Why I Think Adam was a Real Person in History

Faith & Science Conversation
72

I wondered about this too, and almost had made a comment before – now I wish I had. If we can reconsider this some more – not as an attack but as an inquiry.

I think Matthew had a good point before, Jon, when he brought up the numerous discussions of this that make no secret of the antipathy so many prominent theologians of that time had towards anything Copernican. It may be true that this had never been formalized into some official doctrine before, but was that only because it was too obvious to everybody that there couldn’t be any real truth in Copernican notions? I mean – if it really wasn’t important enough to rank on the level of doctrine, then somebody really ought to have informed Bellarmine and so many other theologians Matthew mentioned, right? Because it sounds like they would probably be surprised to hear the issue dismissed so.

Are there empty spots in more recent doctrines that aren’t so much missing for lack of importance, but missing because nobody had ever questioned it before? Are there in more recent centuries doctrines that spell out the literal existence of Adam? And it is obvious to us that such a thing was never specified back in the early church because there was no reason to have to specify it then. Nobody had any reason to think differently on it. One wonders what new things doctrines may include in a century or two that we all take for granted now.

I do defer to your much deeper knowledge and research on what actually is historically included in church doctrine, so it is instructive to hear that anti-Copernicism is missing from that. And I do also know that many theologians of the time also had no problem with Copernicus – there is that too. As always ideas rarely come through a one-person doorway but make there way messily into our historical consciousness from far earlier than we can probably even know, back to Aristarchus well before Christ, and probably others lost to us before that. So I am not one to simplistically attribute uniform ignorance to all ancients, much less great theologians through history. Thanks for any more education you provide on this.

Added edit: BTW, Jon, let me know when your book is available as a published work! Or if that won’t be for a while, and if it is permissible, I wouldn’t say no to another peek at your chapter on how “nature fell sometime in the 1500s”. You know my email.

73

I jumped into this discussion (perhaps unwisely) on the topic of Adam and the importance of genealogy regarding doctrinal matters, and I tried to be specific. You seemed to enlarge the discussion to include many features that include opinions of historical figures in Christianity.

I must confess I grow tired of the constant banging of the (oops, wrong word EDIT) geocentrism drum.

74

Nobody is forcing you to be here.

I don’t see how any of the questions are out-of-bounds. But if so, then let’s strive to educate each other patiently. Nitpicking at each other doesn’t promote any good discussion.

75

I am not sure I understand you Merv. I am simply asking for clarification regarding Adam as part of the genealogy of Christ. I cannot imagine anything as more central to Christian doctrine. Now if someone disagrees with this, that is fine; but going on about geocentrism (oops I used the wrong spell-check on my previous post and I will edit) seems so far from the topic.

76

Sorry about that, GJDS! I saw the word “egocentrism” and thought you were making a jab at another responder. Seeing that you meant geocentrism instead does much to change how I perceived that.

You are right that geocentrism may be a bit of a tangential rabbit trail, and I’m often guilty of rabbit trails, so I’ll take my lumps in that regard. In defense of it though, I do think the larger question is a worthy and related one. What kind of authority do we recognize, from from Patristic authorities, and does that authority extend only to 1>documented doctrine, or does it also apply to: 2>indisputably shared presupposition? Does it have to be formalized doctrine before we think of it as authoritative? Or is it sufficient to have good evidence that they even just thought a certain way (even if that is not spelled out in any doctrinal documents)? In short, if Paul or Augustine or ___ can be shown to have presumed something to be so obvious that they never bothered to argue with someone about it (indeed there would have been nobody to argue with!); then are Christians obliged to hold that same view now?

[with edits]

77

This is a valid point, and I could come to it from another angle - I think the Christian faith encourages us to think for ourselves, as ultimately salvation is between the individual and God. However, controversy is inevitable, and the Church came to understand that all of us must strive to come to agreed articulations concerning our beliefs, especially as the Church grew and attracted people from various backgrounds and nations. Thus dogma, doctrine, and the authority of scripture became the concern of all of Christianity.

I cannot see how this can, or should be changed.

78

Hi Merv,

I think the following passage may be instructive:

"… the Fathers themselves, in their appeal to tradition were appealing to “the mind of the Church, her phronema,” something which could only “be attested and confirmed by a universal consensio of Churches”, however difficult this is to establish. Moreover, …. “it was precisely the “consensus patrum which was authoritative and binding, not their private opinions or views … this consensus was much more than just an empirical agreement of individuals. The true and authentic consensus was that which reflected the mind of the Catholic and Universal Church”

79

Merv (replying to you and the comments above, for economy)

I echo GJDS on the diversive nature of geocentricity here, which reflects a period when science was beginning an upheaval, and theologians were doing what they do today - backing the scientific geocentric consensus, or getting ahead of the field with Copernicus. And individuals then, as now, thought they could justify basing their individual writing on their understanding of science (how often have you heard that Adam must be allegorical because population genetics makes him impossible, or that because evolution is “selfish”, sin must be intrinsic rather than the result of a fall?). The lesson should be, as most theologians knew most of the time, don’t allow current science to dictate doctrine. And they didn’t - there is nothing whatever about cosmology in Calvin’s Institutes, for example, for all that he opined on the new controversy in a sermon one Sunday.

The particular discussion started with the downplaying of genealogy in relation, specifically, to original sin, but generically to its being irrelevant to anything much because science has advanced and we know more now. It may be an interesting aside to discuss how individual opinion becomes “official” doctrine, but that was never relevant to original sin, which was held as doctrine in some form (as I first stated) by all major traditions from before Irenaeus, nor to genealogy which in some ways could be said to form the backbone of the Bible, grounding God’s work in history. Nobody has tried to answer quite how science undermines that - or what is left of biblical truth if it does.

And my reply was that, if you want to consider reformulating theology, you have to understand why the first formulation arose - ie you must read theology. That’s no more controversial than suggesting that YECs should study science before dismissing it - common advice here.

Just one more point, about the diversity of theology compared to the uniform teaching of science. That’s a sociology and philosophy of science issue. Sy Garte at Peaceful Science was recently justifying BioLogos presenting science as a “seamless garment” in apologetics to, say, Creationists, and his point might be true for school science as well (though I happen to disagree with him on both!). But, he said, real science is full of debate, disagreement and controversy - witness the “Adaptationist Wars”. I could add to that the interesting cultural and linguistic biases of science (for example, the way that major wars tend to end in the sidelining of the unique approaches of vanquished nations, that science written in foreign languages often escapes the attention of America, etc).

Back before the Reformation, you’d have had the same theology taught everywhere (at least in the West or the East), for the same reason that the same science is taught everywhere now - there was a single disciplined community, which controlled education, employment and publication.

Finally - e-mail on its way.

1 Like
80

This seems very solid to me. And the reminder may be very necessary, and perhaps a bit demanding (rightly so!) to our modern sensibility which has been acclimated to a kind of “democracy of opinions” where there is no clear line separating established, authoritative consensus from uninformed (even if popular) opinion. I’m reminded of a quip, I think you once repeated … where a typical westerner today could be observed to express an opinion thus: “the Apostle Paul said ___, and Augustine thought ___, Calvin wrote ____ while papal bull __ ruled ____, … but what I think is _____.”

And of course any more, (per your admonition above), we might now be impressed when modern bloggers have troubled to look such things up at all before dismissing them. And that is a self-criticism here not intended to reflect on any other particular person, but I suspect it nets a lot of us in these times.

There is a lot of meat on that “backbone”, more than I can chew on in one posts here. It leaves me contemplating whether or not science (or a “knowledge of physical reality”, if we may charitably equate the two) has a dissolving effect on that skeletal structure, or could it not also have an effect of strengthening it by shoring up its substrates?

That would be my main question to remain. While it is true that “science” was not yet close to existing in its modern form then, don’t we nevertheless read examples of the Apostles appealing to things that they knew were taken to be common knowledge of the day, thus somewhat ratifying the process or at least the possibility that there should be a democratic access to some objective truth, and that this too can join in as at least part of our edifice of faith?

I propose that the positive view of science could see it as being plugged into that initial legacy, abused as it now may be.

81

In this country the joke is that the guys are Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic etc, and the last one’s an Anglican! But there’s truth in it: Christian doctrine is not the same as one Christian’s opinion.

Yes, I was aware of stating only one side of the equation in the last post, for clarity: clearly science can help with interpretive options. Examples? Theology itself suggests that “stars falling from heaven” is an apocalyptic motif - used by the prophets of the destruction of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar. Literalists reading Revelation might be tempted to take it astronomically (suspending their “knowledge of critical reality”), or scientists to scoff at “ancient science”, but since the very nature of stars rules the literal interpretation out, it points to the apocalyptic understanding. There is no hierarchy of knowledge - all knowledge is mutually informative and corrective, and that includes the spiritual insights of men of God down the centuries whose shoes we are not fit to unlace.

More generally (and I’m not absolutely sure what you have in mind in your penultimate para) the general knowledge of nature shared by both the Bible writers and us tells us what is supernatural and what isn’t. So science doesn’t tell us that the resurrection is impossible, but that it’s not natural - and the disciples’ “science” was quite up to that conclusion, too. The “impossible” claim comes from materialist metaphysics, not science.

Seems to me many problems come from overestimating what we know. Genealogical Adam is a case in point: genetics makes common human descent from a recent ancestor impossible - Y-Adam and all that. Well, no - the genetics was right, but it was the wrong tool to use, because genealogical science wasn’t considered at all. History turns out to be overflowing with UCAs, so the question is, if one was Adam, why is that important?

And, with respect, I suggest the same need for openness is true for the Bible’s stress on genealogy. There is a body of science (so far under-developed) that explores the inheritance of form as some kind of holistic cellular process rather than only a genetic one. Organisms descend from cells, ie other organisms, and not only from genes. That kind of consideration, a few decades down the line, might transform genealogy from being seen as an irrelevant human construct to a fundamental biological principle. I’m not saying that’s the key to original sin and so on, but it does make non-genetic heredity something real to consider.

Meanwhile, we should seek what the Spirit is saying to through these Scriptures, not take this year’s science as our yardstick.

1 Like
82

Adam & Eve as first homo sapiens with souls?
My thinking is similar to Kathryn. But if God were to reveal himself to some homo sapiens for the first time, I think that it likely had dramatic far-reaching effects. Take that with the profound question of when does evil and souls come into the picture, one possibility to seriously consider is whether God’s appearance to A&E pushed modern homo sapiens into the final step of consciousness and soul-based beings. That would mean that prior to that, homo sapiens were just advanced animals. And as such, they exhibited ‘animal behavior’ and not conscious evil or sin. But when A&E rebelled against God, sin/evil entered the picture.

Perhaps A&E were chosen because they were the among the most ideal homo sapiens - perfectly ready for the ‘next step’ in human development - the best to be able to cross the line into full consciousness and to be able to relate to God. And possibly they were also geographically well located for it to spread universally from there.

In summary, the incredible experience of God interacting with them (possibly over a period of time) in itself could have kicked into them into crossing the line into more symbolic thinking, more language development, and ultimately led to the possibility (“the knowledge of”) of a new thing: evil and good.

Surely God would not have wanted this want this new spiritual awareness to be confined to one family. You can imagine A&E excitedly sharing with those around them - the best they could - their experiences and new awareness of God and spiritual things. They were exhibiting new behavior. This would have shaken up the homo sapiens around them. The others became aware of beings acting differently and in ways that helped them be more “successful” than anything that they had seen before. Some started having their own ‘ah ha’ moments. It was a jump-start to many who were sufficiently mentally developed to cross that line into consciousness or ‘spiritual’ thinking. Of course, not everyone was at that stage. But for those who were, they were more able to interact more intelligently and to also be more ‘successful’ compared to others. In addition, they and the others that crossed the line now had an ability to do evil. All of this helped them out-compete the others. Maybe the ones who were the most proficient at evil became even more ‘successful’ in some ways, leading to evil spreading (including increased likelihood of reproducing and in some cases, killing others).

Anatomically modern homo sapiens gradually would have become behaviorally modern homo sapiens. They also became more capable of cooperating and migrating more successfully, so they would have been in the vanguard of the spread of humanity throughout the world. In the process of time, the others that were intellectually unable to cross that line went the way of the Neanderthals and died out. In this way, A&E became the spiritual ancestors of us all, even though our genes also carry genes of others, just as we carry the genes of Neanderthals.

From what I’ve read from neuroscientists like Michael Graziano, it seems that consciousness most likely happened somewhat before 70 kya. Anthropologist Ian Tattershall in “Masters of the Planet” described the period roughly between 70 and 100+ kya: “Our ancestors made an almost unimaginable transition from a non-symbolic, nonlinguistic way of processing and communicating information about the world to the symbolic and linguistic condition we enjoy today. It is a qualitative leap in cognitive state unparalleled in history. Indeed, as I’ve said, the only reason we have for believing that such a leap could ever have been made, is that it was made.”

By the way, I have produced a website covering science and faith especially in relation to the ‘origins’ area, with a chart that shows the major theories on origins along with how they stack up scientifically, historically, and theologically. Each theory then has an article from a major proponent detailing that theory: http://www.scienceandfaith.org/major-christian-views-of-adam-and-eve/

1 Like
83

I really REALLY appreciated Ms. Applegate’s essay here. She presents her case well and gives voice to some important issues… I have really wanted to see this particular subject discussed here on this site a bit more than it has been — or maybe in this particular way.

I do not suppose that Ms Applegate will comment on any responses to her piece?? Not sure.

I also am inclined to believe that, in some sense, Genesis is talking about something that really occurred — not 10,000 years ago but earlier. Maybe 500,000 years ago, in fact!! Not sure about there being only two humans or 10,000 humans. But …

While the possibility that Adam and Eve were not the only humans is a viable one – for the reasons she cited (Who was Cain’s wife? etc etc) – the pericope does seem to want to set them in a specific place and time. I wonder what her thoughts might be about some of the details in the Garden of Eden pericope? For example, we hear a lot of snickering from others about this “talking snake.” But has anyone noticed that the writer (s) of this account somehow knew that many or most snake species have vestigial legs? Presumably this does mean that snakes somehow did once walk on all fours — not sure how long ago?? – and interesting that the developer of the pericope knew it.

Another detail — the matter of the four rivers named in the account turns out to reference a geological detail that for many millennia was buried in the sands of the region — that is, till the late 1980s and the publication of a LANDSAT image.

How did the author of the Eden pericope know about these rivers? And how long ago did these four rivers — all together — flow with water in that area of the ANE?? Is there an explaination for their inclusion in the pericope beyond the one that says the writer knew about it because the story was of a real event that was passed down to him/her by those who remembered this detail?

These and other questions might be a sideshow to the issues Kathryn raised But I was just wondering how someone else might evaluate them???. And I do not think they are so much a sideshow, but troubling details.

84

It’s kind of a right of passage for Evangelicals ECs to awkwardly and solemnly describe their views on historical Adam. I never felt very assured about any of the possibilities but always thought I’d better land on something quick…or else. I now realize the genre itself, poetry, demands that such thinking be held loosely. Poetry communicates what cannot be said explicitly. It is relational, a crossing of a gap (literally what metaphor means). Read McGilchrist’s Master and His Emmisary—what a book on brain science and the western mentality. A similar phenomenon is happening when an Evangelical is expected to pound out their eschatological views (dispen, mid-trib, etc…) The Alpha and the Omega are not ours to know explicitly, and those that spend their time hashing it out are Paul’s constructors of worthless genealogies. Evolution is still opposed because it means the Bible doesn’t fulfill modern notions of literary strength—those being explicit science and history. Dethrone those expectations first and we’ll value he Bible for what it truly is—God’s word.

1 Like
85

@bluebird Can you provide a little more detail on what you are talking about here? I have read that the changing ocean level may have changed the coastline and covered a river.

But what if the account was referring to a spiritual being that was referred to using the Hebrew for snake but that wasn’t meant to be taken as an actual snake?

86

@bluebird,

You will note that Ms. Applegate makes a reference to @Swamidass, and what some are calling the @Swamidass Model. [[ He discusses at length at his own discourse site:
www.peacefulscience.org ]]

Just in case you (or other readers) are not quite familiar, it is a dual-scenario, where:

God creates a large population of humans (with God’s image) by means of Evolutionary principles and his specific guidance of mutations, natural selection factors, and millions of years.

Then, at the right moment in the timeline, God uses his miraculous powers of special creation, to create (de novo) Adam & Eve in his little slice of paradise, Eden.

The scientific backdrop for the Evolved population is the conventional context under continuous improvement by anthropologists and micro-biologists, with Common Descent, Speciation and the like.

On the “theological side”, Creationists who can accept the “Old Earth” premise, have the option of putting the special creation of Adam and Eve in any period or eon they think suits the personal preferences of the Creationist audience and/or the denominational inclination they come from. Since the Creationist side is “miraculous” (just like the Christian view of the resurrection of Jesus), it doesn’t affect how evolution works.

And as long as it is an Old Earth scenario, there are no conditions placed on the miraculous creation of 2 special humans, with Original Sin, without Original Sin, however the Creationists want to develop their part of the scenario.

Finally, upon Expulsion, the offspring of Adam & Eve, begin to mingle with the existing hominid population (genetically identical at the species level). Computer-driven simulations show that even with the smallest of migration rates (and help from the Father in Heaven) - - from out of the ANE to the other continents (including Australia and the North Pole), within 2000 years or so, Adams offspring - - all the humans alive by the time of the birth of Jesus will have become the genealogical descendants of Adam & Eve (one set, out of many, of their Universal Common Ancestors). The fact that a small number of other mated pairs from the larger population will also have that distinction should not cause anyone too much grief.

It is the genealogical finale’ of this scenario that makes all the difference!

87

I am uncertain if this comment would help this discussion, but one can only hope, so here goes.

Our concern regarding Adam and Eve, and the resulting genealogy, is totally based on what is taught in the Bible. The way the writing in Genesis has been inspired, little if anything can be gleaned regarding other peoples, although we may make some inferences. This should not be taken to mean that scientific outlooks are accepted or rejected by Genesis - the overriding, total impression is that Genesis shows a vast difference between the subsequent religions and outlooks of peoples, to the theological message in Genesis.

I think that trying to formulate additional narratives onto Genesis will be futile - it has been written in such a way that additions or subtractions simply fail.

1 Like
88

@GJDS

And yet, people being people, the effort to unify the views of Christian Evolutionists and Christian Creationists continues unabated.

The advantage of the @Swamidass Model is that it allows both groups to extract much of what they want, without forcing the other side to give up anything too important.

While recently discussing the Model with a Creationist (Old Earth), he suggested an extreme version of when and where he would put de novo creation of Adam & Eve.

And for the first time in years …

I said, if you accept Old Earth with Common Descent and Speciation, I don’t see any reason you can’t put Adam & Eve exactly where you want to put them.

I think this sudden shift in my ability to understand and cope with 80% of the Creationist mind-set may well be worth the price of admission.

(& @Swamidass, @Jon_Garvey, @cwhenderson, @pevaquark)

89

People are indeed what they/we are, but the bible remains the revealed word of God -!!!

1 Like
90

Hello Bill_II…If the account referred to a spiritual being, that is fine. I presume the “snake” was somehow “possessed,” at any rate – but still the developer of this pericope knew snakes once had legs. And it would be interesting to me to know how long ago it was that legs disappeared in the snake population. I doubt they had the ability to “see” microscopic legs in those days — or the desire to peer terribly closely at their bodies in order to discern this ancient detail, if that were possible with the naked eye.

As for the rivers in the ANE…I have read this in a number of places. This is not the only place I have seen it, but take for example p 34-35 of James Hoffmeier’s The Archaeology of the Bible. " Actually he says the information came to light during examination of satellite images taken during a 1994 Space Shuttle mission. The images were examined by a Boston Univ geologist who saw “visible beneath the sands” the traces of a defunct river going across the region It was named “the Kuwait River” by this geologist, and it is a riverbed that obviously was buried long ago – mid-fourth to third millennium BC.

I am sure that I have read it elsewhere. And yes I also have read that the Garden of Eden is somehow at the bottom of the Persian Gulf (by now) and also another idea that it was around the Lake Van area of eastern Turkey…Any of these is possible but I do think it interesting that the author of this biblical pericope would have known these things about two rivers besides the Tigris and Euphrates. The area is a desert now …and snakes slither along on their bellies. .

This is interesting to me, just as the snake-on-legs aspect interests me. In the midst of snickering about the pericope, there just are these two details … along with the man and the woman, however you take that to mean.

91

The author could also have observed that the snake is the only commonly seen animal with no legs and wanted an explanation why. I don’t think that necessarily means they had knowledge of snakes with legs or vestigial legs. Many indigenous cultures have myths about snakes losing their legs.

When people theorize about oral traditions being passed down for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years I am always very skeptical.

2 Likes