[quote="jimwalton"]Scape211, I didn't specify that Adam and Eve were the first [i]humans[/i].[/quote]

Oh I agree. Sorry if my wording wasnt the best. We can assume most were some form of a humanoid at that time, but that this couple arose due to some level of conciseness they had. At least thats the way I understand. Also very interesting to hear that geneticists while they see the evolutionary track of our ancestry and see the humanoids grew as a population, the human form we are today had a common ancestral link.

> Yeah it does.

If you read my post, which I can presume you did, I mentioned an idea that is taking the world by storm that very possibly we should not take Genesis 1-2 as Western civilization has since the Enlightenment (Gn 1-2 as an account of material manufacture), but instead we should take it in its ancient context, that of how creation was supposed to [i]function[/i]—the cosmos functioning as God's temple, each element of Creation functioning as God made it to function, and the humans functioning as God's priest and priestess on Earth (His representatives to humanity, and those who care for sacred space—His temple).

> When people act like Adam and Eve weren't real, actual people, they have to neglect a few key things...

Then you have both read and understood me wrong. I fully believe that Adam and Eve really existed as historical persons. I never said nor implied that they weren't real, actual people. I looked back through my post, and there's nothing there that would lead you in that direction (except your own mindset that took your mind in a direction of its own assumptions).

> 1. The Bible indicates that Adam was indeed LITERALLY the first man, and that he was indeed real. 1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Timothy 2:13, and others.

1 Cor. 15:34. Here Adam is called the "first" man, but in the context of the contrast with Christ as the "last" Adam, it cannot be seen as a claim that Adam was the first biological specimen. Since Christ was not the last biological specimen, we must instead conclude that this text is talking about the first representative of humanity and the last representative of humanity. This is confirmed in the remainder of the passage, as it contrasts the natural and the spiritual. It describes human nature. The biblical point is to contrast and compare Adam to Jesus and our relationship to both. Paul makes no claims about genetic relationships of all people to Adam or about material origins.

1 Tim. 2.13. We have 3 choices here of how to interpret this.

[list][*] That as a representative of all humanity, all men are formed first as Adam was formed first, and all women were deceived as Even was deceived. Well, this is an absurd interpretation, and there is nothing in the text of in logic to suggest this is true.
[*] That man by his created nature is first, and woman be her created nature is deceivable. Therefore it's the nature of men to be first and women to be taken in. Though some people believe this, numerous arguments against this interpretation are strong. One of the biggest arguments against it is the fact that Adam was also deceived. Vulnerability to deception doesn't apply only to women.
[*] Adam and Eve serve as illustrations for the Ephesians. This suits the passage well. No claims are being made about how humanity was formed, about genetic relationships, or the mechanisms or timing of material origins. Like the rest of the New Testament, Adam and Eve are used as archetypes (not allegories, mind you) to make a point about all of humanity, here to provide an illustration of how a deceived woman can lead a man into error. That's Paul's point.[/list]

> 2. The Bible gives us a LITERAL genealogy from Adam to Christ, confirming his place in the foundation of the world.

Of course it does. Adam was a real, historical person who lived in a particular place in a particular time. I never said anything to the contrary.

> 3. The New Testament writers believed that Genesis 1-11 was historically accurate.

Oh, so do I. Very strongly and with conviction. Genesis 1-11 are historical. All I said is that if we take the Gn. 1-2 truly literally, it is about functionality, not material manufacture. The first day is literally about a period of light (how the light functions) called day, a period of darkness (how the darkness functions) called night, how the light and the dark function in alternating sequence to give us evening and morning, and therefore what God is "creating" on the first day is the function of TIME—the alternating sequence of periods of light with periods of darkness into evening and morning.

> The biblical record doesn't insist that Adam and Eve were the first humans, only that those were two he took out from among others (Gn. 2.15), as representatives of all humanity, and revealed Himself to them.

Yeah it does.

When people act like Adam and Eve weren't real, actual people, they have to neglect a few key things...

[b]1. The Bible indicates that Adam was indeed LITERALLY the first man, and that he was indeed real.[/b]

-1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Timothy 2:13, and others.

[b]2. The Bible gives us a LITERAL genealogy from Adam to Christ, confirming his place in the foundation of the world.[/b]

-Luke 3:23-28, and can be cross-referenced with Genesis 5 and 11, as well as Jude 14.

[b]3. The New Testament writers believed that Genesis 1-11 was historically accurate.[/b]

[list][*] Every New Testament writer refers to the early chapters of Genesis (1-11).
[*] Jesus Christ referred to each of the first seven chapters of Genesis and believed they were historical events.
[*] All New Testament books except Galatians, Phillippians, Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and 2 and 3 John refer to Genesis 1-11, in the light of it being true history.
[*] Events/descriptions in very chapter of Genesis 1-11, with the exception of 8, are referred to specifically somewhere in the New Testament.[/list]

I subscribe to the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 laid out by Dr. John Walton in "The Lost World of Genesis 1" (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=john+walton&qid=1564575785&s=gateway&sr=8-2). Briefly reporting, in it he asserts that Genesis 1 is about how God ordered the cosmos to function, not how He manufactured it. Certainly God created the universe (as taught in other verses in the Bible), but that’s not what Genesis 1 is about.

The first "day" is clearly (literally) about a [i]period of light[/i] called day, and a [i]period of darkness[/i] called night. It is about the sequence of day and night, evening and morning, literally. Therefore, what Day 1 is about is God ordering the universe and our lives with the function of TIME, not God creating what the physicists call "light," about which the ancients knew nothing.

Look through the whole chapter. It is about how the firmament functions to bring us weather (the firmament above and below), how the earth functions to bring forth plants for our sustenance, how the sun, moon, and stars function to order the days and seasons. We find out in day 6 the function of humans: to be fruitful and multiply, to rule the earth and subdue it. Walton contends that we have to look at the text through ancient eyes, not modern ones, and the concern of the ancients was function and order. (It was a given that the deities created the material universe.) The differences between cultures (and creation accounts) was how the universe functioned, how it was ordered, and what people were for. (There were large disagreements among the ancients about function and order; it widely separates the Bible from the surrounding mythologies.)

And on the 7th day God rested. In the ancient world when a god came to "rest" in the temple, he came to live there and engage with the people as their god. So it is not a day of disengagement, but of action and relationship.

In other words, it's a temple text, not an account of material creation. There was no temple that could be built by human hands that would be suitable for him, so God ordered the entire universe to function as his Temple. The earth was ordered to function as the "Holy Place," and the Garden of Eden as his "Holy of Holies." Adam and Eve were given the function of being his priest and priestess, to care for sacred space (very similar to Leviticus) and to be in relationship with God (that's what Genesis 2 is about).

You probably want to know about the seven days. In the ancient world ALL temple dedications were 7-day dedications, where what God had done to order his world was rehearsed, and on the 7th day God came to "rest" in his temple—to dwell with his people and engage with them as their God. That's what the seven days mean.

Back to evolution. Therefore Gn 1-2 make no comment on how the material world came about, or how long it took. We need science to tell us that. We need Gn 1-2 to tell us what it's there for (God's temple) and how it is supposed to function (to provide a place of fellowship between God and humans, and to bring God glory as an adequate temple for his Majesty).

Feel free to discuss this. For those who have never heard these ideas, it takes a little adjusting. But they make a whole lot of sense to me.

> but instead how it was all supposed to function (light and darkness function to give us day and night, the Earth functions to bring forth vegetation to sustain life, the sun functions to mark dates and seasons, humans function to rule the world and subdue it, etc.).

This paragraph is brilliant. This focuses on how Jews looked at life, how they named things, and most importantly, how the understood the world.

Scape211, I didn't specify that Adam and Eve were the first [i]humans[/i]. I was not attempting to isolate some scientific quality that identified them as the first qualifiable humans. Instead, I was speculating (and it is speculation) that God chose them out from among the others because of their spiritual capability and moral culpability. It's impossible for us to isolate the specific factors that qualified them for that category. I'm just trying to study the Word, understand it, and make good sense out of it.

As to the other hominids around, it's also impossible to evaluate how God perceived them. It's possible that "before the law was given, sin was not accounted to them." Where nothing had been given to them, nothing would be required. In other words, possibly God still treated them as part of the animal kingdom (just speculating). But as men began to call on the name of the Lord (Gn. 4.26), a greater part of the population became both capable and accountable. And, of course, by the time we get to the great Flood, we see the mess that is happening.

> still makes me wonder at what point are humanoids all instinct based with only basic survival at hand and when did we evolve to high level thinking?

It's impossible, of course, to pinpoint with precision, but around 6,000 BC or so humanity seems to lurch forward in technology, agriculture, architecture, writing, and a mass of other skills. We also see a sudden expansion in the population around this time.

Of great interest to me, geneticists have traced back to find there is a pair of homo sapiens that are universal genealogical ancestors (not human biological ancestors) of all humankind (Adam and Eve?). In other words, we all have universal genealogical ancestors ("the mother of all mankind"?), individuals in the genetic line, to whom we all relate.

Don't be confused. Modern genomics indicates not only that we as humans arose through an evolutionary process, but also that we did so as a population (consistent with evolutionary data from other species). There is no evidence in our evolutionary history for an ancestral population less than about 5,000-10,000 individuals—so I'm not saying that Adam and Eve were the [i]first[/i] humans. It is known that modern humans descend, in part, from both Neanderthal and Denisovan populations.

There are ways that geneticists can trace alleles to discover a distribution of times to the most recent common ancestor for alleles across the genome. The work of Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass (Washington Univ., St. Louis) shows that ~8,000 years ago (in about 6000 BC), human genetic lines (not biological lines) coalesce in a single homo sapiens couple.

As I mentioned to another poster, genealogies are an interesting thing: from every individual they diverge in both directions. If I start with me and go backwards, I have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 16 greats, along with many aunts and uncles, like a giant funnel with me as the narrow part. But if I start with me and go forwards, I could have 4 kids, 13 grandkids, 26 greats, etc. It's like a giant inverted funnel with me as the narrow part. With all of us like this, geneticists tell us there are genetic points of convergence where all humans cross through the same individuals (which is not to claim biological relation, but only genetic relation). Since the funnels for each one of us keeps growing larger, eventually we hit individuals to which we are all genetically related. That's what Swamidass has discovered.

[quote="jimwalton"]Adam and Eve were not necessarily the first hominids, but they are the first ones who became morally culpable and spiritual capable. In other words, possibly by that time homo sapiens had evolved to the point where God recognized that they were ready to be ensouled (Gn. 2.7).[/quote]

I agree with this, but always find it slightly confusing and just leads to more questions. If we are to take evolution as fact (which I do) the evolution of humans has been gradual and its likely hard to pinpoint which descendants where the first actual humans. I suppose we would say Adam and Eve were given what we know of the bible, but what of all other humanoids around or before? Were they morally culpable? Did they have souls? Will they be in heaven? I of course believe God to be fair and just in all accounts of this, but it still makes me wonder at what point are humanoids all instinct based with only basic survival at hand and when did we evolve to high level thinking?

But now for the truly philosophical question - Do all dogs go to heaven? :)

The biblical record doesn't insist that Adam and Eve were the first humans, only that those were two he took out from among others (Gn. 2.15), as representatives of all humanity, and revealed Himself to them.

It's very possible that Genesis 1-2 are not about how the world came to be (material manufacture), but instead how it was all supposed to function (light and darkness function to give us day and night, the Earth functions to bring forth vegetation to sustain life, the sun functions to mark dates and seasons, humans function to rule the world and subdue it, etc.).

If it's the case that it's about functionality and not manufacture, then the Bible fits very well with science: Adam and Eve were not necessarily the first hominids, but they are the first ones who became morally culpable and spiritual capable. In other words, possibly by that time homo sapiens had evolved to the point where God recognized that they were ready to be ensouled (Gn. 2.7).

And if that's the case, then it easily makes sense to talk about where Cain got his wife (Gn. 4.17), why Cain would think others might kill him (Gn. 4.14), and how Cain was able to found a city (Gn. 4.17). In other words, there were other homo sapiens around.

If Adam and Eve only had Abel, Cain, and Seth, how did Enoch and Enos come along? Were more women created along the way?