[Celtjew Libertarian]

The bible says, though, that Adam was made from the dust of the ground. Paul, in Romans 5, calls Adam the first man.

First off, I'm Jewish, so Paul doesn't impact how I think. However, I will note that from my description above, Adam was the first man in a spiritual sense. I'm not sure a homo sap without a spirit is man.

With regard to Adam being made of the dust of the ground, there's something interesting about the Hebrew word translated as "made" of "formed." From what I've read, the root of the word a term used for making pottery.

A potter does not simply throw down clay and have it take the form he wants. He molds and reshapes it over time. The image, I think, a Hebrew would have had from Genesis 2:7, is not an instant creation in final form, but a creation in which formless material is molded and remolded, through intermediate forms, until its final form.

Which, all in all, is not that bad a description of evolution in terms that ancient people might understand.

In other words, I believe the first part of Genesis 2:7 is an explicit description of evolution.

[andysandmikesmom]

What an extremely interesting perspective on that verse...I had not heard of this view before, and I thank you for it...

[rudy45]

Thanks for the response. It sounds, though, like you're trying to reconcile early Genesis with evolution, by way of the idea of intermediate forms that became Adam. Why couldn't God just speak Adam into existence, just as He did the earth? Does that idea pose a problem, other than that it may be difficult to reconcile with evolution?

For argument's sake, let's accept your view, even though I disagree. What about the historicity of Genesis 3? Do you believe in the historicity of Adam's rebellion against God?

Thanks.