@anon46279830, @Guy_Coe, @jongarvey and @AntoineSuarez I’ve been thinking about the right terminology that can facilitate many of the fine distinctions we are making on a theological level. There are few things I’ve been looking at, and will lay out here, I want to account for. I’m curious if you think the terminology I’m proposing might make sense of this, or if you would adjust it further.
-
We can remind people that “human” is not a word that appears in Genesis.
-
“Adam” would be a real person a real past (Genesis 2), who we scientifically expect would become ancestor of all of us (if he lived anytime at or before 6 kya), but there will be debate about the theological importance of descent from him. He might be the first “theological” human.
-
“adams” is the same biological type as Adam, and we might argue they arise as a community before Adam (Genesis 1). Loosely speaking, we might connect this somewhat with “humankind”, but emphasize they a different type of “human” than those referenced by Scripture.
-
“Sons and/or Daughters of Adam” are the biological descendants of Adam (see Genesis 6)
-
The “first Adam” and “second Adam” are referencing Adam and Jesus, the two adams (biological type) God (perhaps miraculously) created with a redemptive purpose (perhaps de novo = Virgin birth).
-
We can refer to the Sons and Daughters of Adam as a “new kind of adam.”
As for “Adamites,” “Pre-Adamites,” and “Non-Adamites,” these three terms are associated with polygenesis and should be avoided to keep things simpler. . This language is too closely associated with polygenesis to be clear. Unlike polygenesis, all ‘adams’ are the same biological type as Adam (just as Gentiles are the same biological type as Jews).
This language does several things for us.
- We are avoiding terms associated with polygenesis, like “Adamites.”
- We are affirming monophylogeny with our use of “adams”.
- This echoes Scripture by linguistically acknowledging the continuity of the “adams” of Genesis 1 and “Adam” of Genesis 2; they are the same biological kind.
- This also echoes Scripture by linguistically acknowledging the discontinuity between “adams” and “Adam”'s descendants.
- We are making more sense of the “first” and “last” Adam terminology of 1 Cor 15.
- This appears to avoid much of the confusion associated with the word “human,” though we can certainly be opportunistic in connecting it back to these terms, so as to improve understanding.
What do you think? Does this terminology make sense to you?