making a false dichotomy.

Another false dichotomy – being self-righteous is being sinners.

Which has nothing to do with anything you said so far.

1 Like
24

The point really is to avoid undo pretense to objectivity. For me such a pretense is contrary to the whole value of religion in the first place. Science is all about objective observation, but life requires subjective participation. I see religion as addressing this need of life for subjective participation. Yeah, it is all wishful thinking – no bones about it. But you simply CANNOT live without this, where what you want MATTERS. And the pretense otherwise just looks delusional to me – far more hypocritical and dishonest. In these “arbitrary” choices I am deciding who I am – who I want to be. Avoiding such decisions is counterproductive I think.

25

Depends on what you mean by “meaning”: there’s the meaning of the words and the grammar under the literary type and context, then there’s the meaning as applied to a different situation, which may or may not be the meaning that strikes a reader. You have to start with the first, of course, but that doesn’t dictate where the others end up, only delimits the possibilities.

26

Oh good grief, is this what you think women do all day because they are women? We have curious brains too.

I think he probably thought they were historical. So what if his argument is proven inadequate? It’s not like the reality of atonement depends on Paul perfectly understanding the mechanics of it. People experience the reality of atonement, that’s what matters, not the metaphors and analogies and arguments humans come up with to try to explain it. Those are just constructs. The reality transcends the constructs and doesn’t depend on the constructs.

2 Likes
27

No, I thought they sat home all day eagerly anticipating the triumphant return of their husbands from work. That isn’t what women do all day while folding a few clothes and gossiping with other wives?

I’m not sure why you took this in the direction you did. We were talking about people in antiquity long ago. At least I was. There simply was not as much leisure time available. Most wealth was in the hands of men and I’m guessing it was wealthier men who had the time to sit around discussing philosophy. When you have a ton of things to do on a daily basis for survival without modern technology, your time to do other things is severely limited. Sure, women are just as curious and capable as men. That is irrelevant to historical reality.

There is absolutely nothing wrong a parent choosing to stay home and take care of the house and raising a family while the other one works. You almost seem to say it like it’s demeaning :“all we do.” That is a gift from God. Ideally, in my mind, it is better than sending kids off to daycare to be raised by strangers. Traditionally this has gone in one direction (men work, women at home) but economic reasons generally push both parents to work where I’m from.

The “so what” is that how we understand scripture and our faith has to change. We are essentially saying the Church and even the apostle temporarily blinded by and directly appointed by the risen Jesus (unless we think that is not real as well?) got some of these things fundamentally wrong. That is very alarming for most Christians and it doesn’t end with original sin or Adam and Eve.

You refer to the reality of the atonement. (like that word has a specific definition) while relegating things that define atonement to constructs, metaphors. How are you not just offering me your construct on what atonement means and sawing off the branch you are sitting in? I say that yet I also firmly agree with reality of experiencing God is far greater and more authentic than theology. C.S. used the analogy of being at the ocean vs looking at a map of it.

Vinnie

28

It is not what he said. It is only hypocritical if he didn’t grab at the chance to do those things himself every chance he got same as me. I was rather influenced by a guy giving a talk at my high school on men’s liberation. Women are not the only ones tired of rigid gender roles. So I have spent more time cooking and raising children than my wife (who likes working and traveling more). We can do what we want. Obviously I rather like babbling about God and physics quite a bit. That doesn’t make it more important though. Cooking is a very uniquely (I would even say defining) human activity as well.

1 Like
29

My own understanding has evolved a bit, but ultimately we have a Bible that was relevant to the original audience and accommodated their knowledge, and yet remains meaningful to us in a different culture thousands of years later, accommodating our knowledge and culture. That is a tall order, and requires a degree of dynamic understanding.

1 Like
30

The historical reality is that leisure time is a function of money, not gender and both men and women labored all day unless they were wealthy, in which case, both men and women lounged around doing frivolous things while their servants and slaves labored. As far as human history is concerned, it wasn’t until the emergence of animal domestication/herding and agriculture (which in turn led to larger family sizes) that men and women’s labor became divided into gender roles and women became primarily occupied with child care. Hunter/gatherer societies and migratory societies have throughout history been much more egalitarian in the division of labor and child-rearing.

It’s demeaning to have presumptions about your humanity made based on gender essentialist ideas. Any individual woman has far more in common with other humans (of any gender) who share certain human traits and personality distinctives and cultural norms with them than they have in common with all human females.

1 Like
31

Cains statement to God in Genesis 4 is future tense…he is clearly referring to future events in that what he has done will incur the wrath of subsequent individuals when they learn of what he did to his brother will seek to do to him.

What this story describes is that Cain reaslises that his own bad behaviour, the evil that clearly possess him, this behaviour will exist in others who will seek revenge.

13But Cain said to the LORD, “My punishmentd is greater than I can bear. 14Behold, this day You have driven me from the face of the earth, and from Your face I will be hidden; I will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15“Not so!”e replied the LORD. “If anyone slays Cain, then Cain will be avenged sevenfold.” And the LORD placed a mark on Cain, so that no one who found him would kill him.

16So Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod,f east of Eden.

The statement has nothing to do with inferences of earlier existing humanity outside the garden.

Theres another problem…why would hominids, who are not intellectually competent, who know nothing of God setting aside a special people (Adam and Eve)…why would they give a d.amn about Cain and seek to kill him? Are you now attempting to facilitate the idea that once they were kicked out of the garden, Adam and Eve were in danger for their lives at the hands of hominids who were less intelligent? Where is that in the bible?

Attempting to make such inferences starts to sound a lot like a God who decides to create an Arian society (Hitler planned that with his Nazi empire) The religion of the bible is not nor has it ever been a play for Arian supremacy. Christ modelled the exact opposite of that “from the foundation of the world”

Eph 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

If we try to read into Ephesians that God set Adam and Eve apart from hominids, we are destroying the very essense of Christs ministry and the gospel. I would argue that we actually lend strong evidence to Satans charge against God in the book of Job

9Satan answered the LORD, “Does Job fear God for nothing? 10Have You not placed a hedge on every side around him and his household and all that he owns? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11But stretch out Your hand and strike all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face.”

Im sorry to be so blunt, however, the theological disaster that is presented by that kind of view…its huge. The apostle John tells us in Revelation that Lucifer and his angels were cast out of heaven to this earth (the planet…not a localised spot on it)

The notion of pre-existing hominids outside the garden before the life of Adam and Eve… I do not accept that hominids are not men (human) deserving of the gospel and salvation. If they are primative on the scale of evolution and could not make sinful choices because animals dont sin, then that is a theological nightmare for the entire plan of salvation and the gospel.

If hominids can sin, then sin entered this world (into us) before it is even raised in the bible story. Christ specifically says that sin is along his own lineage in the genealogies…even for those who see two creations in genesis 1 and 2…that becomes highly problematic…which lineage is sinful…Hominids or Adam and Eve? (clearly its Adam and Eve - Christs ancestors)

We know that the gospel doesnt apply to animals that they cannot sin (they were not created as independent moral agents) however, i have great difficulty with the notion that, after the new heavens and new earth in Revelation 21, hominids who dont sin are going to come back as essentially part of the animal kingdom.

Its an interesting concept that im willing to consider, but highly problematic i think in that we start making up theological concepts and biblical history in an attempt to reconcile the huge gaps in that kind of theology…stuff that simply is not biblical or even mentioned by dozens of bible writers who received their revelation directly from God often through visions - visual images/pictures in their minds. They would have had little difficulty seeing the difference between hominids and Adam and Eve in these visions because even our Darwinian artists draw them very very differently

(image below from American museum of natural history)

image
image318×159 82.6 KB

32

My wife also works and we divide up the household tasks. If she didn’t work I would naturally expect her to pick up a bigger load and vice versa.

Isn’t that exactly what I just said? But even for wealthy, people, philosophy was a man’s game throughout most of western civilization. Even with wealthy couples, it’s famous men who mostly liter the pages of history in science and philosophy. Women had different roles in those cultures—even the wealthy ones. Nothing I said is remotely controversial.

And clearly when talking about ancient philosophers I am referring to a time where animals were mostly already domesticated and herded, and not migratory societies (I am going way back, not the barbarian invasions and such). I’d actually question how you have come know how labor was divided in such ancient societies unless you are envisioning more recent times than me.

Women have been viewed as inferior to men in many civilized cultures throughout history and still today in many parts of the world. Even the Bible has numerous passages suggesting women are inferior to men. There is nothing wrong with me saying women are just as capable as men. It’s an argument for equality, not trying to hold women up to men as the ideal. The context and reality of the world makes that applicable. I feel like you jumped to conclusions before and now you are trying to essentially “all lives matter” me.

For me there is really only one other gender than woman. It’s man. Someone can claim to be whatever they want. That doesn’t change reality for me. A person can claim to be a cat or a teapot just the same. That is not something I celebrate. Instead I would encourage them to seek mental help.

Vinnie

2 Likes
33

such a great point vinnie. I cannot help but think that given the Bible specifically says God created “them” male and female…when we stray from that fundamental, society loses its identity. Family loses its value.

My wife, a schoolie, is finding herself frustrated by the fact that increasingly schools are not allowed to identify one or the other among their students…we cannot teach gender. This is a social catastrophe i think.

34

I think you are reading into Knor’s post things that he did not say. He did not say anything about intelligence or mental ability, only moral capacity, and perhaps that only in context of a special relationship with God.

Personally, I hold it A&E as pre-historical origin myths whose meaning is in the story, not the history, so no dog in this particular fight. However, Cain’s fear as stated seems to be consistent with one being exiled from his tribe, and no longer having the protection of community in the face of other tribes in the area. Exile is big recurrent theme in Genesis and the OT in general, and this is just one of the earliest, after the Eden exile. Like the later exiles, this was an example of what happens when sin prevails.

4 Likes
35

Phil, straw plucking is the problem here…people cannot make statements without associated inferences…thats how communication works. We all communicate according to biases of our world views.

The notion of intelligence and moral capacity are absolutely relevant…because Knor was making the observation that Cain was fearful of others finding and killing him!

Hominids would not have had any idea that Abel had been killed by Cain…it is the standard darwinian view that Hominids had far less mental capacity than we do (which is a view i reject btw). Now TEism falls into the rabbit warren of explaining how pre human creatures can be saved or have anything to do with Cain be fearful of being killed by them in retribution for the death of Abel?

If they were not part of the Abrahimic story (because of the claimed dual creation accounts in Genesis), then sin doesnt apply to them…so why they (hominids etc) bother killing Cain?

36

I think I essentially came to that view while reading William Jame’s The Will to Believe. It’s what helped give me the final push me over the hump of atheism. To not take a leap is to not really live and to abstain from choosing is to die to put it over-simplistically.

2 Likes
37

It’s sexist garbage from a any perspective.

It’s relevant because the argument presented assumes and requires that that first mutation happened in a male - because if the first human with that trait was female, they couldn’t be Adam.

Then his argument has a gaping hole in it.

No, because Jesus was a man, and his disciples were men. We have accounts that describe them as such. But there are no accounts describing the first human with a particular speech-allowing genetic mutation.

A reason is needed because without one the argument has another massive hole in it, and this time not just because of lack of evidence for it, but because there is evidence that refutes it.

Correct. They have approached the issue like a pseudoscientist.

Then he should have admitted that he was taking the first language-capable human as being male because scripture demanded it, rather than writing as if there was no alternative.

I mean that the first language-capable human wouldn’t have had the name ‘Adam’. Being language-capable does not entail having a name or even having a language - that requires a language-capable population that are communicating. The author has shifted directly from reasonable deduction to application of scripture, without noting that he is doing so.

I’m better versed in them than you are, because I know why they fail, and you apparently don’t.

You also don’t appear to know what those arguments consist of, because that is not what they do.

Yes, those are exactly the type of invalid ‘we call that “God”’ arguments that I’m referring to.

Since you’re so hot on logic and caricatures, you can explain why you felt the need to include the straw-man ‘who invented God’, which has absolutely no connection to anything I wrote.

38

I have long held the opinion that we do not need a historic Adam and Eve even though that creates a lot of problems for a lot of traditional theology. We can interpret the Genesis 2-3 etc as symbolic representations of our selves and what we always do in rejecting the divine impulses and commands we receive and thinking we know better. NT refs to Adam and Eve can still point to the difference between “Adam” (failed human beings that we are) in contrast to the the New Adam (Christ in His perfect Humanity). I don’t believe in a moment of historic Fall by a single couple, its just they we have never morally grown up as we should have done.

39

Unhelpful and cheap discussion tactic. There is nothing sexist about it. Brute facts are not sexist.

Scientific evidence is not relevant for this because the author is appealing to scripture in belief that the first person was a male—not science. He is simply trying to see if we can reconstruct a consistent scenario.

And there is an highly mythological account that describes the first human as a male. And more importantly, there are later authors in the New Testament that tie in the sacrificial work of Jesus to that first man’s (and woman’s) actions and their arguments ultimately fail if said individual is not historical. It might be popular for some keyboard warriors to just wave their hands and dismiss them, but the majority of the Church now and throughout history accepted some form of a fall and original sin.

Science has nothing to do with whether or not the first human with language was male or not. They approach it like a theologian or a person who believes sacred scripture is inspired. You are approaching everything like a scientist which I disagree with completely. Science is good at what it does. Offer a comprehensive or complete view of reality? That is not one of those things. Not even close.

His whole point is to see if it’s still reasonable to believe in a first couple as the Bible describes without the mythological language. It’s a Catholic-Thomistic approach to evolution. This goes without saying. Adam is only a historical person to any Christian because Adam is in scripture. In your rush to issue a charge of “sexist garbage” you just approached the issue from the wrong end. You are at fault here, not the author.

You can feel free to critique Feser’s premises and arguments if you like, you can even go to his blog and do it. I’m sure he will engage you in healthy discussion But there is nothing arbitrary about him arguing for the traditional divine attributes of an unactualized actualizer. He presents arguments. You just hand wave dismiss them. You brush them off like misinformed skeptics on the internet. Boring. They are only arbitrary to people who misunderstand them just as they misunderstand first cause arguments and ask “who created God” which shows they don’t actually understand cosmological arguments to begin with. I think you might be a little tipsy from too much materialist kool aid and you are the one who originally brought up this issue. Sorry, I think Aristotle’s prime mover argument is very solid especially as formulated by Feser in terms of hierarchal change.

2 Likes
40

Because you’re still the other type of Christian - the type that emphasises following Jesus’s teachings rather than accepting his divinity.