I welcome any speculation on these questions from anyone .
And thank you to you who have already offered your thoughts and questions .
Yes, live spans were shorter, and girls and boys reached puberty later than they do today. And infant mortality was higher. Still, they managed to populate the earth. But I thought we were talking about the happy, mystical garden of Eden?
1 Like
So you postulate a strict breeding program? Priority one would be to understand human reproduction and find ways to control it, I suppose. But a society with no babies or other children would not be appealing to women.
2 Likes
Think if God said "You must not eat from the tree that has apples, or the tree of apples, and you were in an orchid? That could be referring to hundreds of trees. Perhaps the tree of life or of knowledge is a type of tree, and not one single tree. That would allow for hundreds or millions of offspring to eat from it. That, or if it was just one tree, and they were to multiply, with this entire universe here created by God, you don’t think He could have made more trees of life? I really don’t see overpopulation as an issue…
Gen 3:22 "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” "
Sounds to me like one bite, would allow immortality. So I don’t think they had been munching on it. I think in God’s mercy, He didn’t want us to endure living a life separate from Him forever, which is why He didn’t want us to eat from that tree. It sounds like they were free to eat from it, but maybe they didn’t yet, or maybe it wasn’t as pleasing to the eye. Kind of like Indiana Jones 3, the Holy Grail was the lowliest of appearance of the vessels. And the tree of knowledge was told that it was “pleasing to the eye”, but had death behind it. It is possible the tree of life that had great benefits had a much less physically appealing look to it.
But I don’t want a fruit to be able to sustain me, I want God to sustain me, I want Him to be my life and my eternal life to come through Him. And maybe it will in heaven, maybe God is the metaphorical tree of life?
But I am also not one to subscribe to no death before the expulsion, and no nitrogen cycle before the expulsion. Our entire universe was formed with death and life cycles. The “fall” was the first spiritual death, just as shortly prior to the fall, was the first spiritual life, that was breathed into the 2 homo sapiens there.
If you follow the account of Dr. Walton, the beginning was not a material account, rather an account of order, purpose, and function, a literal 6 day account. When you gave something purpose, it existed, as opposed to our world, something only exist when it is materialized. So God breathing life into Adam, is God giving Adam a purpose. Which is explained a few verses later.
“Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.”
But, unlike the rest of the creation account, it was “Not good” yet, not complete.
But back up a chapter, the end of day 6 “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good”. So in this retelling of the day 6 account, God says it was not good, the day isn’t over yet though. It wasn’t until God breathed in the spirit of man and women and they were given a purpose, that it was now good, and complete.
“God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.””
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
I don’t think that homo sapiens had the social construct or marriage back then?
Also, they felt no shame, meaning they were capable of feeling shame (and the opposite feelings of pride and honor), they had self awareness, unlike the other animals of that time, whose purpose was to be animals (followers of their biological impulses), not image bearers, not kings and priests.
God gave a sort of kingship, and rule to Adam and Eve, their purpose was to subdue/rule the earth and the animals, and to make more people. Had they not screwed up, God would have them working the earth, using the gifts God blessed them with, helping one another, putting the needs of others before themselves, loving and serving their God. That was unlike the purpose of the animals, who were just to do their biological impulses. Being the kings and priests of Rev 1:6.
Having kids is one way to multiply, though I believe the other way they would have multiplied is just like the Israelites did, by taking in outsiders. They were a priesthood, they were supposed to live an example for the world to see, who would in turn want to join them or become like them. On a large scale, they failed, but there were rules about aliens coming into join, so we know it happened. I believe Adam and Eve would have shared this knowledge bestowed upon them, the purpose of being an image bearer of God, spreading this breath of life from God into them.
But there were no rules of society, nor was their really a society. Had Adam not sinned and they multiplied, I think at some point, there would have been more rules imposed as jealousy and anger self dependence would have shown it’s ugly head at some point. Humans were only made to be image bearers successfully when they put the will of God before theirs. We are doomed to fail on our own, weak in our own strength, but strong in His strength. I think Jesus was planned to come save us, before man ever was.
But Adam and Eve, they were instead, like the Israelites (see, all humans), failed to be a perfect king and priest, and could not bless the rest of the world. But they still multiplies by having kids, and I still think they spread the breath of life of God, the knowledge of who God was and their purpose on earth as His image bearers, verbally.
No clue if I am right on any of that, just my current thoughts.
1 Like
My point was that Eve may have had less fertile timeframes , since human female fertility is believed to have evolved to what it is now …not started as it is now
I think God is the only one who can answer such unknowables…
But there are plenty of demagogues out there who insist they have the answers.
But, generally speaking, if Adam & Eve are in the garden, I doubt if Genesis should be interpreted that Neanderthals were one of the beasts. This is one of the reasons that YECs call Neanderthals a “de-volution” from humanity.
If you use @Swamidass’s approach of having 10,000+ pre-adam humans outside the garden, that would probably be timed to after the disappearance of Neanderthal, with the offspring of the expelled Adam and Eve mixing with the offspring of the 10,000+.
You are trying to “mix” a literal and historical Adam & Eve with a demonstrably proven existence of sapiens via common descent. This is usually not very successful. But see @Swamidass for his scenario!
3 Likes
I was just about to say much the same thing. These sorts of discussions and questions are what happen if you look at the story in Eden as being about material origins rather than theologic truths and principles. As humans are apt to do, we try to turn the story towards being about us, rather that realizing that it is about God, and the point is to teach us about him.
5 Likes
I still hear from Eddie (off-list, naturally) about his critique that BioLogos doesn’t spend any important time discussing an historical Adam as a viable option.
When I tell him that it might be because it is not a viable option, you can imagine how the conversation goes after that.
2 Likes
Thank you all for your input ,
A lot of stuff to think about …
As my pastor would say , it’s interesting thought ,but not much impact on the plan of salvation .
Like sweets after a meal 
Brain candy .not much nutritional value , but fun to chew on .
2 Likes
There is no point in discussing a Tree of Life if it was irrelevant to Adam & Eve.
It’s just as easy to imagine God issuing a “cease and desist” order once Eden had the appropriate number of offspring within its bounds …
… or imagining that Eden would keep growing for ever and ever… until a new planet was needed.
Or, you could just imagine that God knew Adam and Eve would fail, and that the fruitful and multiply command was intended, in God’s view, for their ultimate fate - ejection from Eden.
1 Like
That’s a good perspective to have. 
Just because these kinds of discussions can come to mean too much if they’re handled incorrectly, that doesn’t mean we can’t attempt to wrap our brains around things and throw out different ideas. For example, further back you seem to be musing about whether the Tree of Life could have physically affected Adam’s descendants for a while, hence the long ages. That’s a very interesting point, that I hadn’t given much thought to before – I’m still not sure whether the long ages were meant as literal or symbolic – but it seems plausible enough that now I’ll have to think about that angle too!
2 Likes
If it were some chemical effecting the degradation of cells ( aging process) similar in mechanics as mercury ( passed to offspring ) , then dilution of its effect would occur through outside genetics …
Breed out the longevity, over generations the outside bloodlines ( not effected by the tree ) would decrese age
1 Like
Nor would it appeal to most men–al least those who have been taught to realize that the greatest joy on this earth is to find a ‘soul mate’ with whom one can share one’s genes and thus cooperate with God in the formation of a new human person. An ‘Eden’ without death would quickly revert from paradise to Hades.
Al Leo
2 Likes
Hey… we keep forgetting that God should not have been surprised by what happened in Eden.
So maybe the “plot hole” is irrelevant.
1 Like
Amen! to that , George. My conception of Original Blessing is that on planet Earth, evolution produced a creature with the potential to become an Image Bearer of its Creator. The Earth, as it evolved, provided a variety of different environments (niches) that in turn greatly affected the nature and complexity of the life forms that evolved upon it–different than some of the other planets co-evolving in the Universe. The constraints ‘built into’ evolution guided all life forms into increased variety, beauty and complexity, and they developed different mixtures of what we humans see as spiritual and selfish natures–e.g. empathy and motherly love vs. selfish promotion of individual genes. On planet Earth, God chose Homo sapiens as the most promising creature to accept the challenges, the sacrifices necessary to become true Image Bearers. He was not surprised when Homo sapiens did not enthusiastically embrace the Gift of Conscience, and, by refusing, they committed sin. Instead of being a God of justice and wrath (as can be concluded from a mistaken reading of Genesis) He showed Himself to be a God of infinite Love, choosing to become incarnate as Jesus in order to show us the way–the way of sacrificial love.
At least that is the way He has shown Himself to me in my sojourn through this life. I just wish that all Christians could see evolution as evidence of God’s love for us–evidence that he wants us to join him in creating an improved World.
Al Leo
2 Likes
Haha, I like that.
Is this a mistaken conclusion though? Or a mistaken interpretation or understanding of a definition?
What if God’s wrath and justice are both good!
If you are up for a long read (longer than mine, but much more educated) read this
http://www.online-literature.com/george-macdonald/unspoken-sermons/31/
I think we think in incorrect terminology. When we think king, we thing of one who gained/maintained power and prestige by brute force or cunning like Game of Thrones. But Jesus told us about a new Kingdom, a Kingdom of God, where the first are last and the last first. Where the King of Kings, actually was a servant to men. So if God’s kingdom is completely opposite of what our earthly thoughts are of it, would not other words be different too?
I see the wrath as God as a powerful force of love. Where as on earth wrath is something of human anger and bitterness. Even God’s anger isn’t like ours I don’t think. I see God get angry when we fail to live to our potential, and not at us, but the situation. So the wrath of God, is much like the wrath of a parent, who gives great fiercely determined discipline, to correct and train.
And Justice of God is mercy, for us to be right with God is justice. We say justice is done on earth, when the perpetrator suffers. But God doesn’t want us to suffer, He wants us to repent. If we repent, there is no need for the punishment/discipline, we already changed. the purpose of discipline is to change.
John 8:11 “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.””
Jesus didn’t say, bring the most righteous Jew and kill him in her place, my wrath needs to be satisfied, someone needs to suffer for this. This is the sacrificial mindset that I am no longer a part of. As if God just wanted someone to suffer, and Jesus was the only one that could take it, so God is glad Jesus suffered.
Where in John 8 and in the Christus Victor model, Jesus says, go and sin no more, He showed mercy, and that mercy led to repentance. Romans 2:4 “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” Jesus came to earth, to conquer sin, the to show the love of God, and to honor the will of the Father over His, even to the point of death. This is the kindness and mercy of God displayed to us, which brings about our repentance. The sacrifice of Jesus, was in leaving heaven, and He had to die, to complete it, but His life was the sacrifice, not just His death.
So in Jesus dying, and showing the mercy of God, justice was served. Mercy is justice of God, and wrath of God is mercy, to bring us back to Him.
If someone was to wrong you, and you don’t demand they suffer or be punished (which does happen from time to time) that is mercy. Are we mere humans, more merciful than the God who is mercy and gives us mercy? If we can forgive a man without his suffering, why does God need to have Jesus suffer then? Does God really have that sick satisfaction to be quenched?
Of course Jesus did suffer, but it wasn’t the suffering that was required or appeased God. There was suffering that had to be endured though to achieve the goal of conquering sin.
But I don’t see wrath of God as a negative thing like I see the wrath of man, nor do I see the justice of God as a man sees it, nor do I see a King of God as the way a man sees it.
I fully agree, infinite love that conquered the powers of darkness and justice was done in the mercy of the Divine Judge.
I’m not a supporter of " God is surprised " ideas …
If one imagines decisions as a web woven over a web ---->over a web …and interconnected at converging points of choice …
Then one could see every possible outcome of every possible decision simultaneously …
This is a simplistic idea how God may veiew our timeline in regard to free will .
1 Like
S. L. your post addresses the true roots of the problems that separate ‘liberal’ and ‘fundamentalist’ Christians: How the same symbols (words) can elicit opposite thoughts in two different human minds, even when they believe they agree upon definitions. Actually, it is an ‘evolutionary miracle’ of sorts that the dawn of humankind can be marked by the ‘invention’ of symbols (words) that can transfer ideas(along with emotions and incentives) from one individual mind to another. Science cannot tell us what it really means to be conscious, or how we relate to reality the ideas generated in our brains. So when we use words to transmit ideas from our mind to another’s mind, how do we know accurately they are received?
Your mind can accept the word WRATH and interpret it as an expression of ‘a powerful force of love’–another way of describing what we human parents express as 'tough love". That’s OK, but how many others, Christians as well as agnostics, see it otherwise?
Your quotation above recognizes the fact that after centuries of scholarly discussion of how Jesus’ Crucifixion can be seen as an act of Atonement, there is a wide variety of interpretation, including the base human conception of appeasing the Wrath of God.. I am not skilled enough as a wordsmith to make a convincing case for my view of Original Blessing, but for me, personally, it makes my Christian Faith more consistent. Your worldview is obviously consistent for you, and thus is an effective guide for living a purposeful life. And so…“Via con Dios”
Al Leo
That is interesting.
I guess that is why we have context (immediate and surrounding), one tool to help us on that venture?
I wouldn’t quite use that term, but it is close to what I am trying to convey. I get that definition of wrath from the character of God based on other verses of the Bible and mostly Jesus’ teachings. I think God greatly desires our repentance, He wants us changed. It seems in the OT, God used wrath or tough love more than the NT. But there are a few of verses/passages in the OT where there was mercy over wrath, I think to show us the difference between the two and foreshadow Jesus, who was the embodiment of mercy over wrath, that kindness and love is the only thing that can conquer hate. That Jesus’ love for us is what was used to conquer the powers of darkness, by living His life for us (more importantly for God, as that is what God wanted) up unto the point of death, putting our well being before his own.
George Macdonald (is a huge proponent of Christus Victor) is a universalist. He seems to believe that hell will be longer for some than others, but the point of hell is to purify, like fire does to gold, the more corrupted it is, the longer it takes to bring out the impurities with fire. Sometimes one needs to be purified to be able to see the light, to uncover their eyes so they can see that Jesus is the only way. Fire doesn’t save, but it purifies.
Like laser eye surgery, all it does is fix your eyesight, not your eyes. If you eye was growing asymmetrically, it will continue to do so. All the laser surgery did was shape your lens to fit the jacked up state of unbalances eye you have at the moment. I had laser surgery 8 years ago and my vision is slowly getting worse again.
The fire can purify the gold, but this is worthless if the gold is living in impurities. It will just get right back to needing fire purification again. One needs to first pull the gold out of the ‘pit of impurities’, then one can be placed in the fire and purified forever.
That is what salvation/sanctification is like. Knowing/trusting in the life and teachings of Jesus is the only thing that brings us out of the ‘pit of impurities’, Jesus saves, but the wrath of God, the consuming fire and trials we are brought through is what purifies us. Obeying the will of the Father up into the point of death is what Jesus taught and wants us to do. But the only way to do that is to have the Spirit living in/through us, that is being pulled out of the pit.
That is what I see as atonement.
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” It isn’t like dying is good for the sheep, if he had a gun, that would have worked fine too. The point being, the shepherd is willing to do anything to protect the sheep, so the sheep can live, anything up to the point of death. It took obedience of God up unto the point of death for Jesus to conquer sin, to show us the love of God. It wasn’t like God needed someone to die, so Jesus decided He would or God asked Him to do it because He demanded blood. God loves us, He wants to rescue us, He wants us to live life and live it abundantly. That meant that Jesus had to leave heaven, to show us how it is done and that ended in His death, the death made it complete, it consummated His life.
Sex doesn’t make a person married, but when you make an oath before man and God, you are married (spiritually, not legally) and the sex is said to consummate it, to complete the marriage. Death didn’t satisfy God, it consummated the life of Jesus.
I wouldn’t sell yourself short, you are concise and wise, which can be said to be much better than my lengthy ramblings at times.
I like your view, it opened my eyes and was a useful foot hold while climbing my mountain to get where I am now. I use your view as a building block to bring me to where I am now. That we were blessed with a brain to be able to overcome our biological impulses, then to seek out our creator. It is also our brain that lets us know we can’t overcome these biological impulses every time, which points us to God as the only way to achieve that 100% of the time, is through the Spirit of God living in us. And when the Spirit of God is living in us, we can be God’s true image bearers.
The subject of eating in Eden or in heaven raises the question of plumbing.
Was there plumbing in Eaden? Will there be plumbing in heaven?