Image of God, Original Sin, and Evolution

[John Bauer]

This question originated at another site but is worth exploring here, too:

So, I have been researching the various interpretations of Genesis and evolutionary theory and whether they can be reconciled.

I lean towards the Framework Hypothesis since it highlights Genesis as a theological narrative rather than scientific account. It doesn't really matter whether God used evolution or made everything in six literal day. God is still is the cause of all that exists and and is sovereign over all creation.

I do lean towards evolution, though idk about the strict Darwinian version of it. If evolution is so widely accepted among the scientific community, there's gotta be at least some merit to the idea.

One thing that makes me doubt evolution is the concept of original sin. If there were other humans aside from just Adam and Eve, then how are they impacted by original sin? Why are they punished for something Adam and Eve did? How was original sin passed on to them?

Assuming there were other humans around at the time, did they have the image of God, or was it just Adam and Eve? I think it's reasonable to say they were the representative figureheads of humanity, but did that mean they had some special version of the image of God?

One thing that makes me doubt evolution is the concept of original sin. If there were other humans aside from just Adam and Eve, then how are they impacted by original sin?

The following answers represent how my view makes sense of these issues. It is intended to show that evolution can be accepted even on a fundamentalist theology.

They are impacted by original sin insofar as they now stand before God forensically as condemned sinners through federal headship. It should be noted that I take the Augustinian view (“we sin because we are sinners”), rejecting the Pelagian heresy (“we are sinners because we sin”), and also that I understand sin in covenantal terms, so that to be a sinner is to be a covenant-breaker.

Why are they punished for something Adam and Eve did?

They are not punished for something Adam did; they are punished for their own personal sins. In Adam they stand condemned under the covenant that he broke as their representative head. And from that condition flows the corruption that produces their own actual sins for which they are justly punished. There is a distinction between condemned and punished: condemned as sinners (forensic), punished for sin (penal).

So, they sin because they are sinners. And why are they reckoned as sinners (i.e., covenant-breakers)? Because their representative head, Adam, transgressed or violated the covenant between God and mankind. “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned”—for Adam was the representative head of an entire humanity.

How was original sin passed on to them?

Through covenantal solidarity—not biological heredity. God deals with mankind covenantally through one of only two representative heads, either the first Adam or the last Adam (Jesus Christ). Those who are “in Adam” (by default) belong to the natural, earthly humanity that experiences condemnation and death, while those “in Christ” (by grace) belong to the spiritual, heavenly humanity that experiences salvation and life. These are forensic and existential realities of our covenant relationship with God. This is theology, not biology.

Assuming there were other humans around at the time, did they have the image of God, or was it just Adam and Eve?

Image-bearing is not a property that one possesses but a vocation in which one participates. It is not something we have, it is a covenantal identity against which sinners rebel. It is corporately humanity as such—not isolated individuals—that images God. Yet individuals participate in that vocation precisely as members of humanity.

Thus, it has an interesting connection to original sin. If that image is a covenantal vocation (and it is), then original sin consists in stepping outside of that imaging role to instead represent one’s self. It is the rejection of theonomy in favor of the presumption and rebellion of autonomy. That is how Adam fell, and it’s what sinners continue to manifest apart from union with Christ.

Convinced by the arguments of Middleton, Beale, Walton, and others, I believe Genesis 1 presents the image of God within a royal-functional framework. (This view emphasizes the royal-functional dimension of the imago Dei, rather than grounding the image primarily in substantialist or relational categories.) Humanity is appointed to represent God’s rule within creation, so we are supposed to function as a kind of vice-regent, exercising delegated authority under God. When understood in this sense, the fall in Genesis 3 can be described as a breach of that representational office. Instead of representing God, Adam sought autonomous moral authority (“you will be like gods, knowing good and evil”). The temptation was—and is—the rebellious posture of adjudicating independently of God.

So, the fall can be described as a shift from theonomy (representing God’s authority) to autonomy (asserting self-rule). In this sense, original sin is not merely the transgression of a rule but the usurpation of the divine prerogative: humanity abandons its vocation as God’s image and attempts to become its own sovereign. It is the corruption of the imago Dei.

Original sin thus manifests in two dimensions. First, guilt through Adam’s covenant headship: humanity is implicated in Adam’s rebellion because he acted as the representative head. Second, corruption of nature: this expresses itself as a persistent orientation toward autonomy. Human beings continue to live as if they were the ultimate authority.

And why do they continue to live that way? Because of that severed communion with God. Corruption follows from that covenant rupture and alienation, the loss of intimate covenantal communion with God resulting from Adam’s breach. Being cut off from God—the source of life and righteousness—entails death and moral corruption. Guilt and corruption are inseparable consequences of that covenantal rupture.

Now, what’s really fascinating is how all of this ties in to Romans 1, which is essentially Paul’s description of the Adamic fall replayed in humanity, as the structure of Romans 1:18-32 mirrors the logic of Genesis 1–3. Humanity is created to know God and represent his rule in creation. In Romans 1, Paul begins by saying that God’s power and divinity are clearly perceived in the things that have been made. In other words, the created order is the arena in which humanity was meant to acknowledge and reflect God’s authority.

But instead of fulfilling that vocation, humanity refuses it. “Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.” The problem is not ignorance but refusing proper relation. Humanity declines to acknowledge and glorify God as God. That is precisely the rebellious autonomy that appears in Genesis 3. And the exchange is what follows, substituting the glory of the Creator with creaturely images and the truth of God for a serpentine lie. That is not only original sin but also the first sin.

And the result is that God “gives them over” (Rom 1:24, 26, 28) into exile. That handing over is a kind of punishment, sure, but more than that it is the unraveling of humanity’s vocation. The creature who refuses to represent God becomes disordered in every dimension—worship, desire, family, and social life. In other words, Paul is describing what happens when humanity abandons the covenantal vocation of imaging God.

To recap: If other humans existed alongside Adam and Eve, they would still be implicated in original sin because Scripture grounds humanity’s fall in Adam’s covenant headship, not in biological mechanism. Adam stands as the representative head of humanity before God. For that reason, condemnation and death spread through his transgression. The image of God belongs to humanity as such, not to Adam and Eve in some exclusive or superior version, though Adam (and not Eve) did occupy a unique representative office in relation to the covenant.

If other humans existed, how do they get original sin? Through covenantal solidarity in Adam.

Why are they implicated in Adam? Because he is their representative head.

Did they have the image of God? The image is not a property one has, but a vocation in which one participates.

Did Adam and Eve have some special version of it? No, all of humanity equally was (and is) to image God.

 

[makesends]

I don't remember if you've answered this elsewhere, but,

1. did God form Adam from the dust of the earth, or did he have a mother? How about Eve? —Are the dust and the rib symbolic language?
2. were Adam and Eve the only ones in the Garden? Were they the only ones naked, or were all their contemporaries naked?

 

[John Bauer]

I don't remember if you've answered this elsewhere, but …

I did. But I don’t mind doing it again here.

Did God form Adam from the dust of the earth, or did he have a mother? How about Eve?

God fashions every single one of us from the dust (e.g., Job 33:6; 1 Cor 15:48). [1] And we all have mothers. So, this is not an either–or question. It is a both–and question: We are at once both fashioned from dust and born to mothers. The question then presents itself: Why not Adam, too?

Although I haven’t yet settled this question for myself—I could go either way—I lean toward Adam and Eve being just like us, perfectly normal human beings called by God to an extraordinary end. From Abraham to Israel and even Jesus Christ, all those in Scripture chosen by God were born to parents. Why not Adam, too?

Are the dust and the rib symbolic language?

I sure hope so, because that wasn’t a rib. That is a facile and misleading English translation of the Hebrew term sela. There is something like 40 occurrences of this word in the Old Testament and it is never translated as rib in any of them—except here, quite arbitrarily. This word designates the side or flank of something—rather like how we might refer to a “side” of beef—and in practically every case it is used architecturally (in passages about the tabernacle or temple). There is just no good reason to translate this as rib.

So, the picture is rather like God cutting Adam in half and fashioning Eve from one side. This idea is better reflected in Adam’s statement, “Finally, one that is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” hinting at so much more than a rib.

But now a problem arises. How could Adam possibly survive being cut in half? Well, God is performing this surgery, so just Insert Miracle Here.

But there is a much more cogent answer to be had, and the clue is found in the Hebrew word translated as “deep sleep” (tardema) in verse 21. John Walton explained that there are three different senses of sleep which this word can be used to describe, one of them being a person who is unresponsive to the human realm in order to receive communication from the divine realm. Examples include Abraham (Gen. 15:12), Eliphaz (Job 4:13), and Daniel (Dan. 8:18, 10:9; cf. Job 33:15). Walton explains (2015, 79-80):

In each of these passages there is either danger in the human realm of which the sleeper is unaware, or there is insight in the visionary realm to be gained. Pertaining to the latter possibility, it is of interest that the Septuagint translators chose to use the Greek word ekstasis in Genesis 2:21. This word is the same as the one they used in Genesis 15:12, suggesting an understanding related to visions, trances, and ecstasy (cf. the use of this Greek word in Acts 10:10, 11:5, and 22:17 [NIV: “trance”]).

It strikes me as more exegetically defensible to see this as Adam being prepared for a visionary experience rather than a surgical procedure—a concept unknown to the original human author and audience. So, cutting the man in half and fashioning the woman is not something that happened to Adam physically but something he saw in a divine vision and which he eloquently expressed in Genesis 2:23.

Moreover, as with God forming Adam, here we have archetypal language describing something that is true of not just Eve specifically but all women generally. Insofar as woman is “from the side” of man, first seen with Adam and Eve, the sacred institution of marriage is about recovering humanity’s original vocation. As Jesus affirmed, “From 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” (Matt. 19:4-6). Two halves brought together as one whole.

Were Adam and Eve the only ones in the garden?

I am inclined to believe they were.

Were they the only ones naked, or were all their contemporaries naked?

Were Adam and Eve, alone in the garden, literally nude? Maybe. But that almost seems beside the point. What if it signals secure vulnerability and lack of deceit? It is, after all, contrasted phonetically with the threat of the crafty serpent (ʿārôm versus ʿārûm), a paronomasia underscoring the covenantal security between them and God and harmony between and in themselves—which was about to be shattered.

To be naked was to live in a condition where nothing was concealed, not physically, not emotionally, not spiritually. There was no fear that vulnerability would be met with exploitation, nor any impulse to manipulate, deceive, or self-protect. … Adam and Eve’s openness to one another reflected a world where nothing was hidden and nothing distorted intimacy. To stand naked was to stand completely revealed, yet also completely secure. In this sense, Ross sees nakedness as a visible sign of their sinlessness: without guilt before God or suspicion toward each other, they had no reason to cover themselves or withdraw. [2]

“To be without shame was to live clothed in God’s presence, a truth that was lost in sin and regained in Christ, who restores believers to a state of glory greater even than that of Eden” (ibid.).

But this is a theological meditation, not an exegetical reading. I am content to believe they were literally nude. I just think there is more going on with that description (cf. 2 Cor. 5:3).

---

[1] According to the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (regarding Psalm 103), the word frame (v. 14a) literally means formation or fashioning, coming from “the same root as the verb employed in Genesis 2:7 to describe man’s creation.” As such, “in the next clause (v. 14b), ‘dust’ carries on the allusion to Genesis.”

[2] Tracy Curington, “Innocence and Unity: A Study of Genesis 2:25,” Way of Truth, n.d., March 8, 2026.

 

[Carbon]

I don't remember if you've answered this elsewhere, but,

1. did God form Adam from the dust of the earth, or did he have a mother? How about Eve? —Are the dust and the rib symbolic language?
2. were Adam and Eve the only ones in the Garden? Were they the only ones naked, or were all their contemporaries naked?

This is a great question. I especially like this part, "Are the dust and the rib symbolic language?"

 

[makesends]

God fashions every single one of us from the dust (e.g., Job 33:6; 1 Cor 15:48). [1] And we all have mothers. So, this is not an either–or question. It is a both–and question: We are at once both fashioned from dust and born to mothers. The question then presents itself: Why not Adam, too?

Although I haven’t yet settled this question for myself—I could go either way—I lean toward Adam and Eve being just like us, perfectly normal human beings called by God to an extraordinary end. From Abraham to Israel and even Jesus Christ, all those in Scripture chosen by God were born to parents. Why not Adam, too?

I agree that it could go either way, there, and still not contradict evolution nor Scripture.

I sure hope so, because that wasn’t a rib. That is a facile and misleading English translation of the Hebrew term sela. There is something like 40 occurrences of this word in the Old Testament and it is never translated as rib in any of them—except here, quite arbitrarily. This word designates the side or flank of something—rather like how we might refer to a “side” of beef—and in practically every case it is used architecturally (in passages about the tabernacle or temple). There is just no good reason to translate this as rib.

So, the picture is rather like God cutting Adam in half and fashioning Eve from one side. This idea is better reflected in Adam’s statement, “Finally, one that is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” hinting at so much more than a rib.

But now a problem arises. How could Adam possibly survive being cut in half? Well, God is performing this surgery, so just Insert Miracle Here.

But there is a much more cogent answer to be had, and the clue is found in the Hebrew word translated as “deep sleep” (tardema) in verse 21. John Walton explained that there are three different senses of sleep which this word can be used to describe, one of them being a person who is unresponsive to the human realm in order to receive communication from the divine realm. Examples include Abraham (Gen. 15:12), Eliphaz (Job 4:13), and Daniel (Dan. 8:18, 10:9; cf. Job 33:15). Walton explains (2015, 79-80):

In each of these passages there is either danger in the human realm of which the sleeper is unaware, or there is insight in the visionary realm to be gained. Pertaining to the latter possibility, it is of interest that the Septuagint translators chose to use the Greek word ekstasis in Genesis 2:21. This word is the same as the one they used in Genesis 15:12, suggesting an understanding related to visions, trances, and ecstasy (cf. the use of this Greek word in Acts 10:10, 11:5, and 22:17 [NIV: “trance”]).

It strikes me as more exegetically defensible to see this as Adam being prepared for a visionary experience rather than a surgical procedure—a concept unknown to the original human author and audience. So, cutting the man in half and fashioning the woman is not something that happened to Adam physically but something he saw in a divine vision and which he eloquently expressed in Genesis 2:23.

Moreover, as with God forming Adam, here we have archetypal language describing something that is true of not just Eve specifically but all women generally. Insofar as woman is “from the side” of man, first seen with Adam and Eve, the sacred institution of marriage is about recovering humanity’s original vocation. As Jesus affirmed, “From 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” (Matt. 19:4-6). Two halves brought together as one whole.

Ok

Were Adam and Eve, alone in the garden, literally nude? Maybe. But that almost seems beside the point. What if it signals secure vulnerability and lack of deceit? It is, after all, contrasted phonetically with the threat of the crafty serpent (ʿārôm versus ʿārûm), a paronomasia underscoring the covenantal security between them and God and harmony between and in themselves—which was about to be shattered.

To be naked was to live in a condition where nothing was concealed, not physically, not emotionally, not spiritually. There was no fear that vulnerability would be met with exploitation, nor any impulse to manipulate, deceive, or self-protect. … Adam and Eve’s openness to one another reflected a world where nothing was hidden and nothing distorted intimacy. To stand naked was to stand completely revealed, yet also completely secure. In this sense, Ross sees nakedness as a visible sign of their sinlessness: without guilt before God or suspicion toward each other, they had no reason to cover themselves or withdraw. [2]

“To be without shame was to live clothed in God’s presence, a truth that was lost in sin and regained in Christ, who restores believers to a state of glory greater even than that of Eden” (ibid.).

But this is a theological meditation, not an exegetical reading. I am content to believe they were literally nude. I just think there is more going on with that description (cf. 2 Cor. 5:3).

Yes, my question was meant to be followed by the question of shame, not specifically as nudity, but as suddenly their eyes being opened. Did this 'become' a thing, and were they truly ignorant of sin before they 'fell'? Was there a seminal event that changed everything? Or were they already conscious, as some animals tend to be, of social good? "They", meaning, mankind—not just Adam and Eve.

Here's where my mind is going with this: The evolutionary "record" is usually interpreted by modern man to show early man as hunters, meat eaters, and to include no Oxen-toothed tigers. I see you thinking that selfishness (not the same thing as self-interest) is a new development since the fall, along with the rest of the hardship and suffering of life. While I agree that is possible, it seems to me a stretch if there were people before Adam. In fact, to me it seems a stretch to accept Gen 1 both literally, (physically, cosmologically, taxonomically etc), and evolutionary. but like I've said for years, we don't see God's POV.

 

[John Bauer]

Yes, my question was meant to be followed by the question of shame—not specifically as nudity, but as suddenly their eyes being opened. Did this “become” a thing, and were they truly ignorant of sin before they “fell”? Was there a seminal event that changed everything? Or were they already conscious of social good, as some animals tend to be? (And by “they” I mean mankind, not just Adam and Eve.)

Here is what I have said before regarding this—and it was to you!—which I believe answers your question here. I have highlighted the most relevant parts of the answer:

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 see you thinking that selfishness (not the same thing as self-interest) is a new development since the fall, along with the rest of the hardship and suffering of life.

Where do you see me saying this?

 

[makesends]

Here is what I have said before regarding this—and to you!—which I believe answers your question here. I have highlighted the most relevant parts of the answer:

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).

Something's not clicking with me, here. Oh well. My objection to pre-Adamic humanity doesn't need answered down this tangent.

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.

This indentation is not my doing, and I can't undo it. Weird.

So, like, 'sin' against conscience may or may not be sin against God? Conscience gives us a view of both, (a) "wrongdoing", and, (b) "sin".

makesends said:
I see you thinking that selfishness (not the same thing as self-interest) is a new development since the fall, along with the rest of the hardship and suffering of life

Where do you see me saying this?

I guess I didn't absorb all the above well enough. I'm not sure I do still, but this is tangential to the OP, and not needing hashed out here. I'm going to Hamartiology with it, because I struggle with just where does God see sin. "To him who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." This may help me with @Eleanor 's view of pre-Mosaic sin.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't remember if you've answered this elsewhere, but,

1. did God form Adam from the dust of the earth, or did he have a mother? How about Eve? —Are the dust and the rib symbolic language?
2. were Adam and Eve the only ones in the Garden? Were they the only ones naked, or were all their contemporaries naked?

bible very clear that mankind was a direct and special creation of God directly, as were the first humans upon the earth

 

[JesusFan]

Something's not clicking with me, here. Oh well. My objection to pre-Adamic humanity doesn't need answered down this tangent.

This indentation is not my doing, and I can't undo it. Weird.

So, like, 'sin' against conscience may or may not be sin against God? Conscience gives us a view of both, (a) "wrongdoing", and, (b) "sin".

makesends said:
I see you thinking that selfishness (not the same thing as self-interest) is a new development since the fall, along with the rest of the hardship and suffering of life

I guess I didn't absorb all the above well enough. I'm not sure I do still, but this is tangential to the OP, and not needing hashed out here. I'm going to Hamartiology with it, because I struggle with just where does God see sin. "To him who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." This may help me with @Eleanor 's view of pre-Mosaic sin.

I am still looking to where anywhere in the Bible stated that Adam and Eve were not the first humans , and if they were not, were they born from primates, as descendants of lower primate humans then?

 

[makesends]

I am still looking to where anywhere in the Bible stated that Adam and Eve were not the first humans , and if they were not, were they born from primates, as descendants of lower primate humans then?

I'm not the one to provide that answer. I know of a few instances where I'm wondering where somebody came from, but I have had good answers for them from young earthers. For example, when Cain married, I always assumed he married a sister, since at the time (I thought) there was nobody else. But the Bible doesn't say how long a time it was before then, nor even whether Adam and Eve had daughters. The answer I read on this showed it is easily possible that there were several generations of children by the time Cain married and built his 'city'.

When I read that Seth was, in Eve's estimation, the replacement for Abel, it doesn't say (as far as I know) that she did not have other children before him. The lack of mention doesn't lead to either conclusion.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm not the one to provide that answer. I know of a few instances where I'm wondering where somebody came from, but I have had good answers for them from young earthers. For example, when Cain married, I always assumed he married a sister, since at the time (I thought) there was nobody else. But the Bible doesn't say how long a time it was before then, nor even whether Adam and Eve had daughters. The answer I read on this showed it is easily possible that there were several generations of children by the time Cain married and built his 'city'.

When I read that Seth was, in Eve's estimation, the replacement for Abel, it doesn't say (as far as I know) that she did not have other children before him. The lack of mention doesn't lead to either conclusion.

But there is NO reasoning from the scriptures that would make Adam and Eve NOT to be the first created humans on earth, as the Fall stars from them directly

 

[makesends]

But there is NO reasoning from the scriptures that would make Adam and Eve NOT to be the first created humans on earth, as the Fall stars from them directly

I've heard that claim before; I'm not sure it is accurate—the fact that I know of none doesn't mean there are none. And, like I said, I'm not the old earth proponent here. I'll let them answer it.

 

[John Bauer]

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.

So, like, 'sin' against conscience may or may not be sin against God? Conscience gives us a view of both, (a) "wrongdoing", and, (b) "sin".

You are assuming that moral wrongdoing automatically equals sin. My model denies that equivalence, instead treating sin as a covenant category grounded in divine command and imputation.

Conscience testifies to an objective moral order; it does not itself establish covenantal standing before God. Therefore, conscience can register wrongdoing without it being imputed as sin. Conscience detects moral deviation; covenant determines juridical culpability. In other words, conscience can reveal wrongdoing that is not yet covenantally constituted as sin.

 

[makesends]

You are assuming that moral wrongdoing automatically equals sin. My model denies that equivalence, instead treating sin as a covenant category grounded in divine command and imputation.

Conscience testifies to an objective moral order; it does not itself establish covenantal standing before God. Therefore, conscience can register wrongdoing without it being imputed as sin. Conscience detects moral deviation; covenant determines juridical culpability. In other words, conscience can reveal wrongdoing that is not yet covenantally constituted as sin.

I'm not saying you are wrong, here. But what do you do with, "To him who knows to do right, and does it not, to him it is sin."?

 

[John Bauer]

I know of a few instances where I'm wondering where somebody came from, but I have had good answers for them from young earthers.

Now I am curious about the criteria for what makes an answer “good,” because none of the answers I heard were ever good. But that’s just because I set the bar for “good” pretty high—like exegetical derivation, logical coherence, internal consistency, etc.

For example, when Cain married, I always assumed he married a sister, since at the time (I thought) there was nobody else. But the Bible doesn't say how long a time it was before then, nor even whether Adam and Eve had daughters.

Uh, yes it does: Genesis 5:4, “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.”

The answer I read on this showed it is easily possible that there were several generations of children by the time Cain married and built his 'city'.

And what was the textual warrant cited for this being possible?

When I read that Seth was, in Eve's estimation, the replacement for Abel, it doesn't say (as far as I know) that she did not have other children before him.

Again, it does. Genesis 5:4 says that Adam lived another 800 years after he had Seth and “during this time” (NET) or “after Seth was born” (NIV) he had other sons and daughters. First they had Cain, then they had Abel. Then Cain murdered Abel and was exiled. Now Adam and Eve had no children. Then they had Seth, and then other sons and daughters. Also, remember that Eve named him Seth because, she said, “God has granted me another son in place of Abel, whom Cain killed” (Gen 4:25). A strange thing to say if other children had come along before Seth.

 

[John Bauer]

I'm not saying you are wrong, here. But what do you do with, "To him who knows to do right, and does it not, to him it is sin."?

What needs to be done with it? Is that being addressed to people who are post-Eden? So the covenant relationship between man and God exists?

 

[makesends]

Now I am curious about the criteria for what makes an answer “good,” because none of the answers I heard were ever good. But that’s just because I set the bar for “good” pretty high—like exegetical derivation, logical coherence, internal consistency, etc.

Uh, yes it does: Genesis 5:4, “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.”

That proves nothing except that there were other sons and daughters. Even THOSE sons and daughters doesn't mean they were all after Seth, but that Adam lived 800 years after Seth was born, and the lack of mention of any before Seth doesn't mean there were none. I agree the inference is there for the taking, though. It seems to be so, but it doesn't say it is so. Like I said, I'm still young earth, but I can see the Bible may fit either one.

And what was the textual warrant cited for this being possible?

I didn't say there was textual warrant. I said that logically it could have happened. But, if you demand textual warrant, let's see the textual warrant for old earth. Answer @JesusFan 's questions. If you have been, my apologies. I must have missed it.

Again, it does. Genesis 5:4 says that Adam lived another 800 years after he had Seth and “during this time” (NET) or “after Seth was born” (NIV) he had other sons and daughters. First they had Cain, then they had Abel. Then Cain murdered Abel and was exiled. Now Adam and Eve had no children. Then they had Seth, and then other sons and daughters. Also, remember that Eve named him Seth because, she said, “God has granted me another son in place of Abel, whom Cain killed” (Gen 4:25). A strange thing to say if other children had come along before Seth.

Does it actually say they had no children after Cain murdered Abel and was exiled? Or is that a common assumption?

It is not a strange thing if somehow she knew it would be through Seth's line that God would bring his people into being. Or even if he was somehow special to her. But, yes, I agree it feels like a stretch. I'm not saying I believe these things—I'm only saying that scripture and reason do logically allow for them.

I remember as a kid hearing the argument from silence that Dispensationalists would levy against opponents. "If the Old Testament saints were saved the same way as the New Testament saints, why doesn't it mention that gospel in the Old Testament?", they would say with foam flecked lips and fire in the eye. It didn't make sense to me back then either. I've even heard Sproul use it on occasion, saying things like, "Surely, if God had reason to say that free will enables him to save, HERE would be the place to say it." I agree with him on most doctrines, and generally love his thinking, but that argument doesn't wash with me. Lol, FWIW, I've heard Ken Ham do it too! And sarcastically!

On top of that, I am still learning not to say with finality, "There is no such evidence from Scripture". Pretty much continually, I learn to see a passage as more than just what I originally, or for years, took it to be saying. (For example, the very word, Grace —God's grace, that is— is not just simply kindness and mercy. Instead, I find, it is full of infinite purpose, power and particularity. God's decree is implicated there.)

makesends said:
But what do you do with, "To him who knows to do right, and does it not, to him it is sin."?

What needs to be done with it? Is that being addressed to people who are post-Eden? So the covenant relationship between man and God exists?

Now I am confused. I thought you have been saying that those pre-Adam are no less and no more affected by Adam's disobedience and "the curse" than anyone else post-Adam. I thought you were saying (basically) that God's judgement upon mankind is not according to sequential lines, but according to God's say-so, and thus, Pre-Adam and Post Adam are no different as far as imputation and slavery to sin and so on—that Adam and Even in the Garden are a story all their own—they alone altogether innocent temporally until their disobedience—whether or not they are descended from priors.)

(BTW, I haven't moved this tangent to the Hamartiology forum because I can't find one.)