Age Neutral Design

[John Bauer]

If they were morally responsible before God (unlike how we assess animals), why all the sudden, Adam?

Sorry, what?

Were these not also included under Adam's federal headship?

Since I was talking about humans who lived and died long before Adam—over 50,000 years ago and more—no, they were not under Adam’s federal headship. God’s covenantal relationship with mankind did not exist until Eden roughly 6,000 years ago. They were not morally responsible before God any more than animals are today.

Did these not have lines of progeny that persist til today, apart from Adam?

Since there is no way to determine that genetically, the only reasonable answer is, “I don’t know.”

I am partial to the position suggested by Joshua Swamidass in this book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry (IVP Academic, 2019)—namely, that everyone from the first century AD onward are genealogically descended from Adam and Eve.

 

[makesends]

In Scripture, federal headship is a juridical–representative category grounded in divine appointment. Adam is head because God constituted him such.

From Adam’s disobedience to Christ’s righteousness, these are reckoned through union with the covenant head. Headship, therefore, is forensic and covenantal, not biological or genealogical—as justification in Christ makes obvious.

Ok. I didn't read this before I asked the same, this morning. It's a good answer, but one I have to digest. I'm not sure it follows, that because Christ's justification of us is forensic and covenantal does not therefore relegate Adam's headship of all humanity as NOT genealogical.

Yes—his contemporaries.

All those who lived and died before Adam were not under his headship.

This is where it starts to feel pretty artificial. If his headship is only covenantal and forensic, what matters it a whit, whether they came before him or not?

Adam and the entire humanity over which he had headship were morally responsible to God from Eden onward.

That seems to me artificial, as though invented to accommodate a pre-formed thesis.

makesends said:
I am not talking morality as far as duty towards peers only. That, frankly, is not morals except as God requires.

I disagree.

Right and wrong is not dependent on life nor death nor good nor bad except as God requires. If God does not require of elephants that they not destroy vegetation, they do not do wrong, when they cause harm in the Serengeti. If lions are not kind to their prey, God doesn't hold it against them. Sin is primarily, and in a sense, only, because it is against God. If I harm my neighbor, it is not wrong because of social norms, but because God requires me to love my neighbor. Do you not identify morality with God's being? Do lions owe their neighbors kindness, apart from God? If I sin against my neighbor, or against conscience, or against nature, it is because it is wrong according to God, or it is not sin. And, no, I'm talking 'command', not 'decree'. (It is not my job to fulfill or obey God's decree. God's decree is going to happen whether by my disobedience or obedience.)

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Did these not have lines of progeny that persist til today, apart from Adam?

Since there is no way to determine that genetically, the only reasonable answer is, “I don’t know.”

I am partial to the position suggested by Joshua Swamidass in this book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry (IVP Academic, 2019)—namely, that everyone from the first century AD onward are genealogically descended from Adam and Eve.

I posed the question badly. I meant, are there any, since Adam, and particularly till today, that, whether Adam's progeny or not, have lineage that is in part not from Adam. And, did Adam have an earthly father?

 

[Arial]

Since I was talking about humans who lived and died long before Adam—over 50,000 years ago and more—no, they were not under Adam’s federal headship. God’s covenantal relationship with mankind did not exist until Eden roughly 6,000 years ago. They were not morally responsible before God any more than animals are today.

Though I admit that there is an element of covenant relationship in the creating of Adam, I don't find that in itself that tells the whole story and satisfies any of the questions that arise from pre-Adam humans. I do not personally believe that there were pre-Adam humans and in the same breath do not have an answer to fossil remains and their dating including those purportedly belonging to humans. Neither am I asking for those answers.

I find that "God's covenantal relationship with mankind did not exist until Eden---" to wear the marks of supposition and then assuming something (non- covenantal relationship) to answer the supposition. Even if you are basing your supposition on what you consider evidence, and even if you are correct about there being pre-Adam humans. And it leaves a lot of questions and a lot of questions unanswered. (If you have already answered them elsewhere in the thread, direct me to those answers as I have not read through the thread. I never intended to be involved in it as it is not within my primary interests, and I have done zero study on it and also am not a scientist. But I knew it was alive and active, realized without pondering it, that something seemed off (to me). This post caught my eye and I identified what was not logically tracking in my mind.)

My questions would be: If what you say is true, was that pre-Adam man not created in the image of God? And if he was not---would he really be classified as human or just another creature?

If Adam (humanity) is then created after this assumed pre-Adam man, but not descended from him; rather made completely new and out of the dust of the ground, how then can it be the same being as pre-Adam man? How would being covenantal as your say, resolve that?

If mankind already existed before Adam (but in a non-covenantal way), why does God say in Gen "I will make man in my own image and start from scratch as it were? Did he wipe out all the non-covenantal men and begin again with a new man?

Plus, on a personal level but based on Scripture, I don't think there is such a thing as a non-covenantal relationship between God and anything he creates---which is everything that is created.

 

[John Bauer]

Okay. I didn't read this before I asked the same, this morning. It's a good answer, but one I have to digest.

Fair enough. It has taken me years to wrestle with and digest these distinctions and how they flesh out.

I'm not sure it follows that because Christ's justification of us is forensic and covenantal does not therefore relegate Adam's headship of all humanity as NOT genealogical.

That was a difficult sentence to parse, so forgive me if I got this wrong. Here is what I think you are saying: “I am not sure it follows that since our justification in Christ is forensic and covenantal that Adam’s headship of humanity is therefore not genealogical.”

And you’re right, that does not follow. But that is also not my argument.

So much for the non sequitur.

My argument isn’t that federal headship excludes genealogical descent. It is logically possible for Adam to be both covenant head and genealogical progenitor. The categories are not mutually exclusive. Rather, my argument is that genealogical descent is not what constitutes federal headship. It may accompany federal headship but it does not ground or constitute it.

Here is another way to think about it: Progenitors are not automatically federal representatives, and federal representatives are not necessarily progenitors. Headship requires covenantal ordination. Scripture never says Adam represents us because we descend from him. “Federal headship is a juridical–representative category grounded in divine appointment,” I said to that other person. “Adam is head because God constituted him such.” Biology simply marks the covenantal sphere God chose to constitute in Adam.

This is where it starts to feel pretty artificial. If his headship is only covenantal and forensic, what matters it a whit whether they came before him or not?

Your criticism is valid. William Dembski made a similar argument in his book, The End of Christianity (2009). He suggested that if one accepts the fact that God can impute Christ’s righteousness retroactively to old-covenant saints, then one must accept that God can impute Adam’s sin retroactively (which for Dembski explains death prior to the Fall). Well, I think you’re suggesting something similar, that Adam’s headship could extend to those who lived and died long before his time. Fair enough. That is not a feature in my view, but at the moment I can’t think of any reason to reject it. Question it? Yes. Reject it? Not yet.

Unless I have misunderstood you. That is possible.

That seems to me artificial, as though invented to accommodate a pre-formed thesis.

Wait, it seems artificial to say that Adam and the entire humanity over which he had headship were morally responsible to God from Eden onward? Really? Even though that is exactly what Scripture itself says?

“It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see it if pays off for ‘em.”

My view did not come first and then invent that position. That is Reformed covenant theology, which I started with when I developed my view and had to accommodate it (because Scripture and confessional standards have priority).

 

[John Bauer]

Right and wrong is not dependent on life nor death nor good nor bad except as God requires. If God does not require of elephants that they not destroy vegetation, they do not do wrong when they cause harm in the Serengeti. If lions are not kind to their prey, God doesn't hold it against them. Sin is primarily—and in a sense only—because it is against God. If I harm my neighbor, it is not wrong because of social norms but because God requires me to love my neighbor.

You seem to be treating “wrong” and “sin” as interchangeable terms. Maybe in your view they are. Fair enough.

But my view is different, and it is methodologically improper to assess my position by silently substituting your definitions for mine, for that would be a form of question-begging. Before you could evaluate my position using your definitions, you would first have to establish that yours are the correct ones. Since that might be more work than it’s worth, it may be best to evaluate my position under its own terms.

Do you not identify morality with God's being?

Of course I do. Morality is not objective otherwise.

Moral norms are not autonomous human constructions; they exist as part of general revelation—creation—reflecting God’s character in some small way or other. But there is a difference in my view between wrongdoing and sin. Wrongdoing presupposes an objective moral order. Sin presupposes covenant relationship. So, pre-Adamic humanity was morally capable but not covenantally culpable. Apart from a covenant relationship with God there is no such thing as either sin or righteousness, and thus neither condemnation nor salvation. Moral wrongdoing is not imputed as sin if there is no divine command or obligation.

Humans aren’t unique in their capacity for moral agency, but they are definitely unique in their capacity to sin and it is precisely due to that covenant relationship between God and his image-bearers. Indeed, that relationship is the context by which the term itself (sin) is defined vis-à-vis the promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities of that covenant.

Long before Adam and the garden, humans were capable of wrongdoing but not sin, a term which was meaningless until the events of the garden. Once that covenant relationship was established, however, sin became a potential—but not an actuality until Adam disobeyed God. As such, this view preserves Adam's state of posse non peccare et posse peccare, as per Reformed theology. On this view, Adam and Eve understood right and wrong as moral concepts but, up to this point, had not sinned existentially. They had an awareness of sin intellectually—they knew the will of God—and they knew disobedience was wrong, but they had no existential awareness of sin as sin. This distinction can be seen by way of contrast, wherein it is said that the one who did not know sin God made to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God. Christ draws out the difference. He knew of sin (intellectually) but he didn't know sin (existentially), for he never sinned.

Satan was right—but in a catastrophically bad way!—for when Adam and Eve ate from that tree, they did indeed become their own gods (Gen 3:22), as the covenant relationship was instantly severed. Satan was portraying this as a good thing, but clearly it was not. Now Adam and Eve had an awareness of sin existentially. Whereas they had known of sin, now they knew sin. Now, through one man, sin entered the world, and death through sin. Now they were covenant-breakers or sinners and experienced that severed covenant relationship—the first death—as nakedness and shame. It was on account of that historical covenant-breaking man, the first Adam, that we need to be redeemed by a historical covenant-keeping man, the last Adam (Jesus Christ).

At the end of the day, in my view (a) wrongdoing is a violation of objective moral order and (b) sin is a covenantal transgression of divine stipulation. They are not interchangeable in my view.

I posed the question badly. I meant, are there any, since Adam, and particularly till today, that, whether Adam's progeny or not, have lineage that is in part not from Adam?

Since I thought that question was answered, I am probably failing to understand what you’re asking. As I said, referencing Swamidass, Adam need not be sole genetic progenitor to be universal genealogical ancestor. In very little time, everyone in the relevant geographic sphere is descended from Adam. Covenantal humanity expands both genealogically (Swamidass) and covenantally (Beale). Pre-Adamic populations quickly disappear into Adamic humanity historically, not metaphysically.

And did Adam have an earthly father?

I have not settled that question yet, although I am leaning toward yes. But nothing commits me to affirming or denying it. I could take it or leave it.

 

[John Bauer]

Though I admit that there is an element of covenant relationship in the creating of Adam, …

There are a lot of covenantal elements in his creation, starting with “dust” (i.e., it wasn’t just minerals and organic matter).

Neither am I asking for those answers.

No worries.

I find that "God's covenantal relationship with mankind did not exist until Eden" to wear the marks of supposition, and then assuming something (non-covenantal relationship) to answer the supposition.

Okay, but it’s not a supposition. It is an exegetical conclusion drawn from Scripture that God entered into a covenantal relationship with mankind through Adam six millennia ago in Eden, and a logical inference that such a relationship did not exist before. I know you don’t think the conclusion is wrong, so if you think the inference is invalid then please show me where and how.

Even if you are basing your supposition on what you consider evidence, and even if you are correct about there being pre-Adamic humans …

It is sort of condescending to qualify it that way (“what you consider”). My view is based on Scripture, a broad range of empirical evidence, and the rigorous application of logic. If anyone doesn’t consider that evidence, well, that tells me a lot.

… I have done zero study on it and also am not a scientist.

Although I am no scientist myself, I have studied this deeply for years (just because I need answers).

If what you say is true, was that pre-Adam man not created in the image of God?

That would seem to follow. But keep in mind that I probably define “image of God” differently from you. I take a royal-functional view (J. Richard Middleton), in contrast to the more common substantialist or relational interpretations (Sension 2014). Image-bearing is thus a covenantal vocation—which, again, presupposes that covenantal relation which traces back to Eden.

If [pre-Adamic man] was not [created in the image of God], would he really be classified as human or just another creature?

Classified in what sense? Taxonomically? Pre-Adamic humans were indistinguishable from Adamic humanity biologically—Homo sapiens in either case—but they were not yet covenantally addressed and thus not image-bearers in the vocational sense.

If Adam (humanity) is then created after this assumed pre-Adam man but not descended from him, rather made completely new and out of the dust of the ground, then how can it be the same being as pre-Adam man? How would being covenantal as your say, resolve that?

Are you asking how both Adamic humanity and pre-Adamic humanity can be the same species? The term you use is a bit ambiguous (“the same being”).

If mankind already existed before Adam (but in a non-covenantal way), why does God say in Genesis, "I will make man in my own image" and start from scratch, as it were? Did he wipe out all the non-covenantal men and begin again with a new man?

Because he was entering into a covenantal relationship with mankind and constituting him as his image-bearers. Genesis 1:26-28 doesn’t say, “Let us create a new biological species.” It says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them rule.” The language is immediately vocational—dominion, fruitfulness, priestly-royal function. This is not starting from scratch biologically. Eden is proto-temple (Walton); Adam is priest-king; image-bearing spreads as sacred space expands (Beale). This provides a redemptive-historical mechanism, the imago Dei becoming an office extended as God’s rule expands (Middleton). And all of this points toward and is being fulfilled by Christ.

I can recommend books on just about any particular aspect of this.

Plus, on a personal level but based on Scripture, I don't think there is such a thing as a non-covenantal relationship between God and anything he creates—which is everything that is created.

A covenant in Scripture involves divine stipulation, promise/threat, oath or formal establishment, representative structure, moral accountability in a judicial sense. While God governs all creatures, he does not covenant with them in that sense.

 

[Paul]

I believe life on earth is young but how old the earth is I don't know. The spirit is life the flesh counts for nothing.

Jesus used this as a legal ruling which to me states He is certifying it as truth. He is the head of the body of Christ.


Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.

My answer remains I don't know in regard to how old the earth is.

Genesis takes pain to show God's hand was in every aspect of creation. Despite scientists presenting evidence of an old universe the Spirit in me testifies Jesus lives. No one can snatch me from His hands.

 

[Arial]

Okay, but it’s not a supposition. It is an exegetical conclusion drawn from Scripture that God entered into a covenantal relationship with mankind through Adam six millennia ago in Eden, and a logical inference that such a relationship did not exist before. I know you don’t think the conclusion is wrong, so if you think the inference is invalid then please show me where and how.

The supposition I refer to is humans pre-existing before Adam and an old earth. I assume that you arrive at this position, not suppositionally, but from the evidence found in geological studies; the evidence produced by scientific aging and fossils.

I remember being taught about these things early in science classes including Darwinism---monkeys evolving into humans etc. I am not suggesting that you agree with that type of evolution. As I said, I have not been following the posts. I have no response as to the Australopithecus, homo, Ardipithecus etc. said to be evolving into present day man, fossil remains. Other than possibly assumptions were made there and dating possibly based on some other presupposition. I don't know. And frankly don't need to know as it is irrelevant as far as I am concerned to anything that pertains to what God gives us in his-story.

As to the aging of the earth by geological means, I am willing to concede that the method is probably not arbitrary but based on something. And that the process is relatively accurate but that it is also misleading. For this reason: We have in Genisis the creation shown as good, that only one thing would change that and bring in "not good", and it is directly stated to cause death. Which to me, indicates there was no death intrinsic in creation, just the possibility of it.

We have God placing a curse on creation itself, and we have in Romans the statement that God subjected all creation to futility because of the fall. We have a creation that once had our present-day carnivores in the animal kingdom, as herbivores. We have vegetation that was hydrated by dew--no rain. We do not have rain until the flood.

So, if earth and all that was in it was created to be utterly self-sustaining and harmonious within the design of God in order for that to change all the "geological" (for want of a better word at the moment) systems had to shift. Things did not change radically all at once. People still lived hundreds of years etc. But when God brought the flood that covered the earth and the first rains came, there had to be a cataclysmic shift in not just some things, but everything. Could this not produce artificial signs of aging?

It is sort of condescending to qualify it that way (“what you consider”). My view is based on Scripture, a broad range of empirical evidence, and the rigorous application of logic. If anyone doesn’t consider that evidence, well, that tells me a lot.

When I said "what you consider" I meant it exactly the opposite of how you took it. You are considering something as evidence--whatever that is. Because you took it wrong you responded with a real condescending remark "If anyone doesn't consider that evidence well that tells me a lot." That is how frictions and off topic arguments begin that ruin a thread. So I am letting it go.

That would seem to follow. But keep in mind that I probably define “image of God” differently from you. I take a royal-functional view (J. Richard Middleton), in contrast to the more common substantialist or relational interpretations (Sension 2014). Image-bearing is thus a covenantal vocation—which, again, presupposes that covenantal relation which traces back to Eden.

Of course, "image bearing" is covenantal. That does not exclude the properties created in us that make us able to be image bearers. Or our status. I am not arguing against the covenantal aspects of the creation account. I am debating the assertion of a man being created that was not an image bearer prior to Adam.

Classified in what sense? Taxonomically? Pre-Adamic humans were indistinguishable from Adamic humanity biologically—Homo sapiens in either case—but they were not yet covenantally addressed and thus not image-bearers in the vocational sense.

Who is doing the classification of fossils as homo sapiens and calling them "man?. And how is it possible to determine the biological makeup of a fossil? God identifies man---the first man---as Adam. Yes, it is a covenantal relationship. But to say man pre-existed Adam just not in a covenantal relationship, therefore not in God's image, is, the way I see it, to have a created being that has no business being called man but is just another one of the animals. (And yes, I know, humans are classified in the animal classification.)

Also, in the creation account, it does not say that the sphere that is our earth did not exist but rather that it was uninhabitable for what he was about to create. He prepared it for the Adam man and his biological descendants.

Are you asking how both Adamic humanity and pre-Adamic humanity can be the same species?

Yes. And where did they go?

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
I'm not sure it follows that because Christ's justification of us is forensic and covenantal does not therefore relegate Adam's headship of all humanity as NOT genealogical

That was a difficult sentence to parse, so forgive me if I got this wrong. Here is what I think you are saying: “I am not sure it follows that since our justification in Christ is forensic and covenantal that Adam’s headship of humanity is therefore not genealogical.”

And you’re right, that does not follow. But that is also not my argument.

So much for the non sequitur.

My argument isn’t that federal headship excludes genealogical descent. It is logically possible for Adam to be both covenant head and genealogical progenitor. The categories are not mutually exclusive. Rather, my argument is that genealogical descent is not what constitutes federal headship. It may accompany federal headship but it does not ground or constitute it.

Here is another way to think about it: Progenitors are not automatically federal representatives, and federal representatives are not necessarily progenitors. Headship requires covenantal ordination. Scripture never says Adam represents us because we descend from him. “Federal headship is a juridical–representative category grounded in divine appointment,” I said to that other person. “Adam is head because God constituted him such.” Biology simply marks the covenantal sphere God chose to constitute in Adam.

I know you are not arguing that because federal headship is covenantal and forensic that it does not apply to all flesh descended biologically from Adam. But it sounds like you are saying that because federal headship is covenantal and forensic, that it cannot be also due to biological descent, i.e., that it cannot also be because Adam was 'first man'. It sounded to me like you are saying that because it is covenantal and forensic, it proves that there were some before Adam. I see now you are saying that it allows it to apply to those before Adam, and I concede the point.

Shoot. I'm sorry, my mind is still scattered all over the place this morning. A very close friend went to be with the Lord, Saturday night, and in spite of thinking I was prepared, it came as rather a shock. I better leave this alone. Can't think straight. Lol, in spite of that, I had expected this to be a sort of therapy for me!

Your criticism is valid. William Dembski made a similar argument in his book, The End of Christianity (2009). He suggested that if one accepts the fact that God can impute Christ’s righteousness retroactively to old-covenant saints, then one must accept that God can impute Adam’s sin retroactively (which for Dembski explains death prior to the Fall). Well, I think you’re suggesting something similar, that Adam’s headship could extend to those who lived and died long before his time. Fair enough. That is not a feature in my view, but at the moment I can’t think of any reason to reject it. Question it? Yes. Reject it? Not yet.

Unless I have misunderstood you. That is possible.

Wait, it seems artificial to say that Adam and the entire humanity over which he had headship were morally responsible to God from Eden onward? Really? Even though that is exactly what Scripture itself says?

It doesn't seem artificial at all, to me.

“It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see it if pays off for ‘em.”

My view did not come first and then invent that position. That is Reformed covenant theology, which I started with when I developed my view and had to accommodate it (because Scripture and confessional standards have priority).

ok

 

[John Bauer]

The supposition I refer to is humans pre-existing before Adam and an old earth.

It seems we may have been talking past one another. When you used the phrase “wear the marks of supposition,” I understood you to be referring to the claim that “God’s covenantal relationship with mankind didn’t exist until Eden,” and suggesting that I was assuming everything prior to Eden “to answer the supposition” (source). I even quoted your wording so I could respond as precisely as possible.

And your subsequent response has the appearance of confirming that. “I assume that you arrive at this position”—about the age of the earth and humans pre-existing Adam—“not suppositionally,” you said.

That being said, I am willing and happy to address your questions and concerns about the age of the earth and pre-Adamic humans directly and separately from issues pertaining to covenant theology.

I assume that you arrive at this position not suppositionally but from the evidence found in geological studies; the evidence produced by scientific aging and fossils.

Yes, my belief that the earth is billions of years old is based on multiple independent lines evidence, as is my belief that humans were around long before Adam and Eve appeared on the scene. There are mountains of evidence forcing these conclusions, not unlike how the evidence forced a heliocentric conclusion upon us regarding the solar system. Just as men of God had to do back then, I am trying to reconcile the biblical and empirical data under a coherent model that gives primacy to Scripture and our confessional standards without ignoring what the natural world is telling us.

That mountain of evidence needs to be collated and explained—which is what a theory does. Are you aware of a theory that explains all the data better than this particular old-earth creationist one? Because I am not, although I am all ears. I have evaluated many different young-earth and old-earth proposals, from Ken Ham to Hugh Ross, and they all ignore clear evidence of one kind or another—which is not acceptable to me. I am not content to ignore inconvenient data, just as I’m not comfortable ignoring inconvenient scriptures. God is the one and same author of both general and special revelation, which the Belgic Confession of Faith describes as two books. I must take them both seriously and find the coherent narrative threads that weave this redemptive-historical tapestry.

I remember being taught about these things early in science classes, including Darwinism—monkeys evolving into humans, etc. … I have no response as to the Australopithecus, homo, Ardipithecus etc. said to be evolving into present day man …

And that is totally fine, of course. But I have looked into those questions and have come to conclusions that I think are defensible, and I’m not sure how your lack of a response to those same things could be a reason for me to reconsider mine.

… other than possibly assumptions were made there, and dating possibly based on some other presupposition. I don't know. And frankly don't need to know as it is irrelevant as far as I am concerned to anything that pertains to what God gives us in his-story.

That may be a difference between us. I believe God communicates his-story in more than one book. If everything flows from the eternal pactum salutis, including creation itself and the unfolding of history, then both Scripture and nature are relevant and must speak in one coherent voice to a unified telos. If there are conflicting propositions between Scripture and nature, then we have misinterpreted something.

But, again, that’s my own conviction.

As to the aging of the earth by geological means, I am willing to concede that the method is probably not arbitrary but based on something. And that the process is relatively accurate but that it is also misleading. For this reason: We have in Genisis the creation shown as good, that only one thing would change that and bring in "not good", and it is directly stated to cause death. Which to me, indicates there was no death intrinsic in creation, just the possibility of it.

As John Frame admitted, “We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong. It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong.” Scripture is infallible; our interpretation thereof is not.

For example, God is explicit about what is “not good” and it not only didn’t cause death but it was also before the Fall. “It is not good for the man to be alone.”

The vast majority of Christians for centuries have been old-earth creationists, which means the issue of physical death prior to the Fall has been squarely confronted in tremendous detail. From all of the literature that has been produced on that question, which have you read and evaluated?

We have God placing a curse on creation itself, and we have in Romans the statement that God subjected all creation to futility because of the fall. We have a creation that once had our present-day carnivores in the animal kingdom, as herbivores. We have vegetation that was hydrated by dew--no rain. We do not have rain until the flood.

So, if earth and all that was in it was created to be utterly self-sustaining and harmonious within the design of God in order for that to change all the "geological" (for want of a better word at the moment) systems had to shift. Things did not change radically all at once. People still lived hundreds of years etc. But when God brought the flood that covered the earth and the first rains came, there had to be a cataclysmic shift in not just some things, but everything. Could this not produce artificial signs of aging?

I just want to highlight the fact that these are young-earth creationist interpretations and thus capable of being wrong. I would also suggest that there have been old-earth creationist evaluations of those arguments going back decades, including the classic Meredith Kline.

And I would even suggest that there is nothing dangerous about rejecting young-earth creationism—a human interpretation—especially when there are really good reasons for doing so, as biblical scholars like Kline have laid out.

When I said "what you consider" I meant it exactly the opposite of how you took it.

A simple misunderstanding, then, an easy one to walk away from.

By the way: “If anyone doesn’t consider that evidence” is a statement which allows that some people do consider it evidence, and I didn’t put you or anyone else into either camp.

You clarified your meaning, so I am clarifying mine.

Of course "image bearing" is covenantal. That does not exclude the properties created in us that make us able to be image bearers.

If these are distinct categories, then it is possible to have the capacities for a role but not yet have that role.

I am not arguing against the covenantal aspects of the creation account. I am debating the assertion of a man being created that was not an image-bearer prior to Adam.

If image-bearing is a covenantal role, and if that covenant was inaugurated with Adam, then anyone existing prior to that event would not have that role. The logic is not really debatable.

What is debatable, then, is whether anyone existed earlier than 6,000 years ago (or whether Genesis is about material origins).

Who is doing the classification of fossils as Homo sapiens and calling them "man"?

I have no idea, since you’re not identifying any specific fossils. But it was Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish Christian (Lutheran), who in 1758 first called man Homo sapiens. (His writings frequently reflect natural theology—he viewed the order and classification of nature as a way of discerning the wisdom of God. He often spoke of studying nature as studying the works of the Creator.)

And how is it possible to determine the biological makeup of a fossil?

We don’t determine the full biological makeup of a fossil, but we can examine morphology (bone structure, cranial capacity, dentition, pelvis shape), the geological layer in which it was found, radiometric dating of surrounding material, and sometimes extract ancient DNA or proteins. And from that evidence scientists can determine relationships, population structure, and degrees of relatedness.

God identifies man—the first man—as Adam.

The first man—as in the first human being to ever exist? I have yet to see anyone make that case exegetically without begging the question.

Yes, it is a covenantal relationship. But to say man pre-existed Adam just not in a covenantal relationship, therefore not in God's image, is, the way I see it, to have a created being that has no business being called man but is just another one of the animals. (And yes, I know, humans are classified in the animal classification.)

You believe that pre-Adamic humans have “no business being called man,” but you don’t explain why. How does God calling Adam “man” lead to that position?

Also, in the creation account, it does not say that the sphere that is our earth did not exist but rather that it was uninhabitable for what he was about to create.

That is not what tohu wa-bohu (formless and empty) means. It refers to disorder, desolation, or wasteland—uninhabited, not uninhabitable (when looking at the semantic range of tohu).

Yes, [how can both Adamic humanity and pre-Adamic humanity be the same species?] And where did they go?

If two populations are biologically continuous and capable of interbreeding, they are typically classified within the same species. Moreover, as of roughly 40,000 years ago, ours has been the only remaining species of the genus Homo, so anyone living near the time of Adam could only be H. sapiens. Our closest living relative then, as now, belonged to a different genus entirely, Pan. All other species of Homo (e.g., Neanderthals) were already long gone.

Where did they go? They died. Humanity prior to Adam (by definition pre-Adamic) were not immortal, so they all died eventually. And everyone who has lived and died since that time has been Adamic humanity (again, by definition).

 

[John Bauer]

It sounds like you are saying that federal headship, because it is covenantal and forensic, cannot be also due to biological descent …

I said federal headship is covenantal and forensic, and I can make that case easily from Scripture. Those who wish to argue that biological descent also constitutes or partly grounds headship need to make that case from Scripture. It is transparently bad reasoning to treat that position as the default and require others to disprove it (illicitly shifting the burden of proof), and worse to reinforce that assumption by reading it into Pauline texts (begging the question).

To reiterate: I didn’t say headship cannot involve genealogical descent, but rather that I don’t see Scripture saying it does. Derek Kidner put it like this in his commentary on Genesis (emphasis mine):

Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception, the unity of mankind “in Adam” and our common status as sinners through his offense are expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical descent [expressed in such terms as found in Hebrews 7:9-10] … Rather, Adam’s sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity, somewhat as in Christ’s death “one died for all, therefore all died” (2 Cor. 5:14).

– Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 30.

It sounded to me like you are saying that because it is covenantal and forensic, it proves that there were some before Adam.

No, those are two entirely different arguments. Whether we are talking about “in Adam” or “in Christ,” in either case that is covenantal headship, not genealogical ancestry. If a valid case for the latter can be made, I have yet to see it.

I see now you are saying that it allows it to apply to those before Adam, and I concede the point.

Cheers.

Shoot. I'm sorry, my mind is still scattered all over the place this morning. A very close friend went to be with the Lord, Saturday night, and in spite of thinking I was prepared, it came as rather a shock. I better leave this alone. Can't think straight. Lol, in spite of that, I had expected this to be a sort of therapy for me!

I am very sorry for your loss. Even when we think we are prepared, the separation still strikes hard. May the Lord sustain you and grant you peace in the hope of the resurrection. Set this aside and take the time you need; we can return to the discussion whenever you are ready.

 

[makesends]

Humanity prior to Adam (by definition pre-Adamic) were not immortal, so they all died eventually. And everyone who has lived and died since that time has been Adamic humanity (again, by definition).

If, as you said, of the same species as Adam, as defined by the possibility of inter-breeding between lines prior to Adam, and Adam's line, is there any reason to say that, though as distinct from Adam they died out, there were none of their DNA currently in Homo Sapiens? Like I've said, I could swear I saw Lucy just the other day!

 

[makesends]

May the Lord sustain you and grant you peace in the hope of the resurrection.

Thank you, brother.

Lol, not that it is other than the resurrection, but the hope of the resurrection is not, for me at least, a need to wait for her resurrection, but mine alone. As I see it, time is of no authority in this. She's already there. With her father, her gram and her pap, whom she loved and missed so much. The shock is overwhelmed by the joy of knowing she now knows God's delight in her.

It's been interesting to me, maybe for the first time in my life seeing this, though many of my loved ones have died before, that as I think in earthly terms, the shock of her-now-dead overrides my good sense —knocks me a little silly— but then, I am old enough that accompanied by the reality of my own impending demise I am filled with gratitude for every good thought God pours into my soul concerning her. She was not well in this life. She melted my heart; her every attempted communication and physical difficulty and frustration filled me with pity and prayer. And now, with Joy.

Even now, I find myself missing praying for her, yet even now I ask God to bless her. But, yeah, I guess, Off topic.

 

[makesends]

What is debatable, then, is whether anyone existed earlier than 6,000 years ago (or whether Genesis is about material origins).

If I remember right, you said that you do believe in an actual man, Adam, and not that he was a symbolic or merely literary type of representative of mankind having evolved to some point. Do you believe the man, Adam, had an ancestry, or is God forming him from the dust perhaps a reference to the evolution of Homo Sapiens (or whatever Adam was)?

 

[John Bauer]

If, as you said, [they were] of the same species as Adam—as defined by the possibility of interbreeding between lines prior to Adam and Adam’s line—is there any reason to say that, though as distinct from Adam they died out, there were none of their DNA currently in Homo sapiens? Like I've said, I could swear I saw Lucy just the other day!

Yes, there is good reason to say that none of their genetics is detectable in any given person today—but also none of Adam’s genetics. Due to recombination and lineage sorting, most ancestors contribute no identifiable DNA in a particular descendant after sufficient generations.

The number of your genealogical ancestors doubles each generation—two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on—while the amount of DNA you carry is fixed. Within surprisingly few generations, you have far more ancestors than genomic space to preserve their material. By about 12–15 generations, it is common for a large proportion of your actual ancestors to have contributed zero identifiable autosomal DNA to you, even though you truly descend from them. You therefore have vast numbers of genuine ancestors who left you no genetic trace; they are genealogical ancestors without being genetic contributors. (This was the crux of the argument Swamidass made in his 2019 book, Genealogical Adam and Eve.)

That being said, the absence of detectable DNA in a particular individual does not imply that none of that ancestor’s genetic material exists anywhere in Homo sapiens collectively. Across large populations, different descendants inherit different surviving fragments. Thus, very remote ancestors may leave small, discontinuous, and widely scattered genetic residues across humanity even when most individuals carry none.

In simple terms: An ancestor’s genetic pieces are broken into tiny fragments and distributed unevenly across many people. You might have none of those bits, while someone else still carries a small fragment—even though you both truly descend from the same person.

If I remember right, you said that you do believe [that Adam was a historical person], and not that he was a symbolic or merely literary type … Do you believe [that he] had an ancestry, or is God forming him from the dust perhaps a reference to the evolution of Homo sapiens (or whatever Adam was)?

No, God forming Adam from the dust was a reference to Adam. As you noted, I do not believe Adam was a literary figure standing in for humanity generally. He was a real, historical person. He represented mankind federally, not literarily.

Do I believe he had an ancestry? I have not settled that question yet, personally. I could go either way at this point. However, I am leaning toward the belief that he did (i.e., that he had a belly button).

 

[makesends]

Yes, there is good reason to say that none of their genetics is detectable in any given person today—but also none of Adam’s genetics. Due to recombination and lineage sorting, most ancestors contribute no identifiable DNA in a particular descendant after sufficient generations.

The number of your genealogical ancestors doubles each generation—two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on—while the amount of DNA you carry is fixed. Within surprisingly few generations, you have far more ancestors than genomic space to preserve their material. By about 12–15 generations, it is common for a large proportion of your actual ancestors to have contributed zero identifiable autosomal DNA to you, even though you truly descend from them. You therefore have vast numbers of genuine ancestors who left you no genetic trace; they are genealogical ancestors without being genetic contributors. (This was the crux of the argument Swamidass made in his 2019 book, Genealogical Adam and Eve.)

That being said, the absence of detectable DNA in a particular individual does not imply that none of that ancestor’s genetic material exists anywhere in Homo sapiens collectively. Across large populations, different descendants inherit different surviving fragments. Thus, very remote ancestors may leave small, discontinuous, and widely scattered genetic residues across humanity even when most individuals carry none.

In simple terms: An ancestor’s genetic pieces are broken into tiny fragments and distributed unevenly across many people. You might have none of those bits, while someone else still carries a small fragment—even though you both truly descend from the same person.

I see that my question was asked in ignorance. I didn't mean so much the DNA, but as a reference to ancestry. "Nowadays, are we descendants of Adam alone, and not of those who lived before him?"—was my intention. But, in effect, you answer this by the below.

No, God forming Adam from the dust was a reference to Adam. As you noted, I do not believe Adam was a literary figure standing in for humanity generally. He was a real, historical person. He represented mankind federally, not literarily.

Do I believe he had an ancestry? I have not settled that question yet, personally. I could go either way at this point. However, I am leaning toward the belief that he did (i.e., that he had a belly button).

Thank you.

 

[Arial]

Yes, my belief that the earth is billions of years old is based on multiple independent lines evidence, as is my belief that humans were around long before Adam and Eve appeared on the scene. There are mountains of evidence forcing these conclusions, not unlike how the evidence forced a heliocentric conclusion upon us regarding the solar system. Just as men of God had to do back then, I am trying to reconcile the biblical and empirical data under a coherent model that gives primacy to Scripture and our confessional standards without ignoring what the natural world is telling us.

I have no quarrel with you believing what you believe, and I am not saying "It isn't so." I am not qualified to say any such thing. It just posed a lot of questions for me, which I asked.

Are you aware of a theory that explains all the data better than this particular old-earth creationist one?

None beyond "God said, and it was." And by that, I mean that my in-depth interest in what is beyond that is profitable for knowledge for those who are interested attaining that knowledge. This brain at this point (79) years' worth of compiled information and knowledge, puts some restraints on what it sets out to add. How old the earth is and how that information is compiled and assessed is not on the list. But you are young. When I was your age, I set out to learn the genetic components to get the top-rated hogs on days to market and lean meat, and the most productive breeding practices for top notch young and good mothers. And was mightily successful. I would be willing to bet you haven't the slightest interest in that.

If everything flows from the eternal pactum salutis, including creation itself and the unfolding of history, then both Scripture and nature are relevant and must speak in one coherent voice to a unified telos. If there are conflicting propositions between Scripture and nature, then we have misinterpreted something.

I agree with that completely. It became a serious problem for Christianity in the so-called Age of Enlightenment. Scientific discoveries appeared to be in conflict with Scripture. So, either the science was denied or the faith faltered and/or got watered down to pretty much a moral teaching. I think we have gotten past that either or view for the most part.

I just want to highlight the fact that these are young-earth creationist interpretations and thus capable of being wrong. I would also suggest that there have been old-earth creationist evaluations of those arguments going back decades, including the classic Meredith Kline.

And I would even suggest that there is nothing dangerous about rejecting young-earth creationism—a human interpretation—especially when there are really good reasons for doing so, as biblical scholars like Kline have laid out.

Many years ago I came across a Christian book that was teaching old earth. I have no memory of it author. At the time I purchased it for my grandson who was just beginning the study of origins of earth in elementary (maybe middle school) science class. I got it with intent of reading it first to see if it was appropriate, which I did. I remember thinking that what he said was certainly possible and it did not negate the creation account of Scripture. I remember very little about the details, only that it was dealing with fossil remains and carbon dating. In any case. I gave it to him on the off chance that the school curriculum put him in the same position as those poor Age of Enlightenment folks and he outright rejected the Bible. It gave a balance. I don't remember now if I had bought the book for myself and after reading it bought one for him. It is possible it is somewhere in my library. That is a lot, lot of books to go through but maybe I will have a go at looking for it.

If these are distinct categories, then it is possible to have the capacities for a role but not yet have that role.

No doubt. But why? That is not really a question I expect you to answer. It expresses the sense I get of it being God doing one thing one way and then deciding to do it another way. Which would violate who God is. In any case, it would mean, in my assessment, that earth was habitable for man and all those other created things that have gone extinct---and would that not violate the creation account of its need to be made habitable?

Here is a big what if. And I have wondered about it before and then decided there was no answer given by God and he is the one who knows what went on before creation. What if the earth as described in Gen before God made it our home, was where Satan was cast down to when he was cast out of heaven. He was already there after all. And what if there was a council as we see in the first chapter of Job and Satan was present. And the entire creation as we know it was God agreeing to create man as perfect, but also mortal (able to die) and not corrupt but corruptible. The "prize" was winner take all. Satan intending to defeat God and take his place. God intending to destroy Satan the source of evil (not its creator as evil is not a creation) forever---and to do so through the redemption of those Satan captures. That last is what Jesus came to do and did---in an already/not yet way. That much I do know.

Sorry---I went on a rant.

 

[makesends]

When I was your age, I set out to learn the genetic components to get the top-rated hogs on days to market and lean meat, and the most productive breeding practices for top notch young and good mothers. And was mightily successful. I would be willing to bet you haven't the slightest interest in that.

Off Topic Alert (I bet you'd be surprised! @John Bauer seems to want to know EVERYTHING, and has gone a long way down that road.)

 

[John Bauer]

I have no quarrel with you believing what you believe, and I am not saying "It isn't so"—I am not qualified to say any such thing. It just posed a lot of questions for me, which I asked.

And I’m happy to answer, as long as we all understand that I am not trying to convince anyone. I want my views tested, not accepted.

[I am not aware of any theory] beyond "God said, and it was" [that explains the data better than the one you affirm]. And by that I mean my in-depth interest in what [lies beyond is intellectually profitable only for those interested in attaining such knowledge. My] brain at this point—79 years' worth of compiled information and knowledge—puts some restraints on what it sets out to add. How old the earth is and how that information is compiled and assessed is not on the list. But you are young.

You affirm divine authorship of both Scripture and creation, so at the level of principle we are not at odds. We diverge only at the level of detailed integration of Scripture and science, which I feel compelled to pursue and you do not—and that’s perfectly fine. Like you suggested, I have the vigor and insatiable curiosity of youth (although that has been in my rear view mirror for a while now).

When I was your age, I set out to learn the genetic components to get the top-rated hogs on days to market and lean meat, and the most productive breeding practices for top notch young and good mothers. And was mightily successful. I would be willing to bet you haven't the slightest interest in that.

Correct.

I agree with that completely. It became a serious problem for Christianity in the so-called Age of Enlightenment. Scientific discoveries appeared to be in conflict with Scripture. So, either the science was denied or the faith faltered and/or got watered down to pretty much a moral teaching. I think we have gotten past that either–or view, for the most part.

That is not exactly correct, but I get your meaning.

(The issue was actually epistemic autonomy. The conflict wasn’t really between Scripture and science but between rival authorities: God versus man. René Descartes, whose ideas laid important groundwork for Enlightenment thinkers, really went off the rails here, for example, relocating epistemic certainty to the autonomous self.)

No doubt [it’s possible to have the capacities for a role but not yet have that role]. But why? That is not really a question I expect you to answer. It expresses the sense I get of it being God doing one thing one way and then deciding to do it another way—which would violate who God is.

Personally, I can’t see why you would get that sense. If the entire history of creation flows from the eternal decree—including the eventual appearance of image-bearers on the world stage—then there is no “decision shift” in God. Something that is comprehended by us as temporally successive is nevertheless eternally unified in the divine will. God does not change; the economy (οἰκονομία) unfolds as the temporal execution of his eternal decree.

In any case, it would mean, in my assessment, that earth was habitable for man and all those other created things that have gone extinct---and would that not violate the creation account of its need to be made habitable?

Again, the creation account doesn’t say it was uninhabitable. That is not what tohu wa-bohu means.

Here is a big what if. And I have wondered about it before and then decided there was no answer given by God and he is the one who knows what went on before creation. What if the earth as described in Gen before God made it our home, was where Satan was cast down to when he was cast out of heaven. He was already there after all. And what if there was a council as we see in the first chapter of Job and Satan was present. And the entire creation as we know it was God agreeing to create man as perfect, but also mortal (able to die) and not corrupt but corruptible. The "prize" was winner take all. Satan intending to defeat God and take his place. God intending to destroy Satan the source of evil (not its creator as evil is not a creation) forever---and to do so through the redemption of those Satan captures. (That last is what Jesus came to do and did---in an already/not yet way. That much I do know.)

Other than the “winner take all” bit, this sounds a lot like a vintage Gap view of Genesis 1—also known as a Ruin–Reconstruction view—which posited a temporal interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, sometimes associated with Satan’s fall and a prior world order. The Scofield Reference Bible embedded this picture in popular evangelical imagination. It was one of the old-earth creationist ideas that I explored and rejected, along with the Day–Age view and Day-with-Gaps view.

But the Gap framework is familiar, this “winner take all” idea is more modern and narrativized, and neither one is required by the text—and both introduce tensions with divine aseity and exhaustive sovereignty. So, I would not be comfortable with it. But that’s me.

Sorry---I went on a rant.

I loved it. I learned some new things about you.