Image of God, Original Sin, and Evolution

[JesusFan]

I agree. But that doesn't mean there are no explanations. Ask @John Bauer . It can mean that they were the first two in/of a certain circumstance, and Adam being the federal head doesn't mean necessarily he was genetically first.

I take though as literal history that God created Adam as first man, and that he did not come as from primate parents

 

[makesends]

I take though as literal history that God created Adam as first man, and that he did not come as from primate parents

Right. That is how I read it, too. But, like I said, how I read it is not the only way it can be read. I.e. I can be wrong.

 

[JesusFan]

Right. That is how I read it, too. But, like I said, how I read it is not the only way it can be read. I.e. I can be wrong.

Seems though that those holding to another view are trying to fit evolutionary process in trying to make it fit based upon preconceived notions

 

[John Bauer]

That proves nothing, except that there were other sons and daughters.

Yes, that is exactly what it proves: Adam and Eve had daughters.

You said, “The Bible doesn’t say … whether Adam and Eve had daughters” (here). But it actually does.

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.

We are both making an argument from silence, but they are not symmetrical. One argument is a valid inference, the other is potentially fallacious. One argument establishes probability from the text (looking at both Genesis 5:4 and 4:25), while the other establishes compatibility with the text (looking at Genesis 5:4 while ignoring 4:25). One argument is a probative appeal to silence, a contextual argument from narrative logic, which is a legitimate exegetical move. The other argument is a naïve appeal to silence, a bare argument from mere possibility, which is a weak exegetical move.

As my response suggested, the whole matter turns on Genesis 4:25, which my argument accounts for and the other does not. (I hesitate to call it your argument, because I think it belongs to someone else, perhaps Ken Ham.) The textual coherence of that text gives my inference some weight, but it weakens the other inference.

If one restricts the analysis to what the narrative actually states, the sequence falls out like this:

1. Cain is born first (Gen 4:1), then Abel (v. 2), then Seth (v. 25).
   
   ​
2. Genesis 5:3-4 picks up the genealogy from there, saying that after Seth they had other sons and daughters.
   
   ​
3. The etiological explanation of Seth’s name in Genesis 4:25 is coherent and fits naturally if Seth is understood as the next son after Abel’s death. If other children had already been born between Abel and Seth, the coherence of the explanation is compromised.
   
   ​
4. There is no relevant text that mentions any children before Seth, so claiming there were is a potentially fallacious argument from silence, given Genesis 4:25.

When is an argument from silence fallacious? If a source does not mention the existence of x, and we can reasonably expect that it would, that silence counts against the existence of x. Therefore, to infer the existence of x ignores the evidential significance of the silence, drawing a conclusion contrary to what the silence suggests.

Whether other humans existed in addition to Adam’s family is a separate question. If we bracket that issue and focus strictly on what Genesis says about Adam and Eve’s children, the narrative provides no positive evidence of additional children between Abel and Seth, strongly implies there were none, and explicitly situates additional sons and daughters after Seth’s birth.

Like I said, I'm still young earth, …

And that it perfectly fine. I am not here to talk you out of it. I am simply arguing for my view. I want it tested, not accepted.

I didn't say there was textual warrant. I said that logically it could have happened.

No, what you said was, “The answer I read on this showed that it is easily possible there were several generations of children by the time Cain married and built his city.”

Okay, but on what textual basis did they argue for this possibility? Any at all? If you found it persuasive, what biblical evidence did they give you? What persuaded you? “Since the text says this and this, it is possible for there to be several generations of children by the time Cain married and built his city.”

I can grant that it was a logical possibility, but given what and what?

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.

If you do not personally believe that other children existed before Seth, then why are we even having this discussion? Are you simply informing me that such a view is out there? I was already aware, just to be clear. As a matter of fact, it was the view I once held.

Anyway, I don’t agree that Scripture and reason logically allow that view. They do not.

But if you demand textual warrant, let's see the textual warrant for old earth.

My argument for the age of the earth is not drawn from any biblical text, so it is not reasonable to ask me for a textual warrant. And I am not the first person to notice that the Bible doesn’t say the earth is either young or old.

Answer JesusFan's questions. If you have been, my apologies. I must have missed it.

Since he doesn’t engage in debate, I tend to overlook his posts. It seems he is here to teach, not engage—and I go elsewhere for teachers.

I remember hearing as a kid the argument from silence that dispensationalists would levy against opponents. … It didn't make sense to me back then, either. I've even heard Sproul use it on occasion, … but that argument doesn't wash with me.

What about the young-earth argument from silence that there were other sons and daughters prior to Seth? Does that wash with you?

If not, then why did you raise it?

Now I am confused. I thought you have been saying that those [pre-Adamic humans] 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.)

I think the confusion comes from the timeline—which is perhaps what you meant by sequential lines?—so let me lay it out as clearly as I can muster.

In my view there are three distinct stages: (1) pre-covenant humanity, (2) covenant humanity, and (3) fallen humanity.

1. Pre-covenant humanity: This is from the emergence of Homo sapiens until God installs Adam in the garden of Eden and institutes a covenant relationship with humanity through Adam as our representative head. So, from something like 250,000 years ago until roughly 6,000 years ago is “pre-covenant humanity,” for no covenant relationship existed between God and mankind. (I am somewhat arbitrarily defining humanity in terms of our species; if it’s not H. sapiens, it’s not human.)
   
   ​
2. Covenant humanity: This is from the moment that God installs Adam in the garden as our covenant head right up until the moment of his transgression. During this indeterminate (and perhaps brief) period, humanity situated in Adam was regarded as covenant-keepers. This pertains only to that humanity living at the time.
   
   ​
3. Fallen humanity: And this, of course, is from the moment of the Fall onward. Now all humanity situated in Adam is regarded as covenant-breakers (sinners), a divine judgment resulting from the one transgression leading to condemnation. Thus, “the many died through the transgression of the one man.”

Before the covenant with mankind through Adam was instituted—a prehistoric window spanning tens of thousands of years—humans existed who were morally aware and capable of wrongdoing. But they were not yet covenantally situated in Adam, thus sin as a covenant category did not yet apply to them. Then, roughly 6,000 years ago, God established a covenant with mankind through Adam as the representative head. At that moment all those who existed at the time became covenantally situated in Adam; humanity now existed under the Adamic covenantal regime. But then Adam transgressed that covenant, and since he stood as the federal head, all those represented by him became covenant-breakers through his offense.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
That proves nothing, except that there were other sons and daughters.

Yes, that is exactly what it proves: Adam and Eve had daughters.

You said, “The Bible doesn’t say … whether Adam and Eve had daughters” (here). But it actually does.

Ok, I see I had spoken in haste. My bad. I should have included the context more clearly. I should have said, "But the Bible doesn't say how long a time it was before then, nor even whether Adam and Eve had daughters before then."

We are both making an argument from silence, but they are not symmetrical. One argument is a valid inference, the other is potentially fallacious. One argument establishes probability from the text (looking at both Genesis 5:4 and 4:25), while the other establishes compatibility with the text (looking at Genesis 5:4 while ignoring 4:25). One argument is a probative appeal to silence, a contextual argument from narrative logic, which is a legitimate exegetical move. The other argument is a naïve appeal to silence, a bare argument from mere possibility, which is a weak exegetical move.

As my response suggested, the whole matter turns on Genesis 4:25, which my argument accounts for and the other does not. (I hesitate to call it your argument, because I think it belongs to someone else, perhaps Ken Ham.) The textual coherence of that text gives my inference some weight, but it weakens the other inference.

Correct. It isn't really my argument.

If one restricts the analysis to what the narrative actually states, the sequence falls out like this:

1. Cain is born first (Gen 4:1), then Abel (v. 2), then Seth (v. 25).
2. Genesis 5:3-4 picks up the genealogy from there, saying that after Seth they had other sons and daughters.
3. The etiological explanation of Seth’s name in Genesis 4:25 is coherent and fits naturally if Seth is understood as the next son after Abel’s death. If other children had already been born between Abel and Seth, the coherence of the explanation is compromised.
4. There is no relevant text that mentions any children before Seth, so claiming there were is a potentially fallacious argument from silence, given Genesis 4:25.

Granted, but one does not restrict the analysis to what the narrative actually states. If one does, then one draws conclusions instead of most-likely-accurate-constructions. That's the same thing the most rabid young-earth creationists do.

When is an argument from silence fallacious? If a source does not mention the existence of x, and we can reasonably expect that it would, that silence counts against the existence of x. Therefore, to infer the existence of x ignores the evidential significance of the silence, drawing a conclusion contrary to what the silence suggests.

Reasonably expect by whose measure? While I grant you that I would weight this or that according to whether the silence seems (or doesn't seem) significant, I'm saying there is always more I haven't thought of—always more I don't know, always more I didn't realize. I also realize that I am necessarily biased.

Whether other humans existed in addition to Adam’s family is a separate question. If we bracket that issue and focus strictly on what Genesis says about Adam and Eve’s children, the narrative provides no positive evidence of additional children between Abel and Seth, strongly implies there were none, and explicitly situates additional sons and daughters after Seth’s birth.

I agree with you that the silence of for whom the city was built, or of from where Cain finds a wife, is ominous towards young earth. My only point is that it is possible that there were other children unmentioned, before Seth.

To me, it is NOT reasonable to draw a conclusion to the matter on the basis of silence.

No, what you said was, “The answer I read on this showed that it is easily possible there were several generations of children by the time Cain married and built his city.”

Okay, but on what textual basis did they argue for this possibility? Any at all? If you found it persuasive, what biblical evidence did they give you? What persuaded you? “Since the text says this and this, it is possible for there to be several generations of children by the time Cain married and built his city.”

I can grant that it was a logical possibility, but given what and what?

I can't say I found it persuasive, only "easily" possible (as concerns the amount of time it would take for the several generations.)

I see you wish to balance the two on a scale, given they are not drawn on textual warrant, what's left is evidential warrant. Seeing as how I'm not convinced of the validity of old earth, not having your knowledge of evolutionary empiricism, I'll just say that to me, it is simpler to go with what Genesis sounds like to me, and with the sound of how the rest of Scripture treats it. And no, I don't trust that hermeneutic, either.

If you do not personally believe that other children existed before Seth, then why are we even having this discussion? Are you simply informing me that such a view is out there? I was already aware, just to be clear. As a matter of fact, it was the view I once held.

Anyway, I don’t agree that Scripture and reason logically allow that view. They do not.

In your opinion they don't, anyway. In my opinion what Scripture says does logically allow for it. It doesn't demand it, but it is a possible explanation.

My argument for the age of the earth is not drawn from any biblical text, so it is not reasonable to ask me for a textual warrant. And I am not the first person to notice that the Bible doesn’t say the earth is either young or old.

What about the young-earth argument from silence that there were other sons and daughters prior to Seth? Does that wash with you?

If not, then why did you raise it?

Lol, call it 'Devil's advocate'. I was interested though, in why you reject the notion, and I got my answer for that —thank you.

 

[makesends]

Guess difference between hw young/old Earthers would see this would be based upon how we view genesis, is it historical accurate account, or metaphor, myth not inspired, based upon legends etc?

Just in case you hadn't considered it, 'historically accurate', vs 'metaphor, myth, legend, not verbal plenary inspired', are not the only alternatives. There is, for example, 'historically accurate, but imprecise, incomplete'.

Look at the bottom @John Bauer 's post #24 and engage with him substantively. Ask for further reasoning, if you don't understand what he's saying; he is not the enemy. He does believe in plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

 

[makesends]

I think the confusion comes from the timeline—which is perhaps what you meant by sequential lines?—so let me lay it out as clearly as I can muster.

In my view there are three distinct stages: (1) pre-covenant humanity, (2) covenant humanity, and (3) fallen humanity.

1. Pre-covenant humanity: This is from the emergence of Homo sapiens until God installs Adam in the garden of Eden and institutes a covenant relationship with humanity through Adam as our representative head. So, from something like 250,000 years ago until roughly 6,000 years ago is “pre-covenant humanity,” for no covenant relationship existed between God and mankind. (I am somewhat arbitrarily defining humanity in terms of our species; if it’s not H. sapiens, it’s not human.)
2. Covenant humanity: This is from the moment that God installs Adam in the garden as our covenant head right up until the moment of his transgression. During this indeterminate (and perhaps brief) period, humanity situated in Adam was regarded as covenant-keepers. This pertains only to that humanity living at the time.
3. Fallen humanity: And this, of course, is from the moment of the Fall onward. Now all humanity situated in Adam is regarded as covenant-breakers (sinners), a divine judgment resulting from the one transgression leading to condemnation. Thus, “the many died through the transgression of the one man.”

Before the covenant with mankind through Adam was instituted—a prehistoric window spanning tens of thousands of years—humans existed who were morally aware and capable of wrongdoing. But they were not yet covenantally situated in Adam, thus sin as a covenant category did not yet apply to them. Then, roughly 6,000 years ago, God established a covenant with mankind through Adam as the representative head. At that moment all those who existed at the time became covenantally situated in Adam; humanity now existed under the Adamic covenantal regime. But then Adam transgressed that covenant, and since he stood as the federal head, all those represented by him became covenant-breakers through his offense.

Well, no. I meant more specifically, Adam's progeny. But your answer does the job for me anyway, without me having to ask succeeding questions. Thank you. This is actually what I've been hoping to get from you all along —just how you lay it all out...

So, (1) Pre-covenant humanity: These are at-least ignorant of sin, but capable of societal norms/social morality. "To him who knows to do good and doesn't do it, to him it is sin." does not apply to them, unless "sin", there, is only transgression of norms, (referring back to what you have said concerning 'wrongdoing' vs. 'sin'), if I'm reading you right.

So, (2) Covenant humanity: I assume you mean, Adam's contemporaries, and probably meaning, those younger than Adam, whether or not his progeny. Myself, I don't see why draw the line there, but, ok. But then, I assume Adam was indeed a special creation without a belly button. I don't see the curse as necessarily obeying temporal norms in its effects (to include Adam's federal headship, God's imputation of sin upon humanity, nor that it be only progeny related (lol, but far be it from me to make your case stronger!)

So, (3) Fallen humanity: Yes, “the many died through the transgression of the one man.” and (I say) by way of imputation and by actual sin against Conscience —"To him who knows to do good, and doesn't do it, to him it is sin." which is sin against God. Actual sin, and not mere wrongdoing. "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—" (Interesting question there: Does what I highlighted figure into the grammar as cause of death, evidence of death, re-iteration of the premise "just as sin came through one man", or what? Is it speaking of the actual sins or the imputed sin or what? Evidence of the sin nature? —What is the logic of that statement?)

I would be interested in hearing your take on my point (that may help your argument) that if Adam was isolated, not associated with ancestry, that God's curse and imputation of sin could well extend before Adam's actual point-in-time of disobedience. I do assume, though I don't recall hearing it from you, that you would suppose that present day, Adam is an ancestor to all living humans. Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a necessary fact for all to be under the curse and to have the sin nature and to have his sin imputed to them, if one doesn't think the sin nature is genetically passed down. Particularly, since Adam's contemporaries were not all his progeny, in your view, yet were constrained by the sin nature and imputed with his guilt—he being their federal head by God's mere sayso.

 

[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

Admit to the possibility that just because you see NO reasoning from the scriptures to support it, doesn't mean there is none.

 

[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 find that a stretch, but I'll leave it alone for now. It is not seminal to the OP.

 

[John Bauer]

Okay, I see that I had spoken in haste. My bad. I should have included the context more clearly. I should have said, "But the Bible doesn't say how long a time it was before then, nor even whether Adam and Eve had daughters before then."

Fair. But I answered that point, so we can move along.

Correct. It isn't really my argument.

Okay, but you didn’t answer my question: If this isn’t your argument, and if you don’t personally believe this, then why are we even having this discussion? Are you simply informing me that such a view exists? If so, then I was already aware. I even held that view myself once. (I was formerly a young-earth creationist.)

So, we are having this discussion not because you believe this yourself (for you don’t) and not because I needed to be made aware that it exists (for I knew it already) but rather because … what?

Granted. But one does not restrict the analysis to what the narrative actually states. If one does, then one draws conclusions instead of most-likely-accurate constructions. That's the same thing that the most-rabid young-earth creationists do.

I think you are misusing the term conclusion here, because a “most-likely-accurate construction” simply is a conclusion (for a construction is fashioned from something). In other words, these are not mutually exclusive terms. A conclusion is a reasoned judgment or inference drawn from information or logic. The question is whether and what evidence properly constrains our inferences (i.e., whether the conclusion is textually compelled or imaginatively supplied).

For example, we have texts that state that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, but also that there is only one God. We conclude, therefore, that this one God is three persons. Although we don’t have any text stating that explicitly, it is stated implicitly. That is why the Westminster Confession of Faith says that things may be concluded “by good and necessary consequence” from Scripture.

Note, too, that I referred to “the analysis” being restricted to what the narrative states. When it comes to questions about Adam and Eve’s children, what is it that we’re analyzing? Only the biblical text, for we are not looking at apocrypha or archeology or anything else—especially not untethered imagination.

So, to return to my point: If one restricts the analysis to what the narrative actually states, the sequence falls out like this:

• Cain → Abel → Seth → other sons and daughters.

Does Scripture allow the mere possibility that Adam and Eve had children between Abel and Seth? I don’t think so. It looks to me like Genesis 4:25 rules that out (for the reasons presented in my argument).

“But if these were daughters, not sons,” comes the rejoinder, “then the coherence of the narrative logic is maintained.” And that is precisely the untethered imagination to which I referred. This needs to be highlighted: That move is not an inference from the text, but rather an attempt to protect a possibility that the text itself never suggests.

If you want to raise a mere possibility based on untethered imagination to challenge the exegetical and logical force of my argument, then please feel free. I think it can only underscore the strength of my argument.

“Reasonably expect” by whose measure?

It is not a who, but a what. The measure is the authorial and literary context of the text itself, the stuff of normal historical-grammatical interpretation. What does the text’s purpose, structure, and genre lead a reasonable reader to expect the author to mention? In other words, the standard is authorial intent as inferred from the text’s literary features—not the interpreter’s imagination.

What is a “reasonable reader”? I would say it is someone who, among other things, operates under publicly recognizable interpretive norms rather than private imagination, and avoids ad hoc speculation introduced solely to protect a preferred hypothesis. Our own forum rules encourage members to “interpret Scripture carefully, considering context, historical background, and sound hermeneutical principles”—which does not include untethered imagination.

While I grant you that I would weight this or that according to whether the silence seems (or doesn't seem) significant, …

But what informs your choice to weight this or that differently? Does not the text itself constrain you?

I'm saying there is always more I haven't thought of, always more I don't know, always more I didn't realize. I also realize that I am necessarily biased.

Okay. Now apply that to this discussion.

To me, it is NOT reasonable to draw a conclusion to the matter on the basis of silence.

Great, now explain why.

(I will split this off into its own thread.)

I can't say I found it persuasive, only "easily" possible (as concerns the amount of time it would take for the several generations.)

It may be “easily possible” but it’s almost certainly implausible. I have run through the numbers before, in another thread. In very short order it becomes impossible to believe. The bare “logically possible” thread by which all of this hangs is so ridiculously thin that I can’t understand why you continue to not only entertain it but even defend it. You say you can be wrong, but when is that threshold crossed? What does it take for you to say, “Okay, it turns out this view is wrong.”

I see you wish to balance the two on a scale, given they are not drawn on textual warrant.

On the contrary, my view actually is drawn from textual warrant—that there were no children between Abel and Seth—and I laid out the biblical argument in four steps. You were free to challenge any of those four premises.

Seeing as how I'm not convinced of the validity of old earth, not having your knowledge of evolutionary empiricism, I'll just say that to me, it is simpler to go with what Genesis sounds like to me, and with the sound of how the rest of Scripture treats it. And no, I don't trust that hermeneutic, either.

I think those two terms are a red flag deserving attention. It just isn’t something I would ever expect to hear from a serious student of Scripture who operates in the arena of exegesis and truth—not “sounds like” and “simpler.” Those terms refer to the reader, not the text. That is concerning.

You don’t need to be convinced that the earth is old. What we’re talking about has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You can be a young-earth creationist while admitting there were no children between Abel and Seth.

---

I wrote this response last night while my internet was out, so I didn’t see your post #27 until this morning. I won't be able to address that until tonight because I'm about to hop back into the driver seat of my semi-truck and start my day.

 

[JesusFan]

Admit to the possibility that just because you see NO reasoning from the scriptures to support it, doesn't mean there is none.

If there were never mentioned in the Bible any humans before them, is that not the truth though that Adam and Eve were created as first Humans by God then?

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, that is exactly what it proves: Adam and Eve had daughters.

You said, “The Bible doesn’t say … whether Adam and Eve had daughters” (here). But it actually does.



We are both making an argument from silence, but they are not symmetrical. One argument is a valid inference, the other is potentially fallacious. One argument establishes probability from the text (looking at both Genesis 5:4 and 4:25), while the other establishes compatibility with the text (looking at Genesis 5:4 while ignoring 4:25). One argument is a probative appeal to silence, a contextual argument from narrative logic, which is a legitimate exegetical move. The other argument is a naïve appeal to silence, a bare argument from mere possibility, which is a weak exegetical move.

As my response suggested, the whole matter turns on Genesis 4:25, which my argument accounts for and the other does not. (I hesitate to call it your argument, because I think it belongs to someone else, perhaps Ken Ham.) The textual coherence of that text gives my inference some weight, but it weakens the other inference.

If one restricts the analysis to what the narrative actually states, the sequence falls out like this:

1. Cain is born first (Gen 4:1), then Abel (v. 2), then Seth (v. 25).
   
   ​
2. Genesis 5:3-4 picks up the genealogy from there, saying that after Seth they had other sons and daughters.
   
   ​
3. The etiological explanation of Seth’s name in Genesis 4:25 is coherent and fits naturally if Seth is understood as the next son after Abel’s death. If other children had already been born between Abel and Seth, the coherence of the explanation is compromised.
   
   ​
4. There is no relevant text that mentions any children before Seth, so claiming there were is a potentially fallacious argument from silence, given Genesis 4:25.

When is an argument from silence fallacious? If a source does not mention the existence of x, and we can reasonably expect that it would, that silence counts against the existence of x. Therefore, to infer the existence of x ignores the evidential significance of the silence, drawing a conclusion contrary to what the silence suggests.

Whether other humans existed in addition to Adam’s family is a separate question. If we bracket that issue and focus strictly on what Genesis says about Adam and Eve’s children, the narrative provides no positive evidence of additional children between Abel and Seth, strongly implies there were none, and explicitly situates additional sons and daughters after Seth’s birth.



And that it perfectly fine. I am not here to talk you out of it. I am simply arguing for my view. I want it tested, not accepted.



No, what you said was, “The answer I read on this showed that it is easily possible there were several generations of children by the time Cain married and built his city.”

Okay, but on what textual basis did they argue for this possibility? Any at all? If you found it persuasive, what biblical evidence did they give you? What persuaded you? “Since the text says this and this, it is possible for there to be several generations of children by the time Cain married and built his city.”

I can grant that it was a logical possibility, but given what and what?



If you do not personally believe that other children existed before Seth, then why are we even having this discussion? Are you simply informing me that such a view is out there? I was already aware, just to be clear. As a matter of fact, it was the view I once held.

Anyway, I don’t agree that Scripture and reason logically allow that view. They do not.



My argument for the age of the earth is not drawn from any biblical text, so it is not reasonable to ask me for a textual warrant. And I am not the first person to notice that the Bible doesn’t say the earth is either young or old.



Since he doesn’t engage in debate, I tend to overlook his posts. It seems he is here to teach, not engage—and I go elsewhere for teachers.



What about the young-earth argument from silence that there were other sons and daughters prior to Seth? Does that wash with you?

If not, then why did you raise it?



I think the confusion comes from the timeline—which is perhaps what you meant by sequential lines?—so let me lay it out as clearly as I can muster.

In my view there are three distinct stages: (1) pre-covenant humanity, (2) covenant humanity, and (3) fallen humanity.

1. Pre-covenant humanity: This is from the emergence of Homo sapiens until God installs Adam in the garden of Eden and institutes a covenant relationship with humanity through Adam as our representative head. So, from something like 250,000 years ago until roughly 6,000 years ago is “pre-covenant humanity,” for no covenant relationship existed between God and mankind. (I am somewhat arbitrarily defining humanity in terms of our species; if it’s not H. sapiens, it’s not human.)
   
   ​
2. Covenant humanity: This is from the moment that God installs Adam in the garden as our covenant head right up until the moment of his transgression. During this indeterminate (and perhaps brief) period, humanity situated in Adam was regarded as covenant-keepers. This pertains only to that humanity living at the time.
   
   ​
3. Fallen humanity: And this, of course, is from the moment of the Fall onward. Now all humanity situated in Adam is regarded as covenant-breakers (sinners), a divine judgment resulting from the one transgression leading to condemnation. Thus, “the many died through the transgression of the one man.”

Before the covenant with mankind through Adam was instituted—a prehistoric window spanning tens of thousands of years—humans existed who were morally aware and capable of wrongdoing. But they were not yet covenantally situated in Adam, thus sin as a covenant category did not yet apply to them. Then, roughly 6,000 years ago, God established a covenant with mankind through Adam as the representative head. At that moment all those who existed at the time became covenantally situated in Adam; humanity now existed under the Adamic covenantal regime. But then Adam transgressed that covenant, and since he stood as the federal head, all those represented by him became covenant-breakers through his offense.

Under point 1 , are you accepting as being true those creatures such as "lucy" and other primates stated to be pre human then?
So God chose out a primate toevolve further into becoming first Homo sapian?

 

[JesusFan]

Just in case you hadn't considered it, 'historically accurate', vs 'metaphor, myth, legend, not verbal plenary inspired', are not the only alternatives. There is, for example, 'historically accurate, but imprecise, incomplete'.

Look at the bottom @John Bauer 's post #24 and engage with him substantively. Ask for further reasoning, if you don't understand what he's saying; he is not the enemy. He does believe in plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.

I never stated nor viewed him as an enemy, byt do think that he is trying really hard to press into bible evolution, which is not anywhere close to a Scientific fact and truth

 

[makesends]

If there were never mentioned in the Bible any humans before them, is that not the truth though that Adam and Eve were created as first Humans by God then?

Not necessarily. That's argument from silence.

Lol, now I'm playing devil's advocate from the other side! (Maybe that's why they made me a moderator.)

 

[makesends]

Fair. But I answered that point, so we can move along.



Okay, but you didn’t answer my question: If this isn’t your argument, and if you don’t personally believe this, then why are we even having this discussion? Are you simply informing me that such a view exists? If so, then I was already aware. I even held that view myself once. (I was formerly a young-earth creationist.)

So, we are having this discussion not because you believe this yourself (for you don’t) and not because I needed to be made aware that it exists (for I knew it already) but rather because … what?



I think you are misusing the term conclusion here, because a “most-likely-accurate construction” simply is a conclusion (for a construction is fashioned from something). In other words, these are not mutually exclusive terms. A conclusion is a reasoned judgment or inference drawn from information or logic. The question is whether and what evidence properly constrains our inferences (i.e., whether the conclusion is textually compelled or imaginatively supplied).

For example, we have texts that state that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, but also that there is only one God. We conclude, therefore, that this one God is three persons. Although we don’t have any text stating that explicitly, it is stated implicitly. That is why the Westminster Confession of Faith says that things may be concluded “by good and necessary consequence” from Scripture.

Note, too, that I referred to “the analysis” being restricted to what the narrative states. When it comes to questions about Adam and Eve’s children, what is it that we’re analyzing? Only the biblical text, for we are not looking at apocrypha or archeology or anything else—especially not untethered imagination.

So, to return to my point: If one restricts the analysis to what the narrative actually states, the sequence falls out like this:

• Cain → Abel → Seth → other sons and daughters.

Does Scripture allow the mere possibility that Adam and Eve had children between Abel and Seth? I don’t think so. It looks to me like Genesis 4:25 rules that out (for the reasons presented in my argument).

“But if these were daughters, not sons,” comes the rejoinder, “then the coherence of the narrative logic is maintained.” And that is precisely the untethered imagination to which I referred. This needs to be highlighted: That move is not an inference from the text, but rather an attempt to protect a possibility that the text itself never suggests.

If you want to raise a mere possibility based on untethered imagination to challenge the exegetical and logical force of my argument, then please feel free. I think it can only underscore the strength of my argument.



It is not a who, but a what. The measure is the authorial and literary context of the text itself, the stuff of normal historical-grammatical interpretation. What does the text’s purpose, structure, and genre lead a reasonable reader to expect the author to mention? In other words, the standard is authorial intent as inferred from the text’s literary features—not the interpreter’s imagination.

What is a “reasonable reader”? I would say it is someone who, among other things, operates under publicly recognizable interpretive norms rather than private imagination, and avoids ad hoc speculation introduced solely to protect a preferred hypothesis. Our own forum rules encourage members to “interpret Scripture carefully, considering context, historical background, and sound hermeneutical principles”—which does not include untethered imagination.



But what informs your choice to weight this or that differently? Does not the text itself constrain you?



Okay. Now apply that to this discussion.



Great, now explain why.

(I will split this off into its own thread.)



It may be “easily possible” but it’s almost certainly implausible. I have run through the numbers before, in another thread. In very short order it becomes impossible to believe. The bare “logically possible” thread by which all of this hangs is so ridiculously thin that I can’t understand why you continue to not only entertain it but even defend it. You say you can be wrong, but when is that threshold crossed? What does it take for you to say, “Okay, it turns out this view is wrong.”



On the contrary, my view actually is drawn from textual warrant—that there were no children between Abel and Seth—and I laid out the biblical argument in four steps. You were free to challenge any of those four premises.



I think those two terms are a red flag deserving attention. It just isn’t something I would ever expect to hear from a serious student of Scripture who operates in the arena of exegesis and truth—not “sounds like” and “simpler.” Those terms refer to the reader, not the text. That is concerning.

You don’t need to be convinced that the earth is old. What we’re talking about has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You can be a young-earth creationist while admitting there were no children between Abel and Seth.

---

I wrote this response last night while my internet was out, so I didn’t see your post #27 until this morning. I won't be able to address that until tonight because I'm about to hop back into the driver seat of my semi-truck and start my day.

I was curious about your reasoning, and I think I have most of the answers from you that I was after. I'm going to back out, as my responses would be mostly repetitive and defensive, bordering on contentious. I'm not really any more interested in the subject than I am into eschatology. (I'm interested in most everything, to some degree, but I almost never see where I can draw the conclusions others do. And I've got better things to do than to spend my day in front of the computer just to point out alternatives to others' conclusions/ methods/ evidences/ etc.) I do sincerely thank you for your time and patience with me.

Later: Edit added: If you read Post #27 to be worth engaging with, I will try to continue with this. But honestly, I'm only trying to understand what your reasoning is—not to debate points as such. I find your point of view interesting, and wondered how you get around certain things I see as valid.

 

[John Bauer]

[Pre-covenant humanity is] at least ignorant of sin, but capable of societal norms or social morality.

Correct.

[James 4:17] does not apply to [pre-covenant humanity], … if I'm reading you right.

Correct.

So, covenant humanity [refers to] Adam's contemporaries, and probably meaning those younger than Adam, whether or not his progeny.

Correct.

Myself, I don't see why draw the line there, but okay.

It sounds like you’re suggesting the question, “Why does Adam represent only the humanity alive at the moment the covenant was instituted, rather than all humans who ever lived?” That would be a great question, one that I have not contemplated before, so I have no ready answer.

But I do notice in Scripture that covenants operate prospectively, not retroactively. But that is a theological principle I would want to think through carefully first.

But then I assume Adam was indeed a special creation without a belly button. I don't see the curse as necessarily obeying temporal norms in its effects (to include Adam's federal headship, God's imputation of sin upon humanity, nor that it be only progeny related (lol, but far be it from me to make your case stronger!) … I would be interested in hearing your take on my point (that may help your argument) that if Adam was isolated, not associated with ancestry, that God's curse and imputation of sin could well extend before Adam's actual point-in-time of disobedience.

Does Adam have to be specially created de novo and disconnected from ancestry in order for that to happen?

Interesting question there. What I highlighted—“because all sinned”—is it speaking of the actual sins or the imputed sin or what? Evidence of the sin nature? What is the logic of that statement?

My answer would represent typical Reformed covenant theology here. It means humanity was reckoned as having sinned in Adam’s trespass, which is why death spread to all. Individual sins follow from that fallen condition, but they are not the reason Paul gives for the universal reign of death in Romans 5.

I do assume—though I don't recall hearing it from you—that you would suppose that, present day, Adam is an ancestor to all living humans.

I do, because that is simply a feature of the identical ancestors point (IAP), the moment in the past where everyone who left descendants—including Adam—became an ancestor of everyone alive today (Wikipedia).

Incidentally, I argue for a genealogical Adam and Eve only because I want to affirm the statement in the Heidelberg Catechism that our corrupt nature comes from the fall and disobedience of “our first parents.” A genealogical connection to Adam and Eve serves no doctrinal purpose, so I could take it or leave it apart from that one statement I wish to affirm.

 

[makesends]

It sounds like you’re suggesting the question, “Why does Adam represent only the humanity alive at the moment the covenant was instituted, rather than all humans who ever lived?” That would be a great question, one that I have not contemplated before, so I have no ready answer.

But I do notice in Scripture that covenants operate prospectively, not retroactively. But that is a theological principle I would want to think through carefully first.

To me, 'retroactively', is a human (temporal) construction, and not necessarily valid, only necessary in physical notions such as in the passing down of a 'sin' gene, though, granted God doesn't need that to be un-retroactive. But I don't want this to get into arguments about when God's decree becomes actual .

Does Adam have to be specially created de novo and disconnected from ancestry in order for that to happen?

Only if the usual literal sense of 'from dust' and 'from his rib/side' apply.

makesends said:
Interesting question there. What I highlighted—“because all sinned”—is it speaking of the actual sins or the imputed sin or what? Evidence of the sin nature? What is the logic of that statement?

My answer would represent typical Reformed covenant theology here. It means humanity was reckoned as having sinned in Adam’s trespass, which is why death spread to all. Individual sins follow from that fallen condition, but they are not the reason Paul gives for the universal reign of death in Romans 5.

So, imputed sin, if I follow you there. Thus, something like, (Rom.5:12) "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all [were cursed]/[imputed with Adam's guilt]—", not because they were actual sinners, though they were actual sinners also. Ok. I can't really say that's wrong. It would make sense, though I hadn't considered it quite that way, but more, "they sin, which evidences what they are".

makesends said:
I do assume—though I don't recall hearing it from you—that you would suppose that, present day, Adam is an ancestor to all living humans.

I do, because that is simply a feature of the identical ancestors point (IAP), the moment in the past where everyone who left descendants—including Adam—became an ancestor of everyone alive today (Wikipedia).

Incidentally, I argue for a genealogical Adam and Eve only because I want to affirm the statement in the Heidelberg Catechism that our corrupt nature comes from the fall and disobedience of “our first parents.” A genealogical connection to Adam and Eve serves no doctrinal purpose, so I could take it or leave it apart from that one statement I wish to affirm.

Fair enough. I'm still fuzzy, though not sure if I simply haven't pegged on an answer, on whether you consider Adam and Even to be descended from ancestors.

 

[John Bauer]

To me, 'retroactively', is a human (temporal) construction, and not necessarily valid, …

I have come to interpret this as a signal from you that the discussion is over—when you raise a “temporal” angle and question whether the language being used is valid. I will respect your desire to leave the discussion, but I just want to add one thing for the reader’s sake:

• This is a theological move that doesn’t engage the biblical issue. It is an abrupt category shift, moving away from how covenants function in the biblical narrative to wrestling with how God relates to time. We may grant that God transcends time ontologically, yet Scripture still reveals that he acts within history, with covenants in the biblical narrative being historically instituted and governed. They do operate prospectively, not retroactively.

I don't want this to get into arguments about when God's decree becomes actual.

Same here, for that would be a theological excursus in the middle of a biblical question.

If Adam was isolated, not associated with ancestry, [then] God's curse and imputation of sin could well extend before Adam's [historical situation].

Does Adam have to be specially created de novo and disconnected from ancestry in order for that to happen?

Only if the usual literal sense of 'from dust' and 'from his rib/side' apply.

Assume for the sake of argument that it does apply. Why is Adam being specially created de novo and disconnected from ancestry necessary in order for the imputation of sin to extend before Adam's historical situation?

So, imputed sin, if I follow you there. Thus, something like, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all [were imputed with Adam's guilt]"—not because they were actual sinners …

But they were actual sinners, that is, covenant-breakers (because of Adam's transgression). And now their wrongdoing is actually sin, now being against God in virtue of this covenant relationship between man and God.

Okay. I can't really say that's wrong. It would make sense, though I hadn't considered it quite that way, but more "their sin evidences what they are."

Exactly. Bad tree, bad fruit. To make a historical point, it is Augustinian to say “they sin because they are sinners,” and it is Pelagian to say “they are sinners because they sin.”

Fair enough. I'm still fuzzy, though not sure if I simply haven't pegged on an answer, on whether you consider Adam and Even to be descended from ancestors.

I did answer this question. I told you that I haven’t settled that question for myself yet. At this point I could go either way, but I do lean toward them having parents.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
To me, 'retroactively', is a human (temporal) construction, and not necessarily valid, …

I have come to interpret this as a signal from you that the discussion is over—when you raise a “temporal” angle and question whether the language being used is valid. I will respect your desire to leave the discussion, but I just want to add one thing for the reader’s sake:

• This is a theological move that doesn’t engage the biblical issue. It is an abrupt category shift, moving away from how covenants function in the biblical narrative to wrestling with how God relates to time. We may grant that God transcends time ontologically, yet Scripture still reveals that he acts within history, with covenants in the biblical narrative being historically instituted and governed. They do operate prospectively, not retroactively.

That you and 99% of Christians read the function of covenants temporally, (I assume since 1. the covenant breakers lived temporally and broke the covenants temporally, and 2. the covenants are conveyed to the weaker of the two parties during time, and 3. we seem to have a hard time thinking non-temporally, doesn't mean they actually ARE. To me, this is the trap another member here falls into, to designate a particular time as THE time (and none other) that the elect fallen is justified.), doesn't mean that is the best way to look at them.

Besides that, I think it altogether valid to discuss how God sees things, even if we can't sound the depths of it, because it always gives HIM the credit for any good, it demonstrates the "Pure Actuality" of his Sovereignty so that he is no longer seen as a mere arbiter of what his creatures do, but is, rather, the whole reason for existence and its functions.

So, no, I do not intend it to signal succession nor a departure from the discussion. It may be a red herring plastered across the face of fact for me to do so, but I don't think so. I can see how you and others might think so. In this case, I would say it is you who refuse to consider this view within the argument. (For those of you others reading this, I don't say that as a contentious retort. I have not hurt John's feelings, nor did I intend to.)

Assume for the sake of argument that it does apply. Why is Adam being specially created de novo and disconnected from ancestry necessary in order for the imputation of sin to extend before Adam's historical situation?

Good point. The only real reason I can immediately come up with is God doing it that way to remove all doubts in the mind of temporal-only thinkers that Adam is indeed the federal head of all humanity since, via 'original sin'.

But they were actual sinners, that is, covenant-breakers (because of Adam's transgression). And now their wrongdoing is actually sin, now being against God in virtue of this covenant relationship between man and God.

So you are saying now that wrongdoing IS sin? To my mind, it is, since it is at enmity with God, or, in the regenerated, the old man working against God, whether by conscious rebellion, habit, or anything else involving decision. To my mind, social good is not always right, nor even ok. But, the angle of being covenant breakers does "put boots on the ground" for me as far as the distinction between humans and animals. Good point, and worth considering.

Exactly. Bad tree, bad fruit. To make a historical point, it is Augustinian to say “they sin because they are sinners,” and it is Pelagian to say “they are sinners because they sin.”

Well, that wasn't exactly what I was getting at, but I love it all the same.

I did answer this question. I told you that I haven’t settled that question for myself yet. At this point I could go either way, but I do lean toward them having parents.

Ok. I will try to remember, this time.

 

[John Bauer]

[Edited for readability. Click link to see original wording.]

That you and 99% of Christians read the function of covenants temporally does not mean they actually are temporal. I assume this reading arises because (1) the covenant-breakers lived temporally and broke the covenants temporally, (2) the covenants are conveyed to the weaker of the two parties during time, and (3) we seem to have a hard time thinking non-temporally. To me, this is the same trap another member here falls into—designating a particular time as the time (and none other) that the elect fallen are justified. That does not mean this is the best way to understand covenants.

Since my argument is not based on either an appeal to popularity (“99% of Christians”) or an appeal to ignorance (“have a hard time thinking non-temporally”), your objection fails to hit the target. Those considerations are irrelevant to the evidential basis of my argument, which is the divine revelation of Scripture.

My claim is not grounded in consensus (a sociological point) or ignorance (an epistemic point) but in the narrative pattern found in Scripture itself (an exegetical point). Is my textual observation correct? If it is not, then the way forward is to show from the relevant texts where that reading fails.

And the issue here is not primarily theological (how God relates to time) but rather biblical (how God administers covenants in history). Let’s not muddy the discussion with category shifts. The biblical pattern is straightforward: When a covenant is instituted, it governs those placed under it thereafter (notice the prospective direction of Romans 5:14).

My argument at this point remains solid.

Besides that, I think it altogether valid to discuss how God sees things, even if we can't sound the depths of it, …

It is valid in itself, but in this discussion it is invalid as a rebuttal. It is an example of the ignoratio elenchi fallacy, which occurs when someone offers a premise or argument that may be true but doesn’t actually address the claim under dispute. As I pointed out previously, even if we grant that God transcends time ontologically, Scripture nevertheless reveals that he acts within history, with covenants in the biblical narrative being historically instituted and operating prospectively.

Rule 4.4 has been invoked.

It may be a red herring plastered across the face of fact for me to do so, but I don't think so. I can see how you and others might think so. In this case, I would say it is you who refuse to consider this view within the argument.

You are correct. I will identify invalid arguments but I will not entertain them, for they distract from the argument.

(For those of you others reading this, I don't say that as a contentious retort. I have not hurt John's feelings, nor did I intend to.)

My brother is correct here, too. He has not even remotely hurt my feelings (nor has he tried). This is an interesting and enlightening discussion between two men of faith with mutual love and respect, which we continue to reaffirm privately.

Good point. The only real reason I can immediately come up with is God doing it that way to remove all doubts in the mind of temporal-only thinkers that Adam is indeed the federal head of all humanity since, via 'original sin'.

Your suggestion assumes that real clarity about Adam’s headship would come from historical or biological evidence—for example, Adam being the first human such that everyone plainly descends from him.

But that assumes fallen humanity will recognize the theological meaning of that structure. From a Reformed perspective, that assumption is naïve precisely because of the noetic effects of sin. Fallen humanity does not reliably infer theological truth from historical patterns. People consistently reinterpret or deny what should be obvious. Such a genealogical structure therefore would not “remove all doubts,” because sinful minds are perfectly capable of inventing alternative explanations.

Reformed theology therefore locates the certainty of doctrine not in historical inference but in special revelation. If God intends for us to know that Adam is the federal head of humanity, the clearest way to establish that is simply to reveal it authoritatively in Scripture—which is exactly what Paul does in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. There the representative structure is stated directly, explicitly, and clearly.

So you are saying now that wrongdoing IS sin?

Yes, presently wrongdoing is sin, for we are covenantally culpable before God.

However, prior to Adam and the garden it was not sin, for then man didn’t stand in covenant relation to God (the basis by which sin is defined). That relation did not exist until six millennia ago, when God instituted it through Adam.

To my mind, [wrongdoing is sin] since it is at enmity with God, or, in the regenerated, the old man working against God, whether by conscious rebellion, habit, or anything else involving decision.

Granted. But notice that this presupposes a covenant relation.

But the angle of being covenant-breakers does "put boots on the ground" for me, as far as the distinction between humans and animals. Good point, and worth considering.

Cheers.