RE: The wrong horse in evolution education

Hi Dick,

Read on - below, I'll allay your scruples. At least, I'll try:

> Hi Peter, you wrote (30 Mar 2006):
> a) to dissociate the biblical Adam (Gen.2:7) from the first humans
> created in God's image (Gen.1:27)
>
> You and I are so close to being of like minds on this entire issue,
> Peter, that I am almost tempted to concede a minor point, bite my
> tongue, and climb on board so we can present a united front and go out
> and kick the tar out of YECs and OECs =96 almost. Then I think, hey,
> Peter could make the concession. Why should I?
>
> Okay, let me just make this small recommendation. We can articulate our
> differences on what I really believe is a minor point of interpretation.
> Let=92s see where the audience falls. Everybody chime in. You will
> anyway.

Hmm, let me see...

> As you know (some don=92t) I believe that the =93man=94 (=91adam) of =
> Gen. 1:27
> is the Neolithic Adam (man) of Gen. 2:7. IMO, they are the same man who
> started the covenant race roughly 6800 years ago, not the head of our
> biological species that extends beyond a million years. This means that
> =93Adam=94 is Adam, not there is a =93man=94 of antiquity who is called =
> =91adam
> because =91adam and =93man=94 can sometimes be synonymous.

Just a minor precautionary remark: I don't believe we have to go back to a
million years ago to find the _last_ common ancestor of all living humans. And
that's all we need to satisfy the unity of the race. Maybe 60,000 to 100,000
will be enough. But it certainly has to be much earlier than the Neolithic.
Never mind any older H.sapiens. Bones and even tools etc. are hardly enough
evidence for the biblical definition of being "created in the image of God".
Indications of possibly religious acts or views of prehistorical humans are very
difficult to interpret with any certainty.

> The advantage to Peter=92s approach is that it allows all mankind to be
> =93in the image=94 which is what people prefer to think. It fits in =
> with
> their prejudices. When pastors preach from the pulpit, =93we all are
> created in the image of God,=94 they could be right on this point,

I don't believe this is a prejudice, but that they are right.

> whereas, under my approach, they are wrong. Adam was created in God=92s
> image, the rest of us blokes evolved from apes.
>
> That=92s an advantage Peter has with his hermeneutic and I acknowledge
> that. On the other hand, in my heart of hearts I don=92t think the =
> writer
> had Homo sapiens in mind. I think the writer of Genesis was writing
> purely for the Israelites and couldn=92t care less what gentiles thought
> about anything.

This doesn't quite fit with the way God talked to Abraham about the other
nations, e.g. in Gen. 12:3.

> When Christ is queried about divorce he answered: =93But from the
> beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause
> shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And
> they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one
> flesh=94 (Mark 10:6-8).
>
> Essentially, Christ links the two verses of Genesis.
>
> Gen. 1:27: =93So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
> created he him; male and female created he them.=94=20
>
> Gen. 2:24: =93Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
> shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.=94
>
> Does it seem logical that Christ would put these two verses together if
> the =93man=94 in Genesis 1:27 lived over a million years ago and the =
> =94man=94
> in Genesis 2:24 lived 6,800 years ago? At least we would have to agree
> that the word =93beginning=94 is nebulous.

Delete a zero from your million. Now, why wouldn't he join two theological
truths he knew, quoting them from the text Moses put together into the torah,
even though they might not originally be from the same historical context? They
belong together theologically and psychologically.

Jesus' reference to "the beginning of creation" when he quoted Gen. 1:27, "made
them male and female", clearly indicates that this refers to the creation of the
first humans "in the image of God". This far we agree. By the way, it doesn't
say God created "a man and a woman", but "male and female he created them". And
these are not personal, but general terms. And they specifically refer to
biological sex, thus implying procreation, but very importantly also designating
sex in marriage to be spiritual and holy.

On the other hand, the saying quoted in Gen. 2:24 (is it Adam's or God's? I tend
to the latter interpretation) interestingly refers to the man's parents. To me,
this would tend to indicate that Adam had a close personal filial attachment to
his parents, which is compared with the close personal marriage attachment to
his wife. The two relationships seem to be on a similar level of humanity as
created in the image of God. If this is correct, then the first creation of
humans "in the image of God" occurred earlier than Adam's life. Jesus' quoting
of Gen. 2:24 doesn't explicitely refer to "the beginning of creation" at all,
although implicitely it does refer to the "male and female" of Gen. 1:27.

Why don't we find Gen. 2:24 right after Gen. 1:27? Shouldn't it be there if Adam
was the first genuine human? Gen. 1:1-2:4a (a) clearly shows a different style
from 2:4b and following (b). Passage (a) is general, refers to the whole earth,
deals with creation (God: elohim), rather than God's personal relationship to
humans, while (b) is specific, refers to a limited area in Sumer, deals with
God's personal relationship to humans (LORD God: YHWH elohim), rather than
creation. (The beautifully symmetrical v.2:4 links the two passages into a whole
narrative.) Therefore, the general "made them male and female" (1:27) belongs to
(a), but the specific remark to Adam's personal experience in Gen. 2:24 belongs
to (b).

> The second point I would make is that in the New Testament Christ is =
> =93in
> the image.=94
>
>
> <http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=3Dcol+1:15&v=
> e
> rsion=3Dkjv&st=3D1&sd=3D1&new=3D1&showtools=3D1> Col 1:12-15: =93Giving =
> thanks unto
> the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance
> of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of
> darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In
> whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
> Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every =
> creature.=94
>
> That is, Christ represents God.

Yes, I fully agree: that's what Col. 1:12-15 implies. And those whom God
translated into the kingdom of Christ become partakers of the inheritance of the
saints in light. This is the new humanity, of which Christ is the firstborn. Who
belongs to this humanity? All those who are redeemed by faith in Christ,
including the OT saints, such as Abraham.

But not those who refuse Christ, although they might be descendents of Adam. So
what characterizes all descendents of Adam (and I would say all humans living
today and all their ancestors at least back to their most recent common
ancestor)? It is being created "in God's image". And this includes all who ever
rejected God. It's no use just having Adam as a father, or even having Abraham
as a (biological) father (John 8:39ff).

What the "image of God" means and implies in each context must be derived first
of all from this context. The same word or expression may mean different things
in different contexts.

> Does every human being born into the
> world since man and chimp parted company represent God?

We certainly don't have to go back to the common ancestor of man and chimp to
find the most recent common ancestor of all modern humans.

Every person has 2 parents, 4 grandparents,... and 2^n ancestors n generations
back. 33 generations get us to 8.59 billion ancestors, but with 25 years per
generation that just goes back 825 years. Clearly, some of these ancestors
pretty soon have to be the same persons, reached through different lines of
descent, just as Joseph of Nazareth, Mary's husband, descended from David at
least by two different lines (Mat. 1:6-16; Luke 3:23-31).

Rohde D.L.T., Olson S., Chang J.T., "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all
living humans", Nature 431, 562-566 (2004), wrote in their abstract:

"If a common ancestor of all living humans is defined as an individual who is a
genealogical ancestor of all present-day people, the most recent common ancestor
(MRCA) for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past
(1-3). However, the random mating model ignores essential aspects of population
substructure, such as the tendency of individuals to choose mates from the same
social group, and the relative isolation of geographically separated groups.
Here we show that recent common ancestors also emerge from two models
incorporating substantial population substructure. One model, designed for
simplicity and theoretical insight, yields explicit mathematical results through
a probabilistic analysis. A more elaborate second model, designed to capture
historical population dynamics in a more realistic way, is analysed
computationally through Monte Carlo simulations. These analyses suggest that the
genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past.
In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand
years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just
a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly
the same set of genealogical ancestors."

And some extracts from their main text:
"As genealogical ancestry is traced back beyond the MRCA, a growing percentage
of people in earlier generations are revealed to be common ancestors of the
present-day population. Tracing further back in time, there was a threshold, say
Un generations ago, before which ancestry of present-day population was an all
or nothing affair. That is, each individual living at least Un generations ago
was either a common ancestor of all of today's humans or an ancestor of no human
living today. Thus, among all individuals living at least Un generations ago,
each present-day human has exactly the same set of ancestors. We refer to this
point in time as the identical ancestors (IA) point. ...
With 5% of individuals migrating out of their home towns, 0.05% migrating out of
their home country, and 95% of port users born in the country from which the
port emanates, the simulations produce a mean MRCA date of 1,415 BC and a mean
IA date of 5,353 BC.
If a group of humans were completely isolated, then no mixing could occur
between that group and others, and the MRCA would have to have lived before the
start of the isolation. A more recent MRCA would not arise until the groups were
once again well integrated. In the case of Tasmania, which may have been
completely isolated from mainland Australia between the flooding of the Bass
Strait, 9,000-12,000 years ago, and the European colonization of the island,
starting in 1803 (13), the IA date for all living humans must fall before the
start of isolation. However, the MRCA date would be unaffected, because today
there are no remaining native Tasmanians without some European or mainland
Australian ancestry.
No large group is known to have maintained complete reproductive isolation for
extended periods. The populations on either side of the Bering Strait appear to
have exchanged mates throughout the period documented in the archaeological
record (14)... For example, with a migration rate across the Bering Strait of
just one person in each direction every ten generations, rather than the ten per
generation in the more conservative simulations described earlier, Tn [the time
back to the MRCA for a population of size n] only increases from 3,415 years to
3,668 years.
Conversely, other factors could reduce the time to the MRCA from that predicted
by the model. Examples of such factors include the existence of more diverse
intercontinental migration routes, the large-scale movement and mixing of
populations documented in the historical record (17), marked individual
differences in fertility (18), and the population increase of the past two
millennia, which would result in more migrants."

Thus, even if you insist on calling only (biological) descendents of Adam "real"
humans created "in the image of God", certainly all presently living humans are
included, and perhaps even all the way back to a few hundred years after Adam.

But I still insist that the Bible doesn't teach original sin in the sense of all
humans biologically inheriting Adam's sin (German "Erbsünde"). On the contrary,
it explicitely says all are sinners because all have sinned (Rom. 5:12). If you
don't agree, please show me from the Bible (and not just from traditions), and
I'll have to change my view.

Rom. 5:12-21 contrasts the old humanity according to Adam with the new humanity
according to Christ. It shows us that Christ is the beginning, firstfruits, or
head of the new humanity of the redeemed, including those before and after his
time on earth. And certainly none of these is physically descended from him. But
they all became children of God by faith, represented by him who is the Son of
God /par excellence/. In a parallel fashion, all humans without exception are
sinners and lost because they had their personal fall "after the image or
pattern of Adam", who therefore is the representative and "federal head" of all
humans, including those before and after his time on earth. And certainly not
all of them are physically descended from him.

> If so, then
> what would be the distinction between the way Christ is a representative
> and Sadaam Hussein is a representative?

If you want to include only the genuine OT (and NT) believers in the set of
those created "in the image of God", you have to exclude all others, including a
very large percentage of biological descendents from Abraham, and even from
Adam. Are all those others not "real humans"? Hussein probably descended from
Abraham (I'm sorry for Abe).

> Let me restate: I believe the =93image of God=94 rests with Christ. He
> represents God. We are in God=92s image when we conform to the image of
> Christ. It is not a birthright.
>
> Dick Fischer

Unfortunately there are many who despise their birthright (Gen. 25:34; Heb.
12:16), even a son of Isaac.

Peter Ruest

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)