Adam and Eve as Genealogical vs Genetic Ancestors

[one.opinion]

Hello All,

In this post, I hope to generate much more theological discussion than scientific.

I have a friend (and this really is a friend, and not me :-P) that is a professional biologist, but also a devout and outspoken Christian. He affirms an historical Adam and Eve and has some interesting viewpoints on genetic science. While many scientists (Christians included) argue that genetic evidence suggests that the human population never dipped below roughly 10,000 and thus suggesting that Adam and Eve are not historical figures, he argues that this genetic evidence cannot eliminate the possibility of an original pair. He further argues that this pair could be the genealogical ancestors of all humanity today, without having signs of being genetic ancestors. A quick explanation of the difference would be that genetic ancestors could be traced by DNA evidence, but genealogical ancestors would not necessarily have any remaining trace of their DNA after only a small number of generations. His argument leaves open the possibility of Adam and Eve as the first pair of humans, created de novo, and with a God-given ability for a spiritual relationship with God, but amid a larger population of biological humans that lacked that ability for a spiritual relationship with God. Only those with a genealogical connection to Adam and Eve would be able to enter a relationship with God. And eventually, all humanity on earth shared a genealogical connection to Adam and Eve. The potential conflict might be that he also accepts the standard evolutionary explanation of life outside of humanity.

This particular viewpoint could satisfy those that argue that references in other parts of the Bible to Adam and Eve require an historical pair, and still possibly satisfy those that argue that argue that scientific evidence supports an ancient earth and evolution of OTHER living organisms. My question is this -- Would taking such a view help bridge the gap between individuals that adhere to a young earth viewpoint and individuals that adhere to an evolutionary creation viewpoint? Again, I'm not interested in discussing the science in this thread, but would like to know if this could be theologically acceptable to young earth creationists.

 

[simplejeff]

maybe..... not.

^{Titus 2: 9} Tell slaves to submit to their masters in everything, to give satisfaction without talking back ¹⁰ or pilfering. On the contrary, they should demonstrate complete faithfulness always, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Deliverer more attractive.

¹¹ For God’s grace, which brings deliverance, has appeared to all people. ¹² It teaches us to renounce godlessness and worldly pleasures, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives now, in this age; ¹³ while continuing to expect the blessed fulfillment of our certain hope, which is the appearing of the Sh’khinah of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah. ¹⁴ He gave himself up on our behalf in order to free us from all violation of Torah and purify for himself a people who would be his own, eager to do good.

¹⁵ These are the things you should say. Encourage and rebuke with full authority; don’t let anyone look down on you.

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved.

[one.opinion]

 

2 hours ago, simplejeff said:

maybe..... not.

I appreciate the Biblical approach, but I’m sorry, I really don’t understand the point you are making.

[Tristen]

Hi One,

"Would taking such a view help bridge the gap between individuals that adhere to a young earth viewpoint and individuals that adhere to an evolutionary creation viewpoint?"

My answer is no.

I adhere to a young-earth creation position for three reasons; 1) because I consider the Bible to be God's highest authoritative communication to humanity, 2) because a young earth is the most obvious understanding of the Genesis text, and 3) because there is no objective scientific or intellectual reason to distrust the Genesis account as written. There is, therefore, no reason to try and interpret the Biblical account of creation through the lens of secular models at all; i.e. no rational obligation on me to try and fit secular assumptions and time frames into the account whatsoever.

The approach you describe in the OP seems to lack consistency. Why accept historical Adam and Eve, but not the rest of the creation account? I think your approach of just calling it all "figurative" demonstrates more logical self-consistency (though I think it's inconsistent with your approach to the rest of scripture - as we have discussed).

I obviously question your claims about the population levels, the "genetic evidence" and "that scientific evidence supports an ancient earth and evolution of OTHER living organisms". I am happy to examine your support for any such claims (as I think the premise upon which your question stands is more propaganda than fact based), but respect that you are "not interested in discussing the science in this thread".

 

 

[simplejeff]

21 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

 

I appreciate the Biblical approach, but I’m sorry, I really don’t understand the point you are making.

Very basically:  Yahweh Created all things simple;   man came up with many devices (distractions (from truth),  not good, nor for good purpose)  

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

I obviously question your claims about the population levels, the "genetic evidence" and "that scientific evidence supports an ancient earth and evolution of OTHER living organisms". I am happy to examine your support for any such claims (as I think the premise upon which your question stands is more propaganda than fact based), but respect that you are "not interested in discussing the science in this thread".

Your questioning is duly noted. I appreciate your willingness to cooperate for the sake of the discussion. I plan to start a different thread in genetics at some point.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Why accept historical Adam and Eve, but not the rest of the creation account?

I understand your point about consistency, but I can see the appeal to this argument. You may recall that I am uncertain about Adam and Eve as historical figures, since references by multiple Biblical authors to Adam and Eve suggest their historicity.

I do understand that a young earth viewpoint would mean more than just views on Adam and Eve, but it would seem that the doctrine of Adam and Eve would be of paramount importance.

[Tristen]

26 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Your questioning is duly noted. I appreciate your willingness to cooperate for the sake of the discussion. I plan to start a different thread in genetics at some point.

I understand your point about consistency, but I can see the appeal to this argument. You may recall that I am uncertain about Adam and Eve as historical figures, since references by multiple Biblical authors to Adam and Eve suggest their historicity.

I do understand that a young earth viewpoint would mean more than just views on Adam and Eve, but it would seem that the doctrine of Adam and Eve would be of paramount importance.

This implies that I have the right to determine which details of scripture I can dismiss as unimportant. I don't see how you could consistently accept an historical Adam and Eve from an ostensibly "figurative" context. It's a cherry picking strategy - only accepting the reality of details that agree with our pre-established position, whilst disregarding uncomfortable details as holding less "importance". The 'call it all figurative' strategy is more consistent than the 'it's all figurative, except for these few details which would be more convenient if they were historical' approach.

[Guest shiloh357]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This particular viewpoint could satisfy those that argue that references in other parts of the Bible to Adam and Eve require an historical pair, and still possibly satisfy those that argue that argue that scientific evidence supports an ancient earth and evolution of OTHER living organisms. My question is this -- Would taking such a view help bridge the gap between individuals that adhere to a young earth viewpoint and individuals that adhere to an evolutionary creation viewpoint? Again, I'm not interested in discussing the science in this thread, but would like to know if this could be theologically acceptable to young earth creationists.

The  problem is that, theologically and biblically, only the descendants of Adam qualify for redemption.  The Bible only offers redemption to those descended from Adam, so any humans outside of Adam's line would not be able to be saved and would be omitted from the plan of salvation. 

It creates more problems and solves none.

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The  problem is that, theologically and biblically, only the descendants of Adam qualify for redemption.  The Bible only offers redemption to those descended from Adam, so any humans outside of Adam's line would not be able to be saved and would be omitted from the plan of salvation.

This is the biggest problem in my estimation, as well. My friend suggests that those outside of the genealogical connection to Adam and Eve would not have access to redemption, but would also not be subject to judgement. He continues the hypothesis by suggesting that those in the lineage of Adam and Eve could have completely replaced all those outside the lineage within about 1,500 years.

On a side note, I haven’t asked him about his view of Noah’s flood. A view that would wipeout all humanity outside Noah’s family would certainly eliminate all those outside the Adam/Eve lineage.

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

This implies that I have the right to determine which details of scripture I can dismiss as unimportant.

I am certain he would not say that other details are unimportant, but God’s relationship with mankind is of primary importance. Regardless of how one views the creation account (as well as the rest of the Bible), this teaching is clear.