Aswhin's Questions on the Genealogical Adam

I appreciate your willingness to admit this. As to theology not being able to make a case for Special creation, that would not necessarily be true.
Such a case could be made from the genesis accounts (and there are theologians that do make such a case)…
Just as there are theologians who make a case for evolution being compatible to the creation of plants/animals etc.
I acknowledge the possibility of special creation while agreeing that the text can be compatible with evolution.

With respect to Adam. The controversy is not only whether special creation is involved. Another major issue is whether Adam and Eve were the first human beings or not. Genealogical Adam seems to dilute this and point to an understanding of Adam/Eve as special humans (not very different from human beings who are created before them in terms of biology) chosen by God for a some specific purpose.

I lean towards the understanding that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. And all mankind proceeds from them.

1 Like

Which is precisely the Genealogical Adam. Despite your confusion, this is precisely the concern that the GA addresses. You might have some catching up to do.

I’m not just admitting it, as if you or anyone else boxed me into it. On my own volition, I’ve successfully made the case for it. I was able to make the case because I affirm MN.

1 Like

I think GA works around the issue with a theological definition of “human” which is different from the biological definition if I understood right.
There would be beings of the species as Adam and Eve outside the garden of I understood correctly.

If not… I do have catching up to do.

Yes, but that is only part of it.

The part you are missing is the exegetical case, which is different than you might have heard elsewhere. I won’t reproduce it in detail here. The key point, however, is that Scripture does not talk about the origin of biological Humans. It talks about the origin of the lineage of Adams, who are all of us, but not all Homo sapiens. That is not diluting anything about the meaning of human. Rather it is insisting we read Scripture on its own terms, without reading into it scientific concepts and definitions that did not exist till over 1000 years later.

The objection I am raising is that “adams” cannot possibly mean Homo sapiens (or any other taxnomical category). To think this is a valid translation is to be eisegetically reading science into Scripture.

1 Like

I personally affirm that to be human means to be a descendant of Adam. This is in agreement with your argument.
However there are things that concern me about the understanding of a large well distributed population outside the garden who do not qualify to be human in the theological sense.
It’s a conundrum in my opinion. If being human is being of the lineage of Adam, and there were people outside the garden who were not human in this sense… is it possible that populations which have been isolated for thousands of years ( for example aboriginal people) had members who cannot be called “human”?

I need to think more on this obviously…

1 Like

Scripture does not include the term “human”. It does not discuss Aborigines 10,000 years ago, who are not even quite the same thing as “aborigines” of today.

It helps to think about Adam as the “First human in Scripture”, or a “textual human.” He is not the first biological human, or the first one with a soul, or the first one with language, or the first one with the Image of God, or the first one God cares about. He is the first human of the text, and therefore the first human for traditional theology. The world of Scripture begins with Adam, but this is not to deny that there were other world before.

So those aborigines are “human” in the sense we use the term now, and textually too, and theologically. Aborigines descend from Adam. Going back 10,000 years ago, long before our time, however, those other people (who are not the aborigines) are not those to whom Scripture refers. Aborigines today are “human” nonetheless, both because they descend from Adam, and because they are the same biological type as us.

1 Like

I am not sure the text goes this far. In my understanding, there was something unique about Adam more than being the “first Human in scripture”

A good case can be made for Adam as the first human with a soul. And as the first human bearing God’s image IMO.

And I would agree with that too. The text tells us what is unique about him, and there is no mention of the Image of God or of biology in this description.

Animals have souls, so it is hard to believe that there ever existed biolgoical humans without souls.

1 Like

That depends on how one reads genesis 1 w.r.t 2. If the word Adam is taken as meaning “biblical human being”… then Genesis refers to only that kind having the image of God.
We cannot say the “Adam” mentioned in genesis 1:26 who bears the image of God is different from the Adam mentioned in genesis 2 without being vague and inconsistent.

Depending on how you understand God’s Image, you can also take Adam as the first human in God’s Image. That is not necessarily a problem if you feel the need to do so, and understand it as a vocational calling. @jongarvey

Either way, this works with both a sequential and non-sequential reading of Genesis.

I understand it the way Athanasius understood it and in the light of Jesus being the ultimate image bearer of God. (I.e something connected to the nature of the being as opposed to vocational calling. Jesus by nature is the perfect image of the father. )
The same applies to the soul also… it’s on Genesis 2, that we see God breathe into Adam making him a living Soul.
I am not rejecting GA outright. However I do see serious issues which need to be resolved (for me that is).

Fine but at least identify legitimate issues. God made Adam a living soul. This passage does not tell us God had not made other living souls. There are constellation of assumptions you are reading into the text that just are not there.

1 Like

The passage doesn’t say God has made other Adams either… I am sure there are assumptions in either scenario…
However the question I am interested in is which narrative is best communicated by the text itself.

I usually take my time (sometimes years) to come to a conclusion on things like this. Till then I keep an open mind and read differing opinions/conjectures even as I think on the issue.

1 Like