When do you think we had the necessary capacities for a relationship with God?

One issue with this. What do you do with verses that indicate a human may not be considered an adult until 200 years of age? I can give one a point that the earth may not be strictly 6000 years old, but how does long life fit into the narrative of evolution? Normal brain development is considered an attribute of life, not that it takes the brain 200 years to evolve. Nor does it explain what humans did sitting around for hundreds of years waiting for their brains to develop. A 3 year old is not the issue. A 70 year old that still has a modern brain of a 3 year old would.

We have issues viewing a mature 30 year old as a newly created being. Adam would have been a mature 250 year old when created. Why would it be neccessary to state all humans before the Flood were examples of human evolution? Either they lived very long life spans or the Bible got it wrong. Adam and Eve other than one spectacular event did not even measure up to the rest of humanity metaphorically or literally.

And if we look closely at the dates, I think the conclusion reached on that lengthy thread was that the data cannot rule out a single couple further back than 500,000 years, so that would push Adam and Eve back before that time if you wish a historical first couple.

Did you accidentally slip an extra zero on that number? What verse anywhere says anything remotely close to this – at either 200 or 20 for that matter?

1 Like

My assumption was that he is refering to Genesis 5, where the first born children noted were fathered by 100-200 year old men. Certainly a prolonged adolescence. Pity the parents having to deal with a “teenager” for a century or more!

ahhh - still in adolescence until that first child comes along! Yeah … where to start with all that!

Isaiah 65 is the promise that humans will live like trees. A child or young person at 100. Yes, I just add a 0. 1 to 10 years old is 100. 10 to 20 would be 100 to 200.

Most scholars throw away the assumed history of Egypt which also refers to “divine” humans or sons of God who lived for thousands of years, assuming before the Flood. If Moses learned all this in Egyptian schools, he would not question the text and genealogy of Genesis. It would be a conservative view, if what is claimed about Egypt is correct. They have hints of a history that the dynastic rulers seemed to have lost to them. Unless after the Hebrews left, they expunged it from being taught. Some even suggest that Abraham re-introduced them to Mesopotamian math. Did they have a history like Genesis that was lost because of the Flood? It ended up as mythology and turned into religion. It would give us information of actual history outside of the Bible going back almost 30,000 years. Genesis could have been a more conservative view given to Moses.

But it is promised by God to ancient Judah, that it would happen again in the future. After the Flood God changed a lifespan from 900 years to 120. But old age did not last for 870 years. The normal development was over 100 year span instead of 10. Those created on the 6th day would have a life span without going through childhood perhaps several thousand years. The offspring of Adam would be degenerative effecting those who married into that genetic lineage. We do not normally have offspring until mid 20’s. Although like some a teenager at 150 could have offspring.

I tend to think the event’s of Gen. 2-3 took place right around the time when humans where migrating out of Africa and moving into the Middle East andstarted living in the Fertile Crescent. I have tried to fit this with a date that would make the most realistic since sense I tend to take a conservative view that Adam and Eve were real historical people who came into contact with God.

But given the context is Jerusalem as you say, why speak of a “first man” at all

I think there’s a fairly simple answer to that. The author (or final editor) is using a literary device to ‘universalize’ Israel’s story and claim that Israel’s story is in someway a story that all of humanity is to identify with (as well as what Christy pointed out highlighted them being chosen and called out all the nations of the earth).

I don’t think any ancient listener would have taken that as the author claiming he had secret knowledge about who the first humans were, I think that is just hearing it as if it were written to a modern Western culture.

2 Likes

I agree. There was certainly no conception of “first humans” anything like our modern meaning at the time for that matter. It was more an origins story for where ones people came from, how their way of life was started.

1 Like

Are we not arguing the point that Moses and the Hebrews accepted that Genesis was God’s story, and had nothing to do with human recollection at all? If that is the case then one will never succeed in placing evolution into the first chapters of Genesis. A relationship with God is from God alone. An evolved humanity would never seek out a creator, if left with a conclusion they evolved from matter over billions of years.

Already the humanity of the day claimed divine providence and direct involvement with humanity. The Hebrews did not need to “reinvent creation”. Humanity needed the record set straight by God.

Sorry I don’t understand the second part of this sentence. But it seems to me that Genesis is the story of the Hebrew people and the God of their origins.

I don’t think human origins as traced through evolution belongs in Genesis. But it is equally doubtful that Genesis has anything to do with any scientific theory of human origins. No one of that time could have been thinking about that. Whether or not to read any scientific theory of human origins into Genesis is a choice.

No argument here, though we would probably disagree on who or what God actually is. (I’m not a Christian.)

I’m inclined to think that should be the case. There is no reason -from my point of view- to assume that the God with whom one can form a relationship had anything to do with cosmic origins or the creation of life. All that could have happened for reasons which can still be uncovered by science without negating that relationship.

But many Christians, especially those with a deep understanding of science or theology, seem very well capable of accepting the natural world that science reveals while believing what you do about the nature of God. I’m convinced from conversations on this site that you don’t have to choose.