RE: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

From: George Cooper <>
Date: Tue Sep 09 2008 - 09:31:03 EDT

Great point, Dick. Soul-less humans demonstrating a spiritual nature
seems oxymoronic. If Adam was the first "living soul" then how could
humans 10,000 years ago be so spiritual? [I suspect the real age may extend
beyond 15,000 years since Aborigines and other races were older than


One answer is Adam predates all "spiritual" homo sapiens. Thus, the 6000
years for Adam derived only by genealogies is in error. This was a bit
hard for me to swallow at first since the begats were very specific linking
father and son. But, portions of these genealogies are found in various
locations of the O.T. and, surprisingly (though you likely already know),
they don't agree with each other. There are at least 6 generations missing
in a comparison between a lengthy genealogy list found in Ezra and
Chronicles. This opens the door to allowing a time much greater than
Usher's dating, but it raises the question as to why gaps would exist in
these genealogy accounts. One obvious problem would be the fact that the
actual number of generations between Adam and Abraham would be in the
hundreds, then memorizing all of them would be quite a burden for both
parent and child in learning and teaching hundreds of chronological names.
Perhaps the names that are chosen for memory are done so according to either
their prominence in society or that they names fit some sort of poetic
meter. Any chance of these names fit some sort of mnemonic advantage, Dick?


Another possibility is that God elected at some point after Adam to extend
that which He gave Adam and Eve to all homo sapiens, perhaps after the fall
when they would have reproduced and sent their children out to mix with the


One allusion, though slight, to the idea of both pre-Adamites and their
possible limited spiritual state is found in the verse that establishes
Jubal as the father of the harp (not the flute). I understand that the
word for harp does indicate it is not a flute, but something much greater.
If flutes were, essentially, the first manufactured instrument and they
predate Adam's period then it makes sense that Jubal would not be credited
with the first instrument, but the first advanced musical instrument (ie
harp). Just how superior a harp would be in indicating spirituality is a
tough question, admittedly, but it is worth mentioning.








From: [] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically


Hi George, you wrote:


>>The pre-Adamites were likely human in every respect except for the lack of
the one specific item special introduced into Adam -- a living soul and "son
of God" (Luke 3:38).<<


A "living soul" has always been a problem for me. Pre-Adamites are
co-Adamites and post-Adamites. Take native Americans for one example for
which remains have been found near Clovis NM dating to earlier than 10,000
years ago which are likely ancestral to modern-day Indians. Were the
ancestors born without souls and then acquired them 7,000 years ago when
Adam was introduced? In short there really is no logical scenario that
would say they "lacked" anything but that present-day humans have something
special. Which takes us back to how do we have souls and when did we get
them, and Adam's late entry merely complicates the matter.


Dick Fischer, GPA president

Genesis Proclaimed Association

"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically



Hi Bethany,


You said: There are several problems: First, what happened to these
pre-Adamites? or did they simply 'become human' along the way?


The pre-Adamites were likely human in every respect except for the lack of
the one specific item special introduced into Adam -- a living soul and "son
of God" (Luke 3:38). This first soul and son warranted God's own breath
(literal or figurative) and he was promptly, by grace, given place in a very
unique and wonderful garden, which was out of reach for the indigenous


Bethany said: The pre-Adamites may have been granted souls, perhaps after
sin had entered. Or, Adam's descendants may have eventually displaced them
through marriage with them. I favor the latter case since I have learned
that the genealogy accounts are not inerrant.


Second, this approach still ignores the purpose and genre of the chapters as
trying to explain God and origins.


The message that God is Creator is quite clear. The complications seem to
arise in the details since what we seem to have is a simple account from a
simple observer. Only 6 separate times (ie days) did our observer (Moses)
have to witness some key highlights of creation. Evolutionary ideas would
have been beyond any observer under such limited observations. Darwin
spent years on the Beagle before he put things together, and decades before
writting of it. It is logical that Moses when unsure of what was really
happening would do the very thing that John was told to do in Revelations --
just write what he saw.


Third, it is anachronistic - still trying to shove modern science into the


Shoving motion is a relative term; it can depend on your frame of reference
as to just who is shoving whom. The modern astronomy elements of an earth
"without form and void" and the likelihood of a watery appearing protosun
accretion disk are not ad hoc views. Admittedly, the pre-Adamites idea may
not be as easy to integrate, but it does offer much in explanation. How
anachronistic this is is hardly reason to dismiss it.


Fourth, you'd still need humanity to be fanning out of the middle-east
instead of Africa.

No. As long as we don't restrict time, we should be fine. Cain's would
have married a pre-Adamite who might have had a MtDNA trail back to Africa.
If only sons were born to the decendants of Adam's daughters, we will never
see the daughters MtDNA, as I understand it. Of course, it might still be
out there, and new genographic studies may have much to say on this topic.
[The Y-chromosome trail is another issue may or may not be so simple.]


Thanks for your comments.






On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:30 AM, George Cooper <>

Gordon said: In fact, one might ask how Adam was supposed to understand what
it meant to die the day he ate from the tree if he hadn't seen something
that was dead.

Indeed, how would Adam suddenly coming from dust understand anything at all?
What would be necessary, I assume, is a set of specific neurological
patterns that would allow assimilation of the that which is being observed,
as well as, a logic center that was capable of assigning meaning to these
categorized sensory signals? If such patterns existed already that were
well adapted to the environment in dealing with reality, then, perhaps, they
could be the basis for the pattern placed into our instant Adam and Eve.
This is almost identical to having molecular patterns (eg DNA) already in
existence to create a physical body, albeit greater care and logical
arrangement would seem necessary for creating a mind that could understand
things. The idea of Pre-Adamites serving this purpose for a living soul
human to emerge by God's own deliberate hand does make some sense. Adam may
not have had images in his mind of actual death "experiences" but he may
have understood death to mean something like the opposite of living, which
he was now experiencing.

I am curious of everyone's opinion of whether or not pre-Adamaites would,
essentially, eliminate inconsistency between evolution and a literal Adam?


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of gordon brown
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically


The "no sickness, no tears, no pain, no death" that conflicts with science

is an interpretation of Genesis, not what it actually says. In fact, one

might ask how Adam was supposed to understand what it meant to die the day

he ate from the tree if he hadn't seen something that was dead. The Garden

required watering and a human gardener. The really unusual thing in the

Garden was the tree of life. It isn't until near the end of Chapter 3 that

we get even a clue as to what it was for. I think that that is where the

question of literal interpretation and agreement or disagreement with

science is most readily raised.

Revelation builds on themes from the Old Testament. Just as Genesis almost

from the beginning introduces the Garden of Eden, Revelation almost at the

end describes a new Garden of Eden. However it is far more than a

recycling. In the new Garden or city there is no sun, no moon, and no

night. This is seen as being much better than the old Garden.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)


On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Bethany Sollereder wrote:

> Gordon,


> Actually, if you look in the LXX, Gen 2:8 uses the word paradise (*

> paradeison*) to describe the garden of Eden. But the word just means an

> idyllic place or state - in fact when I just looked it up, paradise was

> defined as "the abode of Adam and Eve before the Fall in the biblical

> account of the creation: the Garden of Eden". It was a place where the

> forces of chaos had been dealt with by the acts of creation. Humans had a

> task, but it was one they were well able to do. They were in need of

> - there was no sickness, no tears, no pain, no death. And to top it all

> off, God walked in the garden with them.

> In fact, take a look at the late chapters of Revelations and we see a

> recycling of many of the same things, only it is a garden-city in Rev, not

> just a garden.


> Hope this helps.


> Bethany


To unsubscribe, send a message to with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 9 09:31:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 09 2008 - 09:31:42 EDT