Adam and adams, not Adamites

One vital difference between “adams” and “Adamites” is that “adams,” while eikonic, do NOT possess the “knowledge of good and evil,” i.e., they are relatively morally unsophisticated, and only accountable to God’s mandate to “be fruitful, fill the earth, and subdue it.”
As Romans makes clear, where no law (“Thou shalt not…”) is present, no sin is accorded (even though it may be present, as we as parents often have to recognize).
But, once “in Adam,” the moral predisposition to rebel against God is, literally, bred into us.
My own theory is that it involves what amounts to a “design cooptation” in the human neocortex, because of Adam and Eve’s original sin, such that we are now all born with the same rebellious disposition towards God --thus, “greatly increased pain in childbirth” is what both mother and baby experience.
All human babies, e.g., have to learn slowly and gradually that the universe “doesn’t owe them a comfortable existence.” Gratitude is learned slowly in our species (perhaps slower than any other?).
All these things form the basis of an orthodox theology, and Genesis is not simply reporting disconnected themes.


This is just a terrible format to try to lay it all out. With today’s tools it does not take great knowledge of Hebrew. But it is so essential that we start with the text. I mean, look at all the electrons we have expended going back and forth about what the first two chapters of Genesis might mean Shouldn’t we first put significant energy in knowing what it actually says before we do that? I think you will be surprised at how poorly translated early Genesis is in some places.

Let’s start with Genesis 1:26. When God says “Let us make Man in our own image” the word for “man” is “adam”. Here is a link to an interlinear of the verse. You can click on any Hebrew word in the text and get the definition and every other place it is used in the Bible. Genesis 1:26 Hebrew Text Analysis

The early church fathers did not have anything like this kind of power available. They would envy us, and I think also tell us to not get so hung up on what they said about the text with the light they had but examine it with the light we have today. After all, would scientists look and see what Tycho Brahe said about the solar system or would they use the much better tools they have now to take a better look at the same material? So should theologians! /end rant.

Now let’s look at an interlinear of Genesis 1:27

It says three things. 1 “So God created man in His own Image”.

But look at the entry for “man” in this verse. It is not “adam” but “ha-adam”. Click on that link and see that once you get past the first two chapters of Genesis that it always translated “the man” (or sometimes “of man”). Heck the ESV and some others start translating it that way in chapter 2 as well. Where the KJV says “Adam” they correctly say “the man”. This is because putting that one Hebrew character on the word makes just about any noun “the”. “ha-anything” is “the” whatever you are talking about.

So this segment should read “So God created THE Man in His own Image”. We can argue about what that means, but so far we have been arguing about what these passages mean without first seeing what they say. That is not a recipe “to understand and be understood”.

The second sentence fragment of 1:27 is like an echo: "In the Image of God Created He him or them. I won’t show it here but in the book I show how in several of those creation days it is describing things in heaven and then things on earth with similar language. So this is not just the narrator of Genesis 1 repeating themselves. But the main thing I want you to notice here is the word translated “them” here and “him” in some translations is the Hebrew word “o-tow”. I invite you to click on it and see its definition and how it is used elsewhere in scripture. It is a singular_emphasized text_ pronoun. IOW the correct translation should be "In the image of God created He him.

The last snippet says “Male and female created He them.” Look at the word translated “them”. It is “o-tam”. Click on the link and see how it is defined and how it is translated elsewhere. It is a plural pronoun. IOW the translation of this fragment is correct. Put it all together and it should read…

“So God created THE Man in His own Image.
In the Image of God created He him
Male and Female created He them”

So whatever definitions or categories or ideas we develop, it needs to be something which is not inconsistent with the text. If it is inconsistent with the text all we have is a theory about the meaning of words which are not really in the bible.

My theory is that 1:27 is not repeating the same thing three times. Rather it is a list of three things God did to begin to fulfill is plan to make “man”- humanity, mankind, in His own image.

So what are you saying that means?

That the only way the text makes any sense in light of what we now know about the natural world, you have to read it like God knew all about Christ and the Church from the beginning, that Christ is written into the text from the beginning, and that He is the start and the end of the plan to “make man in our own Image”. Glorious eh? The cynics will have a tough time with this one.

THE Man is Christ, slain before “the foundation of the world” (which is what Gen 1 and 2 are describing, the foundation of the world). I have already shown you numerous verses which plainly say that Christ is the image of God. Adam is the earthly copy of the heavenly man, created in relationship to the anthropogenic Yahweh-Elohim who shows up in chapter two (after 1:27).

What does that make the “male and female” He created? They are humanity before Adam. If you read this verse from earth up, its history, if from the top down, its prophecy. Notice that it does not say that the male and female were created in the image, but the whole point was to get them there. That was the plan and intent of God from the beginning, to make men and women into Christ and the Church. Christ and the Church was not some back-up plan God had to resort to once things failed to go as He anticipated.

This does not mean that Adam was a different or better kind of being than they were intrinsically. He was better off positionally because He was formed and lived in the presences of the LORD. We cannot be in the Image of God outside of relationship with God. I previously showed multiple scriptures which shows that men are not automatically in the image of God. Hitler and Jeffry Dahmer were not in the image of God. In the likeness yes, but to conform to the Image requires a relationship. It is what we as believers are supposed to be doing down here, to make a reality on earth what is already true in heaven.

So I also have a slightly different view than those of us who say “Gen. 2 happened after Genesis 1”. Not quite. Genesis 1 is the big picture over a huge amount of time and Gen. 2 is telescoping in to a brief amount of time which is just the middle fragment of verse 1:27. Genesis 1 is The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" and Gen. 2 is “the life of Julius Caesar.”

With that said, I’d like to have a go at tweaking the definitions to take into account everything I have read from you guys on the thread but in a way that leaves the door open to this Christ-centered view of the material.

Personally, I see two “stages” of development in these verses: 1) a singular “adam” species which does not, yet, bear the image of God being selected by Him so that 2) the image God could be created in “him,” in both male and female forms. They are then commissioned to act in concert with that image. This is about the “de novo” creation of humanity, prior to Adam. Note, however, that the Hebrew word “create” gives no information about how long that took, even though we’re inclined to hear it as an act of immediate fiat.

1 Like


I don’t find your interpretation to be particularly compatible with the @swamidass scenarios.

For many years you have building an interpretation based on special creation of 2 people… period. Yes? Did you ever develop an operational concept of thousands of humans that existed before Adam and Eve? If you did, please let me know. But I don’t remember you mentioning such a thing.

But now we have this two-step/two-creation concept. It answers so many other kinds of questions… I think it would be good if you could contemplate how to carve out some of your “pet ideas” that interfere with the Swamidass approach.

1 Like

Diversity is good :).

I think @anon46279830 thinks that there are people outside the garden, but I’m not sure how he sees Gen 1 in relation to that.

@gbrooks9 I share the same concept. The framework is identical. Only difference that does not fit with GE comes after the fall - how is sin propagated? And this take on it answers questions that I haven’t even heard here yet.

@swamidass Yes, there were people outside the garden. Gen 1 is about the big picture which starts in the beginning and ends with Christ and the Church. Chapter two is just a blip in there, but a very important blip so it is elaborated on. But God’s address to humanity at the end of chapter one is to those outside the garden and sounds nothing at all like the conversation or relationship He had with Adam and Eve in chapter two.

So Jesus was created? You can’t possibly be meaning that, are you? Or maybe his pre-incarnate form was created, though he himself pre-existed it? Help me out here. Though I can see where you are going with THE Man.

So that is the creation of the ‘adams’, before Adam. So that is a two creation framework, even though you are using Genesis 1:27 in a different way.

So this makes more sense:

You are saying it is:

  1. Christ in heaven (but not created, right?)
  2. Adam (an echo of Christ)
  3. ‘adams’ = mankind (created before Adam).

Is that right?


The LOGOS was not created. He was with God and He was God, He was present originally with God (that is from Gospel of John chapter one). But THE Man in heaven is Christ and the Church. It is a fusion of uncreated God with created man. God changes form, He is not created. Hence in Gen. 2 Adam is not “created”. It does not use that word. He just changes form.



For more detail on the subject though still not as precise as in the book see video…

So, in your view, Genesis 1:27 is reverse chronological. Like a bookend to the story. Interesting.

My view is that because it is describing things in heaven and on earth where God’s will is present reality and where it isn’t, that Genesis 1:27 is both history and prophecy. If you read it from the top (heaven) down, its prophecy to those on earth. If you read it from the bottom up (earth to heaven) it is history. And both are literally true.

To help understand this, notice that the 7th day did not have an evening, or a morning. I demonstrate from the scriptures that the real Sabbath in Gen. 1 and 2 did not become reality on earth until after the crucifixion.

(The sound of crickets chirping… Maybe left-coasters just get left out? : )

1 Like

Sorry about that. A real flurry. Missed it.

So do you think this is a teaching against common descent?

No; just an expansion upon it. The “man” in “Let Us make man…” is a product of common descent. What that “man” is made into is not (i.e., it’s more than just that). “Imago Dei” human beings are the special work of God’s creating; likely combining subtle changes in genetic information, with a change in supernatural awareness.

1 Like

Here’s a rough transcript of the YouTube video … my apologies for the mis-spellings.
I don’t see anything here that even touches on the @swamidass
scenarios. @anon46279830, how is this video relevant?


hello friends my name is Mark Moore I’m
the author of the book early Genesis the
revealed cosmology I believe there’s a
link to it in the comments of this video
now what I want to do today is
demonstrate to you the the revealing of
an awesome mystery in Scripture I mean
this is so earth-shattering that it
really will put people in in a position
where when they look at the word they’ll
have to say either it’s so perfect it
has to be a forgery made by Catholic
priests hundreds of years after Christ
or they have to say this must be
inspired by God because it fits together
too amazing in the well I’m going to
show from the scriptures that the
seventh day in Genesis chapter 1 in the
first part of chapter 2 the original
Sabbath day did not occur on earth until
Jesus was after he was crucified on the
cross that’s what I’m going to show you
that’s the original Sabbath in other
words Genesis chapter 1 not only is it
reliable history if understood correctly
most do not understand it correctly but
it is also reliable prophecy Genesis
chapter 1 spoke of things which which
happened below and happened above and on
the seventh day it spoke of things which
were going to happen later Genesis was
one of the five books generally
attributed to Moses let’s keep that in
mind as we go 101 start in Colossians
chapter 2 because we’ve to understand
what this Paul understands the Sabbath
to be this is what he says the Sabbath
is he says let no man therefore judge
you in regards to meat or in drink or in
respect of a holiday or of the new moon
or of the Sabbath which are a shadow of
things to come but the body is Christ a
substance is Christ in other words all
those things in the scripture which we
were told to celebrate all those
Sabbath’s the weekly Sabbath we’re human
beings take a rest in Leviticus chapter
25 the land also has a Sabbath and for
that it’s a year
arrests and seven years of work and and
one year of rest
we have excuse me six years of working
when your arrest we have six days of
work in one day at rest and then there
was the original Sabbath in Genesis
chapter one and two and that one is
once it starts it never ends that is
God’s original Sabbath of which the
Sabbath for the land and the Sabbath for
us are mere shadows and understand also
when we go back to Genesis chapter one
and Jim in the first part of chapter two
who is resting the person resting is the
person doing the creating and of course
all of Godhead was involved in the
creation but the second person of the
Godhead the logos was an agent of
creation which we just back up a little
bit and look in Colossians chapter one
we see that I’ll read starting with a
verse about verse fifteen who is the
image of the invisible God the firstborn
of every creature and by the way Holtz
misused that and say oh he was born oh
he’s a creature the logos the second
person of Godhead was not born he was
not a creation but the fusion of God and
man in the heavens Christ in the church
the the man part he’s fully a man as
well as fully God but but what I’m
trying to show is this is talking about
Christ when I read what follows for by
him we’re all things created that are in
heaven and that are on earth visible and
invisible whether they be Thrones or
dominions or principalities or powers
all things were created by him and for
him so when it when it slum not God
resting in early Genesis in the crew
seventh day he’s talking about Christ
resting now there is a very difficult
passage of Scripture in Hebrews which
speaks of this and it’s very hard to
understand outside the context of what
I’m saying when what I’m saying is the
original Sabbath in Genesis their first
part of chapter two did not occur until
after Jesus was on the cross
though the rest that it speaks of is not
the kind of
it wasn’t because God wanted a day off
so he could do the things he really
wanted to do but more about that in a
little bit let me let me go to this
passage in Hebrews you’re gonna see how
difficult it is to understand unless you
take it in the context that I’m
describing here we’ll start with chapter
three verse five and Moses barely was
faithful on this house as a servant for
testimony of those things which were to
be spoken after but Christ as a son over
his own house so in other words it’s a
testimony to things spoken after in
other words what Moses was saying in the
Torah what Moses was saying in the in
the pitiful case and then the five books
attributed to him and we don’t I don’t
say that he wrote every word but in
Genesis he edited every word that’s what
I do say so but they were he was
testifying about things spoken after in
other words things pertaining to the
future he was writing about things that
would be talked about later they they
happened on heaven before but they
hadn’t happened on earth yet and see my
video about time we’ll having time below
and how Genesis chapter 1 is describing
it and the first part of two is
describing creation happening in two
places the land above and the land below
and creation does not respond to God’s
Word equally and ordinate equal
promptness any in each place so you have
to understand that what he was saying
when Moses wrote Genesis chapter 1 and
first part of 2 he was testifying the
things we’ve spoken after let’s move on
to four starting with verse 3 for we
which have believed do enter into rest
as he said as I sworn in my wrath if
they shall enter into my rest although
the works were finished from the
foundation of the world so Paul here is
indicating an orc not Paul but the
writer of Hebrews indicating the works
were finished from the foundation of the
world but there was still the question
of whether
the children of Israel would enter into
the rest which was spoken of as will
they enter into God’s rest his Sabbath
so and this was at the time of Joshua
long after Adam long after Noah I will
read on for he spake in a certain place
of the seventh day on this wise and God
did rest the seventh day from all his
works and in this place again if they
shall enter into my rest seeing
therefore it remaineth that sunless
entering there and they to whom it was
first preached in her and not because of
unbelief and again he limited that a
certain day saying David today after so
long a time today if you will hear his
voice and heart not your hearts so
they’re in the remain of a Sabbath rest
with the people of God and and some
persons say Jesus but it’s really it’s
Joshua it said if Josh had been able to
give him that rest it didn’t they didn’t
enter in all those years it was
completed in the beginning his rest was
completed but because of unbelief they
could not enter in and so it says it
says that for he that entered into his
rest has also ceased from his own works
and God did from his let us therefore
labor to enter into that rest now how do
we labored in order to arrest you you
you know John 6:29 sent what the work of
God is this is the work of God that you
believe on the one whom he has sent
that your work it’s through faith it’s
not even through works you believe on
the one whom he has sent how do I do
well you study his word and if you study
it rightly
you will not have to stress and strive
and try to believe you just will because
it’s so glorious like what I’m about to
explain to you is so glorious you think
oh my gosh it’s got to be true it fits
together too well especially considering
the way it was composed so we unbelief
prevents entry to this Sabbath that God
has that unbelief is the same thing as
lacking faith and of course
salvation is through faith believing in
the one who got a cent that’s the work
he’s talking about but it gets better
let’s look at in Genesis miss go back to
the original Genesis chapter 2 Genesis
chapter 2 verses 1 through 3 it and I’ve
got it some of it written down here but
it says thus the heavens and the earth
were finished and all the host of them
and on the seventh day God ended his
work which he had made and he rested on
the seventh day from all his work which
he had made and God blessed the seventh
day and sanctified it because then in it
he had rested from all his work which
God created and made
now then did you notice it was right
there all along on the seventh day got
into his work he finished everything on
the sixth day as far as setting
everything up but something happened the
fall of Adam happened there was one work
that remained to be done and that was
redeeming the creation that he had made
in the six previous days so he didn’t
quit working on the sixth day he didn’t
end his work on the sixth day he ended
his work of creating and making
everything but he had one more work to
do on the seventh day and that was
redeeming his creation and you notice
the seventh day is not like the other
days in Genesis chapter one it doesn’t
say and the evening in the morning were
the seventh day or there was evening and
there was morning a seventh day none of
those days except the six have a
definite article but with the seventh
day many people have pointed out the
seventh day never ended but I’m pointing
out it never even began on earth and it
did in heaven it was all four ordained
by God but it didn’t honor on earth it
never started it didn’t start in Genesis
it didn’t start Adam it didn’t start in
the life of Noah not even at the time of
Joshua they didn’t enter into the rest
even in the time of Moses and Joshua
Moses was talking about things to be
spoken after he was testifying as to
things in the future so so men did the
Sabbath happen when did it begin on the
earth heaven in heaven he entered into
his rest and by the way what was God
just like looking forward to some time
off why did he bless us in with that was
he looking forward to finally giving a
chance to do the things he really wanted
to do and knock off work is that way no
he blessed the Sabbath because in it he
redeemed what he had made that’s why he
blessed it and that’s that’s the rest
Jesus rested on the ground till it was
resurrected now he he sits at the right
hand of the Father waiting for what he
has accomplished already in heaven to
fully work itself out on the earth now
let’s go to let’s go to John 5:16 and
John 5:16 really narrows it down as
closely as we can as far as when to dis
occur if the Sabbath didn’t occur then
when did it begin start we’ll start with
verse 16 and the setup here was that
they were that God healed someone that
jesus healed someone with Sabbath and of
course they were they were Pharisees
were down on him about that and the man
departed and told the Jews that it was
Jesus which had made him whole this is
chapter 5 of the Gospel of John 15 16
and 17 and therefore did the Jews
persecute Jesus and sought to slay him
because he had done these things on the
Sabbath day but jesus answered them my
father worketh hitherto
and I work now the greek hitherto it
means right up into this point wait a
minute didn’t God because what he was
I went god I’m on my father’s timetable
I’m not on your timetable I’m on his
Sabbath schedule not your Sabbath
schedule but wait a minute
you’re saying God worked right up into
this point my father worked on the right
up until now is another way to say it
and I also am working so didn’t God take
the seventh day off in Genesis chapter 2
verses 1 through 3 no no in heaven but
not on earth the the what Israel in
heaven had not quite reached earth yet
he did not reach so when did it reach
it reached earth when he said it is
finished on the cross he paid he died he
was buried he rested he paid the debt
for mankind he he suffered a penalty for
what he did not do so that so that it’s
very much like it says in Isaiah 53
you know Isaiah 53 says by His stripes
we’ve been healed now we’ll have always
applied that to Jesus but if you read
that chapter most of it is in the past
tense Isaiah is describing the work of
Christ but who which had not Christ
didn’t come to her four centuries after
Isaiah but he’s describing it in the
past tense as if it was something was
already completed action and indeed in
heaven it was you have to go back to the
video I showed about how time happens at
different rates but on earth it didn’t
happen to the crucifixion in John 5:16
when Jesus is setting is my father has
worked without rest right up into this
current moment and so that’s why I’m
working without a rest I’m not bound by
your Sabbath I’m on his schedule so he’s
saying that that Sabbath hasn’t reached
the earth yet but but it did it did
virtually after that after the
crucifixion so let’s go to revelations
30 13 8 and revelations 13 8 is a
scripture you’ve got to watch the
translations on this one because the
especially denominations are heavy on
nation they change the order from what
is in the Greek and in their mind I
understand why they think it works but
let me just read the scripture and
I’ll read the King James which is which
is translated in the same order as the
Greek okay and all that dwell upon the
earth shall worship Him that’s the Beast
that’s not a good thing whose names are
not written in the book of life of the
lamb slain from the foundation of the
world that is revelation 13:8 so the
lamb was slain from the foundation of
the world now if you go to revelation 17
it talks about people’s names being
written in that book from the foundation
of the world and so that they say well
because it says that in 17 we’re going
to change the order and say it was the
Lamb’s Book but the people’s net we’re
also going to make it here that the
people’s names in it were from the
foundation of the world
and I say to you the one does not affect
the other the names could be in the book
from the foundation of the world which
are the events of Genesis chapter 1 in
the first part chapter 2 and chapter 2
the the names could be in the book from
before the foundation of the world and
the lamb could be slain in the
heavenlies because it was God’s plan as
a reality in heaven before the
foundation of the world the one if there
is a book of the lamb that was slain
before the foundation of the world with
some names in it then there was also a
lamb before the foundation of the world
and again that fits in with what we see
in Isaiah 53 where Isaiah describes
beautifully the coming of the Messiah
and about how he for our iniquities he’s
been struck and all this whole list
about by his stripes we’ve been healed
and and all the chastisement that were
due us were put on him past tense as if
it’s something that already happened
because he saw God’s plan which was a
reality in heaven and this was a working
out of history his will increasingly
make God’s plan in heaven worked out on
earth so
the bottom line is that people once you
see this you have to make a decision how
could it be work out this perfectly that
that however Genesis got pinned all
those many centuries thousands of years
ago that it would work out to where once
we understand it correctly it is
pointing directly to Christ his
crucifixion his resurrection his
redemption of creation and that that’s
the rest that he was that the book is
talking about and that’s the rest that
God said in the day of Moses that we can
enter into but yet we were not able to
enter into through unbelief because
salvation is through faith it is not to
work so the only work that matters is to
work in believing on the one whom he has
in other words he said old time gospel
it’s that gospel once delivered all the
way back in the first seven creation
days of Genesis for you to accept that
you have to get off this thing about oh
it’s about little twenty-four hour days
and Exodus 20 is talking about literal
24-hour days no it’s not the seventh day
is not a literal 24-hour day so it’s not
it’s talking about you know he’s talking
once you see it to a christ-centered
lens you see what it’s talking about you
see a truth that is beyond sublime thank
you so much for listening and and may
God bless you

George you clearly went to a lot of trouble to do that, unless you have some sort of software that makes transcripts. But honestly such a long transcript kind of clogs the thread. Even though its my words I’d rather just leave a link to the video up and let people go watch it if they wanted to rather than force everyone who does not want to watch it scroll past all of that text. Is that OK?

You asked about its relevance. If you sort of followed along the course of this thread we were talking about definitions for the terms we are using in early Genesis, both for Adam and the descendants of his line and the people who were there before him. One of the goals Joshua has is to frame things so that many different ways to look at the material can still be incorporated into his model.

Up to this point I noticed everyone was assuming that Gen. 1 was not about the man Adam at all, but only about the race adam, and that the two accounts were strictly sequential. That is, every view put forth here had Genesis 1 coming first, ending, and then Genesis 2 beginning. This is in contrast to the view which is commonly held in much of the church where chapter 2 is a “retelling” of chapter one.

What I am suggesting not only adds another way to look at it within the framework Joshua has suggested, but also has the advantage of doing it in a way that brings together the view that is commonly held with this framework. That is, the chapters are not really sequential and they are not completely unrelated stories. Rather, the first account is the big picture that occurs over a vast amount of time- telling a story that was not even finished playing out on earth when Moses wrote it- and the second account is “zooming in” on the most important point in that story.

What I was trying to do with the video on the seventh day is show support for this idea that account one is the whole story of creation that occurred over a long time, and the second account is about a smaller creation within that creation which was done to execute God’s plan to redeem that larger creation. I am providing this evidence so that this group won’t be “locked in” to a strictly sequential view of the accounts- which appears to be causing confusion as we try to define these categories.

Of course, it is also good material to show any YEC out there that their view of the material is not the most Christ-centered way to look at it.

1 Like

But you and I have already gone over that, @anon46279830 . How can God say things are “very good” on day six, unless it concludes before Adam sins and falls? I understand your attempt to build bridges between various interpretations, but in this instance, it seems obvious to me it’s at the expense of the text. The account of Adam and Eve takes place AFTER --well after – the account of day six in chapter one.
Yes; I agree that a majority don’t interpret it this way, but I put that down to faulty exegesis, for this and several other reasons. May I also suggest that we refrain from using the word “race” when referring to the family of mankind? Just a suggestion. Cheers!

1 Like

We have gone over that and once I pointed out that the “very good” part was still during day six I thought you realized that it was describing a time after the creation of Adam but before the fall. The “evening” of day seven is the fall and the long sad story of human history in rebellion against God. The morning of day seven is the redemption of humanity on the cross.

That is one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that “day” six is an extraordinarily long period of time and Adam and Eve are the earthly culmination of events on day six. The second account is a mere blip in time compared to the events in “day” six of the first account, but they are so critical to the whole story that the narrative telescopes in on them. So I would say Adam and Eve occur long after MOST of day six.

1 Like

@swamidass I did not tag you in this before but I want to make sure you see it, even if the input is not taken heed of. Particularly the part about the grammer on “adams”.

OK below is my take on the principles you outlined. I tried to write it up like drafts of a legal document, where one strikes out the parts deleted and adds new parts in italics or underlined, but we don’t have a strike-through setting here. So I am just going to put my view on it with explanation for proposed changes in italics below.

  1. “We can remind people that “human” is not a word that appears in Genesis”

I would delete #1 because “adam” has as its primary meaning “mankind” or “humanity”. It is one of the two main Hebrew words used to identify the human race, the other being “Enosh”, or “mortal”, a form of which was also applied to Adam immediately prior to taking the forbidden fruit. Enosh was also the name of a son of Seth, repeating the pattern of taking as a proper name a moniker for the race one represents.

  1. “Adam” would be a real person with 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.

I struck out the last bit …‘He might be the first “theological” human.’ Unless you are going to Segway into speculations about just what this might mean, I think it is better to leave it with the statement that there will be ‘debate about the theological importance of descent from him’ with him being the first “theological human” as one of the positions in the debate. If you want to work in GA here, be more specific like “and his role in propagating humanity as fallen beings”.

  1. “adam” the race is humanity and is the same biological type as Adam the man, and we might argue they arise as a community before Adam the man (Genesis 1).

I got rid of “adams” and just made clear we are differentiating Adam the man from Adam the race. “Adam” is one of those nouns like “deer”, the same whether singular or plural. The scholars might be turned off by improper grammatical use of the word. Besides what is happening here is that an individual is being named for his race, like the wrestler a few years back who called himself “Mankind”. Just because he did does not mean that the rest of us are “Mankinds”. He just named himself for the race he is a member of.

I struck the last part “Loosely speaking, we might connect this somewhat with “humankind”, but emphasize they a different type of “human” than those referenced by Scripture.” If left in you will open yourself up to charges of Polygenesis even as you deny it elsewhere. Leave open the door to the idea that the differences in “type” are actually merely a result in relational differences with God so that the rest of mankind has the capacity to reach the same state when in the same relationship. A kernel of popcorn is not of a different “type” than it is when it becomes popcorn. The change is due to a different relationship with heat and the kernel has the capacity to make the same transition via the same relationship.

4.“Sons and/or Daughters of Adam” are the biological descendants of Adam (see Genesis 6)

No changes.

  1. The “first Adam” and “second Adam” in 1st Corinthians 15 are referencing Adam and Jesus. Each Adam God (perhaps miraculously) created with a redemptive purpose (perhaps de novo = Virgin birth).

I just tried to clarify.

  1. We can refer to the Sons and Daughters of Adam as a “new kind or state of adam.”

Adding “or state”. Broadening again, and also distancing the statement from a necessary connection to Polygenesis. So we can say it is the difference in state that is being propagated, not a new biological entity.

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 members of ‘adam’ (mankind) are the same biological type as Adam (just as Gentiles are the same biological type as Jews).

This language does several things for us.

  1. are avoiding terms associated with polygenesis, like “Adamites.”
  2. We are affirming monophylogeny with our use of “adam" the group as a single biological type”.
  3. This echoes Scripture by linguistically acknowledging the continuity of the “adam” of Genesis 1 and “Adam” of Genesis 2; they are the same biological kind.
  4. This also echoes Scripture by linguistically acknowledging the discontinuity between “adam” the race and “Adam the man’s descendants.
  5. We are making more sense of the “first” and “last” Adam terminology of 1 Cor 15.
  6. 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.
1 Like