Understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal versus non-literal.

[Hobie]

I came across a discussion on whether understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal, affects our knowledge of the nature of sin. The focus was on Creation in Genesis 1-3 with some reaching into the topics discussed in chapters 4-11. When you read the Bible or any book for that matter, you must look to see if the author intend it to be fiction or actual events. One must first demonstrate from the given text that the author did not intend for anyone to read his words as a literal historical account. Any assertion that states that a non-literal reading is the most appropriate reading must provide evidence of specific figurative indicators in the text such as metaphors, similes allegories, hyperbole, symbolism and such. A non-literal approach, is a significant issue doctrinally, as the entire book Genesis is the seedbed for all of the theology that follows. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is a system of progressive revelation that builds upon itself. Meaning that Abraham built upon the revelation given to Noah and thus had more light than Noah, Moses built upon the revelation given to Abraham and thus had more light than Abraham, David built on or had more light Moses, Isaiah built on or had more light than David, and the apostles had more than the prophets of the Old Testament. Thus, what was said in earlier parts of the Bible forms the foundation upon which more light was revealed to later generations.

So how did the succeeding generations of those who were used by God has His human authors of Scripture, see the creation account. Did Moses, Jesus, David, or any of the prophets or apostles view the Creation account in Genesis as a non-literal account, it was seen by the them as literal as we see.

The Bible is set up in such a manner that there is no single verse, passage, chapter or book that contains all of the truth on a given matter. In this way, God designed the Bible to be studied and searched out and designed it so that all of the doctrines of Scripture are interlocked with each other, we especially see this in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. The Bible tells us if figurative language is being used or when something is a vision, allegory or parable, symbol or metaphor. It does not leave it up to us to guess. Absent those textual indicators, the default understanding of any given text in Scripture is literal which means that a text is understood within the framework the author intends. It means to read the text with the object that the author has in view and not to assign any values to the text on our own. A non-literal approach makes the text subject to the whims of the reader and erodes the authority of the author.

So a non-literal approach to Genesis 1-11 devalues the authority of Word of God as final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice and opens the door for spurious theories, such as evolution. Many of the new Bible versions interject mans theories or ideas over Gods truth or worse distort the meaning with the changes to the Word. God takes His Word very seriously, and so should man, who is His creation. As you can see, if Genesis is not literal then the Creator is diminished, the Sabbath is more Moses imprint than Gods, and sin was about a snake that charmed a woman rather than the fall of mankind. Its important..

 

[Josheb]

So a non-literal approach to Genesis 1-11 devalues the authority of Word of God as final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice and opens the door for spurious theories, such as evolution.

Not if God intended it, in part or whole, to be understood non-literally.

Where God intended something to be read literally (the default setting) it should be read literally. Where God intended something to be read according to any one of the many literary devices, He employed that, too, is how His words should be read. In point of fact, Hebrew is a very idiomatic language (which is one of the reasons translation into English is challenging). It literally (pun intended ) creates "word pictures" that go beyond the letter of the letters. Choosing one option or another and approaching scripture only within one pole and never any other often leads to misunderstanding (Dispensational Premillennialism has built an entire theology on the practice of misreading scripture according to a polarized hermeneutic).

Any assertion that states that a non-literal reading is the most appropriate reading must provide evidence of specific figurative indicators in the text such as metaphors, similes allegories, hyperbole, symbolism and such.

I completely agree.

The Bible tells us if figurative language is being used or when something is a vision, allegory or parable, symbol or metaphor. It does not leave it up to us to guess.

That is generally, but not always the case.

Absent those textual indicators, the default understanding of any given text in Scripture is literal which means that a text is understood within the framework the author intends. It means to read the text with the object that the author has in view and not to assign any values to the text on our own. A non-literal approach makes the text subject to the whims of the reader and erodes the authority of the author.

Yep.


The problem is there ARE indicators in the text of Genesis 1-11 that provide reason to read and understand portions non-literally.














The op is ironic coming from a Dispensationalist.
.

 

[CrowCross]

I came across a discussion on whether understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal, affects our knowledge of the nature of sin. The focus was on Creation in Genesis 1-3 with some reaching into the topics discussed in chapters 4-11. When you read the Bible or any book for that matter, you must look to see if the author intend it to be fiction or actual events. One must first demonstrate from the given text that the author did not intend for anyone to read his words as a literal historical account. Any assertion that states that a non-literal reading is the most appropriate reading must provide evidence of specific figurative indicators in the text such as metaphors, similes allegories, hyperbole, symbolism and such. A non-literal approach, is a significant issue doctrinally, as the entire book Genesis is the seedbed for all of the theology that follows. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is a system of progressive revelation that builds upon itself. Meaning that Abraham built upon the revelation given to Noah and thus had more light than Noah, Moses built upon the revelation given to Abraham and thus had more light than Abraham, David built on or had more light Moses, Isaiah built on or had more light than David, and the apostles had more than the prophets of the Old Testament. Thus, what was said in earlier parts of the Bible forms the foundation upon which more light was revealed to later generations.

So how did the succeeding generations of those who were used by God has His human authors of Scripture, see the creation account. Did Moses, Jesus, David, or any of the prophets or apostles view the Creation account in Genesis as a non-literal account, it was seen by the them as literal as we see.

The Bible is set up in such a manner that there is no single verse, passage, chapter or book that contains all of the truth on a given matter. In this way, God designed the Bible to be studied and searched out and designed it so that all of the doctrines of Scripture are interlocked with each other, we especially see this in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. The Bible tells us if figurative language is being used or when something is a vision, allegory or parable, symbol or metaphor. It does not leave it up to us to guess. Absent those textual indicators, the default understanding of any given text in Scripture is literal which means that a text is understood within the framework the author intends. It means to read the text with the object that the author has in view and not to assign any values to the text on our own. A non-literal approach makes the text subject to the whims of the reader and erodes the authority of the author.

So a non-literal approach to Genesis 1-11 devalues the authority of Word of God as final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice and opens the door for spurious theories, such as evolution. Many of the new Bible versions interject mans theories or ideas over Gods truth or worse distort the meaning with the changes to the Word. God takes His Word very seriously, and so should man, who is His creation. As you can see, if Genesis is not literal then the Creator is diminished, the Sabbath is more Moses imprint than Gods, and sin was about a snake that charmed a woman rather than the fall of mankind. Its important..

There is much in the rest of the bible that shows Genesis should be read literally. As examples the authors of the bible presented Genesis as literal.
1 Cor 15;45 tells us....Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.....If the first Adam was literal so was the second.

Continuing with Adam....A rule was made up upon the literalness of Genesis. 1 Tim 2:13 11A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.
The rule would not have been presented....A rule would not have been made up on and bases upon an allegory.

Enoch was even tied to Adam in a literal fashion...It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

 

[atpollard]

How did God separate “light from darkness” and have a “first day” prior to the creation of a sun and rotating earth? What do the concepts of day and night mean prior to an earth and sun?

Are we SURE that was intended to be 100% literal and was not making some other more important point than “Astronomy and Planetology for dummies”?

 

[EarlyActs]

Another part of this matter, especially on the early chapters, is that there should be a unity of knowledge wherever possible. In my view, that means there could be more lifeless time before Creation Week than many "literalists" think. And also that, as methods go, we should at least know the Hebrew word choices of the opening scenes. Oddly "literalists" again are lacking on that skill.

The 'spreading out' is the event that helped me conclude that there was more lifeless time. And as you rightly said: the Bible is written in such a way that no single line or verse or even paragraph is complete enough. The 'spreading out' is not found in Gen 1 until you know what it is, and then you will see evidence of it there.

 

[EarlyActs]

How did God separate “light from darkness” and have a “first day” prior to the creation of a sun and rotating earth? What do the concepts of day and night mean prior to an earth and sun?

Are we SURE that was intended to be 100% literal and was not making some other more important point than “Astronomy and Planetology for dummies”?

That's answered pretty easily. The Bible (but not Gen 1) refers to 'the spreading out' event. It describes the beginning of the distant universe, and there is some light from it. (See photos from back side of the moon, or Mars).

The brightest star in our sky is Sirius near Orion. If you look this up, you will find that Sirius has been treated as a marker for the start of daily time nearly everywhere. As the brightest star, it also means that its light would be the first marker of a day as Genesis defines, evening and morning. So when Sirius came up that that evening, that defined a day. All that happened on Day 1 was the arrival of the distant light, and thus we have a timestamp to work with.

(The other timestamp is C14 which is reasonably reliable for tracing 56K years).

If you know the Hebrew terms, you will see that 'shama' (heaven/s) is quite another (local) thing than 'kavov' (stars). 'Kavov' is just barely mentioned in Gen 1, and in only a dangling phrase. Literary observation of early Genesis would tell you from this, that 'yeah, it/they was there, but was not the subject of interest in the passage.' We don't hear about the 'kavov' again until ch 15 where they represent the mass of people who would later believe on the Seed.

I'm intrigued by this progression. Day 1 has daylight, Day 4 is when our local lights are created (with a passing mention of stars) and then it is not until ch 15 that the 'kavov' are this mass of objects that picture the future believers. (And in fact, they look like a cloud, being indistinct to the naked eye). That progression matches a text in which the POV is the earth. The 'spreading out' had already happened, but from earth's POV, light arrived on earth in a cumulative way. Thus there are features about an initial explosion that are credible.

Hope that helps!

 

[Josheb]

There is much in the rest of the bible that shows Genesis should be read literally. As examples the authors of the bible presented Genesis as literal.
1 Cor 15;45 tells us....Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.....If the first Adam was literal so was the second.

I tend too agree with the principle but maybe not the example. 1 Cor. 15 does appeal to the existence of Adam but there's nothing in the text stating Adam literally existed as a literal individual man. The veracity of Paul's statement would remain intact where Adam simply part of the Hebraic mythology. The Greek (and other cultures) appealed to their creation accounts as if they were real. One of my favorite theologians, Francis Schaeffer, wrote a book, "Genesis in Space and Time," in which he made the very same argument as Post #3 (the Bible authors treated Genesis as factual) but in at least some of the cases that is an assumption, not a given. I have always found it particularly odd coming from Schaeffer because his foundation is presuppositionalism. Maybe he should not have presumed Paul was referring to Adam as fact. "Adam," after all, is not the man's name.... unless his name was Man.

Continuing with Adam....A rule was made up upon the literalness of Genesis. 1 Tim 2:13 11A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

The rule would not have been presented....A rule would not have been made up on and bases upon an allegory.

False cause argument. There's no reason a rule can't be based on a commonly understood allegory. In point of fact, most ancient cultures do so.

Enoch was even tied to Adam in a literal fashion...It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

Well, aside from the mistaken translation in the KJV (the Greeks says "myriads." It does not specify a number), there is nothing specific or explicit in Jude 1 stating Adam is literally a literal individual human male. While I agree with the post, the post does not prove its case.


Here's another example of the problem of literal versus allegorical versus fact versus myth. You (all) have probably seen this before. We can all agree that Genesis recounts creation being made in six (and only six) days. Now, scientifically speaking, a "day" is one rotation of the earth relative to its orientation to the sun. That is approximately 24 hours (23:56:04 to be exact), and that has stayed the same over the course of ten millennia (the earth spins faster than it did 10,000 years ago but it's a difference of only about 4 minutes). A "young earth" viewpoint wouldn't matter much but an "old earth" viewpoint makes a huge difference because the earth is thought to have spun much faster a billion years ago - completing one rotation in about 6 hours!

Assuming a static 24-hour day as measured by one rotation relevant to the sun there's still the problem of using such a measure because, according to a literal reading of Genesis, there was no sun until the fourth day . Day 4 was the day God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night. That means the first three or four "days" had some other metric because the metric we now use did not exist. Therefore, when Moses later writes, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth," we can infer 1) he is using the earth-rotation metric of his day and 2) that is what he means using the word "day," in Genesis 1. That does not solve the problem of literalness because we're not reading the text literally when we read a 24-hour day into a text where no sun exists. That is the exact opposite of literal.

Then there is the complication of the Hebrew word "yowm" can mean a specific 24-hour period of time, but it can also mean a very long unspecified period of time, or an age, and it was used in reference to the "hot hours" of a day (the period of time during which the sun shone and the earth and air were warmed, a period of time that varies from fairly short at the time of the winter solstice to much longer during the summer alternative. Linguists and early-earthers have tried to reconcile all these many differences.

There are three other complicating factors (God's external existence, the (seeming) disparities between Genesis 1 and Gensis 2, and fact creation is not finished (that which God made in six days continues to unfold or progress toward its completion) but the three observations should be sufficient to realize an all-or-nothing approach to literalness has very real and significant problems.

I, personally, agree with (most of) the op and I take a modified young-earth view, but I am not the measure of scripture, and neither is anyone here. I also, personally, believe God left the matter unexplained in its entirety because of that pesky little matter of faith. Little or no faith is required when something is exhaustively explained. The ambiguity of both the content and the method by which to should be read exists to visit the matter of faith upon us. I am confident that when we stand before God and all is revealed revelation will make perfect sense and we (the saints) will all facepalm. People like Lawrence Krauus and Michael Shermer will have a much different response.

CR@P!​

The rules of exegesis help solve these problems in most cases. The better, the more consistency with which they are practiced, the better we know what is to be take literal and what is to be read using one of the two-dozen literary devices God employed in His word. One of the amazing facts of the Bible is its use of language and the fact it is literally unlike any other book ever written in that regard.

Any assertion that states that a non-literal reading is the most appropriate reading must provide evidence of specific figurative indicators in the text such as metaphors, similes allegories, hyperbole, symbolism and such.

I completely agree.

A non-literal approach makes the text subject to the whims of the reader and erodes the authority of the author.

It certainly can, but it need not and should not.

So a non-literal approach to Genesis 1-11 devalues the authority of Word of God as final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice and opens the door for spurious theories, such as evolution.

I disagree.

The Bible tells us if figurative language is being used or when something is a vision, allegory or parable, symbol or metaphor. It does not leave it up to us to guess.

That is generally true. That is also another way of saying sound, proper exegesis informs us how to read scripture.

 

[prism]

A non-literal approach leaves the door open to all sorts of conjectures and speculation, casting doubts even on the Gospel itself let alone God's veracity.

 

[CrowCross]

I tend too agree with the principle but maybe not the example. 1 Cor. 15 does appeal to the existence of Adam but there's nothing in the text stating Adam literally existed as a literal individual man. The veracity of Paul's statement would remain intact where Adam simply part of the Hebraic mythology. The Greek (and other cultures) appealed to their creation accounts as if they were real. One of my favorite theologians, Francis Schaeffer, wrote a book, "Genesis in Space and Time," in which he made the very same argument as Post #3 (the Bible authors treated Genesis as factual) but in at least some of the cases that is an assumption, not a given. I have always found it particularly odd coming from Schaeffer because his foundation is presuppositionalism. Maybe he should not have presumed Paul was referring to Adam as fact. "Adam," after all, is not the man's name.... unless his name was Man.

False cause argument. There's no reason a rule can't be based on a commonly understood allegory. In point of fact, most ancient cultures do so.

Well, aside from the mistaken translation in the KJV (the Greeks says "myriads." It does not specify a number), there is nothing specific or explicit in Jude 1 stating Adam is literally a literal individual human male. While I agree with the post, the post does not prove its case.


Here's another example of the problem of literal versus allegorical versus fact versus myth. You (all) have probably seen this before. We can all agree that Genesis recounts creation being made in six (and only six) days. Now, scientifically speaking, a "day" is one rotation of the earth relative to its orientation to the sun. That is approximately 24 hours (23:56:04 to be exact), and that has stayed the same over the course of ten millennia (the earth spins faster than it did 10,000 years ago but it's a difference of only about 4 minutes). A "young earth" viewpoint wouldn't matter much but an "old earth" viewpoint makes a huge difference because the earth is thought to have spun much faster a billion years ago - completing one rotation in about 6 hours!

Assuming a static 24-hour day as measured by one rotation relevant to the sun there's still the problem of using such a measure because, according to a literal reading of Genesis, there was no sun until the fourth day . Day 4 was the day God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night. That means the first three or four "days" had some other metric because the metric we now use did not exist. Therefore, when Moses later writes, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth," we can infer 1) he is using the earth-rotation metric of his day and 2) that is what he means using the word "day," in Genesis 1. That does not solve the problem of literalness because we're not reading the text literally when we read a 24-hour day into a text where no sun exists. That is the exact opposite of literal.

Then there is the complication of the Hebrew word "yowm" can mean a specific 24-hour period of time, but it can also mean a very long unspecified period of time, or an age, and it was used in reference to the "hot hours" of a day (the period of time during which the sun shone and the earth and air were warmed, a period of time that varies from fairly short at the time of the winter solstice to much longer during the summer alternative. Linguists and early-earthers have tried to reconcile all these many differences.

There are three other complicating factors (God's external existence, the (seeming) disparities between Genesis 1 and Gensis 2, and fact creation is not finished (that which God made in six days continues to unfold or progress toward its completion) but the three observations should be sufficient to realize an all-or-nothing approach to literalness has very real and significant problems.

I, personally, agree with (most of) the op and I take a modified young-earth view, but I am not the measure of scripture, and neither is anyone here. I also, personally, believe God left the matter unexplained in its entirety because of that pesky little matter of faith. Little or no faith is required when something is exhaustively explained. The ambiguity of both the content and the method by which to should be read exists to visit the matter of faith upon us. I am confident that when we stand before God and all is revealed revelation will make perfect sense and we (the saints) will all facepalm. People like Lawrence Krauus and Michael Shermer will have a much different response.

CR@P!​

The rules of exegesis help solve these problems in most cases. The better, the more consistency with which they are practiced, the better we know what is to be take literal and what is to be read using one of the two-dozen literary devices God employed in His word. One of the amazing facts of the Bible is its use of language and the fact it is literally unlike any other book ever written in that regard.

I completely agree.

It certainly can, but it need not and should not.

I disagree.

That is generally true. That is also another way of saying sound, proper exegesis informs us how to read scripture.

The problem with this type of thought is you no longer can explain sin...how it occured and infected mankind because the account of Adam and Eve become an allegory.

 

[Josheb]

A non-literal approach leaves the door open to all sorts of conjectures and speculation, casting doubts even on the Gospel itself let alone God's veracity.

Not if it follows the rules of exegesis. Those rules are intentionally designed to prevent the "door" opening.


Are all Cretans liars?

 

[prism]

Not if it follows the rules of exegesis. Those rules are intentionally designed to prevent the "door" opening.

One man's hermeneutics is another man's excuse.

Was Jesus the propitiation for the whole world?
1 John 2:2 ESV
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

(don't let the door hit you on the way out)

 

[Josheb]

The problem with this type of thought is you no longer can explain sin...how it occured and infected mankind because the account of Adam and Eve become an allegory.

That's hogwash.

Reading Genesis 3:6-7 literally does not prevent Paul from using the event allegorically and neither does understanding "Adam" is not a proper name. Reading "hā'āḏām" to mean "man" or "human male" or "mankind," which is what the Hebrew word literally means (H120), does not create problems for Christian hamartiology. That's just nonsense, and if you're going to make claims like that then you need to explain them and prove the claim.

Let's just say the word "ha-adam" means "man," and that specifically refers to the very first male human God made. When we call that man "Man" we are being allegorical!!! The word "CrowCross" refers to one specific male individual but that not your actual name and it would be completely inappropriate to start calling all male humans CrowCross. That is, however, what frequently happens in the Old Testament. The rules of exegesis and translation help us know whether a given mention of ha'adam is a reference to a single male called "Adam," males in general, or all humanity. Same word. Entirely different meanings depending on its usage (which @Hobie correctly observed in the op). Context and the use of language in the surrounding text matters. Therefore, when Paul later writes, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive," and the Greek states "ADAM" (because all the Greek manuscripts are written uncial), we can correctly say Paul was referring to an individual male without requiring him to be referring to an individual male actually named Adam. Had Paul written that letter in Hebrew he'd have used ha-adam instead of ADAM.

Take a look at Genesis 2:7. The NAS translates the verse as follows...

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

In English, the word "man" is used twice and there's no qualifier. The verse does not state "a man" or "the man," but if you look at the verses listed HERE it is obvious a number of English translations include a word that is not in the Hebrew. The more literal translation get the Hebrew correct. Now take a look at Genesis 7:22 and compare how the nostrils are qualified. The word for nostrils "bə’appāw," is exactly the same in both verses but in Genesis 2:7 we read "his nostrils," and in Genesis 7:22 we read "its nostrils." In one verse the nostrils of ha'adm are his nostrils and in another the nostrils are its nostrils. The first is often translated as a male individual while the second is translated as a reference to all living creatures (including the ha'adam). You like the KJV. The KJV translates Genesis 2:7 correctly so if you were to read that verse literally you would have to concede the verse means all mankind, not just one individual male of the species. The "ha" in "ha'adam" is normally a qualifier internal to or inherent within the word. It's a definitive article which means "the." So "the man" would be correct. Why doesn't the KJV and other formal translations translate it that way? Why'd the KJV screw it up? Why did the NAS later screw up its original correct translation?


How is anyone possibly going to find the inherent indicators o that tell the reader whether something is supposed to be read literally or allegorically if the translation is messed up???

If Paul had written 1 Corinthians 15 in Hebrew, then he might have written 'adam, instead of ha'adam, in which case a literal reading would definitely tell us he was refering to a specific male, a man who was formed from the dust of the ground who became a living being because God had breathed life into that pile of dust but we'd be assigning adam to ha'adam. We'd be making an inference. We still wouldn't know whether Paul was appealing to a literal fact, an allegorical fact, or simply a Jewish myth. We would know his attribution was specific.

Now I have skipped over a pile of other relevant information, so I'll cut to the chase: None of it prevents us from attributing the entrance of sin into the world to one male human we now call Adam. None of it screws up our hamartiology or our anthropology. People who teach you that either made a mistake, are incompetent or are lying. I have provided links sufficient for you and everyone else here to check into this and verify it yourselves.

And you all are still dodging my main point. The op tolerates some allegory in scripture, but the discussion is framed in a strictly either/or frame when the fact is the same passage can contain BOTH factually literal content and factually allegorical content. Arguing only one or the other is the problem to be solved. Strict literalism leads to just as many problems as strict allegorism. All-or-nothing is bad. Following the exegesis is good (throwing in a little examination of the original language and considering hos later scripture informs whatever text we're reading (in this case Genesis 1-3. The exact same problem exists on the other end of our Bible. The book of Revelation is filled with symbolism that references something in reality (Dispies often foolishly say the symbolic means something literal when they mean real). Symbolism is, by definition, not literal! Symbolism can occur in an otherwise literal narrative, but it can also occur in an otherwise allegorical narrative AND both kinds of narratives can contain facts.

None of it compromises Christian hamartiology unless we're reading Liberal Theology and those folks are not using proper exegesis or starting with a presupposition the Bible is true and correct regarding all it states in its original form. They start with a presupposition the text alludes to truth, not is truth. That is what opens the door to whim.

 

[CrowCross]

Now I have skipped over a pile of other relevant information, so I'll cut to the chase: None of it prevents us from attributing the entrance of sin into the world to one male human we now call Adam. None of it screws up our hamartiology or our anthropology.

You're dreaming.
When the entire account of creation is looked at it becomes obvious at one time there were only two humans. Adam and Eve.
In fact Eve was the mother of all living. Of course that would exclude Adam as Eve was made from Adams "rib".
The bible doesn't speak of a population falling. Your explanation of the fall of man is wanting.

Adam and Ever were two literal people.

Of course as expected, you didn't explain how sin entered into humanity.