RTB and the Genealogical Adam

Joshua says that RTB is open to bringing more recent GA models into their camp.
If they’re willing to do so, and to reexamine their “traditional” interpretation of a “de novo” Adam, based upon a closer examination of the Hebrew text, which is exactly what I’m advocating, the “legos” can be re-sorted as to what’s foundational and what’s not.
If a traditional “de novo” Adam is insisted upon (despite any clear textual warrant --honestly; it’s missing in the Hebrew), then a sequential reading doesn’t quite clear everything up, as Mark says.
But, if humanity was “created in God’s image” long before the story of Adam and Eve even begins, and Adam is understood as having been “placed in the garden,” as the text says, and “formed from dust” is the same metaphorical phrase used throughout the Scriptures (Job uses it to describe himself, while nevertheless saying that God “formed me in my mother’s womb”), then you have a consistent understanding of the text that renders the “bestiality” interpretation of Neanderthal interbreeding totally unnecessary.
It affirms the historicity of the accounts, it highlights the importance of a genealogical understanding of Adam and Eve, it contains the seeds of a theory for “inheriting a sin nature from Adam,” and satisfies theology within the available scientific parameters.
I am describing a paradigm change that can truly promote “peaceful” science, vis-a-vis theology.
See Job’s understanding of “formed of dust” here:
“Your hands fashioned and made me altogether, And would You destroy me?
Remember now, that You have made me as clay; And would You turn me into dust again? Did You not pour me out like milk And curdle me like cheese; Clothe me with skin and flesh, And knit me together with bones and sinews? You have granted me life and lovingkindness; And Your care has preserved my spirit.” - Job 10:8-12 NASB


Okay, I have two things I want to understand better:

I can’t tell what the moving parts are in this “bestiality” resolution. The only time the question of Neanderthal interbreeding should pose a problem is if someone wants to set up de novo Adam/Eve and their Eden before Homo sapiens have emerged. YECs don’t appear to be disturbed, today, by Neanderthal genetics found in the sapiens genome. And so pushing the de novo creation back in times progressively further and further shouldn’t change this ambivalence at all. As long as there are Homo sapiens present in the evolved pipeline, then de novo Adam and Eve (made to the same design specifications) are going to be Homo sapiens too (whether or not God wants to throw a few Neanderhtal fragments for the amusement of it.

So, I think the whole thing is a non-issue. I can’t imagine any YEC deciding that he loves Old Earth so much (all of a sudden) that he wants to move Adam and Eve into the 800,000 year timeline. Does this understanding differ from anyone else’s understanding?

And now for the second question: what does Mark mean here? What element is it in the traditional “de novo” scenario that doesn’t get cleared up? @anon46279830, can you reduce the answer to just a sentence or two?

That’s exactly what a “de novo Adam” interpretation is. It’s an attempt to make him, in a creative instant, the first human being ever.
And, as you’ve identified, God would have to consciously try to fool us into thinking Adam had physical continuity with the rest of the hominids, by building a false record in his genetic material, according to the scientific evidence, whether you posit an ancient timeframe or a more recent one --because any interbreeding is, otherwise, by definition, “bestial.” Why would God make mankind capable of interbreeding with “beasts,” and having heritable genetic material in fertile offspring be the result?
Seriously, why torture the character of God, deny common descent, make a complete hash of the geneaologies, just to “rescue” a traditional “de novo” (“de dust” --via a “poof”) understanding of the text, when the New Testament does not require it?

Good morning @gbrooks9 and @Guy_Coe.

I can do it in three though it doesn’t help that the original statements were on another thread, this one…

The issue was twisting the view which we all share, a race adam long ago and a more recent individual man Adam, into having racist overtones. Guy was saying that viewing the two accounts in Gen. 1 and 2 sequentially (rather than a telescoping of an account within a larger account as I do) dispensed with that problem. I said “not necessarily” and gave a de Nova Adam with no Neanderthal genes as an example of something that would give sinful man something to hang onto and make this about “who has the biggest share of heritage from THE Adam”.

Now understand that my only agenda is the truth. I am utterly opposed to picking a view based on which is more or less prone to being hijacked by racists. Or even which view makes it more or less likely that some other group will agree with me for a season. Rather, the text says what it says I am attempt to discover and conform my views to that. If others wish grab onto some sliver of it and twist it into some accommodation with their sin nature, its not the fault of the one who expounds what the text actually says. Sinners gonna sin. Including me from time to time unfortunately.



I’m not sure why you are fixating on this oddity.

First, the people who might conceivably claim the biggest share of “Adam’s ancestry” are those least likely to make a racial issue out of it… since it would require a healthy dollop of Middle Eastern ancestry, rather than Norwegian!

Secondly, it goes without saying that the moment the whole world descends from the Adam/Eve pair will also be the moment that all of Adam’s descendants must also become descendants of at least one Neanderthal.

And finally, the most lingering principle of racist culture has not been to compete against others for the largest share of Aryan blood… but to disqualify anyone and everyone who is tainted by even one ancestor from a sub-par strain.

When you compare the rather low risk of any of these tendencies going in the wrong direction, it pales compared to the benefits of uniting Evolutionist and Creationist factions within Christianity.

As I was responding to your answer to my question, @anon46279830, I was literally imagining the likelihood that you would eventually adopt a Caveat Emptor position… pointing out that your Punctuated Creationism model would never be at risk for such misinterpretation. And so my jaw went slack when your very next post pretty fell into position, even faster than my self-musings had any expectations of.

I would like to endorse Punctuated Creationism, @anon46279830, but the whole point of the @swamidass Model is to Preserve the viewpoints of two diametrically opposed stances:

Christian Evolutionists who see too much evidence for Evolution to dismiss the perceived ubiquity of Evolution;


Christian Creationists who see too much Biblical investment in Adam to dismiss the perceived intention of the Bible.

Your model, and everyone else’s model not based on two populations, does not make the intellectual fusion of two opposite traditions possible.

1 Like


Nope. I reject that flatly and absolutely. If I have to chat with @swamidass on this, I suppose I’ll have to do that.

You can’t have Genesis 1 giving the image of God to the evolving population… but make a virtually genetically identical Adam/Eve the first REAL human.

That is an awful idea, completely unnecessary. There is no “ACLU-Neander” in today’s world to supplicate. It’s a giant can of worms… and frankly, it is starting to head in the very direction that Venema was so concerned about.

What benefit do you see in even thinking about such an interpretation?

That’s exactly what I don’t do… remember I am refuting that position. Read the posts above again. I don’t find the “creation” of Adam in the text; the Hebrew verb is entirely missing in regards to him.

How does giving this an an example of an exception to a thought someone else raised constitute a “fixation”? Overall the issue of non-human genes into human populations is an important one for sorting through these models, but why mis-characterize me as having a “fixation” on it?

It would but the extreme racists manage to say that the “real Jews” are not those people or some such rot. Which fits into my point about it being a waste of time to try and skew interpretation of scripture around human sin. The text says what it says and if humans are going to twist it this way or that it is because they have a sin nature that should be crucified. It does not mean we should shy away from the content of the text.

But most people haven’t gotten that far yet. I mention it because I started getting this kind of feedback from people when they got exposed to the idea of humans inside the garden and humans outside the garden.

Based on my experience I would not define the risk as “low” and I prefer the benefits of people with different beliefs within Christiandom being kind to one another despite their real disagreements in preference to unity of thought. Especially where the text does not support that thought.


So wait a minute here… your comment on Hebrew semantics wasn’t just an off-hand observation? It is the basis of your own interpretation?

You reject two creations, and ONLY accept the evolutionary one? I can’t be interpreting your words correctly.

I thought you endorsed the “two creation model”? Or is all this just about how to treat the word “create” - - and you DO use a 2 creation model?

Please elaborate when you can.

I think the story totally allows for common descent, as an old earth creationist, if that’s what you’re driving at. I do not deny “evolution,” I simply dispute the notion that evolutionary theory posseses the creative power necessary to get what we have, without guidance. I also see plenty of evidence for singular “interventions” (sic) or infusions of ordered information (sic) by God.
I’ve clarified with Josh and Hugh Ross on a number of occasions not to see this as some kind of “two creations” model.

Wow… this is taking way longer than I figured it would!

First of all… I share all these positions … except for the last sentence, which I have in bold. OK? You and I actually hold to virtually all the same ideas… but I don’t get your last [bold} sentence?

So you accept an evolved population…

AND… which?

  • you reject a de novo Adam/Eve but you accept ______________< what?


  • you accept a de novo Adam/Eve but qualify it with ______________________ < what?

Once you are able to explain your nuanced position to me, you should be able to explain it to anyone.
But as you can see… I’m having a tremendously difficult time trying to figure out where you and I differ.

I have noticed this before in your position. I do cover this in some depth in the book, but I fear you will not care for what I have to say about it. It does make me understand why you want to go sequential with chapters one and two rather than two being a story within a story.

Yes, that is because of some entrenchment of concepts.
You can answer your own questions above based on what I’ve already written.
Neither Adam nor Eve are presented as “de novo” by the text.
That said, God is highly and personally involved with the two of them, in the form of The Angel of the LORD, the “Malak YHWH.”

Mark, I doubt that I’d “fear” what you have to say, at all. I am a bit concerned that you don’t seem to hear what I’m saying, though. This is about the Hebrew, after all… not the English conceptions. Cheers!

Do you mean in the chapter two account? Or do you mean something very specific by “de novo”. If you are saying that by chapter two miraculous production of a human being was not “new” (“de novo”) because God had done it previously with those outside the garden, then I agree. If you mean it was not “new” because Adam and Eve were born to someone in the natural way rather than formed independently by God then how do you explain verses such as …

7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

1 Like

Wow… you really are sparse with your word count! Could you possibly be any more mysterious!
If I could answer my own questions by just reviewing hundreds of other postings, I suppose that would
be fine. Or, you could just provide the empathy required to write a clear paragraph that conveys the
full sense of your meaning. That is a pretty good option.

So… are Adam & Eve just SELECTED from out of the general population?
Is THAT your position?

**Instead of a population created by Evolution PLUS a pair created by miraculous special creation (i.e. poof!) - - **
you believe that: God created humanity via Evolution … and THEN God chose 2 of them to be the special Adam & Eve of Genesis?

Guy, try to have a little mercy here… if my proposed description of your view is incorrect … please provide
a replacement sentence for the incorrect one, okay?

That description is good enough, believe it or not, for both Mark and I, for now, although God did it through more than just “evolution,” as it’s commonly conceived.
Mark – read Job 10:8-12 to see how, in normal Hebrew thinking, “formed from dust” does not rule out normal embryological development.
“‘Your hands fashioned and made me altogether, And would You destroy me?
Remember now, that You have made me as clay; And would You turn me into dust again?
Did You not pour me out like milk And curdle me like cheese; Clothe me with skin and flesh, And knit me together with bones and sinews? You have granted me life and lovingkindness; And Your care has preserved my spirit.” - Job 10:8-12 NASB

1 Like

At last. @swamidass, I finally have my confirmation. And I’m exhausted.

Proposed Description of @Guy_Coe’s Scenario:
**Instead of a population created by Evolution PLUS a pair created by miraculous special creation (i.e. poof!) - - **
you believe that: God created humanity via Evolution … and THEN God chose 2 of them to be the special Adam & Eve of Genesis?

Ironically, this was my position BEFORE @swamidass.

The reason I joined up here at PeacefulScience.org was to explicitly offer a scenario that would Unify the Creationist wing with the Evolutionist wing.

The proposed language above does not accomplish this.