It seems to me that the direction to go in (already established by Joshua in his discussions) is the definition of “human.” The Bible does not define human precisely, and neither, actually, does your quote.
If however we take those words in WoS as a rough definition, “a descendant of the first-formed child of earth”, then Joshua’s exemplar formulation of Adam as specially created fits that literally: he was formed directly from dust, whereas his predecessors were not.
Genesis 2, after all, speaks of God forming the creatures from the ground, and clearly they are not human - yet taking a classical interpretation of Gen 1, they were chronologically formed before Adam. Some exegetical flexibility is clearly being employed by Wisdom.
The presupposition in the whole enterprse is that the believer in an historical Adam is also concerned to make sense of anomalies in archaeology, history or palaeontology, rather than simply ignore them in favour of an inerrantism unrelated to the physical world.
You make some valid points here; there is no doubt that the early chapters of Genesis contain much symbolism. However, they also contain verses that are obviously literal - for example:
1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness [a]was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”
1:14-18 “Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great [d]lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness.”
1:27 “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
3:16 ““I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;In pain you shall bring forth children”
3:19 "For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”
3:21 “Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.”
So, since the first few chapters of Genesis are a mixture of literal and the symbolic, it can be argued that Genesis 2:7 could be literal - ie, God literally created Adam from the dust of the ground in an instant.
Also consider the creation of Eve, which seems to defy any evolutionary explanation. Are we to believe that Adam was the result of billions of years of evolution, but Eve was created instantaneously from Adam’s rib?
There is also the argument that since the “last Adam” (Jesus) was not the offspring of natural parents but the product of a supernatural creative act, then neither was the first Adam the offspring of natural parents but the product of a supernatural creative act.
Another consideration comes from Thomistic philosphy: To create a creature from nothing is infinitely more reflective of God’s power and glory than to modify an existing creature. To put this into some kind of perpective, consider that even lowly human beings can modify existing creatures - via genetic engineering. Yet humans are utterly incapable of creating matter (let alone a living organism) from nothing.
Something else to consider are clues in the New Testament as to what should be taken literally in Genesis. For example, Romans 5:12-13 says “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin … Death reigned from Adam …”. It is therefore reasonable to argue the Genesis account of Adam and Original Sin is literally true. There are also numerous other references to Adam in the NT (including a genealogy that goes from Jesus all the way back to Adam), all of which testify to a real, literal Adam.
If Adam was not a real person, as described in Genesis, then the Apostles were ignorant of the truth and therefore their witness - the New Testament - isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Furthermore, the Apostles were personally taught by Jesus, so if they were ignorant of the truth, it was because Jesus was also ignorant of the truth.
Edgar! Edgar! Edgar! Are you REALLY saying that if Adam wasn’t a real person, then the gospel collapses?
I think you’re dead wrong and setting yourself up for a Bart Ehrman type of experience. Please read this, and we’ll continue talking. It doesn’t DIRECTLY ADDRESS your issues, but it’s close enough. There are other options available than Paul was wrong, therefore Jesus was wrong, therefore Jesus was not Divine. I have to go, but what you said really troubled me.
You have to love the beautiful paradox of a group that is incubating the Genealogical Adam while simultaneously welcoming no-Adam Christians, agreeing that the Gospel is grounded in Jesus, not Adam.
I’m not sure if that’s correct. My guess is that @swamidass thinks a more mythical/allegorical view of Adam perhaps threatens the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture, which is not the same thing as the INSPIRATION of scripture, which is not the same thing as the gospel itself, although I would personally argue that inspiration and gospel are actually MORE intimately connected than most inerrantists would be comfortable with. This is due to my Eastern Orthodoxy, and puts me at odds with Christians (yes, I think I would still use that adjective) like Wolfhart Pannenberg who deny the inspiration if scripture altogether but still affirm the gospel (i.e. the Trinity, Christ’s Divinity and Resurrection).
Things are a lot more complicated than NO ADAM=no gospel. No Adam MAY equal no doctrine of inerrancy as promulgated by the Chicago statement. But that leaves a plethora of other theological options open.
I would imagine most theologically educated Catholic bishops are sympathetic to the NO ADAM position, and yet they seem to maintain an otherwise very conservative theological outlook
Take C.S. Lewis for example. He seemed agnostic on the existence of Adam and did not affirm inerrancy. Yet his other views (his views of gender, which he was getting from reading scripture) would even make some ultra Adam inerrantists a little uncomfortable because they are so traditional.