As you said... Interesting Article...
Some thoughts...
Philip wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 6:29 pm
This is an interesting article, not typically seen in the mainstream press. It examines whether the idea of an actual Adam and Eve conflicts with current science - but are the theories in sync with Biblical theology?
I think the Biblical Adam and Eve are consistent with what we find in ANE and Mesopotamian history around 6000 BC.
So I don't think there is any conflict between the Scriptural Adam and Eve and history (or science).
The scientific conflict is with the tradition that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all human beings.
As the article notes (and I have frequently mentioned) there are a number of indications that other humans existed at the time of Adam and Eve. For example, where did Cain's wife come from? and who did Cain build the city of Enoch (Uruk) for?
So while Scripture and history have no conflict with a historical Adam and Eve who lived in Mesopotamia around 6000 BC. The extrascriptural tradition that Adam and Eve were the genetic progenitors of all humans directly contradicts the scientific evidence that humans (species homo sapiens sapiens) have been around for 150,000 to 200,000 years.
According to Scripture, God created mankind in his image in Genesis 1:26-27. Adam and Eve don't show up in the Scriptural narrative until some undetermined time later in Genesis 2.
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/ch ... -evolution
While I don't believe Adam and Eve were the very first biological humans, I also don't believe mankind - or ANY humans - were created via evolution via the animal kingdom. To me, the article doesn't address other possibilities and issues.
I am probably a little more nuanced in my position regarding evolution... depending on what one means by 'evolution'.
If by 'evolution' one means
- common descent
- RANDOM mutation
- Natural Selection
Then I flatly reject that RANDOM mutation is an adequate cause for what we find in the fossil record or in the DNA of life today. In my discussion with Nils I discuss in detail the empirically observed behavior of RANDOM mutation that demonstrates the inadequacy of RANDOM mutation.
However, I am more open to (although not necessarily embracing) a definition of 'evolution' that involves
- common descent
- GUIDED mutation
- Natural selection
If mutations that exceed the capability of random mutations are evidence of GUIDED mutations by an Intelligent Creator, then there is no difference between a GUIDED mutation and a Creative Act, and I see no conflict between GUIDED mutations and God's creative acts described in Scripture.
Regarding humans in particular, my discussions with ACB brought a very interesting thing to light in Genesis 1:26-27.
26 Then God said, “Let us
make (asah) mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God
created (bara) mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he
created (barah) them.
I think it is interesting that Genesis uses both asah (working on something) and bara (creating something new) to refer to the creation of mankind in Genesis 1.
One implication of this COULD possibly be that Scripture is indicating that part of mankind's creation involved working on something that was preexisting (modifying hominid DNA to create species homo sapiens sapiens) and part of mankind's creation involved the creation of something brand new (instilling mankind with a spirit... ie making mankind an image bearer of God).
So again I am open to (but not convinced of) the premise that mankind's physical body is a function of God 'working on' (asah) a previously existing hominid species, while mankind's 'spirit' is a special unique creation of God that is unique to species homo sapiens sapiens.
But again I see no conflict between the Scriptural account of the creation of mankind in Genesis 1 and the possibility that species homo sapiens sapiens might be genetically related to other hominid species, while also being the result of creative acts by God both physically (GUIDED mutation) and spiritually (the creation of mankind's spirit)
Nor does the article note it possible that God INSTANTLY created BOTH the very first humans, AND, MUCH later, Adam and Eve - with ALL of these having been created instantly and NOT as a result of evolutionary mechanisms connected to the animal kingdom.
Might as well stir the pot once more...
Once again I am not necessarily convinced of this, but I think it is a Scriptural possibility.
In Genesis 2:7 Scripture says that the Lord God formed Adam "from the dust of the ground".
What does that mean?
Is being 'formed from dust' unique to Adam, or is it a description of the fundamental nature of all humans?
I think Psalm 103:14 might give us a possible clue
for he knows how we are formed,
he remembers that we are dust.
According to Psalm 103:14, all humans are formed from dust, not just Adam.
And the context of Psalm 103:14 demonstrates that being 'formed from dust' refers to the mortality of all humans.
We see Paul discuss this same principle in 1 Cor 15:42-49
In this passage Paul contrasts the physical, mortal, 'dusty' bodies that humans currently possess with the spiritual, immortal bodies that we shall receive after the Resurrection of the Dead.
Thoughts? DB?
Those are some thoughts...
