If Adam and Eve were a product of "evolutionism"....when, how and why did mankind fall?

[DialecticSkeptic]

Old-earth creationist who accepts evolution sounds like a type of theistic evolutionist.

There is a vast and categorical difference between a creationist and an evolutionist. As an evanglical Christian with a biblical worldview, I am fundamentally a creationist—not an evolutionist, theistic or otherwise. This is a subject worth exploring, but it's not relevant to the question raised by the original post (so it would need to be explored elsewhere).

It sounds like you don't accept the part where Adam was made from the dust the Eve from Adam's rib. It sounds like you believe God used evolution to create humans from lesser animals over time. Then what? Six thousand years ago, did the entire population decide they wanted to be their own authority?

There is so much to unpack here that I scarcely know where to begin. Let's just pick the highlights.

1. "It sounds like you don't accept the part where Adam was made from the dust the Eve from Adam's rib."

I am still working through that question, exegetically, but we may assume for the sake of argument that I believe Adam and Eve were specially created by God as fully formed adults 6,000 years ago.

2. "It sounds like you believe God used evolution to create humans from lesser animals over time."

I believe that God uses evolution, yes, just as I believe God uses meiosis, and electrostatic attraction, and photosynthesis, and so on.

However, I reject the idea that non-human animals are varying degrees of "lesser." Horses, for example, are different from us but not lesser than us.

That being said, humans are the only creatures made in the image of God.

3. "Then what? Six thousand years ago, did the entire population decide they wanted to be their own authority?"

No, "sin entered the world through one man and death through sin." That one man was Adam. On this view, both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenant union, not biological union.

As Derek Kidner wrote in his commentary on Genesis (1967),

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).
​

Not much, sorry, considering the follow-up questions required to ascertain your actual view.

You may not understand the answer just yet, hence the follow-up questions, but you do have the answer.

I've heard some say there was some sort of sin mutation. Do you believe that?

I don't believe that sin is something we can identify and isolate biologically, as if there is something in the human genome to which we could point and say, "Here is the sin gene and the nucleotide sequence that codes for it." And if sin is not a gene, then it's not a component of the reproductive cells (gametes) involved in procreation, something passed along through biological continuity. I don’t think humans can be genetically modified to be sinless. Even a young-earth creationist should be able to agree with this. Scripture and our confessional standards commit us to the belief that our sinful condition is a physical reality, insofar as we can see the effects of sin in the physical world, including our biology, but they do not commit us to believing that there is something like a sin gene that we pass along biologically.

Remember, Adam and Eve were mortal but had access to eternal life through the tree of life (cf. Gen 3:22). Apart from God and exiled from the garden, human mortality runs unchecked. Immortality is a product of divine grace, not human nature; God alone possesses immortality (1 Tim 6:16), and life and immortality are brought to light through the gospel (2 Tim 1:10)—that is, by access to the tree of life, the cross of Christ.

As I understand it, sin is passed along theologically (via covenantal solidarity), not biologically (via the gene pool), because sin pertains to the covenantal relationship between God and man. And arguing that those with no genetic relationship with Adam would therefore not inherit original sin only makes sense if sin is genetic, something contained in gametes, something passed along biologically, and I'm not aware of any reason for thinking it is. Both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenantal solidarity, not biological inheritance.

Here's the question: If man evolved, then why did they sin? When did they sin? Was it the entire population at once, or just one man and it eventually spread to the rest of the population as their progeny was born?

I have answered those questions, and more fully in this post.

Did sin happen when man was a Neanderthal or prior to that?

If it happened 6,000 years ago, as I believe, then it was a very long time after the Neanderthals died out.

 

[CrowCross]

There is a vast and categorical difference between a creationist and an evolutionist. As an evanglical Christian with a biblical worldview, I am fundamentally a creationist—not an evolutionist, theistic or otherwise. This is a subject worth exploring, but it's not relevant to the question raised by the original post (so it would need to be explored elsewhere).




There is so much to unpack here that I scarcely know where to begin. Let's just pick the highlights.

1. "It sounds like you don't accept the part where Adam was made from the dust the Eve from Adam's rib."

I am still working through that question, exegetically, but we may assume for the sake of argument that I believe Adam and Eve were specially created by God as fully formed adults 6,000 years ago.

2. "It sounds like you believe God used evolution to create humans from lesser animals over time."

I believe that God uses evolution, yes, just as I believe God uses meiosis, and electrostatic attraction, and photosynthesis, and so on.

However, I reject the idea that non-human animals are varying degrees of "lesser." Horses, for example, are different from us but not lesser than us.

That being said, humans are the only creatures made in the image of God.

3. "Then what? Six thousand years ago, did the entire population decide they wanted to be their own authority?"

No, "sin entered the world through one man and death through sin." That one man was Adam. On this view, both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenant union, not biological union.

As Derek Kidner wrote in his commentary on Genesis (1967),

​

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).​

​

You may not understand the answer just yet, hence the follow-up questions, but you do have the answer.




I don't believe that sin is something we can identify and isolate biologically, as if there is something in the human genome to which we could point and say, "Here is the sin gene and the nucleotide sequence that codes for it." And if sin is not a gene, then it's not a component of the reproductive cells (gametes) involved in procreation, something passed along through biological continuity. I don’t think humans can be genetically modified to be sinless. Even a young-earth creationist should be able to agree with this. Scripture and our confessional standards commit us to the belief that our sinful condition is a physical reality, insofar as we can see the effects of sin in the physical world, including our biology, but they do not commit us to believing that there is something like a sin gene that we pass along biologically.

Remember, Adam and Eve were mortal but had access to eternal life through the tree of life (cf. Gen 3:22). Apart from God and exiled from the garden, human mortality runs unchecked. Immortality is a product of divine grace, not human nature; God alone possesses immortality (1 Tim 6:16), and life and immortality are brought to light through the gospel (2 Tim 1:10)—that is, by access to the tree of life, the cross of Christ.

As I understand it, sin is passed along theologically (via covenantal solidarity), not biologically (via the gene pool), because sin pertains to the covenantal relationship between God and man. And arguing that those with no genetic relationship with Adam would therefore not inherit original sin only makes sense if sin is genetic, something contained in gametes, something passed along biologically, and I'm not aware of any reason for thinking it is. Both Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness are covenant realities of federal headship, and imputation refers to covenantal solidarity, not biological inheritance.




I have answered those questions, and more fully in this post.




If it happened 6,000 years ago, as I believe, then it was a very long time after the Neanderthals died out.

Sounds like you wanna have your cake and eat it too.

After reading your post I am now more confused about your theo-evo ideas.

 

[LeviR]

Oooo.... I'm not sure that is wholly correct. Would you also say desiring something that is not yours to own or have, whether prohibited or not, is also covetousness?

Keep in mind the tree was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and the fruit was desirable to make one wise. It was a good fruit (Genesis 1:31). Eve's perceptions were correct. The observations reported are not, in and of themselves, sinful in any way. It is also important to note Eve was deceived when she disobeyed God. Like the appeal to "mental incapacity," Eve's not going to be representative of the whole population of sinners so she is not, therefore, going to be a logical foundation for understanding all scripture has to say about sin and salvation.

That is certainly true, and that is definitely the case in Genesis 3 (see verse 13). However, scripture provides a much more holistic explanation; one that needn't involve the appeal to shifting onuses.

John 3:18-20 NIV
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.


It's the fear of exposure that prompts some to blame others (and make things worse). That goes all the way back to Eden.

Desires can be good or evil. A desire to be saved is good. A desire to commit adultery is evil. Adam and Eve could desire any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
What they did was covet(desire) the forbidden tree.
If you think their covetousness of the forbidden tree was not evil, I would disagree.

 

[CrowCross]

Desires can be good or evil. A desire to be saved is good. A desire to commit adultery is evil. Adam and Eve could desire any tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
What they did was covet(desire) the forbidden tree.
If you think their covetousness of the forbidden tree was not evil, I would disagree.

You kinda speak as if you were there..and passing off your assumptions as truth.

A&E could have had no desire for the friuit of the tree until they were confronted by the serpent. Maybe I'm wrong, but your post seems to indicate they looked at the tree everyday and desired the fruit from it.

 

[LeviR]

You kinda speak as if you were there..and passing off your assumptions as truth.

A&E could have had no desire for the friuit of the tree until they were confronted by the serpent. Maybe I'm wrong, but your post seems to indicate they looked at the tree everyday and desired the fruit from it.

Eve desired the fruit because it was pleasant to the eye, good for food, and desired to make her wise.
It was also death.
The deception was that it was not death.
Being deceived into thinking she would not die, she took it and ate.

This is no different than someone saying you would not get caught for trespassing.
If your intent for trespassing is to satisfy your own desire, as was Eve’s, then you are just like her.

The flesh is the flesh, and it was the same flesh of A&E as it is for us. And the same flesh Jesus shared with us.
He was tempted in all points as we are because he shared the same flesh. He can empathize with our weakness because he suffered it.

 

[JIM]

That is absolutely read into the scripture.

So what is the Calvinist version of when Paul was alive before the law came?

 

[Arial]

The fact that their flesh did not change is proved by their desiring of the fruit.
When the flesh desires something forbidden it is called covetousness.
And that’s the word used to describe Eve’s desire. She coveted the fruit.
This proves that their flesh was more powerful than the law.
And that’s why it’s said that the law is made weak by the flesh.

The fact that people deny this truth is because they want someone or something else to blame other than themselves for sin.

Well that is your view, which you have made clear on a number of occasions, always the same response to what is posted to the contrary. What would be super great is if what I said in my post was addressed as though it had at least been considered. Just denying it with the same argument that has previously been stated, is not a debate or a discussion---it is just an empty argument. So I will leave you to it.

 

[Arial]

So what is the Calvinist version of when Paul was alive before the law came?

This is not the Calvinist board. This is not a discussion on Calvinism. I would be happy to give you a biblical exegesis of the passage if you would be interested in that. The word "Calvinism" in a place where it does not belong, and as the single thing put forward to disagree with what someone says, is invalid. "Calvinism" as an accusation is not actually a weapon and has no business being falsely used as one.

 

[LeviR]

It most certainly did changed. He now had in his flesh (which includes all of him---his mind, his will, his spirit, everything that makes up a human who was created very good, from the dust.

What he was forbidden, that is what he did. And that tree was not just any old tree. It was a tree that had something that Adam and Eve did not have already, a knowledge they did not have. The knowledge of evil right along side the good that he did have. He ate it. He consumed it. It went into him. It became a part of him that was not a part of him when he was created. Every human born is born with that same knowledge in them----look around if you do not believe me.

So, all the distractions aside, what do you have to say about even toddlers expressing rebellion as quickly and easily as breathing, or eating, or sleeping or anything else?

The Scripture doesn’t teach Adam’s flesh changed. It teaches that he was the natural man made from dust and that this natural man of flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. He has to have a change of nature. This change comes by being raised from the dead.
To say that Adam was very good does not mean he was made perfect. It simply means he was very good as far as being a natural man made from dust is very good.
A person who is raised from the dead with the divine nature is one who is not subject to trials whereby he could fail because if he did he would die. The wages of sin is death. And a person raised with the divine nature is not subject to death.

If Adam was created with the divine nature he would not be subject to sin.

As far as toddlers expressing rebellion, they do so because they are flesh. They want what they want. Just like the rest of us.
The flesh needs to be controlled.
However, no matter how much we control our desires, we can not change our nature. It can only be changed by a resurrection to life eternal.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Sounds like you wanna have your cake and eat it too.

After reading your post I am now more confused about your theo-evo ideas.

I don't have any "theo-evo" ideas because I don't hold that view, which I emphatically reject. Please refrain from imposing that view on me.

 

[Josheb]

If you think their covetousness of the forbidden tree was not evil, I would disagree.

Coveting the forbidden kiwi was bad (and nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise). That has nothing to do with my questioning what was posted pertaining to the definition of coveting and explanation why people deny the truth. I find both unduly limited (and the former misses the point debated about the Law being the sole means of accounting for sin).

 

[Arial]

The Scripture doesn’t teach Adam’s flesh changed.

What do you mean by "flesh changing"?

I am not saying he had different flesh if that is what you are saying. Adam changed.

It teaches that he was the natural man made from dust and that this natural man of flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

He was in the kingdom of God. That is what he got kicked out of. That is how we got this other kingdom in our home---the kingdom of darkness.

He has to have a change of nature

Right. Not before he became a sinner, but after he became a sinner.

This change comes by being raised from the dead.

So God created Adam dead? Come on now.

To say that Adam was very good does not mean he was made perfect. It simply means he was very good as far as being a natural man made from dust is very good.

It means there was no evil in him. He did not so much as have any knowledge of evil. He was created mortal---meaning that he could die but but not meaning that he had to die. He would not have died had he been allowed to stay in the presence of the tree of life. And he could disobey God----he was not a puppet but was instead made in the image and likeness of his creator. So the end is better than the beginning. In the end, he will be changed to immortal and incorruptible. He will be incorruptible because Jesus on the cross didn't just put sin and death in a closet and lock the door, he destroyed them. He defeated their power over the believer in the here and now to condemn them, and at the right time, will remove their very existence. It is a bigger story than you are giving it credit for.

A person who is raised from the dead with the divine nature is one who is not subject to trials whereby he could fail because if he did he would die. The wages of sin is death. And a person raised with the divine nature is not subject to death.

We are not raised with a divine nature. I will thank you to not introduce such heresy into the conversation or any conversation. We remain human. with a human nature, but no longer with a nature to sin. And the reason we no longer have that in our nature is because we were taken out of Adam and placed instead in Christ, through faith in him.It is what Jesus did on the cross for his people. He met sin and death head on, in the most unprecedented way. On the cross. Taking upon himself the penalty our sin deserves, and dying the death that awaits all the unredeemed. His death was his victory. He had no sin in himself and death could not hold him. He destroyed them for his people. And just as he was resurrected in bodily form---it was his flesh and blood body that rose from that grave---so to will our bodies be raised from the grave when he returns.

If Adam was created with the divine nature he would not be subject to sin.

He wasn't created with a divine nature. He is not divine. That belongs to God alone. He was created with a human nature because he is a human. Sheesh. What religion do you associate yourself with? JW?

As far as toddlers expressing rebellion, they do so because they are flesh.

For sure if they were not flesh they would not rebel or make a sound or breathe a breath. They would not even have been at all.

However, no matter how much we control our desires, we can not change our nature.

That is why Jesus, God of very God, as only God can do such a thing and it is God who declares that he does do this, came as one of us, to live perfect righteousness as one of us, suffer our suffering, did our death, kill our enemies,----to take us out of Adam, and bring us into his kingdom. (Which, in case you missed that part, will come down from heaven to the earth that he made for us and restored for us as our home. Rev 21:1-7)

 

[Josheb]

The Scripture doesn’t teach Adam’s flesh changed.

It most certainly does. God made Adam and Eve good. That necessarily means their flesh was not sinful. Later, as has already been proven, the flesh is called sinful. Adam's flesh went from being good and sinless flesh to hostile and sinful flesh.

It teaches that he was the natural man made from dust and that this natural man of flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. He has to have a change of nature. This change comes by being raised from the dead.

That has nothing to do with whether or not sin makes the flesh sinful.

To say that Adam was very good does not mean he was made perfect.

That is correct, but it does not mean they were imperfect, either. He can be good, incomplete, and perfect. Most of the time scripture mentions "perfect," the Hebrew or Greek word is better translated "mature," as in a grape juice fermenting in a wineskin fermenting to maturity (perfection) to become wine. It does not mean absence of imperfection. Adam and Eve were made good, and as a consequence, they were perfect, perfectly incomplete. Take, for example, my manufacture and assembly of an automobile. I make all the part and begin to assemble them but stop short of putting on the tires. The vehicle up to that point can be good and therefore perfect in every way, down to the smallest fraction of a micron, but without the wheels the vehicle is incomplete. It may even be useful for accomplishing a variety of tasks, though immobile. Put tires on it and it is able to fulfill all its purpose. So, it is with the human. The seed sown in Eden was perfect, but incomplete.

It simply means he was very good as far as being a natural man made from dust is very good.

It must mean much more than that. There must be a variety of connotative meaning in the term "good," otherwise Adam becomes not-good and God become a liar. Take, for example, the strictly utilitarian definition of "good" (some Christians have used that definition with me). To say that Adam was good only as far as his design served God's purpose says nothing about Adam being inherently moral. An amoral or immoral creature is not good. That is the very antithesis of good. For that reason a utilitarian -only view of "good" fails prima facie.

A person who is raised from the dead with the divine nature is.....

And with that we get still further and further afield of the op. This entire tangent is tied to the premise of a "fall" applying to all humanity. That's how this digression began. It has nothing to do with what happens when raised from the dead. The "fall" is juxtaposed against evolutionary theory, which, has been noted by multiple posters, is an amoral "theory" that has nothing to do with any theological view of the "fall." Evolution is silent on the matter. Asking if Adam and Eve were products of evolution relative to the fall, is like asking if the craters on Mars are the product of microeconomics .

 

[JIM]

I would be happy to give you a biblical exegesis of the passage if you would be interested in that.

I believe that I posted a biblical exegesis of the passage. But I would be interested in what you think Paul meant in the passage.

 

[Arial]

I believe that I posted a biblical exegesis of the passage. But I would be interested in what you think Paul meant in the passage.

OK. I will have to come back to it a bit later this evening, when I have the time to do it justice.

 

[CrowCross]

I don't have any "theo-evo" ideas because I don't hold that view, which I emphatically reject. Please refrain from imposing that view on me.

My bad I suppose....I had thought I read you believe the earth is old and the animals evolved.
Point 2 of post 181

 

[Arial]

Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.
Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

When was Paul once alive apart from the law? Specifically when he was too young to know and comprehend the law. When did the commandment come? Specifically when he was old enough and mature enough to know and comprehend the law. When did he die? When sin came alive, i.e., when he was old enough and mature enough to know and comprehend the law.

"For apart from the law, sin lies dead." That does not, because it cannot, mean that sin is dead but in the sense sin is not recognized or that its offensiveness is not recognized. (We will see that clearly as we move along past verse 9.) When the commandment came, it was recognized as sin since it came from the lawgiver himself.

"I once was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin cam alive and I died." In his own estimation he was alive but it was not in the sense of a spiritual life. The law promised life for obedience (v 10) and then he recognized law keeping was required. Trying to obey it made him realize that inwardly the desires of his heart were for what was forbidden and he knew he had been breaking the law even before he knew the law. And even after he knew it, he could not stop doing it. He knew he was lifeless and lost, contrary to what he thought he knew before it was weighed against the law.

It was sin in him that was producing death (vs 13-14) 17-18. "So it is no longer I who do it but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right but not the ability to carry it out.

There is nothing in chapter seven that makes any reference to the age of a person or Paul's age when he became aware of sin. Paul is simply using himself as an example to bring forth his point. And in fact, he relates it to what is ongoing in himself even as he is writing as a believer.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

My bad I suppose....I had thought I read you believe the earth is old and the animals evolved.
Point 2 of post 181

I'm an old-earth creationist who accepts evolution. So, yes, I believe the earth is old and animals evolved.

I am not an evolutionist, however, theistic or otherwise. I am a creationist.

 

[JIM]

"For apart from the law, sin lies dead." That does not, because it cannot, mean that sin is dead but in the sense sin is not recognized or that its offensiveness is not recognized. (We will see that clearly as we move along past verse 9.) When the commandment came, it was recognized as sin since it came from the lawgiver himself.

"Apart from the law" means "in absence of law; where no law exists". The law here is not just the Law of Moses, but any law of God. This is very similar Romans 4:15, "Where there is no law there is no transgression". However, the point here in 7:8 is a bit stronger. 4:15 says that nothing counts as sin without a law to identify it as such. Here the point is that sin, as sin, lies dormant and ineffective, lacking in power and in this sense "dead", for all practical sense, without the law as a means to use against the sinner. In such a case there is no commandment giving rise to be a temptation to further sin.

Here we need to back up a bit to consider The first part of verse 8, "But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness" . How can the commandment be an opportunity for sin? In what sense can sin produce disobedience in a person through the very means that is designed to prevent it. The most obvious answer is the fact that very often prohibitions awaken the desire to break them. As often happens as a child, or even as an adult, being told not to do something arouses the thought or desire to do the very thing that is being prohibited. Proverbs 9:17 says, "Stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant." The prohibition has the effect of fixing the thought strongly in the imagination and thereby to give it a charm of its own. It has the effect of arousing the spirit of rebellion.

"I once was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin cam alive and I died." In his own estimation he was alive but it was not in the sense of a spiritual life.

When Paul says, "I was once alive apart from the law", He clearly does not have reference to physical life. It can only be in the sense of a spiritual life that he is referencing. By your statement that was not in the sense of a spiritual life, you are imposing your doctrine of Total Depravity into Paul's argument. The spiritual sense is the only rational sense that Paul can be addressing. So when could that have been? This can only have been in the period when he, as a child, was living before he comes to understand the significance of living in a world subject to the law of God, the creator. This is the very meaning of "apart from the law". It can't mean "apart from the existence of law". Beginning with Adam, there never has been such a time in human history, and certainly not in Paul's life.

The law promised life for obedience (v 10) and then he recognized law keeping was required. Trying to obey it made him realize that inwardly the desires of his heart were for what was forbidden and he knew he had been breaking the law even before he knew the law. And even after he knew it, he could not stop doing it. He knew he was lifeless and lost, contrary to what he thought he knew before it was weighed against the law.

Are you seriously trying to argue that as a newborn baby or even a young child that he recognized that law keeping was required, and that even then the desires of his heart were for what was forbidden? Are you really trying to say that even as that young child, he knew he had been breaking the law? And that even before he knew the law. That just makes no sense whatsoever. We, as a nation of laws, do not do such a thing and you would bring that charge against God?

What can "but when the commandment came" mean? It does not refer to the coming of the law of Moses as some have offered. Paul is specifically referring to his own situation, his own circumstances, his own life. It refers to the coming of the commandment unto the consciousness of his life as a child, the time when he first understands its significance as a commandment of God with its consequences for disobedience.

Paul continues, with "and I died". This can only be the event of becoming dead in sin (Eph 2:1,5; Col 2:13). Here again, Paul is referring to the very time in his life when this occurred. He is comparing two periods in his own life. He is personifying the power of sin in the process of doing so: Once sin was dead (v.8) and I was alive; but when sin came to life, I died" (see vv.17,20). And it is from that time on in the life of Paul that he says, "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing". And now, " if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that (came to life and) dwells within me".

So I have to say that I disagree with your view of that passage, but thank you for coming back with your interpretation,

 

[LeviR]

It most certainly does. God made Adam and Eve good. That necessarily means their flesh was not sinful. Later, as has already been proven, the flesh is called sinful. Adam's flesh went from being good and sinless flesh to hostile and sinful flesh.

That has nothing to do with whether or not sin makes the flesh sinful.

That is correct, but it does not mean they were imperfect, either. He can be good, incomplete, and perfect. Most of the time scripture mentions "perfect," the Hebrew or Greek word is better translated "mature," as in a grape juice fermenting in a wineskin fermenting to maturity (perfection) to become wine. It does not mean absence of imperfection. Adam and Eve were made good, and as a consequence, they were perfect, perfectly incomplete. Take, for example, my manufacture and assembly of an automobile. I make all the part and begin to assemble them but stop short of putting on the tires. The vehicle up to that point can be good and therefore perfect in every way, down to the smallest fraction of a micron, but without the wheels the vehicle is incomplete. It may even be useful for accomplishing a variety of tasks, though immobile. Put tires on it and it is able to fulfill all its purpose. So, it is with the human. The seed sown in Eden was perfect, but incomplete.

It must mean much more than that. There must be a variety of connotative meaning in the term "good," otherwise Adam becomes not-good and God become a liar. Take, for example, the strictly utilitarian definition of "good" (some Christians have used that definition with me). To say that Adam was good only as far as his design served God's purpose says nothing about Adam being inherently moral. An amoral or immoral creature is not good. That is the very antithesis of good. For that reason a utilitarian -only view of "good" fails prima facie.

And with that we get still further and further afield of the op. This entire tangent is tied to the premise of a "fall" applying to all humanity. That's how this digression began. It has nothing to do with what happens when raised from the dead. The "fall" is juxtaposed against evolutionary theory, which, has been noted by multiple posters, is an amoral "theory" that has nothing to do with any theological view of the "fall." Evolution is silent on the matter. Asking if Adam and Eve were products of evolution relative to the fall, is like asking if the craters on Mars are the product of microeconomics .

You claim Adam’s flesh wasn’t sinful until after he sinned????
You think any rational person would buy that?
You really think a person who is not sinful sins?

I actually believe people are more intelligent than that.