Re: The puzzle of Adam

Hi Dick,

I intersperse my (non-marked) new answers between your comments which I
mark with > <. Occasionally, to set your comments in context, I precede
them with the corresponding short extracts from my last post, marking
these with >> <<.

Peter

Dick Fischer wrote:

>Peter Ruest, wrote

>>Let me start with Eden. In Gen.2:5-15, an effort is made to precisely
specify where Eden was located, namely in what is now southern Iraq,
which between about 4500 and 2500 BC was Sumer.<<

>And Accad. Don't forget the Accadians which were racially distinct
apparently, and spoke a language precursor to Hebrew which indicates
they were the biological precursors to the Semites. In other words, they
were Adamites before the flood and Semites (Japhethites, Hamites) after
the flood.<

I just wanted to say that at the time indicated by Gen.2:5-15, there
were non-Adamites, mainly Sumerians, living in southern Iraq. It seems
that the Accadians came only much later, and mainly in northern
Mesopotamia, rather than in the South. The first biblical mention of
Accad is in Gen.10:10, in the line of the Hamites, after the flood: "The
beginning of his [Nimrod's] kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh,
in the land of Shinar [Babylon]." The famous Sargon I of Accad reigned
after 2270 BC.

>> ...Now evidently, if Gen.2 were a creation story, these indications
(apparently meant to be historical) would be in severe conflict with
what we know about the origin of the first humans.<<

>Agreed!<

>>...God's image is what characterizes humans and distinguishes them
from animals. <<

>Or it separates accountable man from generic man. I said this before:

How could it mean anything special for Paul to tell us that Christ was
in the image of God if every human being from the dawn of humanity was
born with the image of God? It would say nothing about the uniqueness of
Christ. The "image" has to have something more special about it then
just to signify that we are different from animals.<

 Christ "is the image of God" in an absolute sense (2 Cor.4:4, not "is
_in_ the image of God"!), and Christians are to be "transformed into the
same image" (2 Cor.3:18). Christ is unique because he is God. But the
humans "created in the image of God" (Gen.1:27) are not God, nor have
they been transformed in the way mentioned. I think that, apart from
Jesus Christ himself, humans can be classified into just two groups,
believers (endowed with a new, spiritual life) and others. The creation
in Gen.1:27 is a generic matter, referring to all humans as a species
(not in the taxonomic sense). Every human being starts out as an
unbeliever, but created in the image of God, i.e. in principle capable
of yielding to God's work of persuasion in his or her heart. The
accountability, of course, varies with the amount of revelation
received. There is a world of difference between such an unbelieving
human, created in the image of God, and an animal. It's an additional
dimension. But there is yet a further additional dimension called the
new life of faith: Jesus talks about a new birth.

>Plus, I don't think Moses or anyone else living at that time had any
idea where human beings came from. They were just here. So Moses started
with the only man he know about and from which the covenant race
derived. And if Adam was a representative of God, then he had to have an
audience. <

Maybe they hadn't any idea in Moses' time. But the farther back you go
in time towards Eden, the more certainly the Adamites knew about the
other people living at that time. After all, Moses had his information
for Genesis by tradition, probably within the line of descent from
Abraham, Noah, Adam. We don't know when they started to write it down.
By about 3300 BC, there was a Sumeric script available. This would have
been 400 years before the flood.

>>...Paul dealt with the problem of those not having the law of Moses,
talking of the period of the time of Adam to the time of Moses (v.14).
But the principle applies to those living before Adam and others not
descended from Adam, as well. Paul didn't treat these specifically.
Whether or not he and his audience knew of their existence, their
explicit mention would be irrelevant, in any case. Interestingly, his
statement of how sin came into the human world does not mention Adam by
name, but just reads: "...sin came into the world through one human"
(anthropos, v.12), which is correct no matter whether Adam or someone
else living much earlier was that first (typical) human. In fact, the
whole passage of Rom.5:12-21 mentions Adam by name only in v.14, to
designate the beginning of the example period "Adam-to-Moses", but
nowhere else. Therefore the other statements about the "one man" sinning
need not refer to Adam at all, but may designate the first human ("man"
here is "anthropos" in the Greek, i.e. "human", not specifically a male,
or left out altogether). We have to conclude that, from the first, all
humans were sinners, and therefore that Adam's fall was, in this sense,
typical of all humans before and after his time.<<

>I think Adam's "fall" is unique as his status was unique. We may all
be in a fallen state today living in an era of universal accountability.
Whether we can trace that back to Adam or not depends on your point of
view. I think you are free to speculate on that.<

I agree on Adam's uniqueness, as his calling and task were unique, and
therefore also the degree of his accountability and of his fall was
unique. But I don't agree on his differing from pre-Adamites as far as
being created in God's image is concerned, because such a difference
would translate into a basic difference between different contemporary
humans as to their standing before God.

>>...What, then, is special about Adam, if he wasn't the first
biblically human being?<<

>He is the first biblical person, just not the first biological hominid.<

 As I said before, I hold humans of considerably earlier times than Adam
to be biblically genuine humans, although I cannot specify the date of
their creation in God's image other than very vaguely. It may be 30,000
or 100,000 or even more years ago. But it must allow all contemporary
humans to be descended from them.

>>...Before that, God "formed the Adam - [who was] dust of the ground"
(not "out of dust"!). Other occurrences of the terms "to form" (yatzar)
and "dust" (^afar) show that this was a customary metaphor for God
forming a person in his mother's womb (cf. e.g. Jer.1:5; Job 10:8-9). Of
course, we (think we) know what happens biologically when a child is
conceived and develops in the womb. But the Bible specifically links
this occurrence with a creative activity by God, i.e. God creating
something out of nothing ("bara'" in Isa.43:7). What is this novelty
created out of nothing in this case?<<

>Or out of something. Sea life created on the fifth creation day was
probably formed from earthly elements created when God created heaven
and earth on the first day.<

 What was created out of nothing on the fifth "day" was the novel
dimension of sentience ("soul", "psychology"); those "higher" animals
already had their biological bodies by evolution from lower animals.
Similarly, in the creation of the first humans on the sixth "day", what
was the novel reality created out of nothing was the spiritual
dimension, the capability to enter into a personal relationship with
God, which we must attribute to all humans. But those first humans
already had their bodies by evolution and their "souls" corresponding to
the sentience of the higher animals by similar inheritance of
neural-psychological aspects.

>>...Every human being is a composite of three aspects or dimensions, a
physical (biological) one (like all of life), a psychological (sentient)
one (like all higher animals), and a spiritual one (the image of God,
specific to all humans). Where you want to place the "soul" is a matter
of definition. I believe the creation of higher animals (called "souls")
in Gen.1:21 corresponds to the creation of a novel sentient and
psychological realm in animals whose bodies evolved from lower forms.
Similarly, the creation of humans in Gen.1:27 corresponds to the
creation of a novel spiritual realm in hominins whose bodies and "souls"
evolved from earlier forms.<<

>The evolution of a spiritual soul is a novel idea. How do non-material
elements mutate? How does nature select non-material elements?<

 We should not confound "soul" and "spirit". Much of what is usually
called "soul" ("psyche") is subject to psychological research and has
some corresponding aspects (on a less developed level) in higher
animals. But animals have no capability of a personal relationship with
God. The "image of God" or "spirit" ("ruach" is used for both God and
humans) is unique to humans. It is not non-material elements which
mutate, but mutations affect developmental pathways, neurons, brains,
etc., which form the substrate for processes attributed to psychological
realities. But, as I said, "spirit" is an altogether different
dimension, and I wouldn't talk of an evolution of the spirit -
notwithstanding Dawkins' memes ;-).

>>In Gen.2:7, which refers to a much later time than 1:27, Adam was
called and equipped for a specific divine covenant, through which God
eventually was to bless all humankind - in analogy to his covenant with
Abraham.

How about Eve? How was she made as a woman similarly equipped by God to
be a suitable helpmate for Adam? Is her being "built" from a "side" of
Adam to be interpreted "literally" - as a special miracle -, or as a
metaphor? Did she have parents, like Adam apparently had?<<

>I think it more likely that Adam had no parents. He lived to 930
years. Who else living at that time could do that? He walked and talked
with the God of the universe. Who else was so privileged? He could not
find a suitable wife, so God fashioned one for him who could live with
him on in to his old age.<

 God creates and fashions every human being individually (cf. Is.43:7;
Ps.139:13-16). Our biology, psychology and spirit are all very
malleable, if tended to from the beginning - in the womb, and later. On
the level of the quantum events, God has countless options of selecting
outcomes in detail, without interfering with any physical laws. As a
biochemist, I cannot be sure that a human age of 930 years is
impossible, much less as a believer in the Creator God. Certainly Adam
was very special in his calling and task, and God would have equipped
him appropriately, no matter what age his parents might have attained.
Maybe the long lives of the patriarchs were specifically tailored to
enable them to transmit God's revelations over many hundreds of years,
so that Genesis wouldn't become altogether mythological. Apparently, as
far as we know, fully developed writing (cuneiform) was available only
shortly before the flood, so until then, they had to make do with oral
tradition.

>I've said this before. I don't believe the "image" was conferred upon
biological man. It was reserved for someone special - - Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Christ. I believe to be in the image of God today means that we
first must conform to the image of Christ. Christ was God's
representative, and as Christians we represent Christ. No one represents
God directly. We receive our authority through His Son. At least that's
how I understand it.<

 I think you underestimate the not-yet-Christians and overestimate us
believers. For us, the image of God residing in Christ is something to
be attained eventually, but never fully reached in this life. "Not that
I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to
make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brothers, I do
not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting
what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on
toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus"
(Phil.3:12-14). But the image of God is a precondition for faith,
conversion, regeneration and sanctification to be possible at all.

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)