A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[fm93]

I currently consider the first few chapters of Genesis to be mythological in the positive sense (that is, I think they were fictional stories written to illustrate what the author believed are true facts about God, not a deliberate deception. Think of how George Orwell wrote a fictional tale about talking animals to illustrate what really happened in the Russian Revolution). So I'm not convinced that Adam and Eve were two literal people so much as symbolic archetypes of humanity.

That said, I suppose another theistic evolutionist could argue that Adam and Eve were literal people, in which case they could simply be the first human beings who evolved enough to have a full awareness of God. Under this scenario, I suppose one could argue that the humans who lived and died before Adam and Eve were morally equivalent to infants who died before the hypothetical age of accountability. More simply put, Adam and Eve were the first humans who could be held accountable for sin.

[Cow Poke]

No. I'll get to it later but suffice it to say that I believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve.

I've actually wanted to ask you this myself, but kinda imagined discussing it over a steak.

[Littlejoe]

And I would like only those to respond here, please.

And, mods, if this is not the best place for this thread, please feel free to move it.

My question is, where do Adam and Eve fit in your belief that God used evolution to create?

I think that Adam and Eve were real persons. That they would have been the first people created in God's image, they would have been endowed with a spirit unlike their predecessors.

Do they fit at all? If not, why?

Sorry, I guess that's 3 questions.

Yes they fit. They were not the first hominid species, but the first true "humans".

[Catholicity]

Theistic Evolutionist beliefs are not quite as well defined as YEC views might be, so you're likely to run into a few different answers:

1. Adam and Eve were the first two modern humans.
2. Adam and Eve are a symbol for the first humans and didn't really exist.
3. Adam and Eve were there first ancient hominids that existed millions of years ago.
4. Adam and Eve were part of a small group of humans that contained a few individuals.

These tend to be the most common views on this question.

Lpot seems to word this quite well.

I'm slightly agnostic on the evolutionary arguments for "Adam and Eve." More or less I do believe that Adam and Eve fit both a symbolism for the human race Adam meaning Man and Eve simply meaning "mother;" and this fits in quite well with the creation poetry. I also believe that a Second Narrative is told which is more important to the lineage of the Semitic race and does include a Literal "Adam and Eve." How it actually fits in with a "fallen world that needs salvation?" I'm a little less unsure but I am certain that everyone has sinned not just Adam and Eve that are spoken of in the Garden and that is likely the portion of the story that is a bit on mythlogical terms or how sin entered the world. But its more important that it DID and we had to have Jesus. So I haven't really tried to put together an extensive theory here.

[rogue06]

I've actually wanted to ask you this myself, but kinda imagined discussing it over a steak.

You buying?

[rogue06]

Theistic Evolutionist beliefs are not quite as well defined as YEC views might be, so you're likely to run into a few different answers:

1. Adam and Eve were the first two modern humans.
2. Adam and Eve are a symbol for the first humans and didn't really exist.
3. Adam and Eve were there first ancient hominids that existed millions of years ago.
4. Adam and Eve were part of a small group of humans that contained a few individuals.

These tend to be the most common views on this question.

There is a wide diversity of views among TEs ranging from what I would consider what comes hazardously close to Deism to very conservative/traditional. From this it is kind of obvious that TEs are not like YECs who have the unfortunate habit of turning around and start purging one another from their ranks over issues of doctrinal purity when they gain control.

I place myself closer to the conservative/traditional wing in that I believe that there was an actual Adam and Eve sort of like folks like Augustus Hopkins Strong (perhaps the most respected Baptist theologian of the 19th and early 20th centuries who served as the president of Rochester Theological Seminary in New York State and who is regarded as being consistently orthodox), James Orr (influential defender of evangelical doctrine and a contributor to The Fundamentals), Benjamin Warfield (the great conservative champion of biblical inerrancy and a contributor to The Fundamentals) and IIRC George Frederick Wright (pastored Congregational churches in Vermont and Massachusetts before becoming professor and later professor emeritus of New Testament language and literature at Oberlin Theological Seminary).

Now, as for how Adam and Eve first came about... I really don't know. I tend to think that they weren't necessarily specially created and lean toward their being the first hominins that God bestowed with a soul/breath of God or whatever and initially (at least until the Fall) separated from the rest^[1].

The question for me at least is how to understand the creation of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis 2. I hesitate at taking it as to be read in an overly literal manner because the text clearly describes God and what He was doing in very anthropomorphic terms. What I mean is that God is described as being a corporeal, physical deity with hands to work the dust/clay and a literal pair of lungs, mouth and nose to blow in the breath of life.

As I said to me that is an anthropomorphic description much in the same manner as for instance Exodus 7:5 when it says:

"The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them"

I don't think of God actually stretching out a material, physical hand. Similarly in Psalm 57:1 when David spoke of being in the shadow of God's wings this does not mean that God is some sort of winged creature.

The purpose of such anthropomorphic language is to describe God in terms that are more understandable to humans not that God has a bodily form.

Now I'm not saying that it couldn't be done this way (after all God is God and can have done it anyway that He saw fit), but rather in instances where anthropomorphic language is employed I just think that we should proceed with caution about taking that text literally.

I guess what I'm getting at is that if we, who were born out of our mother's wombs, are described in very similar language as how Adam was created -- being shaped by God (Job 10:8) as a potter does clay (Isa. 64:8; Rom. 9:21) and given the breath of life (Job 33:4) -- that this is suggestive that Adam could well have come about through the same processes as we do.

Now, I'm with Warfield, in that the creation of Eve is a bit more thornier although a great deal of scholarly work has been done over the years offering various explanations for what exactly was meant or being described in that part of the account.















1. This would at least explain where Cain got his wife and why he was marked so that he could be identified (after all if Adam and Eves descendants were the only hominins he wouldn't need a special mark to identify him he would simply be the person who wasn't part of the community).

[Cow Poke]

You buying?

At the steakhouse of your choice, yes.

[mossrose]

So there seems to be a consensus, of sorts, that there really isn't a consensus on where Adam and Eve fit?

Do the majority of theistic evolutionists believe that, yes, they were real people and just the first humans to be aware of deity?

Or is the majority of the mindset that they were just named so we would understand the case that they were the first to be aware of deity?

[Adrift]

I think that Adam and Eve were real persons. That they would have been the first people created in God's image, they would have been endowed with a spirit unlike their predecessors.

Yes they fit. They were not the first hominid species, but the first true "humans".

This is pretty much where I lean currently as well.

[Adrift]

So there seems to be a consensus, of sorts, that there really isn't a consensus on where Adam and Eve fit?

Sounds about right.

Do the majority of theistic evolutionists believe that, yes, they were real people and just the first humans to be aware of deity?

Or is the majority of the mindset that they were just named so we would understand the case that they were the first to be aware of deity?

I don't think there's any survey records on this, so I'm not sure anyone can claim what the majority view is.

[Catholicity]

So there seems to be a consensus, of sorts, that there really isn't a consensus on where Adam and Eve fit?

Do the majority of theistic evolutionists believe that, yes, they were real people and just the first humans to be aware of deity?

Or is the majority of the mindset that they were just named so we would understand the case that they were the first to be aware of deity?

Yes

















I actually don't know. I would say perhaps both?

[mossrose]

I really appreciate the input from you all on this question.

I have a couple more, if you don't mind.

First, where does the narrative in Genesis change from analogy or symbolic language to actual factual accounting?

[Adrift]

I really appreciate the input from you all on this question.

I have a couple more, if you don't mind.

First, where does the narrative in Genesis change from analogy or symbolic language to actual factual accounting?

I hold an old earth literalist view, so...none of it is analogy or symbolic in my view as such. My view leans towards John Sailhamer's Historical Creationist view (slightly modified) which teaches that the universe, including the earth, were created at some undefined point in time in the merism (figure of speech) "heavens and earth" in Gen. 1:1. And that the subsequent creative acts refer specifically to the preparation of the promised land. Sailhamer says his view does not accept evolution, but I see no reason why Historical Creationism cannot be modified to allow it for it with Adam and Eve as special creations imbued with the image of God.

Tim Keller (via Derek Kidner), and Alvin Plantinga offer other possible scenarios for a historical Adam and Eve which I think are noteworthy.

I also think that John Walton's Cosmic Temple Inauguration view is interesting, and intersects well with John Sailhamer's Historical Creationism.

[rogue06]

So there seems to be a consensus, of sorts, that there really isn't a consensus on where Adam and Eve fit?

Do the majority of theistic evolutionists believe that, yes, they were real people and just the first humans to be aware of deity?

Or is the majority of the mindset that they were just named so we would understand the case that they were the first to be aware of deity?

I don't think that there ever has been any sort of survey, polling or study conducted investigating the matter so I really have no idea what percentage holds what view.

[rogue06]

I really appreciate the input from you all on this question.

I have a couple more, if you don't mind.

First, where does the narrative in Genesis change from analogy or symbolic language to actual factual accounting?

Good question. I've noted before that while YECs maintain that Genesis 1 must be read in the most literal sense nearly a quarter of the verses describe the firmament as some sort of solid structure. Yet I don't know of any YECs who insist that the firmament is actually a solid structure in which the sun, the moon and the stars are physically attached. They seem to agree that at least here the language should not be read overly literally but then insist that the entire chapter needs to be read in a strictly literal way.

I think that the problem is the insistence in reading the text like it is trying to convey some sort of science lesson which I don't ever think was the intent.

As for myself, I see the creation account (especially the one provided in Genesis 1) as primarily being a monotheistic polemic against the various pagan cosmogonies and polytheistic myths of the people that surrounded the ancient Hebrews and were corrupting the ancient Israelis -- and that it still conveys powerful truths today. Theological truths that remain timeless. This is the view expressed by George Frederick Wright a century ago and by folks like Conrad Hyers and others today.

Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in our minds it seems doubtful that it was foremost in the author’s. If it were then it would contain the answers to questions that have vexed theologians probably since the day it was written. If the text were primarily concerned with presenting history then it would have provided simple details such as who in the world Cain married, and the like.

This is why we need to be real careful about attempting to extract answers to questions the writer wasn't concerned with. We need to be on guard that we don’t get so distracted by our own interests that we fail to notice what the message about God here is.

The burning issues when the text was written had nothing to do with science or history but the temptations of idolatry and syncretism that threatened Jewish monotheism. Hence, the frequent invectives by the various prophets against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and "whoring after other gods” seen throughout the Old Testament. What appears to be emphasized at the start of Genesis is that God is the one true God who is responsible for the creation of and is Lord over literally everything.

He isn't merely yet another tribal deity or the ruler of a nation, but the creator and ruler over the Sun, Moon and stars, which (as Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 17:3; cf. 29:25; 32: 8-9; II Kings 21:2-3; 23:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5 demonstrate) were seen by many as deities themselves. In Genesis the heavenly bodies are denied any divine character or potency. Their primary duty is to bestow light at their appointed times, thus restraining the darkness in an ordered fashion. Notice how in Genesis 1:16 the sun and moon are deliberately not named but are merely referred to as "two great luminaries" or "two great lights." That is because the sun and moon were deified by the neighboring people and in the Semitic languages the words "sun" and "moon" are also the names of gods. But here they’re reduced to nothing more than lamps that light the Earth and along with the stars regulate the calendar in service of humanity (as opposed to the belief the stars control our lives).

The same thing goes for the other things mentioned in Genesis 1. There were sky gods and earth gods (in some myths the earth was made from the body of a dead god) and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Water and darkness themselves were often characterized as forces with which the deities in pagan lands had to struggle with and overcome. Yet all are relegated to the status of merely things that God created and commands. Everything worshiped by the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians or any other Mesopotamian people are shown by Genesis 1 to be creations of God, effortlessly brought into existence.

God is not one of the forces of nature like so many of the neighboring deities represent. Not even the supreme fertility or Nature with a capital “N.” Instead God is the sovereign creator of the world and source of everything in it – but not identifiable with it. He is wholly other, the transcendent God. God is, well God. Absolutely nothing lies outside His creative power^[1].

There isn't the slightest indication here that God is bound or restricted by Chaos or merely some demiurge working with a resisting material that wasn't of His own making and that somehow places limits on His will. The plants and animals reproduce after their own kind to stress that they remain plants and animals and don’t become deities – not some scientific declaration. And mankind isn't like the Pharaohs of Egypt, divine in our own right, nor are we merely some afterthought as depicted in the Babylonian Enuma Elish.

Further, it is made clear that while nature is "good" it is not divine and shouldn't be worshiped, and by declaring it good God informs us that the view that physical things are inherently evil is also to be rejected. Our problem is sin, not physicality.

Look at what the author chooses to open the Bible with: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." We can see for ourselves how God's existence is outright assumed, and how His transcendence is plainly proclaimed in that opening sentence. It is clear that God is not part of the created order, and as I've noted above how God is the God who made everything else. This is a declaration being made to a people who already knew God as the one who delivered them from bondage in Egypt where they had been surrounded by a culture that worshiped many false gods and idols. Afterwards they found themselves still surrounded by cultures that continued to worship them. So the fundamental purpose of this part of Scripture then was to inform God's people more fully of who their God is: the almighty God of the universe, the God who redeems his people, and the only God worthy of worship. IOW, God is God.

For me, the intent of Genesis 1 is crystal clear; it serves to glorify God the Creator, not those things which He created. All of creation, the entire universe and everything within it, owes its existence to the creative power of God (cf., Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36). God has absolute sovereignty over creation and everything in it. There are just too many elements suggesting (to me at least) that history is being used here more as a literary device or framework for presenting the completed work of creation.

Moreover, it seems a good idea to keep in mind that even when presenting historical events that they’re theological representations of the historical events. IOW, essentially, biblical history is more concerned with transmitting significance over exact statistical detail^[2].

Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is in fact a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.

Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).

Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.


















1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).

2. Like other sections of the Bible, Genesis 1 appears more concerned with great Truths rather than mere chronological exactitude which while so important in much of our Western writing is not such a big deal in the Hebrew literary tradition. Topical arrangement or rearrangement is not infrequently found.

For instance, the Temptation accounts recorded in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 provide different orders which are only contradictory if you feel that the authors were concerned with getting the order of the temptations correct rather than emphasizing the fact they took place. Likewise with Psalm. 78 which is intending to stress God’s care of the Israelites but places the smiting of the rock (78:15) before the manna from heaven (vv. 24-25) in contradiction to the account in Exodus 16 and 17. Even the ten plagues are summarized as seven, and in a different order, in Psalm 78:42-51; 105:24-37.

If the author of Genesis 1 was interested in stressing the fact of creation and wasn't overly concerned with its exact chronological sequence of events, then many difficulties are eliminated.