Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

[John Bauer]

In the thread "Genetics and Adam and Eve," DrNoGods claimed that the creation narrative in Genesis describes Adam and Eve as the first humans. He said that

• Adam and Eve have an "explicit role in the biblical creation myth as being the first humans."
• "Their explicit role as the first humans [is] described in Genesis."
• "According to the biblical creation myth there was (...) only two" people originally.
• "Genesis very clearly does describe Adam and Eve as the first humans that this God created."

I would appreciate DrNoGods substantiating this claim of his, for I don't agree that Genesis says this. I would like to see this explored further.

[John Bauer]

I think you're saying that the scientific claims are consistent with the account in Genesis, at least if one correctly interprets the Hebrew, which the English in the King James translation does not. That is an interesting claim. Please tell us more about it.

That's very nearly what I'm saying, yes, although my point is more specifically that there is no conflict between them. The only reason I would want to avoid saying that they are "consistent with" each other is because that presents an opportunity for misunderstanding, as if the claims of both science and Genesis might be addressing the same things. In fact they are not. It isn't controversial to say that the claims of science address natural history, nor is it controversial to say that the claims of Genesis address redemptive history. Where the controversy and conflicts arise is when we suppose that natural history and redemptive history are interchangeable terms for a single category. But what if they are two different categories? Such is the case on my view, and this is where my evangelical Calvinism becomes relevant (insofar as a redemptive–historical hermeneutic is common in Reformed theology).

My understanding of the relationship between Scripture (special revelation) and nature (general revelation)—and between our theological and scientific interpretations of each—may be captured in the following way. In addition to an evolutionary view of natural history, there is also a covenantal view of redemptive history. Natural history and redemptive history are categorically different things. Natural history is a matter of general revelation, the meaning and purpose of which is rooted in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation. Scripture is written in the language of redemptive history and covenant theology, not natural history and modern science.

On this view, Genesis 1 is exalted prose narrative describing the inauguration of redemptive history, not natural history, God's covenant relationship with mankind originating with Adam and Eve who were real, historical figures from a few thousand years ago. Scripture describes them as the first archetypal humans theologically but it never says they were prototypical humans biologically. Furthermore, their very names provide clues of this redemptive–historical context. "Adam" and "Eve," as indicated by the meanings, are archetypal names that have been assigned to this couple for the purpose of conveying their significance. [1] The attention of the careful reader should be captured by this fact, that we have a man named Human (federal head of mankind) with a spouse named Life (from whom the Savior will be descended). These possess important covenant relevance and christological hints of the gospel, facts which transcend the people to whom the names refer.

Yes, God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. However, this isn't a statement about his substance but his essence, for in Scripture dust commonly signifies mortality. So being formed by God from the dust isn't an indication of how Adam is different from us but the same as us, for God forms each and every one of us from the dust. For example, "Your hands have shaped me and made me [...] Remember that you have made me as with the clay; will you return me to dust?" (Job 10:8-9; cf. 1 Cor 15:48, "so too are those made of dust"). You and I were clearly not fashioned as human-shaped sandcastles, yet Scripture says that we are made of dust (i.e., we too are mortal); likewise with Adam, who I assume was born to parents and raised in a small tribal community. What the Bible contains is redemptive history so it's chock-full with theological language and revelation. Also, as explained by Joshua M. Moritz (lecturer of Philosophical Theology and the Natural Sciences at Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley and adjunct professor of Philosophy at University of San Francisco), in Scripture the act of God forming something is an electing activity which is also creative, involving the elect fulfilling a kingly, priestly, and prophetic function as imago Dei. We see this with Adam and recapitulated throughout Scripture (such as with Israel) but consummately perfected in the Son and true image of God, Jesus Christ. [2]

As such, God forming Adam from the dust of the ground is covenantal language describing the election of mankind before God as his image-bearers to serve and guard his sacred space, chosen in a concrete historical act that uniquely equipped and set man apart as God's possession for his purpose and through whom he intended to bless the whole of creation (cf. Abraham's calling to be a blessing to the nations, or Israel's to be a light to the nations). But then enter the fall and the unfolding of redemptive history, all pointing to Christ through whom God fulfills his covenant promise. "Adam and Eve, in this view," writes Denis Alexander, "were real people living in a particular historical era and geographical location, chosen by God to be the representatives of his new humanity on earth, not by virtue of anything that they had done but simply by God’s grace. When Adam recognized Eve as 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh', he was not just recognizing a fellow Homo sapiens—there were plenty of those around—but a fellow believer, one like him who had been called to share in the very life of God in obedience to his commands." [3]

(Even if we pretend that Adam and Eve did not exist until God fashioned them as fully-formed adult human beings, there is nothing in the text indicating that there were no other people in all the world. Making a human-shaped mud pie and blowing on it doesn't imply that no one else was around, that our planet was devoid of any humans.)

The King James Version does not necessarily interpret the original Hebrew correctly because the task is far more complicated than translating a Hebrew word into an English equivalent, for all languages exist in a historical and cultural context. The language we're speaking, for example, is deeply immersed in a particular context, made especially obvious by our common idioms. It's one of the biggest struggles that our Japanese exchange students have with English. Even when we are able to translate an English idiom into Japanese, it is incomprehensible because it has been divorced from its historical and cultural context. In a similar way, when Abraham said that his wife was a "beautiful" woman (yapheh), by translating the word into an English equivalent we have barely begun the task of properly interpreting it, for it must not be divorced from its ancient Near Eastern cultural context and categories of thought. Its literal interpretation depends not only on the meaning of the Hebrew word used but also on what defined beauty in the ancient world. If we read the English translation and interpret that according to modern standards of beauty, we have not interpreted it literally—in fact, we haven't really interpreted it at all. Another example would be marriage; what marriage means to us in our modern culture is barely similar to what it meant to the Israelites of the ancient Near East, even though the word itself is translated properly. "We would seriously distort the text and interpret it incorrectly if we imposed all of the aspects of marriage in our culture into the text and culture of the Bible." [4] We must set aside our modern language, culture context, and categories of thought and, to the best of our abilities, enter into the world of the original text.

For more on this, I highly recommend John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009). He carefully explains the important issues involved in translating the Genesis creation account and provides the first (and so far only) literal interpretation of the text. Walton is a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and Graduate School, where he is also the primary professor for its MA degree in Biblical Exegesis. His expertise includes ancient Near Eastern thought and the Old Testament, including the conceptual world of the Hebrew Bible.

I just re-read Genesis 2–3 and I don't see a way for [???] in Genesis 2:5–6 to be other than the first and only (at this point) man. I may simply lack enough imagination to see what you mean, but I don't. Please tell us.

Genesis 2:5–6, "Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground."

That would follow if the text meant that "there was no man" anywhere in the world. But it doesn't say that, therefore it couldn't mean that. If I had to guess, I think you might be reading the phrase "the earth" here in a modern context, as if it refers to our planet. However, as Karl Giberson and Francis Collins explained, "The biblical authors had no concept of the earth as a planet. The Hebrew word for 'earth' was the word for 'land' or 'soil', not 'planet'." [5] I highly recommend Kyle Greenwood, Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible Between the Ancient World and Modern Science (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015). Anyhow, even if we take this to mean that there was nobody in this particular land, that doesn't justify the conclusion that there was nobody anywhere on the entire planet. Genesis 1–3 simply doesn't bother to address that question, as it's quite irrelevant to the point being made. Interestingly, Genesis 4 contains clues that there were indeed others living outside this land (e.g., the land of Nod), not to mention that God took Adam from wherever he lived and put in the garden (i.e., he wasn't created de novo in the garden, as popularly believed).

You've said (in the other thread) that most Christians support the idea that millions of people existed at the time of Adam and Eve. If so, I suspect that most of those Christians don't claim to be Calvinists that consider Genesis to be literally true as you do (I think). If you are saying that the majority of literalist Christians actuallly does believe that millions of people were alive during the time of "the man" in Genesis 1–3, that would itself be interesting. But I don't think that's what you're saying. Is it?

Yes, I'm a Calvinist who thinks that Genesis should be taken literally—sort of. Allow me to explain briefly. On my view, Adam and Eve were real people created in God's image and likeness. Through this Adam as federal head, God entered into a real covenant relationship with mankind. God gave Adam (and his wife) a charge respecting sacred space, a beautiful garden eastward of Eden that was historically situated. And so on. But then I also recognize the symbols and word pictures in the story—the light, the garden, the dust, the two trees, the talking serpent, the river, God resting, etc.—pictures that get used elsewhere in Scripture. On my view, the creation narrative is a historical series of events captured in mythical terms, a practice not uncommon in the ancient Near East. (This is in contrast to a myth being turned into history, which I don't think any culture has ever done, but I could be wrong.)

And you are correct that I'm not saying all those Christians were Calvinists or fundamentalist evangelicals, although a fair chunk of them may have been. They polled white evangelical Protestants and black Protestants, groups which the Pew Research Center (PRC) describes as "highly religious." They do tend to have fundamentalist leanings. The PRC also polled white mainline Protestants, which includes Reformed churches, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists, etc. However, they also included Roman Catholics and denominations that tend to be somewhat liberal (e.g., Episcopal). But then that was sort of the point I was making, that when you try to speak about what "Christians" believe it must be remembered that this includes more than just Bible-belt evanglicals.

Interestingly, the PRC estimate of "the share of Americans who reject evolution and express a creationist view drops considerably," from 31 to just 18 percent of US adults, "when respondents are immediately given the opportunity to say God played a role in human evolution," especially noticeable among white evangelical Protestants and black Protestants. [6]

-- John M. Bauer

Footnotes:

[1] It should also be understood that "Adam� is a Hebrew word, a language that did not exist during his time. "Adam and Eve would not have called each other by these names because, whatever they spoke, it was not Hebrew,� John Walton explains. "Hebrew does not exist as a language until somewhere in the middle of the second millennium BC." John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 58–59.

[2] Joshua M. Moritz, "Chosen From Among the Animals: The End of Human Uniqueness and the Election of the Image of God," PhD diss., Graduate Theological Union, 2012. ProQuest (AAT 3459528). I particularly enjoyed his emphasis that the Hebrew idea of what it meant to be made in the image and likeness of God functioned as a firm polemic against the pagan ideas of their ancient Near Eastern contemporaries; it was neither elite individuals nor royal classes but rather all of humankind that were imago Dei by virtue of our covenant relationship to God in Adam or Christ (underscoring the importance of Adam’s historicity).

[3] Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Monarch Books, 2014), 291.

[4] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 11.

[5] Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011), 233.

[6] Cary Funk, "How Highly Religious Americans View Evolution Depends on How They’re Asked about It," Fact Tank (blog), Pew Research Center, February 6, 2019. See also Pew Research Center, "The Evolution of PRC's Survey Questions about the Origins and Development of Life on Earth," February 6, 2019.)

[Andyb7777777]

As a Christian i believe the story of creation, although i was never taught about this concept all those years ago through my school years,Creation was frowned upon we were force fed the theory of evolution and the big bang theory as corner stones of our existence.

however during the 50 years of my life, and the ups and downs the only constant in my life has been my knowledge of God, and my understanding has never been affected by science or wild theories on this or that.

Creation makes sense to me even without faith, because it takes more faith to believe that something came out of nothing, that the primordial soup that scientists tell us all of life sprung from, where they tell us that from nothing a single celled amoeba spawned every living species that has ever lived, that being millions of diverse insects, birds, animals and that from this we evolved is more science fiction than anything else.

To me a powerful force of wisdom, goodness and love an unseen force omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient that being God our creator,created mankind and everything that we see in nature today, if we were created by chance whats the point of life, we were created to be far more that animals we are thinking,loving,creative beings in the image of God to deny that is to deny our humanity.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 12 by Andyb7777777]

Personal incredulity is a lousy argument against the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. Straight up claiming you don't understand the concepts gives us less reason to consider you a credible source. Rather than continually mischaracterizing the position of scientists, and rehashing common creationist one-liner quotes ("it takes more faith to believe yadda yadda than it does to believe in a literal magic deity"), you could learn what evolutionary biologists actually say, formulate your arguments to respond to the facts that your opponents bring up in an active debate (instead of interjecting with the same drivel we've heard hundreds of times before), and then we can progress the dialogue from there.

As it stands, you've used multiple fallacies and have failed to contribute to the active discussion. Additionally, you've provided no evidence that a deity either exists, or created the universe, so you're at a loss for establishing the strength of your claim in the Science & Religion sub-forum.

Please try again.

[Andyb7777777]

the problem is that there is no real credible fossil records to substantuate evolution, specially between Man and Ape, if you look into this you will see this is true.
i could bore you with the whole sematics of creation vs evolution but this would be pointless as both our understandings ultimately boil down to faith, i have faith in a Creator God and you have faith in science, to me science is a way to explain Gods work.

the only point i will make against evolution is the eyeball

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body ... -a-chance/

goto this link and have a look it says it so much better than i could write it down

Andy.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 14 by Andyb7777777]

Firstly, a false assertion that this 'boils down to faith' is undeserved.

Second, I want you to find an actual documented report on what the fossil record even contains; not secondhand tripe about how 'it doesn't explain anything'. I would hazard a guess that 99% of your creationist sources don't even contain more than five actual fossil photos or descriptions between the lot of them, because the majority of creationist 'research' institutes don't actually perform any research and merely regurgitate nonsense.

Thirdly, you don't get to waltz into a forum and let someone else debate for you. Present the argument, don't just drop a link to AiG and act like you have no responsibility to engage. This is a serious platform and I expect intellectual responsibility from you.

Fourthly, AiG is not a valid source because they are ideologically required to dismiss all evidence contrary to their view, as per their statement of faith.

Try again.

[John Bauer]

As a Christian i believe the story of creation, although i was never taught about this concept all those years ago through my school years,Creation was frowned upon we were force fed the theory of evolution and the big bang theory as corner stones of our existence.

however during the 50 years of my life, and the ups and downs the only constant in my life has been my knowledge of God, and my understanding has never been affected by science or wild theories on this or that.

Creation makes sense to me even without faith, because it takes more faith to believe that something came out of nothing, that the primordial soup that scientists tell us all of life sprung from, where they tell us that from nothing a single celled amoeba spawned every living species that has ever lived, that being millions of diverse insects, birds, animals and that from this we evolved is more science fiction than anything else.

To me a powerful force of wisdom, goodness and love an unseen force omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient that being God our creator,created mankind and everything that we see in nature today, if we were created by chance whats the point of life, we were created to be far more that animals we are thinking,loving,creative beings in the image of God to deny that is to deny our humanity.

There is no requirement for anyone to believe that the biodiversity of our planet is the product of evolution. Anyone is at liberty to reject that. However, if you're going to reject it then at least base it on reasons that are morally defensible and exhibit intellectual integrity. Do not construct a straw-man version of evolution out of material derived from Answers In Genesis and then, pointing at what you have built, declare that it requires more faith than you can muster. That is not only a pointless waste of time (because it's not something anyone believes anyway), it is also contrary to how Christians should conduct themselves as ambassadors of Jesus Christ in the world. As Christians, we should engage the world and others accurately and fairly with spiritual, moral, and intellectual integrity. Yeah, we very often fail, but we must persist in making the effort.

Having said that, evolution is not something to be taken on faith. As a scientific theory, it is a unifying conceptual structure that provides a way of organizing, interpreting, and understanding the massive wealth of data we possess, tying all the relevant facts together and attempting to make sense of them or explain them. If you think that evolution is not a good explanation of all this evidence then go ahead and reject it, especially if there is another theory that does a better job. None of this is a matter of blind indoctrination or faith. Most of this evidence is available for your critical examination. It's not something you have to plug your nose and accept.

Finally, the choice is not between creation and evolution. As Aubrey L. Moore said over a hundred years ago, "The antithesis between evolution and creation is as false as the antithesis of natural and supernatural—for evolution is creation, and there is nothing natural which is not supernatural."

-- John M. Bauer

[Andyb7777777]

Hi John,

i havent got the time to unfortunately write a thesis on creation v's evolution my answer was purely saying that my faith is strong enough to believe in creation against evolution, i dont feel as a Christian i need to justify that to anyone.

I have read and studied both the theory of evolution and studied the Creation story, i have read many books on the subject, because i didnt go into great detail doesnt make me a poor Christian or any less intelligent than someone who would copy and paste reams of information on evolution.

you know very well that as Christians and as a Bible believing Christian that most people in scientific community will not accept creation from the Biblical viewpoint no matter how intellegently or elloquently we put across our arguements, and in all honesty why should we, I take the Bible as it is written i dont try to add to it or apologize because it doesnt fit the scientific age we live in, i will not apologize for my faith or try to justify it, my statement was purely a declaration of my faith that was all.

[Andyb7777777]

[Replying to post 15 by Neatras]

Hi, unfortunately i havent the time to write a thesis on evolution v's Creation, or have the need to prove my belief in creation to either yourself or anybody else for that matter.

I have studied books on both evolution and Creation and both have credible arguements both for and against, however reading scientific texts to me explains exactly how God did it, in fact it supports the proof of a Creator, The Bible tells us very briefly How and why God created us, Science fills in the gaps or should i say trys to explain how creation works.

My initial point as i explained to another member on here was to explain that it doesnt matter what i say or what you say, you could write a million pages supporting evolution and i could write the same supporting creation, at the end of the day we each have faith in what we believe, and you can use long words and quote me this and that from sources all over the internet as could i but it wouldnt change either of our positions.

You may be far more intelligent than myself thats fine i havent an issue with that, however my faith is secure and my beliefs grounded, and to reiterate i have no need to enter into a long winded debate and no need to prove anything to yourself or anyone for that matter, i believe in Creation just at is written in the Bible and any scientific arguement you give just supports this.

[Diagoras]

Hi, unfortunately i havent the time to write a thesis on evolution v's Creation, or have the need to prove my belief in creation to either yourself or anybody else for that matter.

No-one’s demanding a thesis. And we (if I can speak for most on the non-theist side) accept that you can’t prove your faith. What we do expect is reasoned debate on the particular topic: does the statement for debate have merit or not? Can you provide either evidence or logical reasoning to back up your stance? The ‘weakest’ faith could still have the ‘strongest’ argument, and your own faith needn’t be in question.

we each have faith in what we believe

Not quite. A scientific ‘belief’ is based on available evidence, and is willing to change, should new evidence emerge which falsifies previous theories.

...but it wouldnt change either of our positions.

It may seem like that to you, but you can’t speak for those of us who disagree with you. I’m sure plenty of people here are willing to accept when their position is wrong - providing their arguments are shown to have weaknesses.

...however my faith is secure and my beliefs grounded, and to reiterate i have no need to enter into a long winded debate and no need to prove anything to yourself or anyone for that matter

Then I have to ask, “why are you posting in a ‘debate’ thread? If you are so entrenched in your position that you won’t enter into debate, then there’s little benefit in spending your time in the theead at all.

[John Bauer]

i havent got the time to [...] write a thesis on creation v's evolution

No one asked you to provide one. You see how long these posts are that you've written? That length can often be sufficient.

my answer was purely saying that my faith is strong enough to believe in creation against evolution, i dont feel as a Christian i need to justify that to anyone. [...] my statement was purely a declaration of my faith that was all.

Then it was strictly autobiographical information and thus not appropriate for this subforum (Science and Religion). I suspect that sort of stuff probably goes in General Chat as a thread in which you introduce yourself and what you believe.

Incidentally, I appreciate that you have a strong faith—I do, too—but as Christians we do have a biblical imperative to always be ready "to give an answer" to anyone who asks that you give a reason for the hope you possess (yet we must do so "with courtesy and respect"). If you are not prepared or don't care to do that, it is very strange that you bothered to register at a Debating Christianity forum.

I have read and studied [...] the theory of evolution [...]

From what source material?

i have read many books on the subject [...]

Who are some of the authors?

you know very well that as Christians and as a Bible believing Christian that most people in scientific community will not accept creation from the Biblical viewpoint no matter how intellegently or elloquently we put across our arguements

Neither one of us can say who will or won't accept a biblical viewpoint on anything, for that is the jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit who is able to transform the hardest of hearts. But you're correct that it doesn't matter how intelligent or eloquent we are in speech; as the apostle Paul said, "My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5).

and in all honesty why should we [present arguments ...]

Because we are called to always be ready to give an answer, to go out into the world bearing the truth of the gospel of Christ. I think it's safe to say that most people will not always respond in repentance and faith right then and there (and I go in fully expecting that no one will), but since their conversion is not our job in the first place that should never be a concern for us. Some are involved in the planting, others in the watering, but it's God who causes it to grow (1 Cor. 3:1-9). Like you, I take the Bible seriously as authoritative and make no apologies for it. However, I am always ready to give an answer when someone asks questions about my faith—not because I need to justify it (I don't) but because I assume they genuinely want to know. Why should I refuse an opportunity to be an instrument in God's kingdom work?