Adam and Eve Revisited

[Josh]

The most recent Christianity Today's cover story (link: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/historicaladam.html) is about current scientific research into humanity's origins which appears to challenge the notion that humanity originated from one single pair, but rather a small group of about 10,000.

There are a lot of aspects of this topic we could discuss, but for the purposes of this thread, I have a specific question:

If it became nearly certain that not all humans are descended from a single original pair, what effect would this have on your understanding of the early chapters of Genesis and also the New Testament's teachings about the origin of sin?

[stevekimes]

I'm not sure. The story of Adam and Eve is quite mythological in style, so I could accept the truth of it being for humanity in general instead of just one couple.

Not that anyone knows anyway.

[Josh]

Some feel that Paul's theology of sin in Romans 5 is dependent on a historical Adam and Eve, but I'm not convinced that's true.

Adam could be, as you suggest, a symbol for early humanity. Or, Adam could have been a historical figure who represented all of humanity's nearly simultaneous experience of innocence lost.

If either of these later theories are the case, while they might seem to strain interpretation of certain passages, they would also make simpler the interpreting of other passages, such as where Cain found a wife, etc..

If one holds that the sin nature is literally genetically handed down from Adam, as many Christians do, then, yes, it would be problematic I suppose.

Other thoughts?

[stevekimes]

I see Romans 5 as more nationalistic than literal. Adam as the representational head of the kingdom of the world and Jesus as the head of the kingdom of God, even as Romulus and Remus are the head of Rome and Theseus the head of Athens-- Historicity isn't the issue, really.

[Josh]

For the most part, I agree with you on Romans 5. I grew up with the view that the sin nature was genetically handed down from Adam. I don't hold that view any longer.

I don't think Romans 5 is a major stumbling block to either the "Adam as symbol of early humanity" or the "historical Adam as representative of humanity" theories.

However, here are some difficulties/questions I see with those views:

Adam as a symbol of early humanity:

Why would Moses feel the need to conflate all of early humanity into one person? Or, if Moses was in the dark, why would the Holy Spirit choose to represent it that way? Would it be a way to make the collective experience of early humanity seem more personal? To emphasize the individual aspect of sin as well as the corporate?

Adam as representative of humanity:

I hold the theory that Adam's immortality wasn't inherent- it was dependant on access to "the tree of life" (whether a symbol or no). When Adam (or mankind) fell, nothing changed in their DNA or biology, they were just merely removed from the external protection of God. If Adam was the only one of many early humans protected by "the garden", couldn't that be seen as unfair? Also, did he "fall" before any other human sinned? That seems unlikely, but if not, it just seems strange.

I'm not sure that last part is coherent, but I grow sleepy. Do you get the drift?

[stevekimes]

Why would someone (probably not Moses, as I think Moses was the editor of the many stories of Genesis) put Adam as the representative of all humanity? Well, first of all "Adam" in Hebrew means "human" so that's an easy move to make. But also, it is a common move in ancient times to have a whole nation or humanity represented by a single person. All ancient mythology does it. It seems completely natural in that context.

Again, I would think that Adam is just a representative of all the kingdom of the world, which we all were born in. So I'm not equating the story of Adam and Eve with the scientific explanation. The story is this: Adam is given paradise; he chooses to disobey God by taking on the responsibility of law and ethics himself, without God; God separates him from paradise, forcing him to figure out how to live in a harsh world on his own.

Maybe I don't get your second point?

[carebear]

Speaking of Romans 5, I like the fifth verse. The whole chapter is great.

[Michael]

I'll hold my tongue on my opinion of the Christianity Today article, and the related current scientific research, except to say that I think scientists know as much about the human genome as Charles Darwin knew about subatomic particles. And I certainly don't think it's necessary to allow oneself to be theologically whipsawed by every new scientific theory that comes down the pike. Most of them are proven false, or at least considered highly suspect in due time. And especially with the study of origins, scientists seem to infuse as much presuppositions into their beliefs as theologians do.

However, if it became nearly certain that not all humans are descended from a single original pair, then we would clearly have no choice but to take the Genesis account figuratively. That would obviously affect how we view New Testament writers' treatment of original sin. But I think if one runs those passages through that figurative grid, he would come to the same conclusion: that all have sinned and all need the blood of Jesus to remove their sin.

That being said, it certainly seems that Luke and Paul (and even Jude) saw Adam as a real person, and I see no Biblical reason not to understand the Genesis account of Adam and Eve as historical. OK, so the rib thing is kinda weird, but so is spitting in the dirt and rubbing the spittle into a man's eyes to restore his sight. Or how about walking on water, or rising from the dead? If Adam and Eve are mythological, what else in the Bible should be seen that way?

I'm not entirely against the idea of a non-literal interpretation of the story, but I'm just asking what criteria (other than potentially scientific ) would lead to that conclusion?

I'd love to hear your thoughts, though maybe that deviates too much from the purpose of this thread....

[robin]

Well said Michael.

[Josh]

Thanks for your response, Mike.

I was anticipating some blowback on this topic, thus the caveat "if it became nearly certain", so thanks for playing along

[Josh]

stevekimes wrote:

Why would someone (probably not Moses, as I think Moses was the editor of the many stories of Genesis) put Adam as the representative of all humanity? Well, first of all "Adam" in Hebrew means "human" so that's an easy move to make. But also, it is a common move in ancient times to have a whole nation or humanity represented by a single person. All ancient mythology does it. It seems completely natural in that context.

Great point!

So I'm not equating the story of Adam and Eve with the scientific explanation. The story is this: Adam is given paradise; he chooses to disobey God by taking on the responsibility of law and ethics himself, without God; God separates him from paradise, forcing him to figure out how to live in a harsh world on his own.

Are you saying it doesn't matter to you whether the first humans historically did live in an innocent/ sheltered environment that was taken away due to sin?

[stevekimes]

Right. This is the story of all of us. We were all innocent in the womb as infants and we all made the choice to follow our own way instead of the way given to us. Adam is the story of us all, rather than the story of some early tribe. It could be historically accurate as well, but it doesn't need to be.

[freebirdro]

ok, I finally finish my school and my job, at least for a little while, so I have some times to join the forum. Hi everybody.

I think I've read a passage that says,'' through one man sin entered the world and through another Man He saved the world, does that mean that we have to think about Jesus as 10000 people (based on this discussion--if the one man Adam supposedly equals 10000 people)?

does that mean that God made 10000 man and then took 10000 ribs and made 10000 women?

Did He have to create 10000 people from the beginning? Why?

And all 10000 ate from the the ''tree''? or was it just one?

It is very hard for me to believe that.

As for the Cain wife, They lived a long time and had many kids, I am pretty sure that Cain found a wife from the hundreds or thousands of kids and grand-gran-grand kids of Adams, is not like they all lived in the same place for 800 years and never had a girl who run away.

It seems to me that the 10000 people that we may come from is a very close almost identical DNA, that the first pure family had.

any more thoughts?

[Michael]

Adam and Eve did exist, and I have a picture to prove it:



See them?

[Josh]

Jun 17, 2011 17:35:37 GMT -8 @freebirdro said:

ok, I finally finish my school and my job, at least for a little while, so I have some times to join the forum. Hi everybody.

I think I've read a passage that says,'' through one man sin entered the world and through another Man He saved the world, does that mean that we have to think about Jesus as 10000 people (based on this discussion--if the one man Adam supposedly equals 10000 people)?

does that mean that God made 10000 man and then took 10000 ribs and made 10000 women?

Did He have to create 10000 people from the beginning? Why?

And all 10000 ate from the the ''tree''? or was it just one?

It is very hard for me to believe that.

any more thoughts?

Romans 5:12-21

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I agree, Vio, that the most literal and straightforward way to read what Paul is saying is suppose that Adam was a single man.
At the very least Paul probably thought that Adam was the first individual man. It's possible he was mistaken in that belief but still right metaphorically. But if that's the case, can this text still make sense since it seems dependant on the "1 to the many" logic.

I don't have a settled view on this, and so therefore agree with some of freebird's doubts, but here's an observation:

Verse 12 is strange because it says that sin entered the world through "one man" but then it goes right back and restates that sin came into the world because "all have sinned". This could be a clue that we're talking about one metaphorical or representative man who describes us all.

Romans 5:12b is a nice counterpoint to the idea of "inherited sin"- stressing not our corporate guilt but our indiviudal as well.
As we've discussed elsewhere, I've come to see Paul as saying not that we are all born with inherited guilt, but that we are all born into a world where the punishment for evil is already applied (separation from the "tree of life") and where we find ourselves from the get-go with a natural inclination toward evil.
But that's another topic, and can be explored more fully here:
Original Sin?

[Josh]

Jun 18, 2011 17:23:49 GMT -8 Michael said:

Adam and Eve did exist, and I have a picture to prove it:



See them?

Help me out here, Mike.

[Josh]

Jun 16, 2011 22:43:24 GMT -8 stevekimes said:

Right. This is the story of all of us. We were all innocent in the womb as infants and we all made the choice to follow our own way instead of the way given to us. Adam is the story of us all, rather than the story of some early tribe. It could be historically accurate as well, but it doesn't need to be.

Steve, in thinking through this, one problem I see with the theory is that although it fits some of the main metaphors (if only metaphors they be) it seems to ignore some of the other major metaphors. Or maybe not?

What would the "tree of life" correspond to in this scenario?

The serpent?

The fruit? In your scenario would there have been a real choice to either a) stay innocent or b) follow God and stay in his will?

What about Adam walking with God in the cool of the day? Are you saying that early man might have had a more intimate relationship with God?

The reason I'm pursuing this line is that if the story is metaphorical, then a good metaphorical story should have coherent parts that all (or at least the major ones) reinforce the truth being taught.