Adam and Eve: their lifespans and eternal destinies
Answering questions about the length of time before the Fall and where Adam and Eve will spend eternity.
Published: 7 June 2014 (GMT+10)
Today’s feedback features questions about Adam and Eve. First, we address whether they went to heaven or hell. Second, we explain why Adam could not have existed for millions of years before the Fall.
Ross N. asked:
Can we know from The bible whether Adam and Eve were forgiven and are in heaven today or died in their sin and are in hell today.
CMI’s Keaton Halley responds:
Thanks for the question.
I don’t see anything in the Bible that gives us a definitive answer about the salvation of Adam and Eve, but we can examine what the text says about their lives to see if that gives us any clues. For example, Eve certainly appears to have had some measure of faith based on the things she said when she bore children in Genesis 4:1, 25. We also know that Adam and Eve together followed God’s command to multiply after the Fall, and no other major act of disobedience on their part is mentioned, in contrast to some of their descendants.
Next, we see that Cain and Abel somehow picked up the idea that they should make offerings to God, and that God holds Cain accountable for doing so improperly. It’s admittedly a bit speculative, but it seems natural to think that the second generation would have received instruction about sacrifices from Adam and Eve, who in turn received it from God. Perhaps God set the pattern when he clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins after they had sinned (Genesis 3:21).
Of course, it’s entirely possible that all of the above is true and yet Adam and Eve still lacked saving faith. But I think these observations paint a fairly positive picture of Adam and Eve, so I would lean toward the view that they are in heaven. At the same time, I wouldn’t be dogmatic about it. We can’t really say for sure, not until those of us who have trusted in Jesus get to heaven ourselves.
Hope that helps. Take care,
Andrew G. wrote:
I understand that according to Genesis 5:5, Adam lived to 930 years old. However, how do we know when he started “living”? For instance, since death entered the world through sin (Romans 5:12), did Adam begin “living” at the point of sin, or at the point God brought him from the dust? I find it difficult to reconcile why God would create an already aged universe, which is revealed by the distance of stars, galaxies etc. Why would God create stars that are millions of light years away, cut the time it would take for the light to reach the earth, and have it shine on an earth that is only 6,000 years old? This leads me to believe that Adam and Eve could have potentially “existed” for millions of years before sinning, and thus, “lived” another 930 years from the point of sin to their death.
CMI’s Keaton Halley responds:
Thanks for writing in with your question.
I don’t see any reason to think that Adam began to live once he sinned. That would be an odd and idiosyncratic definition of “living”. Adam was walking and talking and married to Eve before he sinned, so he was clearly alive. In fact, the text explicitly says that “the man became a living creature” when God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7). I’m sure his ‘birthdays’ were counted from this time.
Also, we have written previously about how the Fall must have occurred pretty soon after creation week. Adam and Eve were instructed to “multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28), and in their unfallen state they would have been both willing and able to comply. Surely they didn’t wait for millions of years before conceiving their first child. But their firstborn, Cain, was born with a sin nature, so he must have been conceived after the Fall. Thus, the sequence is: Creation—Fall—Cain. And so, because Cain happened shortly after Creation, the Fall must have too.
NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
Now, as you admit, your motivation for postulating such an outlandish (and, frankly, biblically untenable) scenario is that you don’t know how to reconcile 6,000 years with distant starlight. But I encourage you to read the things we’ve published on this subject. If you read our materials, you’ll discover that while we do think God created the universe in a mature state (Adam was full grown, etc.), we do not believe God created with a deceptive ‘appearance of age’. For example, because we see stars exploding farther away than 6,000 light years, we would not say that God created fictional images in the sky which are disconnected from real exploding stars. No, the images we see represent real events that occurred in history. But this does not prove the universe is billions of years old. Creationists have proposed a number of theories to explain how we can see distant stars in a young universe. I recommend you start with chapter 5 of The Creation Answers Book: How can we see distant stars in a young universe? Then, for more details you could read the relevant articles on our Astronomy Q&A page. Or pick up some of our books and DVDs that deal with this subject. But even if we never get a definitive and satisfying answer on how to explain distant starlight, I believe we should take God at His word about the young age of the universe, keeping in mind that He knows far more about physics than we do.
“All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.”—Isaiah 66:2
Hope that is helpful to you.
Re. the first feedback issue: there does seem to be (I think) cumulative Biblical evidence compelling Eve’s salvation status and making Adam’s highly probable.
Thank you, Keaton, for mentioning Gen. 4:1,25 regarding Eve. And thank you, Dr. Sarfati, for your related article, “The Virginal Conception of Christ”, in 1994, in which you mention Dr. Fruchtenbaum’s commentary on Gen. 4:1: Eve misidentifying Cain as the fulfillment of Gen. 3:15.
The NT makes it clear that OT saints were saved by life-and-death-reliance whole-hearted trust in SPECIFIC promises of God, Rom. 4:18-22, “…fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. …” Since Eve acted here consistent with a full-confidence faith in God’s Gen.3:15 promise, her action is strong circumstantial evidence supporting her prior by-faith spiritual salvation. (Re. the specificity, she addresses YHWH by his special name!)
Compelling-evidence status of her salvation seems achieved in 1 Tim. 2:15. It is NOT “Women will be saved through childbirth…” Instead, the verb here is inflected for “she-future”. Since the subject in Verses 13-14 is Eve/Woman, so too in Verse 15. It can address her in the future since the full-restoration aspect of “salvation” (1 Peter 1:5) is still future for all of us. Since she is so linked with us, she was saved during her earthly lifetime. (Eve’s “childbearing”, here, leads back to her comment in Gen. 4:1.)
Adam’s renaming of Woman to Eve, “mother of all living”, exhibits complete trust in God’s grace-promise that she would live beyond sunset, re. God’s curse-promise of Eve experiencing pain in childbirth. Adam’s kindly response, here, is in dramatic contrast to his earlier blaming of God and Woman for his own sin--suggestive of a saving-faith transformation in him.
I have read some Puritan writings whereby the writer believed Adam and Eve are saved. God's shedding of the 'innocent' blood of the animal to cover Adam and Eve's shame may have been a 'type' of the shedding of the blood of innocent Jesus Christ and His righteousness covering our shame i.e. those who believe on the Name of Jesus Christ.
As to both RC and EO Tradition, it says very clearly that Adam and Eve:
* Died as penitents.
* Waited in Sheol for some thousands of years. Along with Abraham and - for some four days - Lazarus.
* Met the Soul of Our Lord when His Body was in the grave, were released from Sheol and their souls are now in Heaven.
Saying Adam and Eve were damned is not just wrong, it is heresy. And condemned as such.
We are a Protestant ministry, but thanks for sharing as a point of information.
If Big Bang thinkers thought out of the box they would be surprised by an alternative conclusion from their theories. The clue of the Starlight dilemma is in the spreading! The inflationary theory (hypothetical hyper-expansion) is used to prove the Big Bang theory but there is still not enough time for the CMB to exchange energy and equalize their temperatures i.e. the horizon problem. The billions of years could easily be 6,000 years from after the time of inflation, hence calculating the age of earth by how long it would take for the present constant rate of light to reach the earth would be no problem, because what is being actually calculated is the period within the expansion using today’s constant rate! After all Brian Greene contends “the size of the universe increased by a factor larger than a million trillion trillion in less than a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second” all before the speed of light decreased to its current stable rate of about 186,282 miles per second.
So there is no need to believe that Adam and Eve could have potentially “existed” for millions of years or that God is deceiving us.
Speaking about the earth & the distance of the stars. The earth is a planet created for habitation of man & other life. Paul refers to to the 'third heaven' when he was taken up probably in the spirit. God (the Holy Trinity) has been alive forever. The Bible speaks of the moon & stars for our 'night lights, and the sun for our 'day' light. I don't recall seeing anything about when he created the other planets. Perhaps The stars have also been around 'forever' and God simply extended their light rays so they could be seen by us on our planet. What a joy to look at the heavens on a clear, moonless night and see the stars twinkling. We will not know the whole story until we join Him one day. We know an ice age existed and our planet was involved. What we don't know is exactly when. It seems that the more we 'understand', the less we DO understand.
In biblical terminology, a star may refer to any visible astronomical object, be it a planet or a comet or what we call stars today. And Genesis 1 does explicitly mention the creation of stars on Day 4 of creation week. Also, it would be problematic to have physical objects co-existing with God from eternity past, for both theological and scientific reasons. Finally, the Ice Age fits nicely into the biblical account of history as shown here: Ice Age Q&A.
"But this does not prove the universe is billions of years old."
I would add, "by Earth time." Some Young Earth Creationist cosmological theories present the scenario that as a day or less (or even no time at all, as Dr. Russell Humphreys has theorized) was passing on Earth, billions of years were passing in deep space. But God's account of creation is based on Earth time, so in these scenarios, the creation of the universe over billions of years of deep space time would have occurred in no more than a day on Earth, and, if Dr. Humphreys' theory is right, it would have occurred instantly, as seen from Earth's surface.
I must say that I am very impressed with the way YEC cosmologists have broken out of the clearly defective Big Bang-Inflation scenarios, which have to invoke the imaginary fudge factors of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' (for which there is no scientific evidence) to keep the Big Bang scenario credible to the cosmological community and the largely uninformed public. As Spike Psarris has pointed out in his excellent DVD video "Our created stars and galaxies (What you aren't being told about astronomy, Volume II)", scientists generally acknowledge that they get to invoke the Tooth Fairy only once to semi-justify a theory with problems, and the Big Bang community has had to invoke the Tooth Fairy twice. The Big Bang scenario now compares to the Ptolemaic model of the universe which, being simply wrong, required more and more fudge factors to maintain its credibility, and finally collapsed under the weight of much scientific evidence that proved it was simply wrong.
The YEC 'different time rate' cosmologies, while yet speculative, are now far more credible than the Big Bang to any objective inquirer into the origin of the universe. [External link deleted per feedback rules.]
Good discussion! I have a question. Where in the Bible does it say that Cain and Able were Adam and Eve’s first and second child? I have always heard and been taught that. However, isn’t it possible that the mentioning of Cain and Able after Adam and Eve were put out of the Garden of Eden is an emphasis on the account of the first murder as opposed to an account of the first children born to the couple?
Just because we see Adam and Eve being put out of the garden in one chapter, and having Cain and Able in the next chapter doesn’t mean they didn’t have other children after being put out of the garden and before Cain and Able were born. A friend who was teaching a youth Bible Study said that the youth challenged her with this idea, which she said she had never considered before.
It's true that Adam and Eve had several sons and daughters and the text does not specify the birth order of all of them. I do think Eve's exclamation in Genesis 4:1 is a good indication that Cain was born first, but this is actually not crucial to my argument. Even if (hypothetically) there had been others before Cain, the Fall came before Cain, who came before Seth, who was born when Adam was 130 (Genesis 5:3). Therefore, the Fall occurred shortly after the creation week.
One argument I have heard for the position that Adam is unsaved derives from the idea that he is the federal (i.e. covenantal) head of those who are lost, just as the Lord Jesus is the federal Head of those who are saved. This view is based on Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. The objection may be stated this way: If Adam acted as the representative of the entire human race when he sinned, and yet Adam has been forgiven of his sin, then why would that forgiveness not extend to the entire human race as well?
I don't think Adam's forgiveness would extend to all. What was needed to atone for sins was the sacrifice of the perfect, sinless Son of God. Not everything that Adam did was applied to his descendants, so salvation could be granted to him as an individual without impacting everyone else.
When I look into the night sky and view the Andromeda Galaxy the creation controversy suddenly ceases. I know the galaxy is 2.5 million light years from earth thus I am directly observing the galaxy as it existed 2.5 million years ago. This statement is straightforwardly without the need of twisting reality and forging new dimensions for near galaxy. The fabrication of a gravity hole which dissipated without leaving a trace of observable evidence while supposedly placing earth in an almost timeless zone speaks volumes. A rock solid mathematical description, which would likely land a Nobel Prize, is needed for me to release a very simple and naturalistic explanation.
I am to live and die an unbeliever. I have been reading creationists articles for a week and I just can't bring myself to jump through all the hoops that are required for believe in the Bible. I truly don't get it. I have committed a couple of times on this website and this will likely be my last comment and visit.
You seem to be demanding that physical reality cater to your preference for extreme simplicity, but the truth is that modern physics includes mind-stretching stuff. If you think creationist solutions to distant starlight are far-fetched, have you applied that same skepticism to the ideas Big Bang proponents have offered to solve their own light-travel-time problem? If you can jump through all the hoops that are required to believe in evolution, perhaps you could answer our 15 questions for evolutionists.
Of course you do not want to exalt any human (fallible) interpretation to the status of absolute truth / dogmatic doctrine, no matter how plain or clear it seems to you now. The narrative and theological function and 'history' of Adam & Eve can be as easily and justifiably seen as typical. The inference of the age of the cosmos from their life years is just that, one possible and falsifiable inference. Many things can be wrongfully inferred from the cultural mindset and terminology of the Scriptures (the earth-Sun relationship, the gut-mind, the nephesh-eternal disembodied soul for some examples). I think you would agree, we need to be reverently cautious and judiciously careful in properly handling and declaring the meaning of God's holy word - even holding our own inferences from it more lightly. Understanding natural revelation can help us find some cautious balance in interpreting Scripture as well.
It is appropriate to be careful, but not to think our fallibility prevents us from having any certainty about objective reality. Even fallible mathematicians can have great confidence that 2+2=4. And it's very clear that the rest of Scripture treats Genesis as sober history, including its statements about Adam and Eve. See Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history for reasons why Adam and Eve cannot be mere types.
Regarding whether the first two humans were saved, there is also Cain's testimony in Gen 4:14, that he was being driven from the presence of Yahweh. Therefore, he had been used to the presence (and voice) of Yahweh up until then, so God's forgiveness was complete for the first family. Shalom!
Adam and Eve aren't in heaven unless they were among the ones resurrected at Christ's resurrection. This popular belief that people go to heaven or hell at death is not biblical, making it a false doctrine. The Bible teaches that death can best be described as sleep and the righteous are raised at Christ's second coming. There is an abundance of Bible passages proving this. Also the wages of sin is death, not eternal life in hell. Is David in heaven? Acts 2:34
This isn't the primary focus of our ministry, but we do affirm that believers' souls go to be with God after death, before the final resurrection of the body takes place. This is based on passages like 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23; Luke 23:43; Revelation 6:9–11; and others.
The Bible does sometimes refer to death as 'sleep', but these are figures of speech based on the appearance of the body at death. And, as for Acts 2:34, the context clearly shows that it means David did not bodily ascend into heaven as Jesus did following his bodily resurrection.
Finally, 'death' as defined by the Bible is not cessation of existence, so there is no contrast between Romans 6:23 and the Bible's teaching about an eternal hell. See Why would a loving God send people to Hell?
I think that the nature of God is an indicator of His attitude toward Biblical Old testament pioneers of faith such as Adam and Eve.
His nature is described as not wanting anyone to perish but to have eternal life and as the same yesterday, today and forever.
He also provided through Jesus a means for sinners to simply confess their sin and then to immediately receive forgiveness and eternal life.
That being so, I don't see Him as blocking his first two created beings from sharing eternity with him for one act of disobedience emanating from a wily liar.
Although I see no record of their repentance I cannot imagine they did not repent when they realised what they had done in disobeying God, nor that God did not accept their repentance and forgive them then just as He always has and still does.
I want to push back on this a bit. One act of disobedience against God is a very serious thing, so I wouldn't downplay that. And plenty of people do not repent from sin. So I tried to base my conclusions on what Scripture says about Adam and Eve's subsequent relationship with God, which I think is a firmer foundation.
It always amazes me when I hear people thinking the dead have already gone to heaven. John 3:13 could not be clearer. "No-one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -the Son of Man".
The dead lie asleep until either the first resurrection at the coming of Jesus, or the second resurrection at the end of the 1000 years when they will then be judged (see Revelation 20:5 to 15)
A variety of passages talk about other people besides Jesus going to heaven. I cited several verses in my reply to a comment above, and there is 2 Corinthians 12:2–3, for another example. So we shouldn't understand John 3:13 in a way that denies the truth of these other passages.
Fortunately, there are a variety of ways faithful biblical interpreters have understood John 3:13 that don't require soul sleep. For instance, here's one possible interpretation. In verse 13, Jesus is trying to establish his authority as one who can speak about "heavenly things" (v. 12). So when he says "No one has ascended into heaven" he may not be thinking of all those who have died, but only those who are currently alive on earth who could speak to Nicodemus about heavenly things. No living person has the same authority as Jesus to speak about heavenly things, because no one else has been there. But, if that reading is correct, then this passage simply does not address whether a person's soul goes to heaven upon death, and so it cannot overthrow the weight of all the other biblical evidence.
I have to concur with the two previous writers that no one goes to Heaven or hell at the time of death. The first time that anyone can go to Heaven is during the second coming of Jesus.(Excluding those few cases that are mentioned in the Bible)
The Bible also clearly defines that a soul is made up of two entities. (Body + Breath of Life = Living soul). (Gen 2:7). Remember that God is the Giver of the Breath of Life so that even when a sinner dies, the Breath of Life returns to God and not the soul as such. The bottom line is that the Breath of Life by itself is not a soul.
Otherwise an excellent article and keep up the good work.
Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Psa 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
Psa 115:17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
Mar 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Thanks for the compliment on the article generally. But it's a hermeneutical fallacy to think that a word means exactly the same thing in all contexts. Sometimes the Hebrew word for "soul" (nephesh) is used to refer to the entire living being, but other times it refers to an immaterial part of a living being. We do the same thing today with the word "soul", and other words like "head", for example. When we take a "head count", we really mean to count the number of people. But just because the word "head" in that case stands in for the whole person, this does not prove that the word "head" cannot refer to a part of the body in other contexts.
Some examples where nephesh does not refer to the whole person include:
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life [nephesh], that is, its blood.
Genesis 35:18 And as her soul [nephesh] was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.
Mark 12:27 supports our argument that a person's soul is still alive after the body is in the ground, and we have already explained elsewhere why your argument from passages like Ecc. 9:5 is incorrect.
It seems to me that Adam and Eve found salvation by the same principal as found thro-out scripture. That is they abandoned their own covering of figs leaves and took Christ's covering that involved the shedding of innocent blood. They found grace in the garden. So today we are called to abandon our own works and trust in Christ's covering [atonement] of His precious shed blood
Since Adam and Eve were clothed by God and we too are clothed by God then we may confidently argue that they were saved.
Look at it further. To be so clothed an animal or animals had to die. So in this way sacrifice was instituted and as a result they were clothed.
In the same way the Lord Jesus offered Himself without spot to God and then clothes us in His righteousness. Gen.3:21. Rev.7:9. Heb.9:14.
The naming of the sons is also significant. clearly Eve was looking for her seed which should bruise the Serpent's head.
We shall meet them i Heaven.
Why would Jesus say to the thief on the cross that he (the thief) would be with him (Jesus) in paradise that very day, does this not confirm a heaven straight after death?
When God Told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate the fruit from a certain tree did he not mean it. he would go back to the dust. There may have been other trees with the same fruit (altho' this is speculation)in the garden. They were perfect people, so their decision to be like God was treacherous, they no longer wanted to listen to their creator but to decide things for themselves. Adam said the woman "You" gave me therefore showing unrepentance. We need forgiveness more than they ever did, they sold their descendants to sin and death, thankfully Jesus died for us. If they had not sinned then we all would be perfect with everlasting life to look forward to. Numbers 35 v31 says a murderer cannot be ransomed. They knowingly and wilfully stole from their Creator, believed what a snake namely Satan said. Surely the love they had been shown by their God should have deserved their loyalty,
It's fine to point these things out, but I don't think they are very relevant to the question of Adam & Eve's salvation. The first couple did return to the dust, but so do other people who have been saved by God's grace today. Adam justified his sin initially, but this does not prove he never repented. There's no question that their sin was serious, but so are all sins.
As for Numbers 35:31, I'm not sure why you think it applies. It doesn't, because (1) Adam and Eve didn't literally murderer anyone, and (2) this law is part of the Mosaic system of justice—the Israelites were not to accept payment from someone guilty of murder in lieu of capital punishment. It is not talking about ultimate justice or prohibiting Jesus from redeeming murders. We know that many former murderers were saved, like Moses, King David, and the Apostle Paul. Our salvation comes from the Gospel, not the Law.
How preposterous to even imagine that Adam and Eve didn't go to Heaven! The scriptures are very plain and contain the answer as plain as the nose on your face. They were saved not by their own efforts but by God providing cloths of animal skin. Blood had to be shed! Hebrews 9:22
"In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
God took the initiative to provide salvation just like He took the initiative to send His Son. NO ONE here worked for their salvation or did they have to earn it. Adam and Eve were saved and are in Heaven by God's grace and His grace alone. There shouldn't even be a question here.
I am squarely with the author of the article in his approach to the issue of Adam and Eve's salvation. Very likely they were saved, but we cannot say with certainty from Scripture.
Darwinism has been, in my opinion, the chief destroyer of Christian faith in the Western world, and even though there are a dozen solid indicators that the world is actually young, Darwinists can still fall back on distant stars and the speed of light. It is wonderful that creation scientists are getting at the issue of general relativity as a possible explanation for this issue. Einstein has already been proven correct in his claim that both gravity and velocity distort time itself. We could have a constant speed of light and still have a few days of earth time during billions of years of time dilated by gravity and velocity in the expanding universe. I have wondered all my life what time actually is, but I still don't know. Still I like the idea that God created time so that everything wouldn't happen at once.
Thanks for the information and the gracious treatment to all who responded.
In the article giving a response to the question concerning how old Adam was when he started "living", you wrote "But their firstborn, Cain, was born with a sin nature, so he must have been conceived after the Fall."
Why do you say Cain was born with a sin nature?
Ephesians 2:3 describes unregenerate people as "by nature children of wrath". The united biblical testimony is that all of Adam's descendants have been born with this sinful nature (except Jesus, of course). Romans 5:19, for example, says that "by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners", and vv. 12 and 18 make it clear that this included all people. So that goes for Cain as well.
The fact is that people who go back to dust die naturely due to inherited sin. Adam and Eve died as a punishment from God. If Adam was forgiven then there was no need for Jesus to die. Eve should have talked with her husband she was his helper or compliment. She shouldn't have made a decision without him. All Adam had to do was to wait until the breezy part of the day and speak to their creator about what had happened. They chose not to do so. They disowned their heavenly father by their choice to be independant from Him. Eve by her reaction may have thought that she was the woman mentioned in Genisis 3 v 15 and Cain was the promised seed. If he was told this it would explain his bad temper which God warned him about and the reason why his offering was not accepted. Hence his rage when Abels was, enough to kill his Abel. Adam and Eve no doubt grieved over the death of their son, another terrible thing that murder was now introduced into the world. Perhaps if Adam had refused to eat or if they had said they were sorry things would have been different and our dear Lord Jesus would not have had to suffer to save us from what our first parents brought upon.
"The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), so I don't agree that an apology from Adam and Eve would have made Jesus' sacrifice unnecessary. They very well could have been forgiven and justified before God just as Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of his faith (see Rom. 4). This declaration of righteousness was not granted apart from Christ, but on the basis of what Christ would eventually do.
I wanted to thank Keaton Halley for the excellent and patient responses to the questions. I feel as some of the respondents that the Bible does clearly indicate that Adam and Eve are saved and now in heaven, but also appreciate the non-condemning, gentle, manner in which Keaton handled them.
In Genesis it points out the fall of Adam and Eve. They were clothed in the glory of God (like Moses was and the people could not look on his face). Close intimacy with God was broken when they sinned. Then they saw that they were naked physically. They saw God's glory on each other and needed no clothes.
After running and hiding from God, God came near and they had woven clothes out of fig leafs. God slaughtered some animals and gave them clothes from the furs. God was not yelling at them and condemning them for falling - before Creation Jesus was slain in God's plan. God introduced a unique thing to the world - mercy and grace to Adam and Eve. God slay the animals and promised to save them from their fallen state. This was the FIRST blood covenant with Adam's race. Melchizedec, Noah, Abraham - all did blood covenant ceremonies - symbolic of Jesus coming and being slain.
As a matter of fact, when the Israellites in Egypt were confronted with the plague of the first born being slain to get Pharoah to let God's people free, they were instructed to take the blood of a lamb and standing in the doorway dip a brush (sash of grass) in the blood and spread it to the left, right, and top - symbolizing Jesus cross before hand - to protect their families and the Egyptians that joined them that night. Covenant with God!
Finally, was Adam and Eve saved -- yes, by faith in the Messiah, Jesus, to come. It may not say that direct but God offered covenant with Adam and Eve and their trust in Him brought them home when Jesus resurrected the dead after crucifixion.
Apart from being the stage upon which all future human experience is played out, Genesis establishes many models which God has set to demonstrate his then and future relationship with man. Making them male and female establishes that it is God's desire to perpetuate life and nurture and instruct offspring by the joining together of two subtly different physical and emotional beings. The two will become one flesh; this shows the distinctness of each uniting into one to provide a fullness that neither man or woman can deliver on their own. It clearly therefore demonstrates the model for family begins with man and woman. On that point; God did not create Adam and Eve1, Eve2, Eve3, Eve4.... He created them individually and uniquely, thereby establishing that relationship is between one man and one woman. The creation week is, of course, God's model for man's experience of time itself, in which He casts the pattern for living that allocates time for God, work and rest.
As other writers have suggested, perhaps the greatest model that Genesis establishes is the forgiveness of sins by the shedding of blood; God's first demonstration of undeserved Grace in the face of sin. Would God shed blood unnecessarily? It makes far more sense that God is revealing his capacity for Grace while demonstrating that there is always a price to be paid for disobedience. The picture here is clearly that God, from the beginning, was prepared to pay the price to redeem us. We must individually decide to accept His grace but I can't imagine God using such an opportunity to reveal the 'path home' for mankind only to have it rejected by Adam and Eve. I firmly believe Adam and Eve are in heaven, but I do wonder if they still might ask themselves, "If only we hadn't?"
Job condemns Adam and I would say that that indicates that he is damned. "If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom."Job. 31:33
Why think this verse indicates eternal damnation? It just refers to the way Adam hid from God, tried to fix the problem with fig leaves, and blamed others rather than immediately fessing up.
When Jesus said that "No one has ascended to heaven," He had not yet been crucified. The OT saints were in Paradise. No one could enter heaven until after Jesus' blood was sprinkled on the heavenly mercy seat.
God did make the earth, and presumably the universe, in a mature state. Adam and Eve were young adults, not foetuses or babies. The trees were already bearing fruit. I theorize that if you cut a tree down, you would have found concentric circles in its trunk indicating that the tree had lived longer than its creation date. This is not deception, it is God exercising his right to make a mature creation.
Therefore, I think it is highly likely that God made the stars and planets with light therefrom already reaching earth. This is not deception, it is God exercising his right to make a mature creation. The distant star events we see are intended to show to us "the glory of God" and to reveal to us His awesome power and scope.
Just keep in mind that this would mean distant stars which we see explode today never even existed. It would mean God created images in the sky of events which never actually took place, and this seems totally unnecessary. The creation of fictional space events is quite different from God creating Adam and Eve full-grown. It's more like suggesting that Adam and Eve were created with memories of things that happened to them before they were created (when they didn't exist). I don't think God would give us memories of things that never happened because it would be confusing. The same goes for God making pictures of supernovas that never happened.
Concerning Adam and Eve and their salvation:
Not only did God provide for their covering with skins of animals sacrificed - as instituted under the law of Moses with the sacrificial system under the appointment of High Priest, Aaron, but God also gave the answer to the Salvation question for Adam and Eve in his addressing the consequences for their sins. Genesis 3:15 states, "And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”
Most bible scholars would recognise Christ as the seed (singular, ie, a particular descendent) of the woman and the act of crushing the serpent's head as the work of the Cross to defeat Satan's power over us because of sin.
Adam and Eve were depended on Christ's sacrifice that was yet to take place in time, but had already taken place in the heart of God, just as the Israelites needed Christ, the passover (pascal) lamb that takes away the sin of the world.
They obviously didn't know the Name Jesus, but they may have insight into a future victory over sin because of God's teaching them on the matter.