Dannii,
if the answer to the question, “Why is there suffering in our world?” is “Because at some time the first humans rebelled against God”, and is able to expand on that with all the theological richness of the creation narrative and Hebrew word plays to find theological themes, then we are in agreement. So go ahead and analyse the Hebrew for Stott’s claims, you won’t find it there. There is reading the words, and then there is reading the whole genre and context in which those particular words lie. If you can’t read context you’ll end up in all sorts of trouble. EG: You won’t find anywhere in the bible that explains Jesus is NOT ACTUALLY the bread and the wine, or does NOT ACTUALLY have a sword coming out of his mouth. Context!
I have trouble with the more mechanistic, literalistic way you want to read it.
“Because there was ONE woman Eve, who ate from a particular tree, we don’t know which one but she ate from, or what it might look like now so I can’t help you not eat from it again, but there it is….
...and anyway she ate it because she listened to a snake, yeah, not sure why they don’t talk now but there it is again….
....and then God kicked them out of Eden and there was a REAL angel standing there with a large flaming sword, yeah, not sure where that angel is now but the bible doesn’t say anything about it disappearing so it must still be there somewhere, and angel with a FLAMING SWORD stops us getting back into Eden, that special garden that has the tree of life…. not sure why the satellites haven’t found it, but who can trust NASA, they probably censor the stuff…
... and then God opened up the floodgates of heaven to flood the whole world, and I’m not sure where those floodgates went when we flew to the moon, but that could have been faked just like the theory of evolution… really anything that gets in the way with reading the bible literalistically has to be thrown out!”
Dave, I was reading those words in context. They are there throughout Genesis 1-3 (and up to 9 too). They clearly refer not to image-bearing humans specifically, but to all animal life. Gen 2:7 says that God’s inspiration made man a living animal. But the idea of pre- or proto-humans would require the man/humanity to already be a living animal/s before God’s inspiration. If you believe in humans or humanoids before “Adam” (whether one man or a group) what does this passage mean? We can agree on the importance of being inspired and indwelt by God’s spirit, but what does the change of life-giving mean?
And where have I ever proposed reading Genesis, or any of the Bible, literalistically? Now you’re the one with the strawman argument.
[ Edited: 03 September 2009 03:04 PM by Dannii Willis]
If the bible is discussing WHY God made us in symbolic language that the people at the time responded to and understood, and why there is suffering in the world, why do you think there is going to be any evidence in the text of a scientific theory developed thousands and thousands of years later? If the story itself is as figurative as Packer and Stott think, then there may indeed have been an “Adam” but the actual mechanics of the fall might not be spelt out. The actual mechanics of creation might also not be spelt out. Stott and Packer are merely speculating how the theology we are taught in the bible and the science we are taught by this universe might fit together.
So study science all you like, and if you read the peer-reviewed stuff you’ll find a fairly consistent story, no matter what the creationists want to throw your way. (If their conspiracy theory view of science is adopted then ANYTHING could be a conspiracy… the moon landing, aliens at area51, anything!)
All Stott and Packer are doing is drawing up a thesis or model that might be as disposable as the current theories of evolution. They are merely extrapolating on the basis of what we know in the bible and what we know in science. So study the Hebrew all you like, you’ll only find the theological narrative and concerns of the passage. Then you’ll pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself for not finding Stott’s thesis written there. Well done! (I don’t know if I can be ANY clearer!)
So now to change the focus a little. When Genesis 1 & 2 contradict a literalistic reading of each other so clearly, why are you trying to read them in such a literalistic fashion? What do you make of Paul’s figurative reading of Genesis? What do you make of the Enuma Elish and the bible’s obvious similarities and contrasts? And if I contradict one idea expressed as a metaphor with another idea expressed as a metaphor, how is it that the second metaphor has to be true in a literal sense when the first metaphor wasn’t?
There is nothing modern with the Homo divinus idea. If what God wanted to say was that he inspired man and man was transformed into his image, he could easily have said that with the language the first readers would have understood. All the pieces of language required are already there.
Yes it may be highly figurative and tell us nothing about the historical events of either the creation or the fall. But I maintain that even if it is an entirely ahistorical record of creation, it says that God’s inspiration lead to man having life in the simple physical way. No matter what actually happened, and no matter what God’s reasons for doing so are, Genesis 2:7 simply says that God breathed into a physically dead man and made him alive. This could be figurative, for the creation of the human race, or who knows, maybe even for the entire evolutionary process from the first reduplicating cells through to Homo sapiens.
What it does not mean is that God’s inspiration meant taking a living thing and making it spiritual alive, or forming/shaping/declaring it to be in the image of God. I don’t think any of the other verses indicates that either. Do you?
If Stott’s thesis is not based on the Bible in the slightest, then I can hardly see how it is worthy to be called theology. And if it’s not I’m entirely disinterested in discussing it. However it certainly does seem like he and you are proposing a theological theory…
Why do you think I’m reading Genesis 1-2 literalistically, despite my constant denials of that?
Dave, that’s not my argument about polemics. The point of polemic metaphors and allegories is that they do in some way reflect reality, even if in a very general and figurative way. The pagan origin myths did not reflect reality very well. For Genesis to be a useful polemic it must reflect reality far more. A lot of the pagan myths describe a chaotic creation, sometimes even from vomit, or a corpse in the case of the Enûma Eliš. Genesis says that God deliberately and orderedly created the universe. Can that be an effective polemic if the processes God used to create are at their heart random (Not that God wasn’t soverign, any more than Marduk wasn’t soverign when he tore Tiamat in two)?
Another aspect of this ordered creation is its divisions of life. The repeated phrase “after their kind” emphasises this, that God’s creations were to reproduce within certain boundaries, which is the basis of the food laws, where the flying mammals, the invertebrates and the fish that walk rather than swim are forbidden. But how well does this reflect reality if vertebrates actually evolved from invertebrates, mammals evolved from walking fish, and in general, God’s plan was for animals to frequently break out of their divisions as they evolved?
Dannii, you say: “Why do you think I’m reading Genesis 1-2 literalistically, despite my constant denials of that?”
Things that you have previously said indicate that you are reading Genesis 1-11 literally.
For example:
The best way to refute the lies about false gods is to tell lies about the living God? No! The best way to refute the false gods is to tell the full and real truth! 07:38 PM 26 AUG 09
But I believe that at the core of it, Genesis 1 is still history. It is a record of how God made the universe. As such it tells us why God made us, and what role we have in the universe. It tells us the false gods are false. But if it wasn’t history it couldn’t do that. If God didn’t make us specially in his image from nothing but dirt, but instead made us through death from non-human apes, how are we made in the image of God? 10:41 PM 26 AUG 09
I agree with you that the Bible tells us the “whys” of creation, and that it is the most important aspect of those early chapters. But I think it also tells us the “hows” too! I can’t remember you ever explaining why you think the text can’t have multiple aims and accomplish multiple goals. Why do you think that? 02:04 AM 03 SEP 09
Your quotes indicate that you read this text literally, you can’t have it both ways. I read in your posts a creationist bent in you theology. That is how others also seem to read you.
If this not true, please explain your understanding of the text more clearly to us.
Hi Ken, I am not denying that I may read it historically or literally, but that I read it literalistically. For reasons I don’t understand, Dave thinks I want to interpret Genesis 1 as saying there is a real physical firmament in the sky or heavens, and Genesis 8 as saying there are windows in the sky! I have never said that, and I don’t think I’ve even hinted that I do.
Now, I’m not sure we can know for certain what raqiya` meant for the original readers. Although I accept that there was much editing of Genesis done fairly lately, during the exile period and after, I believe Genesis was written before then, and edited by Moses. I think Genesis 1 is actually a far older document than that, and we know less about the cosmologies of those times.
It’s interesting that the NASB, one of the most literal English translations, uses the word ‘expanse’, so who knows, maybe a literalistic interpretation would be acceptable.
I don’t really think that’s the best explanation though. The point of the firmament/expanse is to keep the waters separated, because chaos and destruction would destroy the earth if they were united again (as we see in the flood.) The mighty strength of a huge metallic firmament could be a great metaphor for God’s providence in keeping us dry. As to the floodgates, could this not be a metaphor too? Otherwise Dave would have to take issue with anyone today who ever says that it’s “pouring rain,” because we all know there aren’t any buckets in the sky to pour the rain out of!
Yes I interpret these passages historically. No I don’t read them literalistically, and never have! Yes I’m a creationist… as hopefully all Christians are. Anyone who doesn’t believe God created the world, regardless of means and timeframes, cannot be in orthodox Christianity.
For the record, I’m not much of a traditionalist creationist either. I’m a big proponent of apparent age, which they generally do not like. I’m even pretty ok with the big bang (though if a better cosmology comes along I’ll be happy to switch.)
Unfortunately Dave seems rather ignorant of what global flood believers actually believe. The point of the flood was to destroy the whole world, including the garden. Remember how long it took for the birds to find vegetation? The garden, if it hadn’t already been grown over with weeds, would have been destroyed in the flood, along with everything else.
[ Edited: 04 September 2009 12:17 PM by Dannii Willis]
Yes I’m a creationist… as hopefully all Christians are. Anyone who doesn’t believe God created the world, regardless of means and timeframes, cannot be in orthodox Christianity.
I think being a Christian is about things other than believing in the “Creationists” view of the bible.
By “Creationists” the general meaning is “people who read Genesis more or less literally”. They believe that Genesis 1-11 is pure history, and pure scientific fact. They generate or believe pseudo scientific argument to back up that view.
That view I reject as being illogical and naive, contradicted by other observations made in recent times. (eg physics, astronomy, archaelogy, dna discoveries, geology etc.)
A person is a Christian if they follow Jesus and rely on him for salvation and live the way he commands. It relies on no other factor.
I believe that God created the world, and that he used physical means to do it, all under the command of His word. That process does not rule out the methods that are now espoused by science.
THE K-T EXTINCTION
About 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous, a large fraction of plant and animal families suddenly went extinct. In this Cretaceous-Tertiary or K-T mass extinction (K is for Kreide, meaning chalk in German, which describes the chalky sediment layer from that time; T is for Tertiary, the next geologic period), all land animals over about 55 pounds went extinct, as did many smaller organisms.
The K-T mass extinction obliterated the dinosaurs , pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ammonites, some families of birds and marsupial mammals, over half the plankton groups, many families of teleost (bony) fishes, bivalves, snails, sponges, sea urchins and others.
This catastrophe eventually led to the Age of Mammals.
Dannii, the KT layer reveals that dinosaurs etc were not found above that line. New species began to appear above that line, formed aprox 65 million years ago.
Doesnt this find explain something about evolution to people? The vast array of the mammal family, of which humans are part, did not exist except from some very small scavanger species, below that KT layer.
And of course dinosaurs dont appear in very low strata of rock before their introduction to the Earth.
It is the order of appearance from bottom to top layers of rock which date species, no? Other periphal arguments as to the exact age related to carbon dating are not the main proof.
Then we have:
CHEMICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY
In the clay layer from the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary, scientists have found chemical evidence that supports the Alvarez impact theory. The K-T layer consists of the sedimentary deposits that accrued from the end of the Cretaceous period to the beginning of the Tertiary period. It is divided into two layers, the Magic Layer (3 mm thick) and the Ejecta Layer (2 cm thick).
Siderophiles - The Rare Earth Elements Os, Au, Pt, Ni, Co, Pd, and Ir, are Siderophile Elements. Their abundance in the lower K-T layer is indicative of an asteroid impact. Iridium (Ir) has been found in the K-T layer around the world. The discovery of a 100,000-years-thick layer of iridium in the K-T boundary in New Zealand, Denmark, and Italy. Iridium is rare on Earth except near the Earth’s center, but relatively abundant in chondritic meteors (stony meteors with chondrules, spherical blobs of silicates which pre-date planetary formation). A meteoritic origin of this iridium layer seems likely. This layer became known as the iridium anomaly.
Tektites - Tektites are quartz grains which are vaporized under intense heat and pressure, and cool into glass beads with no crystalline structure. Tektites were probably formed during a meteorite or comet collision. Tektites are abundant in the K-T layer.
Shocked quartz - When quartz is put under extremely high pressure, it can cleave in parallel planes. Shocked quartz is found at nuclear bomb sites and known meteorite impact areas. Shocked quartz is abundant in the K-T layer.
Stishovite (Silicon Dioxide) - a form of quartz created under conditions of high heat and pressure. It is used as an indicator of meteor impact. It has been found in abnormally high abundance in the K-T layer. Most likely formed during a massive collision.
Glass beads - Kenneth Miller has discovered a two-inch layer of glass beads in the K-T layer near the Bass River in New Jersey, USA, supporting Alvarez’ theory.
[ Edited: 04 September 2009 01:52 PM by Ken Austin]
Dannii, As has happened in the past, we come to a sort of impasse. You would have to have travelled in my shoes to understand my Christian beliefs and vice versa. I certainly don’t think that you can dismiss people as Christians because they don’t believe your version of the Bible.
You ask for references to back up my views. Hell, this is a forum in 2009. My views are my own EXPERIENCES and those of others. I am no longer a student and I assume you are no longer a student.
In fact, due to the knowledge revealed in the last 100yrs, I would describe the scholarly writings of the last 1000 yrs as of no further use. They were mainly concerned with theological nonsense anyway. Similarly, much of the OT was dismissed by the writers of the NT as obsolete attempts by the Jews to create a society governed by endless laws and rules.
I believe that we must focus on the uniting of Christians, not the division. The classic example IMO is the division of the Eastern and Wstern churches over the Trinity issue, perhaps thought up only by a handful of wayward monks. I accept the Trinity idea as a Anglican, but the neccessity of it , I have yet to fall in love with.
No matter how much scripture you quote, you cannot avoid the result of the Trinity division——millions of Christians divided by a Babel fence, and all on show for all the world to see.
WE must be more co-operative and non-judgmental to avoid this sort of outcome.
Doug, if you can describe the writings of people even like Luther or Calvin as “theological nonsense” then there really is no point us discussing anything together ever again.
A Christian’s basis for all their knowledge and understanding must be God’s revealed word, as preserved in the Bible. If it is not their basis then they should not be called a Christian.
(Please note I am saying nothing about their eternal state. Though they may be sinful fools, as I am in my ways, God is exceedingly merciful.)
Hi Ken, yes I know about the K-T layer, and also think it was most likely caused by meteorites.
But that’s not really very important, or relevant to this topic. I have a question for you: how do you interpret Romans 5:12-14?
What the KT layer shows is that vast numbers of species were wiped out, and that from that point in history, new species appeared in stratas of rock above it. The time this happened was 65 million years ago, approximately.
In subsequent layers of rock, above this timeline, dinosaur bones disappeared, except for some (crocodiles lizards etc), and more and more new species of mammals began to appear for the next millions of years. Early hominoid remains appear on a timeline of about 3 million years ago. It is believed that modern man’s remains are dated to only 100,000 years ago.
I sometimes watch a show called “Time Team”, I think that’s the title. People dig into farm land in England. They go down a few feet, and find Roman, and old Celtic Britain remains. Now Romans were there less than 2000 years, and that represents about 2-3 feet of surface build up. At that rate, 100,000 years would give us about 50-60 feet of build up (on valley land)
The land then forms into rock at that level, and any remains become fossilised. It is these fossils which explain the past life on Earth.
Regarding the words of Romans 5:12-14, it says that Adam (a word that actually means ‘man’) was sinful, and that his sin caused death to mankind. Death can mean physical and spiritual death, (death = man’s seperation from God caused by sin).
I accept that people are sinful by nature, and that they cannot please God by their own actions. God enabled forgiveness partially in the OT sacrificial system, and full forgiveness by a living faith in Jesus later on.
I read this verse in the sense of spiritual death. I think physical death has occurred in all species from the begining of life. But, Jesus rose from death and promises life to all believers. So it is, on a basis of faith, that we have life.
It is a mystery really. I seperate my spiritual life, from any findings in science or history. I don’t read scripture always literally, but at times I feel the text indicates that it is.
[ Edited: 06 September 2009 01:24 PM by Ken Austin]
Ken, the KT layer does not show that species were made extinct by the events that caused the layer, that is an interpretation, which may or may not be a good one. Nor does it conclusively prove that the species above the layer were not alive before it. Fossilisation is a very rare process.
If the Time Team found Roman remains in only 3 feed of digging they were very lucky! Most of the time they will dig for a few metres and not find the remains of buildings only a few hundreds of years old. Okay, maybe not most of the time… but often when I’ve watched it. I would expect that valley areas would have a much greater sedimentation rate than that.
But for me, the issue is the calibration of the dating methods. There are many assumptions made with all dating methods, some fair, some less so. In order for a dating method to be useful it must be calibrated. We can calibrate C14 dating with archaeological remains, but only when we know how old those remains are. Outside of those dates C14 can’t be so easily calibrated. And of course it has a maximum age of 60k, after that the C14 runs out! The other dating methods must all also be calibrated though… the question is, how can they be calibrated independently? Time and age is not something science can measure. We can measure intensity, frequency or the ratios of some material, but not time or age.
There is one big assumption all dating methods have: that the universe always acts the same way. As a Christian this is something I can usually accept, but not for all cases, because I believe God does intervene in this world. I believe God intervened in one way by sending a miraculous flood to cover the whole earth. To a large extent then, I do not believe science can tell us anything about the flood or the world before it, because science cannot explain the miraculous.
So I think, if you want to accept the long age datings science gives us, you must believe in a non-interventionist God, and there’s another topic for that ;)
If you believe sin caused both spiritual AND physical death to mankind, how is this compatible with the theories of human evolution you also believe, which required innumerable generations of death to result in the Homo sapiens we are now?
If you believe sin caused both spiritual AND physical death to mankind, how is this compatible with the theories of human evolution you also believe, which required innumerable generations of death to result in the Homo sapiens we are now?
I did not say I believed this. My NIV study bible agrees with my view that death in the passage from Romans 5:12-14 is either mentioning spiritual or physical death.
I think it is speaking of spiritual death, not physical death.
Your views about carbon dating and fossilisation seem to agree with Creationist views and not Scientific views.
So you don’t believe sin caused physical death? What is the punishment for sin then? Spiritual death? If so, who were the first spiritually alive people?
I do not think that Romans 5 means purely spiritual death. There are some other passages that say similar things. For example 1 Cor 15. After saying that if we do not have physical resurrection our faith is in vain, Paul in verse 21 links the death that one man brought with the life that another man brings. Verse 22 names the men specifically.
James 1:15 also says that “when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.” Those who sin are already spiritually dead, so the later death it speaks of here must be physical.
Also, Adam only means “man” in Hebrew. In these passages in the NT it uses Adam’s name and must refer to him specifically, as Greek has a completely different word for man. (At least to the character of Adam, it need not necessarily require there to have been a historical man named Adam, but it is definitely refering to the character of Adam in Genesis.)
What about Carbon dating did I say that’s unscientific?
[ Edited: 07 September 2009 09:27 AM by Dannii Willis]
This is part of it, but the link refutes creationist claims against carbon dating.
Conclusion
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
As for the scripture quotes, I suggest you take them spiritually, not physically. Religion deals with the spiritual aspect of life. I believe Jesus rose physically, and that at the second coming it says we all will be raised from our “sleeping state”, which we call death.
I think differences of belief exist in all believers to a large or small extent. We do need to be similar on the basic principles of the gospel message, but interpretation of texts can be much different if one takes all text in a literal sense, without recognising that much of scripture is a riddle.
[ Edited: 07 September 2009 05:29 PM by Ken Austin]
Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.
I’m not inclined to read much further when they make such unsubstantiated claims. Woodmorappe’s Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study was published in 96 and deals with these issues and many others. Now it would be a different matter if they had said that the religious explanations were inadequate in their opinions (especially if they then gave reasons why they were inadequate!) but no, they say no attempt has been made at answering these questions.
I find the fossil record rather ironic. It is given as the major evidence for the theory of evolution. BUT: The theory of evolution is a theory about genetics. The fossil record however cannot tell us anything about the genetics of the creatures and plants that got fossilised, it can only give physiological evidence. And even more than that, it is of course utterly impossible to prove that any two fossils are related in any way at all (except maybe these two.) Now okay, I know they aren’t saying the fossil record is conclusive proof of evolution, but I still find it ironic that fossils lacking in all genetic data are the primary evidence of a theory all about genetics.
I don’t think it refutes anything I said about carbon dating… in fact it agrees with what I said. C14 is formed in the upper atmosphere. The dating method must assume that the production rate is constant from now until 70k years ago (when C14 dating can’t be used anymore.) But there’s no way to show that the C14 levels of today were the same as those of the past.
The other dating methods are generally more reliable, as they use radioactive decay to date things… and those are pretty close to constant. BUT, we must still assume that there was no daughter isotope to begin with (sometimes fair… sometimes not) and that there has been no contamination. And as the RATE group showed, there may be situations where the radioactive decay rate is different, like if the electrons all get stripped away.
This is an interesting article. The presence of carbon 14 in diamonds gives them a very young maximum age, much younger than the usual billions of years claimed. And the structure of diamond makes contamination exceedingly unlikely.
Meh. Have a wider read. Not everything that is commonly believed to be true is actually true.
Ken, I get that you can take Romans 5 in a spiritual sense, but what about the other two passages I gave? What evidence do you have that 1 Cor 15:21 means that one man brought spiritual death and another man spiritual and physical life?
Yes there are lots of small differences in belief that don’t matter much. But I am convinced that death being a punishment for sin is central to the Gospel. It’s what Two Ways to Live teaches, among many other resources. And if you believe that the punishment for sin is only spiritual death, then please answer my question: who were the first spiritually alive people?
And SERIOUSLY GUYS: STOP saying that people like me read the Bible literally! I feel ashamed of anyone who says that, because they must be ignoring all my constant denials of it (and explanations of how I do interpret scripture.)
Dannii, lets face it, every living thing dies. To say that humans die because of sin cannot be taken literally. People have including the first hominoids, and including homo sapiens - modern man.
Which hominoid species do the scripture verses refer to? Homo sapiens? Or do you reject findings of other hominoid remains completely?
As I reject that Adam was a specific person, and most theologians read Genesis 1-11 allegorically, I reject that one should take the sin=death relationship literally. Death happens, end of story. Spiritual death is most certainly the result of Sin, of that I am sure.
Also, you confirm that your views differ from the views of Geologists and paleontologists generally.
Really you do seem to agree with Creationists, on that basis?
Dannii, I will leave this topic at this stage, as I have nothing more to add. I will leave it to others to pursue. Thanks for discussing the issue in a very friendly manner with me, brother.
[ Edited: 08 September 2009 07:18 PM by Ken Austin]
Dave, that’s not my argument about polemics. The point of polemic metaphors and allegories is that they do in some way reflect reality, even if in a very general and figurative way.
Agreed. So the polemic here makes broad statements that we all agree on, that ONE God made the world, that He did so as a matter of His own choice, that He made it good (etc, all in contrast to the ancient world).
The pagan origin myths did not reflect reality very well.
Agreed. It was a story stating that there were many gods, and this world is the accidental by-product of a war among those gods.
For Genesis to be a useful polemic it must reflect reality far more.
Agreed, which it does in theological terms.
A lot of the pagan myths describe a chaotic creation, sometimes even from vomit, or a corpse in the case of the Enûma Eliš. Genesis says that God deliberately and orderedly created the universe. Can that be an effective polemic if the processes God used to create are at their heart random (Not that God wasn’t soverign, any more than Marduk wasn’t soverign when he tore Tiamat in two)?
No, because a sovereign God was ordering that ‘randomness’.
Also, what are you doing comparing the 7 days of creation to evolution when we are meant to be back there comparing them to the Enuma Elish? It’s a debunking of Enuma, not evolution. It’s a polemic against the ancient world’s theological texts, not today’s scientific speculation. Reading today’s issues over the passage is what is making so many Christians ask questions that you’ve just been asking about death etc before the fall because of evolution! The passage is basically saying “we sin, therefore, we die” which I agree with!
So how to reconcile it? There are models by Stott and Packer, but you don’t want to discuss them… oh well, better not ask about pre-fall death then.
Another aspect of this ordered creation is its divisions of life. The repeated phrase “after their kind” emphasises this….
I take it more that this passage is talking about the order and goodness in creation that the author saw then. Generally speaking doggies DO begat doggies, and birds DO begat birds. Except over millions of years….
Also, while we are here discussing animals that breed in a perfect, pre-fall, FINITE world, how where those bunny rabbits going to eat when their combined mass exceeded the weight of the solar system in just a thousand years or so?
Hi Ken, I am not denying that I may read it historically or literally, but that I read it literalistically. For reasons I don’t understand, Dave thinks I want to interpret Genesis 1 as saying there is a real physical firmament in the sky or heavens, and Genesis 8 as saying there are windows in the sky! I have never said that, and I don’t think I’ve even hinted that I do.
No, but the bible does, why don’t you believe the bible? ;-)
See I’m the one that is free to acknowledge that certain literary forms in Genesis 1-11 are quite figurative as I’m the one reading it acknowledging its various literary forms. You’re the one ignoring literary forms and the polemic that it obviously is against ancient world texts, and trying to make it a *literalistic history lesson* rather than a metaphorical theology lesson.
So you have to explain why you read certain things as metaphors and not others. Right now it all seems fairly haphazard and picky to me, because I just scratch my head and agree that the firmament and floodgates are metaphors, as are the 7 days, and the snake, and maybe the very name “Adam” meaning something like “mankind from earth”... etc.
Creationists insist that I read the passage with the PLAIN reading of the text. But this also has
* Chapter 2 contradicting chapter 1,
* Cain choosing a wife out of nowhere because it says NOTHING about Adam and Eve having a daughter up to that point,
* and on and on I could go.
It seems that for a “plain” reading of the text, Creationists do an awful lot of reading between the lines.
The mighty strength of a huge metallic firmament could be a great metaphor for God’s providence in keeping us dry.
So THAT is a metaphor but not the 7 days almost exaactly mirroring the Enuma Elish, which for some reason we have to ignore all the literary evidence to the contrary and read it as an ACTUAL, non-metaphorical account? I just don’t get your rationale.
Unfortunately Dave seems rather ignorant of what global flood believers actually believe. The point of the flood was to destroy the whole world, including the garden. Remember how long it took for the birds to find vegetation? The garden, if it hadn’t already been grown over with weeds, would have been destroyed in the flood, along with everything else.
Does that include the Angel with the Flaming Sword!? I didn’t know Angels were prone to drowning. Or was that bit metaphor? Or do we have to add more to the text again? OK, now how much more “reading between the lines” do I have to do for the bible? Why was Cain building a city again, and not just a house for 3? Surely there were only Adam and Eve and Cain at that point? Where did his wife come from again?
The bible is answering all sorts of theological issues in these early chapters, shining a spotlight on a certain family group, but the moment we start reading it to answer more questions we might have than Genesis really wants to answer, then we move into the area of ‘scientific & theological synergies’ that can only be disposable ideas brought to the public arena to discuss questions that WE might have that the bible does not necessarily answer at this point.
Dannii, lets face it, every living thing dies. To say that humans die because of sin cannot be taken literally. People have including the first hominoids, and including homo sapiens - modern man.
No Ken, I do believe this! I believe God originally made the world perfectly, and death was not a part of that! Through our rebellion against God we introduced corruption into the universe, including death. We spoiled God’s perfect creation.
Which hominoid species do the scripture verses refer to? Homo sapiens? Or do you reject findings of other hominoid remains completely?
Well that’s a good question. Some like Stott propose that there is a difference between the unspiritual Homo sapiens of the past and the humans of today, what he calls Homo divinus (humans aware of the divine.) I disagree. What do you think?
Also, I don’t think the physiology of the hominid remains is enough to tell us which species they are. Only DNA could tell us whether we could mate with a hominid, and we don’t have that.
You’ve said before that you believe spiritual death is the result of sin, I get that. But I still have two questions that I’d love for you to answer, so I can truly understand what you believe.
1. To be able to become spiritually dead would require you to be spiritually alive first. Most of theologians do not believe that pre-Homo sapiens hominids were spiritual beings, and some might say that it is something that came a long time after Homo sapiens became a distinct species, more around the time of civilisation. So who were the first spiritually alive person/people? A Homo sapiens? The first? Before? After?
2. If one man brought spiritual death, why believe that another man (Jesus) will bring physical and spiritual life? Or, what evidence do you have that 1 Cor 15:21 means that one man brought spiritual death and another man spiritual and physical life?
* Cain choosing a wife out of nowhere because it says NOTHING about Adam and Eve having a daughter up to that point,
Seth was named as a replacement for Abel when Adam was 130, which implies Abel’s murder happened shortly before. I think you have the harder task to explain why Adam and Eve had two children and then waited 129ish years before having another.
So THAT is a metaphor but not the 7 days almost exaactly mirroring the Enuma Elish, which for some reason we have to ignore all the literary evidence to the contrary and read it as an ACTUAL, non-metaphorical account? I just don’t get your rationale.
No, the 7 days could be metaphorical and symbolic too. But it could also be historical. God is in the business of making the symbolic into reality. He did this with Jesus in so many ways, he could do it with the beginning too. Or maybe he didn’t. I am making a stand and saying the gospel requires death to be the consequence for sin. If you believe that but think the 7 days is symbolic, great! I don’t care.
Does that include the Angel with the Flaming Sword!? I didn’t know Angels were prone to drowning. Or was that bit metaphor? Or do we have to add more to the text again? OK, now how much more “reading between the lines” do I have to do for the bible? Why was Cain building a city again, and not just a house for 3? Surely there were only Adam and Eve and Cain at that point? Where did his wife come from again?
I don’t know what happened to the angel as the Bible doesn’t say, I presume he just left once the garden had been flooded. Or would that not be an acceptable presumption for you?
And you really think there were only just 4 humans for 130 years? Why? And if there were only 4 humans, why would they have such precisely defined roles as shepherd and farmer? Who needs flocks when there are only 4 people, wouldn’t just a sheep and a cow or two do for the family? I think these roles might suggest that by then they had already developed a society and economy based on specialised occupations, rather than 100% of the society being generic hunters and gatherers.
Now this is pure speculation, but perhaps Abel was the first and highest shepherd, leader of the shepherd guild under him, and Cain was the leader of the farmers union. (I think there could be some weight to this idea, as Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-cain are all also listed in Genesis 4 their achievements.) They bring their sacrifices to God as representatives for all those who work under them.
Seth was named as a replacement for Abel when Adam was 130, which implies Abel’s murder happened shortly before. I think you have the harder task to explain why Adam and Eve had two children and then waited 129ish years before having another.
On the one hand you have to add heaps of other children ‘between the lines’ for the rest of it to work, but the way Eve rejoices in her special song for Seth indicates that she only had Cain and Abel, and Seth replaces Abel. The bible says nothing about Adam and Eve having other children until way after this point, and her song indicates sheer relief at Seth’s birth.
25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
You are simply reading too much between the lines that verse 25 above seems to contradict.
Again, bible scholars are saying that Genesis 1-11 is a highly figurative piece of writing with the spotlight on one story and one family line. So I take it asking questions about how it fits with evolution are simply asking how does the theology represented here fit with what science is telling us. IE: How does the book of God’s word fit with the book of God’s works, his universe?
And this is where the models come in that have ‘Adam’ as a representative Federal head ‘woken up’ to the reality of his relationship with God, protected from physical and spiritual death by living in a special garden with a ‘Tree of life’ and walking with God that could have protected them from any aging or genetic predispositions to certain diseases, and once they fell humanity fell with them and was kicked out of the garden. We returned to the natural world and natural rhythms, only this time with our spiritual choice having been made and our predicament that much worse.
The sting of sin is death? No, the verse actually says the sting of death is sin. Check it out.
On the one hand you have to add heaps of other children ‘between the lines’ for the rest of it to work, but the way Eve rejoices in her special song for Seth indicates that she only had Cain and Abel, and Seth replaces Abel. The bible says nothing about Adam and Eve having other children until way after this point, and her song indicates sheer relief at Seth’s birth.
So you think that if Eve had other children she wouldn’t have mourned the death of her son Abel? What!? I see nothing in what Eve said that required her to have only two children, only that she gave birth to another child and named him in memory of a child she had recently lost. The Bible says nothing about other children until it gets to the genealogy, where it follows a familiar formula: give the age of the father at the birth of the son that the lineage goes through, then give years the father lived after that, and note that he had other children, before finally giving the age he died at. If you think this means Adam had no daughters until after he had Seth, then aren’t you ignoring this particular literary structure? I could rightly call you the literalist now!
And this is where the models come in that have ‘Adam’ as a representative Federal head ‘woken up’ to the reality of his relationship with God, protected from physical and spiritual death by living in a special garden with a ‘Tree of life’ and walking with God that could have protected them from any aging or genetic predispositions to certain diseases, and once they fell humanity fell with them and was kicked out of the garden. We returned to the natural world and natural rhythms, only this time with our spiritual choice having been made and our predicament that much worse.
As you don’t believe in a historical garden, what would have happened in history between the time of awakening and sin?
[ Edited: 09 September 2009 12:02 PM by Dannii Willis]
So you think that if Eve had other children she wouldn’t have mourned the death of her son Abel? What!?
Not saying that at all, I’m saying that it seems the bible is awfully quiet on the subject of other children at this point, whereas it DOES mention other children in the line of Seth. So why is it silent on the subject with Adam and Eve, and yet spelling it out with the line of Seth? (Chapter 5).
25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
You’re ignoring the force of the words. Why does it then jump straight into “Seth also had another son”, yet omit Adam and Eve’s other children? I’m reading the plain message of the text, and you’re the one adding stuff now.
Also, the sting of death is sin.
As you don’t believe in a historical garden, what would have happened in history between the time of awakening and sin?
I don’t know… I haven’t read those who have studied the metaphors of the following chapters as closely as I have read those who have studied and explained Chapter 1. I’m undecided. I’m just saying I’m open to their being a lot of figurative language here in the Hebrew because at first blush in the English there already seems to be some fairly clear indications of it with the second chapter contradicting the first chapter, etc etc etc.
Also, remember the spotlight! This is God shining his spotlight on one area, we are simply not told about everything else. (Like the Aboriginals being here 40,000 years. But of course, that must be wrong because you read a few chapters of the bible more ‘scientifically’ than I do, so your whole view of science must contain a huge conspiracy theory and suspicion, where I just see that many bible scholars are simply saying you are reading a few chapters wrong… with terrible consequences for your view of science).
Also, what Eve says suggests she and Adam are in a repaired relationship with God. If this is the case, why would they be so disobedient as have no children for close to 130 years? God’s first commandment to them was to fill the earth!
Not saying that at all, I’m saying that it seems the bible is awfully quiet on the subject of other children at this point, whereas it DOES mention other children in the line of Seth. So why is it silent on the subject with Adam and Eve, and yet spelling it out with the line of Seth? (Chapter 5).
You’re ignoring the force of the words. Why does it then jump straight into “Seth also had another son”, yet omit Adam and Eve’s other children? I’m reading the plain message of the text, and you’re the one adding stuff now.
Read the next sentence! “Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord.” I would guess that with Enosh people once again returned to the faith of Adam and Eve in God.
I don’t think you have a full grasp on the narrative and literary structures here. Genesis 2:4-4:26 form one narrative unit, telling of the creation of the first humans, their right and holy relationship with each other and with God, followed by their fall into sin. There is a minor bit of hope here when God clothes Adam and Eve. Genesis 4 continues that with the sinful behaviour of their son Cain, and his descendant Lamech. But the narrative ends on a larger and more explicit note of hope: not only do Adam and Eve still thank God for a new child, but their grandson Enosh brings a time when people again call on God.
It is a very concise narrative. It mentions the wives of Cain and Lamech, but not Enoch or Irad or Mehujael or Methushael or Seth. Obviously all of these men also had wives.
Chapter 5 has a very different literary structure, that of a genealogy. It is concerned with one family line only: that of Noah’s. If we think of it as recording the ancestors of Noah, rather than the descendants of Adam, then nothing would require his ancestors to have been the firstborns.
Genesis 4 doesn’t mention Adam and Eve’s other children because they are not relevant to describing either humanity’s descent into sin, nor the partial return to faith in God. Genesis 5 does mention their other children because it’s giving the brief history of Noah’s ancestors. And it starts from Adam remember, not his grandson who had already been mentioned in chapter 4. I think that shows it isn’t a straight continuation on from chapter 4, but rather a distinct unit.
I don’t know… I haven’t read those who have studied the metaphors of the following chapters as closely as I have read those who have studied and explained Chapter 1. I’m undecided. I’m just saying I’m open to their being a lot of figurative language here in the Hebrew because at first blush in the English there already seems to be some fairly clear indications of it with the second chapter contradicting the first chapter, etc etc etc.
Yes I accept there is a lot of figurative language. But that language points to the realities it describes, and it is those realities that really matter. Please do have a deeper think about my question there, you may actually be able to come up with a satisfactory answer that will cause me to reconsider. When you told me to read Dickson in the past that opened my mind to a lot of the figuartive language that I hadn’t know about, maybe you’ll do it again.
But based on what I think you’ve said so far, without an actual physical historical garden, where they really did have perfect health and a right relationship with God, I can’t see how the moments of enlightenment and sin wouldn’t become one point in history. And if that was the case then they would be under suffering, corruption and death for their whole lives. And of course I can’t accept that.
Also, I don’t think the physiology of the hominid remains is enough to tell us which species they are. Only DNA could tell us whether we could mate with a hominid, and we don’t have that.
This indicates that you accept that hominoids existed before homo sapiens (which is us).
This indicates that you don’t accept the Genesis 1-11 story in a literal sense, and that Genesis 1-11 was truly an allegory in every sense.
God revealed Himself to man at some point, and, breathed His spirit into mankind, where it previously was not present. That is what the Bible tells, us especially when Abram is visited and a covenant is made. God chooses Abram (later Abraham), and his race will be His people. This, I believe, is true in a literal sense.
Earlier chapters of Genesis are proven to be pre-history, and are built on ancient myths from this locality. They primiraly refute the nature of God, that the pagan tribes have invented. this is possible because the true and living God, JHWH, has revealed Himself, and chosen His people.
Fairly researched theories place the writing of these early chapters of Genesis after the return from exile from Babylon. Not in the 13th Century BC as supposed.
[ Edited: 10 September 2009 07:30 PM by Ken Austin]
[null]Catholics File Suits on Contraceptive CoverageNew York Times[{}]At least 11 other Catholic and evangelical organizations had already filed lawsuits challenging the birth control mandate, but those cases are still pending. The White House declined to comment on Monday, instead providing President Obama's comments ...
[null]Catholic Groups File Suits on Contraceptive CoverageNew York Times[{}]At least 11 other Catholic and evangelical organizations had already filed lawsuits challenging the birth control mandate, but those cases are still pending. The White House declined to comment on Monday, instead providing President Obama's comments ...
RSS Feed