Which Scenarios of Adam Will be Helpful?

[Edgar]

@vjtorley

However, to put it bluntly, it’s never going to appeal to YECs or for that matter, OECs who believe in a young Adam, because it involves beings who are capable of knowing and loving God interbreeding with beings who are not. For the vast majority of people in this camp, that’s theologically unacceptable. Todd Wood is a case in point: he cites the “yuck” factor on this point.

Humans with souls breeding with humans without souls amounts to some kind of bestiality. It’s theological nonsense, imo; not to mention, creepy.

And what happened to all those soul-less humans who lived outside the Garden? The story goes they were around for hundreds of thousands of years, but they seem to have disappeared.

Some Catholics, such as Kenneth Kemp, might find this scenario interesting. Kemp himself thinks Adam and Eve lived hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years ago. (The antiquity of man is something Catholics don’t have a problem with)

I am Catholic and it disturbs me that my Church allows an evolution-friendly interpretation of Genesis 2:7 that makes it possible for Adam to be the offspring of a pre-existing creature. More theological nonsense. This verse can only be interpreted one way, imo - Adam was created directly and instantly from inanimatle matter. (I’m a progressive creationist, btw)

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

We found a solution to these objections here: A Catholic Approach to the Genealogical Adam.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Edgar

Humans with souls breeding with humans without souls amounts to some kind of bestiality. It’s theological nonsense, imo; not to mention, creepy.

Neither Genesis 1, 2, 5 nor Gen 9 implies that there arr any humans without souls!

[Edgar]

In that case, what was special about Adam? He was placed in a Garden away from the “other” humans.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Edgar

In that case, what was special about Adam? He was placed in a Garden away from the “other” humans.

Great question @Edgar. Depends on the precise model one is proposing. It certainly isn’t biology, but it could be a difference in status or responsibility to God, or perhaps a difference in spiritual abilities.

[Edgar]

Thanks, but that doesn’t sound very scriptural. My Progressive Creation model doesn’t require the torturing of Scripture.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Edgar

Thanks, but that doesn’t sound very scriptural. My Progressive Creation model doesn’t require the torturing of Scripture.

You have not even heard the Scriptural justification. Do not reject what you do not understand. At the very least, understand that what you reject.

[Edgar]

@swamidass

You have not even heard the Scriptural justification.

What is the Scriptural justification?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Edgar

You have not even heard the Scriptural justification.

What is the Scriptural justification?

Working on the book now. You can get caught up somewhat here:

@swamidass

So, I am wondering how the Genealogical Adam idea can answer ‘why’ God would do it this way? Why would this be necessary. I understand science does not usually answer ‘why,’ and that this is looking for a theological answer. But, has anyone considered why an Adam and Eve would need to be created de novo, separate from those outside the garden? Beyond the scope here?

First off, most of the work I’ve published so far is exclusively on the what science allows. Not much is out there on the theology. Informally, we have been exploring the question here, for example: Does De Novo Adam in an Evolved Population Make Sense? .

I did present a paper at the Dabar Conference (Ken Keathley: Notes from Dabar and a Baptist’s Hope), where I did discuss a theological model to make sense of this. Would you like to confidentially see the Dabar paper I presented? That might begin to answer some of your questions.

Also, @jongarvey has been doing work building up the theology too, and has several excellent posts on his blog: Genealogical Adam | The Hump of the Camel. Of note, he draws heavily on Sailhammer, who was an exegete at SEBTS. You might appreciate his work. This thread has some the key posts from this series: The Genealogical Adam as Israel . @deuteroKJ has been a regular here too, and we are considering putting together a ETS session for 2019.

@swamidass

A question of “why” or “coherence”?

You asked “why” God would do it this way. I think a better way to approach the question might be “is this theologically coherent?” The reason why is that we already know God does very surprising things, such as give His only Son to suffer and die for us. Why did He doe it this way? Difficulty answering this question is unavoidable. The difficulty however is just because God’s ways are not our ways. There is thing called the “Scandal of Particularity” which brings this to the forefront too (perhaps @Philosurfer can elaborate) https://richardlfloyd.com/2009/12/17/“why-mary”-c-s-lewis-on-the-scandal-of-particularity/ . Suffice to say that God often does surprising things.

Rather than rejecting surprising things that are at first non-intuitive, a better strategy in this case is to ask if this model could be theologically coherent.

@swamidass

Theological coherence

I think there is a coherent way to think about this that preserves traditional theology of Adam. The Dabar paper explains my take, and I’m building into a book right now. Ken Keathley explains:

Ken Keathley: Notes from Dabar and a Baptist’s Hope

Joshua’s paper generated significant conversation at the Conference. This is because practically everyone realized that his proposal provided helpful insights, and perhaps even a helpful corrective, in several areas. He makes the important distinction between genetics and genealogy. If I’m understanding his argument correctly, he makes two points: 1) We have little or no discernible genetic evidence of most of our ancestors beyond, say, 1000 years ago. So most of our ancestors are “genetic ghosts.” And 2) if someone in the ancient world (i.e., before the time of Christ) had any children at all, then he or she probably is the direct ancestor of all.

I can summarize the basic idea here:

God creates all mankind outside the garden, and then creates Adam in different way (parallel to how Jesus enters the world in a different way) in order to support a special purpose for him. He is to function as a good and sinless ruler to invite all mankind into the death-free Garden. Then He falls, and his original purpose is distorted into original sin. This telling has some positive qualities. For me, it makes sense of the passage in the NT about The Second Adam: Choosing vs. Refurbishment vs. De Novo . It tightens the typological connection between Adam and Jesus, and also makes sense of what is happening outside the Garden in Genesis 2. Mankind outside the Garden, the way I see it, is in God’s Image too, just not fallen into transgression and original sin.

You can see some of our discussion on this here: The Theological Signifance of Descent From Adam and Adam and adams, not Adamites and Which Scenarios of Adam Will be Helpful? and Suarez and Swamidass on Original Sin.

Other ways

Of course, this is not the only way to think of this.

We had an exchange on A Catholic Approach to the Genealogical Adam. The first theological book on a Genealogical Adam is likely going to hit print before mine, and is by @Andrew_Loke. Other theologians I expect to be writing up their own models. The question will be whether or not any of these is sufficiently coherent for the Church. I am guessing that there will be several ways to make this coherent, and it might be more defined by denominational considerations than science or Scripture. There is just an immense amount of new possibilities opening up now, so its hard to know for sure how the dust will settle.

If you are theology student, it is a great time to get in the mix. One from TEDS, I know, is about to publish an extended engagement with one of the theological questions raised by this work. If you are looking for a good topic, I’d love to hear more about your interests. There might be some interesting connection points. The way I see it, questions about human origins bring us to the grand question: What does it mean to be Human? This is a central nexus of just about everything including theology and science. We want to support the work of theologians like you as you get interested here.

So, I hope that is a helpful start @TaylorS. Let me know if you’d like to see a copy of my Dabar paper, or be a reader on the manuscript I’m working on: Starting My Book . Welcome to the conversation too. I’m looking forward to learning from you.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Edgar, you might also appreciate: A Tentative Look at Nephilim

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Edgar

Thanks, but that doesn’t sound very scriptural. My Progressive Creation model doesn’t require the torturing of Scripture.

@Edgar

Your model requires overturn vast sections of Physics, Geology and Archaeology. Joshua’s G.A. does not.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Edgar writes: “In that case, what was special about Adam?
He was placed in a Garden away from the “other” humans.”

Edgar,

Is there a reason you don’t seem to understand anything anyone writes to you?

Why do you think God placed Adam and Eve in Eden? Why do you think

Adam and Eve are special? Aren’t you the “really aligned” Christian who has

all the answers? It just seems you aren’t even trying to understand

“Genealogical Adam”. Maybe you can ask someone else to beat their heads

against the wall for a while. You and I are not getting anywhere.