Who was Adam?

[Mr. Hyde]

I apologize for not making my first post in the designated area...but I really just have a few questions I'd like answered.
This question is for old earth creationists/theistic evolutionists.
Basically...who was Adam? Was he actually the first man? Did he ever exist as a "real" person? Was the "tree" really a "tree" and was the "fruit" really "fruit"?
I guess I want an explanation for the origin of sin on earth. One argument that young earth creationists use against theistic evolution is that it creates all sorts of problems in the issue of original sin.

Thoughts?

[Canuckster1127]

I apologize for not making my first post in the designated area...but I really just have a few questions I'd like answered.
This question is for old earth creationists/theistic evolutionists.
Basically...who was Adam? Was he actually the first man? Did he ever exist as a "real" person? Was the "tree" really a "tree" and was the "fruit" really "fruit"?
I guess I want an explanation for the origin of sin on earth. One argument that young earth creationists use against theistic evolution is that it creates all sorts of problems in the issue of original sin.

Thoughts?

First off, welcome.

Those are good questions and you're right to be concerned about them.

I'd say the following in brief response.

1. Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution are not the same things. Theistic evolution is a subset of Old Earth Creationism. Old Earth Creationism in general refers more to progressive creationism which might involve evolution, but does not necessarily demand it.

2. I believe Adam was the first man, created in God's image. I personally don't believe evolution was involved. I would not be crushed or lose my faith however to find that God used evolution if he chose to do so. That does not mean other "man-like" animals could not have existed in the past. A common-creator is sufficient explanation for common DNA and other similarities. The difference would be in the case of man, the image of God and the infusion of spirit and conscience.

3. As above, he was a real person.

4. There's no reason I see not to believe there was a real tree and real fruit. It's possible for Genesis to be literally true and there to be elements of metaphore is that were the "literary intent of God." The literalness of a passage is dependent upon the intent of the author. I believe it is better to assume the plainest literal sense of a passage in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This is why I can see the use of the word "day" in that context as extending beyond a literal 24 hour day.

5. Original sin isn't so much an issue in my mind. The issue in my mind is more along the line of what "death" as the penalty for sin means. The idea that no death in any sense existed or entered the world until the fall would be a convincing argument for YEC if it were biblical. I don't believe it is.

Hope this helps. We have many articles dealing with many of these issues in detail on the main board if you need more.

Blessings,

Bart

[phoney]

I apologize for not making my first post in the designated area...but I really just have a few questions I'd like answered.
This question is for old earth creationists/theistic evolutionists.
Basically...who was Adam? Was he actually the first man? Did he ever exist as a "real" person? Was the "tree" really a "tree" and was the "fruit" really "fruit"?
I guess I want an explanation for the origin of sin on earth. One argument that young earth creationists use against theistic evolution is that it creates all sorts of problems in the issue of original sin.

Thoughts?

First off, welcome.

Those are good questions and you're right to be concerned about them.

I'd say the following in brief response.

1. Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution are not the same things. Theistic evolution is a subset of Old Earth Creationism. Old Earth Creationism in general refers more to progressive creationism which might involve evolution, but does not necessarily demand it.

2. I believe Adam was the first man, created in God's image. I personally don't believe evolution was involved. I would not be crushed or lose my faith however to find that God used evolution if he chose to do so. That does not mean other "man-like" animals could not have existed in the past. A common-creator is sufficient explanation for common DNA and other similarities. The difference would be in the case of man, the image of God and the infusion of spirit and conscience.

3. As above, he was a real person.

4. There's no reason I see not to believe there was a real tree and real fruit. It's possible for Genesis to be literally true and there to be elements of metaphore is that were the "literary intent of God." The literalness of a passage is dependent upon the intent of the author. I believe it is better to assume the plainest literal sense of a passage in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This is why I can see the use of the word "day" in that context as extending beyond a literal 24 hour day.

5. Original sin isn't so much an issue in my mind. The issue in my mind is more along the line of what "death" as the penalty for sin means. The idea that no death in any sense existed or entered the world until the fall would be a convincing argument for YEC if it were biblical. I don't believe it is.

Hope this helps. We have many articles dealing with many of these issues in detail on the main board if you need more.

Blessings,

Bart

I read your signature and thought I should not ask certain questions Where does one get the correct direction if not allowed to ask those far fetched questions, I have some of them myself.

[Canuckster1127]

I don't understand your issue. I'm just getting back into the swing of things so maybe I've missed it but I don't see where honest questions are being squelched.

[phoney]

I don't understand your issue. I'm just getting back into the swing of things so maybe I've missed it but I don't see where honest questions are being squelched.

Sorry I thought the quote that shows up ( St Agustine ) when you post
gave me the impression I was not to ask about such far fetched theories.
I do not have the knowledge of you and many others, so I was so glad to find this site and thought I could throw some of these far fetched thoughts out and get some really good feedback on them as I have read
you and others have gaves here. I may have read more into the quote than is there.

[zoegirl]

I don't understand your issue. I'm just getting back into the swing of things so maybe I've missed it but I don't see where honest questions are being squelched.

Sorry I thought the quote that shows up ( St Agustine ) when you post
gave me the impression I was not to ask about such far fetched theories.
I do not have the knowledge of you and many others, so I was so glad to find this site and thought I could throw some of these far fetched thoughts out and get some really good feedback on them as I have read
you and others have gaves here. I may have read more into the quote than is there.

St. Augustine's quote is merely a caution against propsosing such outrageous counter-theories to what observations show us (suh as age, microevolution) that these counter theories place God iin a position of ridicule.

[Canuckster1127]

I don't understand your issue. I'm just getting back into the swing of things so maybe I've missed it but I don't see where honest questions are being squelched.

Sorry I thought the quote that shows up ( St Agustine ) when you post
gave me the impression I was not to ask about such far fetched theories.
I do not have the knowledge of you and many others, so I was so glad to find this site and thought I could throw some of these far fetched thoughts out and get some really good feedback on them as I have read
you and others have gaves here. I may have read more into the quote than is there.

I can see how that might lead to that conclusion.

I include that quote in my signature more as a curiosity than as anything seeking to squelch discussion.

Really, when you think about it, Augustine's understanding of "science" in his day was much different than ours so it's good to be reminded to not read too much into the quote.

I take just as a reminder that there are many kinds of truth in God's word. The primary purpose of Scripture is to reveal to us the plan and mind of God with regard to salvation and holy living. There are many other elements as well that are included such as history, science, wisdom etc. and as I believe fully in inspiration I have to believe where the Scripture addresses these issues they must be correct as well.

What I've learned however is that there is need to recognize that we approach Scripture with our own understandings and thoughts and these interpret how we undestand and interpret those scriptures and there is also many years between those who received it originally as well as language and culture and it is a very important part of our submission to God and Scripture to be sure we are factoring all these things in to where we understand clearly what is being said.

Sometimes I am lazy and I try to understand it as if it were plain english being communicated to me today. When I do that, I am in danger of making some mistakes and misinterpreting or misunderstanding something.

That is what I think was at work when I accepted the traditional Young Earth Creationist position. I've since come to believe that while Scripture is the first and foremost resource for a Christian, there is a lot of room for some humility and maintaining a teachable spirit on such issues.

To some, that is an indication of compromise or diminishing Scripture and there is a danger that Scripture can be watered down in this manner, to be sure.

The danger in not fostering this type of humility however is a non-discerning espousing of positions that seem rooted Scripture but can be in error. The whole historical scenario of geocentrism and Galileo shows this very clearly.

Unfortunately, history repeats itself in many ways and I'm afraid some elements of the Church have decided to dogmatically hold to what appears to them to be a very clear teaching of Scripture that the earth is young and the days in Genesis 1 and 2 are real 24 hour days. They hold to this despite what is pretty overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the creation itself and their own unanswered questions as to how 24 hour solar days existed in the advance of the creation of the sun.

Why this is done is different for different people. I think much of it is sincere. Some of it is the laziness I myself indulged in by not studying hard and trying to insulate myself in my own little world of faith based upon an unwillingness to face the issue and reconcile both the science and theology. Unfortunately, in my opinion, such rigid dogmatic approaches have the unfortunate result of painting us into a corner to where we are unable to draw a distinction between our own possible dogmatic adherence to a bad theology and the scriptures themselves, which are not wrong.

While Augustine may have had a little different situation in mind than how we read that quote, I still think it is timely.

It's not there to discourage any conversation however, especially in the context of this board. The place to look for that is in the Board Guidelines.



Bart

[phoney]

Bart

Canuckster, first I did not mean to bring this question in a manner for others to answer it, it was directed to you, sorry bout that. I was not raised as a christian and led most of my adult life as a sinner. I did however go to some Sunday school when young, it was Baptist and I was to young to really understand the importance of church.
When in middle and high school I was the jock not the academic student and did not get any college, so I enjoy reading things here because I am exposed to some really smart people and things I have never been exposed to.
That said now that Im and old man I have been saved and try hard to live right. Most things I agree with. Like your response to me I also think when God created all things it was not with the 24 hr day. From the above I guess you can see I did not know of St Agustine other than a name but I did a goolgle search and read some good things he did and said. I know very little of the catholic church, I have read some about the early church and It appears, with the limited information I have about the catholic church, I am a bit leery of it. I too beleive the Church or a least the ones I been in lately need to change. I have read the Bible twice and there are many things in it that you would never hear in a church, its a must read .

[Eoccidens]

To be honest, I don't think that there can be original sin in theistic evolution. As you might know, most of the authors of God and Science.org are old earth creationists. It doesn't necessarily mean they accept evolution - in fact, Rich Deem (the main author I think) says that he believes in Adam and Eve literally, but as people who existed around 50,000 years ago due to the dating of human fossils.

He says that the Hebrew word used for 'son' in Genesis can also refer to male descendant, so it means that humanity is probably more than 6000 years old.

[Daniel]

To be honest, I don't think that there can be original sin in theistic evolution.

I think this borders on the dictating what God should have done vs. what God actually did do.

[m1201]

adam was the God first creation. There is no metafore beneath it. find God by your open heart. don't find Him like finding History facts. God will help you. Pray first if you honest to find Him. God bless u. Amin.

[ageofknowledge]

Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (Hardcover) by Fazale Rana (Author), Hugh Ross (Author).

This book is worth every penny. Enjoy.

[Alex G]

The genealogy of our Lord is given in the NT. It is a literal genealogy since our Lord was literal. The genealogy goes all the way to Adam. There is no such thing as a genealogy being figurative and then suddenly these non-existent people of a figurative nature magically have literal progeny. Adam was literal and quite certainly the first man of our human race.

[ageofknowledge]

Could you make some more assertions and not back them up with any information Alex? Thanks we appreciate it. Of course the world is only 6 thousand years old and we used to use brontosaurus to till the fields like Fred Flinstone on tv.

[Alex G]

Could you make some more assertions and not back them up with any information Alex? Thanks we appreciate it. Of course the world is only 6 thousand years old and we used to use brontosaurus to till the fields like Fred Flinstone on tv.

Well, if you are going to come to a "Christian Theology" section of a message board and someone (that being me in this case) cites the genealogy of Christ to Adam which is in the NT and you claim such a citation is an assertion and not a reference or substantiating element of the discussion of Adam, well you speak a form of English most of us do not. I cited the genealogy of the Bible, this is a Science and a Christian Theology website, hence I cited a source that is accepted here. Now if that is your problem, you need to run back to where you came from, you are in the wrong place for such issues.

Secondly, if you do not have a frame of reference to that which is quite common/elementary theological information, you shouldn't be debating, you are frankly just too green to make any comment of weight. The genealogy of our Lord is not some advanced doctrinal conclusion or extrapolation, it is a most elementarily discovered portion of the Gospels.

And so again, I cite in the "Christian Theology" section I cite the genealogy of our Lord Jesus which documents him as quite literally a person all the way to a literal ancestor, the first man, Adam. Adam is not treated figuratively (remember this isn't an atheist board or an agnostic board or one antagonistic to the veracity of the Bible. It is one that respects the tenets of Christian doctrine so when parts of the Bible are referenced, though you may not respect them as legitimate sources of information, this board does, though we are FREE TO DISAGREE on hermeneutics and subsequent findings, your treatment of the genealogy of our Lord is as if it is no source at all).

As for the world being only 6,000 years old, well your comment only displays your foolishness, impetuousness and immaturity since I made no such comment and your comment is based in the arrogant presumption that I believe this when in fact I do not. So, in spirte of your screen name "ageofiknowledge" instead of arrogant presumptions about what you feel I believe based on your imagination and nothing else, stick with the facts and if you don't like the Bible as a source of information, then you are at the wrong message board community.