Q for Biblical Evolutionists- Creation of Eve

First off, yeah, I’ve ID’d myself as an Old-Earth Creationist with some room for Theistic Evolution (tho I find myself in emotional sympathy with Young Earthers more than the Naturalist Evolutionary establishment)-

in devising scenarios reconciling the Genesis Account with Evolution I am stymied only in the Creation of Eve (Yeah, even the Fourth Day “creation” of the Sun, Moon & stars is easier to deal with- they weren’t created then but seasonal patterns were established).

This is only for attempts to reconcile the Bible account of Eve’s creation from Adam’s side/“rib” with Theistic Evolution. Not for Creation vs Evolution or “how can you take that silly ancient book seriously?” hijacks.

Thanks!

I’ll play by the rules, no worries.

But I’m not understanding the problem. Can you spell it out a little?

By theistic evolution do you mean ID or do you mean simply believing in God and believing in Darwinian evolution?

Diogenes- either.

Jonathan- OK, it doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to make “God shaping Adam from the dust of the earth/adamah & breathing the Breath of Life into him” as a metaphor for God evolving a human “son” from hominids. But God shaping Eve from that evolved God-adopted hominid’s side/“rib”? What evolutionary happening is symbolized by that?

Btw, my Q also assumes one original God-ensouled pair of humans who did something to break trust with God.

If your willing to accept the “sun and moon” as a metaphor for seasons, why not just say the “rib” thing was a matephor for God giving Hominid/Adam a soul first, then taken some of his flesh and, in a symbolic way, giving Hominid/Eve a soul? The latter seems no more of a stretch than the former.

My understanding of theistic evolution is that it is the same as normal evolution, except that the particular mutations and selections which led to us were not random but inspired by God. (And yes I know evolution is not random in a sense.) Theistic evolution proceded with an end goal,. whereas non-theistic evolution did not. The game was fixed, in other words.

I don’t think theistic evolutionists believe in Adam and Eve and the garden per se, but do say that at some point god gave the first real humans a soul.

The thing is that from our vantage point theistic and non-theistic evolution are indistinguishable, so theistic evolutionists have no problem with any scientific discovery.

“From the rib” == “of the same substance as and co-evolved with”. In essence, it is as much a moral lesson as a just-so story. Women are of the SAME SUBSTANCE as men, not a lesser thing. Their claim to being of the exact same “primeval clay” is identical to that of men. They are not to be seen as inherently lesser beings, lacking a soul, lacking full humanity.

Now, why go through the whole thing of “rib” rather than saying that they were made from the same lump of clay? If that happened, then one could claim that one lump of clay was somehow better than the other.

I am aware of the Lilith story, but my own Church puts little stock in the Lilith story, so I’ve no problem ignoring it.

If you can reconcile that, I really don’t see the problem with Eve’s creation.

Diogenes- either.

Jonathan- OK, it doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to make “God shaping Adam from the dust of the earth/adamah & breathing the Breath of Life into him” as a metaphor for God evolving a human “son” from hominids. But God shaping Eve from that evolved God-adopted hominid’s side/“rib”? What evolutionary happening is symbolized by that?

Btw, my Q also assumes one original God-ensouled pair of humans who did something to break trust with God.

OK, this might be a little out there but I’ll give it a shot.

The ribs enclose vital internal organs, most notably the heart. Removing a rib from Adam exposes his heart, his vitality, his “soul;” it makes him vulnerable.

Creating Eve with his rib makes her part of that which protects his vulnerability, brings her close to his heart, enfolds her as part of his humanity.

As it pertains to evolution, one might argue that it symbolizes the moment where the animal drive for simple procreation is supplanted by more complex human emotions-- where the sex drive is transformed into love. Where the animal is transformed into human.

I’ve been leaning toward the idea that “Adam” was the race of humanity in general. Note that Adam is not called Adam until the second chapter of Genesis. In the first chapter, it just says “man”, and seems to describe “man” as the whole race:

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (emphasis mine)

So this isn’t necessarily the “patriarchy” thing some like to claim.

My theory is that God created mankind as a complete race, as opposed to two specific individuals, “Adam and Eve”. But at the beginning, they were simply “Adam”. They may have existed for quite some time as “Adam”. Adam was a race created for the purpose of worshipping God, and Adam did so. But God found it unsatisfying - His creation worshipped Him because they were designed to do so. They had no choice in the matter.

So “Eve” was not the creation of “woman”, the female sex. Eve was God’s granting of freewill to the human race. Now that man had freewill, he could worship God, or not, by his own choice. When mankind worshipped out of its own free choice, that worship was far more satisfying to God than the previously “programmed” worship.

However, it was also that freewill, or “Eve”, that allowed mankind to make the wrong choice, and fall from grace. So it wasn’t a case of the “woman” or “female” screwing things up - it was a free choice made by the race as a whole.

In the same manner, if “Adam” was the human race in general, and not a specific individual, then it makes sense that “Cain” and “Abel” were not specific, individual children of Adam, but rather they were new communities which grew out of the original Adam culture. Perhaps the original region where Adam was placed eventually became too small to support the growing population, so smaller groups broke off to move into new areas. The group called Cain migrated to one area - the group called Abel went somewhere else. Cain murdering his “brother”, Abel, was likely a case of the Cain community making war on the Abel community.

This also explains the longevity of the early Biblical characters. Doesn’t it make more sense for the Enosh (Gen. 5:9) culture to last 905 years, rather than a single, 905-year-old man named Enosh? And so when the Enosh culture had been around for about 90 years, a subgroup, Kenan, broke off and formed a new community, and so on and so on.

John Mace, Dogface- both of ya get a cigar! Thanks!
btw. I was thinking of composing a story in which Adam somehow gets wounded in the side & knocked out coming to potential-Eve’s rescue from some peril & then she tends to his recovery. thus developing her own soul/God-awareness.

Diogenes, Phase 42- additional cigars!

Phase42- the point about the Gen 5 Patriarchs being cultures or family groups rather than individuals has been speculated before. Trouble is that Gen 5 does single out at least one- Enoch with details on his personal relationship with God.

Dogface- Lilith could have been a particularly evil female hominid. I could even see her as Cain’s wife- with the “Adam’s original wife” being a distortion of the myth (it actually appears in a 13th century AD satiric retelling of Biblical tales). Hebrew Kabbalistic lore speculates that Eve’s sin was actually adultery with the Serpent/Satanael (a diabolical male hominid?) and that for a while she & Adam separated & took other partners, and from those affairs came demons.

Here’s the thing. The first chapter of Genesis tells a completely different story than the second chapter. Forget reconciling Creation with Evolution, how do you reconcile Creation 1.0 and Creation 2.0?

But lets focus on Genesis 2. I’m not a linguist, and I don’t know anything about ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. But I’ve heard several people say that “rib” isn’t the best translation, it would be better translated as “side”. Meaning, God took one person Adam and divided it into two halves, a male individual and a female individual.

Lemur866- Gen 2 in my view just goes into detail about the Sixth Creation Age of Gen 1- God either directly created or evolved humanity out of the animal realm & ensouled them, put them in a special garden distinct from the untamed lands, brought domesticable animals in for them to care & train, and set before them a test of their trust in Him.

An alternate possibility is that Gen 1-Sixth Day tells of God creating Human Spirits & preparing hominid bodies from the animal realm for them, while Gen 2 tells of God actually putting those spirits into the bodies after the Seventh Day “rest”.

Make mine a Romeo y Julieta. I usually keep a good stock of the Dominicans on hand, so a Cuban version would be a welcomed addition.

Interesting!