• Welcome to White Horse Forums. We ask that you would please take a moment to introduce yourself in the New Members section. Tell us a bit about yourself and dive in!

The Genealogical Adam and Eve

Mr E

Mr E

Administrator
Site Supporter

Genetic Researcher- Dr Joshua Swamidass​

​

The Genealogical Hypothesis​

Simply stated, the hypothesis has six premises:

  1. They lived recently in the Middle East. Perhaps as recently as 6,000 years ago (the earliest promoted by YEC), but the precise date is not necessary. “Recently” is a relative term when considering billions of years.
  2. They are genealogical ancestors of everyone. By 1 AD, Adam and Eve are a couple from whom all humans then living descend. It’s unclear (to me) why Swamidass chooses this rather arbitrary date. If there’s a reason for it, I read over it.
  3. They are de novo That is, God created Adam and Eve via a direct act. Swamidass believes that humanity existed outside the Garden of Eden, created through evolution, but God creates Adam and Eve as a specially created couple.
  4. Interbreeding between their lineage and others. Because of the genetic difficulties with tracing human population back to a single pair and scientific evidence that humanity evolved as a population, Swamidass holds that, post-Fall, the descendants of Adam and Eve interbreed with humanity outside the Garden.
  5. No additional miracles. The de novo creation of Adam and Eve is God’s only intervention.
  6. The two findings of evolutionary science. The people outside the Garden share common descent with the great apes and the size of their population would never dip down to a single couple.
 

A Theological Perspective​

When The Genealogical Adam and Eve ventures to build a theological narrative around its hypothesis, it separates Genesis 1 and 2 into two distinct creations: Genesis 1 represents a poetic account of the creation of the universe; Genesis 2 represents a much later account of the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. In this theory, millions of years of evolution pass to the point that humans—however they might be defined—have evolved. In the middle of this, God supernaturally creates a Garden and two humans. After the expulsion from Eden, into the world outside the Garden, the children of Adam and Eve interbreed with the humans outside the Garden. (Swamidass suggests that the problem of where Cain got a wife and what in the world Nephilim are find some resolution in this model.) By the time of Jesus, all humans alive are genealogical descendants of Adam and Eve.

In terms of theology, Swamidass goes to great lengths to connect some major claims of young earth creationism with current scientific evidence. However, YECs will still be disappointed that The Genealogical Adam and Eve clings firmly to evolutionary theory, an old earth, and a regional (not global) flood. The weakest theological element is Swamidass’s separation of Genesis 1 and 2 into two distinct creation events. This is not the overall consensus of biblical scholars and would be a very minority position. More work needs to be done in this area for Swamidass’s hypothesis to have theological merit. Nonetheless, Swamidass offers a unique perspective that forces the three main positions (young earth, old earth, and theistic evolution) to reevaluate their positions.
 
Interesting topic. Thanks.
Significant theological problems occur if A&E aren't the first humans.
The fallen race of humankind depends on a fallen first couple from whom all of humans came.
Not sure how a race outside the original couple is responsible for the sin of A&E. ???
Supposedly interbreeding puts them in Adam's fallen race?

]
 
RedFan said:
How does this interbreeding-with-extraGarden-primates hypothesis square with Genesis 3:20?
Click to expand...
Great question.

Also interesting the way doctrines are framed.
Eve as the mother of all humankind.
The sin of Adam as the Fall of humankind.

Why wasn't Adam the father of all humankind?
Why wasn't the sin of Adam and Eve the Fall of humankind?

What would have happened if Adam refused the fruit Eve offered him?

]
 
RedFan said:
How does this interbreeding-with-extraGarden-primates hypothesis square with Genesis 3:20?
Click to expand...
Same for Adam, "the man" ("alone"?), from whom Eve, the woman, was derived.

First occurrence of the name Adam. (the man)

Genesis 2:18-21 NIV
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.
I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals
and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them;
and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam[a] no suitable helper was found.
21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep;
and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[b]
and then closed up the place with flesh.

]
 
RedFan said:
How does this interbreeding-with-extraGarden-primates hypothesis square with Genesis 3:20?
Click to expand...

It goes something like this-- there was a group of beings in heaven-- heavenly beings, or spirits, or in the most generic sense-- angels. But these divine beings (properly elohim) created images -- figures, and likenesses of themselves--- i-dols.... and these clay figures were animated by these divine spiritual beings above. These 'people' below (in the physical realm) were the pre-adamic race. And ultimately, we are told-- that God gave them over to the 'lusts of the flesh' -turning their attention and focus on these things they themselves created, and away from our Father.

Paul puts it like this, referencing that time of creation>>>

For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
 
The 'squaring' of Genesis 3:20 comes later in the story. Much later. Like John 3:16 later.

The creator angels who 'fell' into sin and whom God gave over to pursue their selfish desires, were banned from the paradise- garden of God in that spiritual realm and vanquished to indwell their created world--- condemned to live and die in it-- a prison world, or if you want to be generous- a reform school.

While God let them essentially choose their fate and follow their own will, He did not abandon them to the grave (this earthly plane of death and dying)-- rather, God so loved the world that He sent His son to save the world from death, that any who would believe in him should not perish, but be restored to eternal life. And so began the Genesis story of one man-- one particular Adam (man) into whom the divine spirit from above was breathed into, that he might become a savior to lead the lost and forsaken back home.
 
In my view Old Testament was a procreation, New Testament is Gods creation. Beginning with Jesus first born of the Father. First fruits of the resurrection. The garden being first century Israel. The woman being his church.
 
Waiting on Him said:
In my view Old Testament was a procreation, New Testament is Gods creation. Beginning with Jesus first born of the Father. First fruits of the resurrection. The garden being first century Israel. The woman being his church.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to follow your logic. There are not two stories, but one, never-ending story.

I'll grant you this-- it's not entirely intuitive. For starters-- we have the promised Bride, what you are calling the woman and his church. And we have the Groom, coming for his Bride.... but we also have offspring, the children of this union between Bride and Groom. Rather than thinking only in terms of a future event, consider also the past.... beginning with the beginning, when this woman was taken from the side of this man.
 
Mr E said:
I'm trying to follow your logic. There are not two stories, but one, never-ending story.

I'll grant you this-- it's not entirely intuitive. For starters-- we have the promised Bride, what you are calling the woman and his church. And we have the Groom, coming for his Bride.... but we also have offspring, the children of this union between Bride and Groom. Rather than thinking only in terms of a future event, consider also the past.... beginning with the beginning, when this woman was taken from the side of this man.
Click to expand...
I don’t see myself as a bride of Christ. I can’t find any scripture supporting this concept.

In my mind this first century garden also has a tree in the midst, upon which hangs the fruit of the

knowledge of good and evil.

God also caused a deep sleep to fall on him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top