Deep Theistic Evolution

[George Murphy]

It's been suggested that a thread be started here to discuss theistic evolution (henceforth TE) theologically. I'm happy to do that, & will lead off with some comments about my own approach.

1) Like many Christians who are labelled TEs, I'm not wild about the term. Among other things, it reduces God's activity to adjectival status. But it's hard to change established terminology. We should realize, however, that there's a very wide range of views among people called TEs, as following discussion will probably reveal.

2) I called this thread "Deep TE." What I mean by "shallow" TE is simply being content with saying "Evolution is God's way of creating." IMO that is true, but in itself is quite inadequate to deal with the important theological issues that arise.

3) Science is relevant - indeed essential - for this discussion. & that means science done without theological (or anti-theological) presuppositions -
"secular science" if you will. In fact, one of the things I'll argue is that the hiddenness of divine action toward which the cross of Christ points means that we should be able to understand the world etsi deus non daretur, "though God were not given." (The phrase was popularized by Bonhoeffer, though he didn't originate it.)
But conversely, science is only of theological relevance when placed in an explicitly theological context. In particular, science in itself does not talk about "creation", which is a theological concept.

4) In what theological context is discussion to take place? My fundamental claim is that it should be the theology of the cross, as expounded by Luther (but by no means limited to him or to the Lutheran tradition): "True theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ"(LW 31, p.53).
It may be appropriate to note that I've presented this view in other forums at some length, most recently & in detail in The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross (Trinity Press International, 2003). I'm glad to exppand here on my statements that follow, but a lot of references &c are in this book.

5) What are the implications of such a theology for an understanding of evolution? Here I'll just sketch, briefly & inadequately, a few points.
a) God's activity in the world is characteristically hidden - cf.Is.45:15 (a verse emphasized both by Luther & by Pascal). As I argued above, this means that the world can be understood without reference to God.
b) That claim will be offensive to many Christians who think that the idea of God is "necessary" in order to understand the world. No. Part of the divine kenosis (Phil.2:5-11) is that God is willing to be considered unnecessary. As Bonoeffer puts it, God is willing to be pushed out of the world onto a cross.
c) As God Incarnate, Christ is fully divine and fully human. & if evolution is right (as I think it is), "fully human" means that God has become part of the evolutionary process - an idea that of course is offensive to many Christians.
I argue that that is essentially the scandal of the cross. Furthermore, on the cross God experiences the suffering & death that are part of that process -
a crucial consideration for theodicy challenges often directed against TE. & the resurrection of Christ is the reason for hope - not only for humanity but for the world.

6) Some will be surprised that I've said nothing yet about Gen.1 & 2. There are 2 reasons for that.
a) We are to interpret Genesis in the light of the NT, and specifically in the light of Christ, not vice versa.
b) While the Genesis texts are of course important, they are by no means the only important ones dealing with creation. Starting somewhere else can have the advantage of avoiding getting stuck in well-worn ruts of familiar debates. In an earlier book, The Trademark of God, I started with the exodus tradition & Is.40-55 before moving to Genesis.

7) Briefly on Gen.1 & 2. Recognizing this as part of true & authoritative scripture, we then have to ask what types of literature we're dealing with. Are we to read these as historical narrative, liturgy, theological polemic, or what? Here I'll just make the following points:
a) Gen.1:1-2:4a & 2:4b-25 (briefly, Gen.1 & Gen.2) are separate creation texts that talk about God's creation of the world and life in different ways. They cannot be "harmonized" as historical narratives without doing violence to one or both.
b) These accounts, read as historical/scientific accounts, do not agree with what science has overwhelmingly shown us about the development of the universe & life.
c) a & b together point to the conclusion that we should not read the Genesis accounts as historical or scientific accounts. They are true & authoritative statements about God & our world & our lives, but they are fundamentally theological statements about those things.
d) Thus I'm not terribly interested in talking about how Eve could have really (qua historical event) been created from Adam's side. That's an important statement about the unity of humanity & relations between the sexes, & when I read that text when I preside at a wedding it has profound & true meaning. But I see no reason to talk about some divine transplant surgery + cloning as a scientific event.
e) While Gen.1 is not an historical account of the way life developed, it's important that the picture that's given of the creation of life is one of mediated creation, God commanding the elemnts of the world to bring forth life in accord with the capabilities he's given them. This understanding was quite common among the church fathers.
e) As Westermann has argued, the culmination of the 1st creation story is the Sabbath, which in Jewish & Christian thought has always been understood as pointing toward the eschaton. That fact that this of course is not yet accomplished (though the risen Christ is its prolepsis) means that the creation story looks toward the future. It's open ended. In particular, it doesn't mean that God stopped doing anything at some point near the beginning of the universe - cf.Jn.5:17.

That should be enough to get things started.

Shalom,
George

[dizzle]

Just as a word of introduction, I asked George to start this as ongoing dialog trhead to understand TE without the baggage that comes with it in science and to have this on a scholarly exegetical level and not a spitball context as this conversations go. I am really hoping that those knowledge in the Hebrew will be able to comment as well.

[George Murphy]

Just as a word of introduction, I asked George to start this as ongoing dialog trhead to understand TE without the baggage that comes with it in science and to have this on a scholarly exegetical level and not a spitball context as this conversations go. I am really hoping that those knowledge in the Hebrew will be able to comment as well.
I appreciate Dee Dee's encouragement to start this thread. While exegesis of individual texts is important, a basic hermeneutic issue needs to be dealt with first: Can biblical texts be something other than historical narrative, history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist, & still have truth & authority as Christians have traditionally believed scripture to have?

My own answer is "Yes," & I would cite many of the parables of Jesus as just a few examples of this. Of course that does not mean that everything in the Bible can be interpreted as parabolic, fictional, &c, so this is not a drop-dead argument for the claims that Gen.1 & 2 are not to be read as historical narratives. But it does mean that that is a possibility that deserves to be considered.

One implication of that is that questions about the relationship of a text to the world cannot be decided simply by studying how words are used within the text. As a simple example, the word yom in Gen.1 means a 24 hour day.
It can have broader senses in other texts, but within the Genesis story there's no justification for making it a period of billions of years, a geological age, &c.

But one cannot move immediately from there to say "God literally created the world in 6 24 hour days." One has to decide whether or not that text is to be read as an historical account, & only if it is can the 24 hour days within the story be taken as referring to 24 hour periods in the history of the universe.

& one thing that has to be considered there is what science says about the history of the universe. This is not a matter of letting science dictate to theology, but one of theology using science to help (N.B.) to determine which interpretation of the text is to be preferred.

Shalom,
George

[Warcraft3]

This is a good start I think and there are good arguments for views like "the framework view" that disagree with Mortons view.

Im an advocate of Mortons view myself, even though that view does not necessarily explain everything in the text. I do believe though, that such a view is permissable within the context of Genesis specifically, and also permissable within the whole of scripture.

George gave an interesting into, which brings us into the larger context of the theology of the cross. This is a fitting context for Christians to debate these issues, since scripture ultimately centers on that doctrine.

Im curious to see how everyone (including myself) will argue their point while keeping in mind this larger context. Hopefully we will have alot of participation from each respective viewpoint.

I will write more thoughts at a later time (maybe tonight or tomorrow...)

Thanks for starting the thread George.




Russ

[dizzle]

Here is what another TE has said in another thread. I would like to hear from people who know Hebrew if this is legitimate:



Attention TEs - well specifically I am referring to TEs such as Glenn who hold to a very similar view of inspiration that I do - that Genesis is primarily historical and not primarily mythological or allegorical. I am not close-minded to hear your theological arguments. I would like to see them vigorouslly debate in Biblical Languages where those who are knowledgeable in the original languages can give their comments.

I will play here on two counts. First we don't play games of who said what when and where and 2 I will play here because in a science forum science can be brought into the equation. I simply don't think one should interpret scripture in isolation. I appreciate George Murphy's comment about the RC theologian who felt that many of the early church fathers saw a mediate creation by God. Here is my defense of that concept.

The issue to me is grammatical, not the Hebrew. The issue lies in what is the subject (the active agent) in the sentence.

Lets start with Genesis 1:11
And GodH430 saidH559, Let the earthH776 bringH1876 forthH1876 grassH1877, the herbH6212 yieldingH2232 seedH2233, and the fruitH6529 treeH6086 yieldingH6213 fruitH6529 after his kindH4327, whoseH834 seedH2233 is in itself, upon the earthH776: and it was soH3651.

In Hebrew this is Elohim amar erets, dasha dasha deshe eseb zara zera periy ets asa periy miyn asher zera erets ken

Elohim amar is God said. Well what did God say? He said,

“earth bring bring grass herb yielding seed fruit tree yielding fruit kind that seed earth thus so.”

That is a brute non-punctuated translation. What is the subject of the sentence God spoke? Why it is earth! The subject of the sentence is erets/earth. So what does it mean that ‘erets’ (the earth) is the subject of a sentence. Well according to an internet definition of subject it says

The subject of a sentence is the person, place, thing, or idea that is doing or being something. You can find the subject of a sentence if you can find the verb. Ask the question, "Who or what 'verbs' or 'verbed'?" and the answer to that question is the subject.

Regardless of whether a language is head first or head-last, regardless of whether it has prepositions or postpositions, the rules of what a subject does is the same. It is the actor or the acted upon. In this case it is the actor.

OK, where is the verb of the sentence God spoke? It is bring bring. Dasha dasha. It is apparently used only 2 times in Scripture—here and in Joel 2:22.

What does Brown-Driver-Briggs say this means?

to sprout, shoot, grow green
1a) (Qal) to sprout, grow green
1b) (Hiphil) to cause to sprout, cause to shoot forth

In Joel 2:22 it is Qal.

Regardless of whether it is qal or Hiphil in Genesis 1:11, secondary causation is not ruled out. If it is Hiphil, then it means ‘earth cause to sprout,” which clearly indicates secondary causation. If it is Qal imperative, then it means, Earth sprout vegetation, which also can be interpreted as secondary causation.

So what is the verb in Genesis 1:11? It is hiphil according to one person I checked with who is a Hebrew scholar. That actually strengthens my case. The passage means ‘Earth cause to bring bring grass...’ So the earth is apparently doing the actual causation. God ordered the earth to cause grass to come forth. I can’t think of a better way to say that evolution occurred.


I think that is why the Jewish Rabbi(and surely he knew a bit of Hebrew grammar) , Nachmanides said,

“It is possible that the name’ earth’ mentioned in the first verse already contains a hint that a force which causes things to grow should spring up from the earth, and it was from this force that the foundations of all vegetations according to their kinds emanated.”

Now that we know what the verb is, what is the subject. What is it that is bringing forth? Is it God directly? Not according to the Bible. It is the ‘erets’ which is actually doing the bringing forth regardless of whether it is Qal or Hiphil. So what does erets mean? According to Brown-Driver-Briggs, it means:


1) land, earth
1a) earth
1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
1b8) city (-state)
1c) ground, surface of the earth
1c1) ground
1c2) soil
1d) (in phrases)
1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
1d3) level or plain country
1d4) land of the living
1d5) end(s) of the earth
1e) (almost wholly late in usage)
1e1) lands, countries
1e1a) often in contrast to Canaan


In what sense should we understand the word ‘erets’? I think we can rule out 1d and 1e since that wouldn’t make much sense in the context. Given that we are talking about the origin of the earth, the logical interpretation is 1a1 or 1a2 is probably the most likely interpretation.

This verse also illustrates the fact that there is NO verse in Scripture which says, Plants yield plants after their kind. By that I mean where plants is both the subject and object of the sentence. Grammar requires that if plants are incapable of evolution, that there should be a statement in which plants are said to reproduce plants after their kind. What the Bible actually says is:

‘earth bring forth... fruit tree yielding fruit kind’

The tree yields fruit kind. What kind of tree is it? A fruit tree. Well, fruit trees bring forth fruit kind today but that is not the same as saying ‘fruit trees reproduce fruit trees after
their kind.’

What I think we have in the YEC interpretation of Scripture is lack of attention to the details of what is subject, what is object, what a subject does and what is not said, i.e. animals reproduce animals after their kind.

Like with the geological pictures, if the YECs could point me to one verse in which it says "animals reproduce animals after their kind" or "plants reproduce animals after their kind" one would have to give up the idea that the Bible possibly teaches evolution. But so far no one has done that. The above verse doesn't have plants as the subject of the phrase and so I don't think there is anything in scripture to rule out the concept of speciation or evolution.

Thus, I will stand by my interpretation. And the fact that dasha is Hiphil in Genesis 1:11 and Qal in Joel 2:22 re enforces my case.

[dizzle]

The controversial part of the above is that Glenn, the author, is attributing the work of creation to the land, indirectly by God. I do not think that is legitimate or possible within the text. But I don't know Hebrew. The comment about speciaton is a red herring. YEC do not deny speciation.

[George Murphy]

The controversial part of the above is that Glenn, the author, is attributing the work of creation to the land, indirectly by God. I do not think that is legitimate or possible within the text. But I don't know Hebrew. The comment about speciaton is a red herring. YEC do not deny speciation.
I think there may be an error in transcription of the text in Glenn's post. Gen.1:11 begins :

wayomer 'elohim tadeshe' ha'aretz deshe ...

But I think Glenn's interpretation is sound. Being quite literal, one might render it something like "The earth shall green forth green things ..." I don't have every Bible translation available but all those I've looked at, including LXX & Luther as well English versions, have something equivalent to "Let the earth put forth vegetation ..."

Is this creation? In a fundamental sense only God can create or, in Hebrew terms, only God can bara'. That verb is not used here - but it is used in 1:21 where, after God has said that the waters should swarm with living things, it's said, "so God created (wyibhera') the great sea monsters ..."

The creative action is ultimately God's, and nothing would happen without that action. But it takes place with & through created agencies. Each one of us can say that we have been created by God, but God has done that through the processes of embryological development &c. (& of course there I've had to move from bare exegesis to theological interpretation.)

Shalom,
George

[Warcraft3]

From what I can tell Glenns view does explain alot of the text, including why certain passages are worded like they are.

The one verse Id like to see explained from Glenns perspective is the verse ..."and the spirit of God was hovering above the surface of the deep".

In a "Days of Proclamation" viewpoint....what is the purpose of that verse? What is it trying to tell us?



Russ

[LeiLani]

3) Science is relevant - indeed essential - for this discussion. & that means science done without theological (or anti-theological) presuppositions - "secular science" if you will.

That rules out evolution then, since the main reason for believing it was to disallow "a divine foot in the door". :teeth:

In fact, one of the things I'll argue is that the hiddenness of
divine action toward which the cross of Christ points means that we should be able to understand the world etsi deus non daretur,"though God were not given." (The phrase was popularized by Bonhoeffer, though he didn't originate it.)

Bonhoeffer is not Scripture. Paul said that the evidence for God from creation was so clear that people are "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-32).

a) God's activity in the world is characteristically hidden - cf.Is.45:15 (a verse emphasized both by Luther & by Pascal). As I argued above, this means that the world can be understood without reference to God.

But as Paul argued, the world can't be understood without clearly pointing to God's eternal attributes and divine power.

b) That claim will be offensive to many Christians who think that the idea of God is "necessary" in order to understand the world. No. Part of the divine kenosis (Phil.2:5-11) is

This is an abuse of the kenosis, and is more like the kenotic heresy. First, it was only the Second Person of the Trinity that "emptied himself"; second, this emptying was really an addition of human nature not any subtraction of the divine attributes. In reality, Jesus merely gave up independent exercise of these divine attributes without the Father's authority (which is why He didn't know the day or the hour). See Meaning of kenosis: emptying by adding (http://www.biblicaltraining.org/classes/theology_s/05_t.html).

that God is willing to be considered unnecessary.


This is rank blasphemy, grossly violating the First and Greatest Commandment. And what about Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge." Proverbs 10:9 says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." GM says exactly the opposite. His evolutionary "theology" is so anti-biblical that it can't be called "Christian" any more than Spong can.

As Bonoeffer puts it, God is willing to be pushed out of the world onto a cross.
c) As God Incarnate, Christ is fully divine and fully human. & if evolution is right (as I think it is), "fully human" means that God has become part of the evolutionary process -

No, the Second Person of the Trinity He especially became "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), because He specifically took on human nature, not angelic or any other nature (Heb. 2:14). GM's view is the heresy of panentheism, not biblical theism. It commits the ultimate authority of blurring the foundational distinction between Creator and Creation (Rom.1:25).

an idea that of course is offensive to many Christians.

Yes, true Christians (as opposed to liberal modernists) are offended by modernistic ideas that contradict the Bible!

I argue that that is essentially the scandal of the cross. Furthermore, on the cross God experiences the suffering & death that are part of that process - a crucial consideration for theodicy challenges often directed against TE. & the resurrection of Christ is the reason for hope - not only for humanity but for the world.

This is similar to the Patripassian heresy, where the Father suffers in the Son. I have grave doubts about whether GM is a Trinitarian since he blurs the Persons.

6) Some will be surprised that I've said nothing yet about Gen.1 & 2. There are 2 reasons for that.
a) We are to interpret Genesis in the light of the NT, and specifically in the light of Christ, not vice versa.

Yes, and Christ interpreted the people and events as real history, and said that people were there "from the beginning of creation" not billions of years after a mythical big bang.

7) Briefly on Gen.1 & 2. Recognizing this as part of true & authoritative scripture, we then have to ask what types of literature we're dealing with. Are we to read these as historical narrative, liturgy,theological polemic, or what? Here I'll just make the following points:
a) Gen.1:1-2:4a & 2:4b-25 (briefly, Gen.1 & Gen.2) are separate creation texts that talk about God's creation of the world and life in different ways. They cannot be "harmonized" as historical narratives without doing violence to one or both.

Prove it! Maybe refute articles harmonizing them such asTwo Creation Accounts? (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html) This looks like GM denies biblical inerrancy, which means he has departed from the historic evangelicalism.

b) These accounts, read as historical/scientific accounts, do not agree with what science has overwhelmingly shown us about the development of the universe & life.

:lmbo: Everything my textbook claimed as a "proof" of evolution is no such thing - oh, do tell me about the peppered moths, similar embryos, Miller's Experiment, dog breeding and all the other things :hrm: And even before I was a Christian, my science teacher couldn't answer my questions about evolution! :lol:

c) a & b together point to the conclusion that we should not read the Genesis accounts as historical or scientific accounts. They are true & authoritative statements about God & our world & our lives but they are fundamentally theological statements about those things.

Right, this shows that GM's true authority are the human opinions of "science" rather than God's Word.

d) Thus I'm not terribly interested in talking about how Eve could have really (qua historical event) been created from Adam's side. That's an important statement about the unity of humanity & relations between the sexes, & when I read that text when I preside at a wedding
it has profound & true meaning. But I see no reason to talk about some divine transplant surgery + cloning as a scientific event.

But Paul treated it as real history in 1 Tim. 2:13-14 - both the order of creation and the fact that Eve was really deceived while Adam was not. And if Adam was not a real historic first man, then what about Jesus, the Last Adam? Where do the mythical people end and the real people start in Luke 3?

e) While Gen.1 is not an historical account of the way life developed, it's important that the picture that's given of the creation of life is one of mediated creation, God commanding the elemnts of the world to bring forth life in accord with the capabilities he's given them. This understanding was quite common among the church fathers.

No way! They all believed in God's instantaneous creative acts using material He had created, which were different from the way God now sustains His creation. Here is an article
The patristic teaching on evolution (http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/sc_e_patr.html)

What do the holy Fathers say about this? I have already quoted St.Ephraim the Syrian, whose whole commentary on Genesis describes how all God's creative acts are done in an instant, even though the whole "Days" of creation last 24 hours each. Let us now see what St. Basil the Great says about God's creative acts in the Six Days.

In speaking of the Third Day of creation, St. Basil says: "At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up. Likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants - rose, myrtle and laurel - all came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously upon the earth" (Hexaemeron,V, 6). Again, he says: "'Let the earth bring forth.' This brief command immediately became mighty nature and an elaborate system which brought to perfectionmore swiftly than our thoughts the countless properties of plants" (V, 10). Again, on the Fifth Day: "The command came. Immediately rivers were productive and marshy lakes were fruitful of species proper and natural to each" (VII, 1).

Likewise, St. John Chrysostome, in his commentary on Genesis, teaches:"Today God goes over to the waters and shows us that from them, by His word and command, there proceeded animate creatures. What mind, tell me, can understand this miracle? What tongue will be able worthily to glorify the Creator? He said only: 'Let it bring forth' - and there appeared a great variety of flowers, grasses, and seeds, and everything occurred by His words alone; so also here He said: 'Let the waters bring forth' and suddenly there appeared so many kinds of creeping things, such a variety of birds, that it is impossible even to enumerate them with words" (VII, 3).

Here I reiterate: I believe that in the majority of cases modern science knows more than did the saints Basil the Great, John Chrysostome, Ephraim the Syrian and other fathers concerning the characteristics of fish and similar specific facts; no one will deny that. But who knows more of the ways in which God created: modern science, which is not even sure whether God exists and, in any case, attempts to explain everything without Him; or these divinely-inspired fathers? When you say that God does not create instantly, then I believe that you propound the teaching of contemporary "wisdom" and not the teaching of the holy fathers.

In a certain sense, of course, God's creation is not instantaneous work; but even here the holy fathers are quite precise in their teaching. I have cited St. Ephraim the Syrian, who said: "It is just as intolerable to say that something was created instantaneously which, according to the Scriptures, was created in the course of six days."

Thus St. Gregory the Theologian, asserting, just as did St. Ephraim the Syrian, that creation was not "instantaneous," teaches: "Therefore, the days of creation are counted as something that is first, second, third and so onto the seventh day, and with these days is divided all that has been created and set in motion by indescribable laws, and not produced instantaneously by the Almighty Word, for Whom to think and to speak already means to accomplish in fact. If man, who was honored in being made by God and in His image, was the last to appear in the world, this is in no way amazing; because for him, as for a king, it was necessary to prepare a kingly abode, and only then lead into in the king accompanied by all the other creatures."

And St. John Chrysostome teaches: "The Almighty hand of God and His boundless wisdom would not have had any difficulty in creating everything in one day. But what am I saying? Not even in one instant. But as He had created all existing things not for His own benefit, because He, being all-satisfied, has no need of anything, - but on the contrary, created everything in accordance with His goodness and love for mankind, so He creates in stages, and through the mouth of the blessed prophet (Moses) presents us with a clear exposition of creation.. Why was man created last, if he is the most perfect of all creatures? For a just reason. When a king intends to enter a city, his arm-bearers and other members of his entourage must preceed him, so that the king might enter into a prepared place; similarly God, intending to place a king and master over all earthly creatures, first prepared all the decorations, and then created the master" (III, 3; VIII, 2).

Thus, the patristic teaching clearly tells us that God, although quite able to create everything instantly, preferred to create in stages of increasing perfection, with each stage being accomplished not in an instant, nor in the course of an indefinitely long period of time, but between these two extremes, specifically in six days.

In their commentaries on the book of Genesis, saints Ephraim the Syrian and John Chrysostome clearly look upon God's creation as the work of six regular days, each one of which God creates "immediately" and "instantaneously." Likewise St. Basil the Great, contrary to the widely-accepted opinion of Christian evolutionists, regards the acts of God's creation as immediate and sudden, believing the duration of the Six Days to have been 24 hours each, for he says in regard to the First Day: "And there was the evening, and the morning. The prophet means the duration of day and night. 'And there was the evening and the morning of one day.' Thus is determined the measure of day and night, and is gathered into a single period of time, for 24 hours fillthe duration of one day, if under day one also understands night" (Hexaemeron, II, 8).

As I have already said, I do not believe this question to be of primary significance in examining the problems of evolution; nevertheless, it is an eloquent testimony to the influence of modern philosophy on Christianevolutionists, who cannot wait to re-interpret these Six Days so as not to appear foolish in the eyes of the "wise men" of this world, who have "scientifically proved" that, no matter how creation occurred, it took place throughout millions of years. Of greater importance is the fact that these
Christian evolutionists have such a difficult time believing in a six-day creation, which presented no problems to the holy fathers, because the evolutionists do not understand what precisely occurred in these Six Days: they believe that lengthy natural processes of development took place, in accordance with the laws of our current decaying world; in fact, according to the holy fathers, the nature of that first-created world was totally different from ours, as I will show below.

Let us examine in greater detail another patristic commentary on the book of Genesis, belonging to St. John Chrysostome. Note that I do not cite little-known or dubious fathers, but only the very pillars of Orthodoxy, who present our Orthodox teaching with the greatest clarity and holiness. And in St. John's writings we do not find any "allegories" either, but a very strict interpretation of the text as it has been written. Like other fathers he speaks of Adam having been created literally out of dust, and Eve literally from Adam's rib.

He writes: "If the enemies of truth shall insist that it is impossible to produce something out of nothing, then we shall ask them: was the first man created out of earth or something else? Undoubtedly they will agree with us and will say out of earth. Then let them tell us, how could flesh be formed out of soil? Soil can only produce mud, brick, clay, tile; but how did flesh appear? How did bones, nerves, veins, fat, skin, nails, hair appear? How did so many different materials come from one essence? They will be unable to offer any reply to this" (II, 4). And again St. Chrysostome writes: "God took a single rib, it is said; but how from this single rib did He form a whole creature? Tell me, how did the taking of the rib occur? How did Adam not feel this taking?

"You can say nothing about this; this is known only by Him Who created. God did not produce a new creation, but taking from an already existing creation a certain small part, from this part he made a whole creature. What power the highest Artist God has, to produce from this small part (a rib) the composition of so many members, make so many organs of sense, and form a whole, perfect and complete being" (XV, 2-3).

If you wish, I can quote many other passages from this work, showing that St. John Chrysostome - is he not the chief Orthodox interpreter of Sacred Scripture? - everywhere interprets the sacred text of Genesis as it is written, believing that it was nothing else than an actual serpent (through whom the devil spoke) who tempted our first parents in paradise, that God actually brought all the animals before Adam for him to name, and "the names which Adam gave them remain even until now." (But according to evolutionary doctrine, many animals were extinct by the time of Adam - must we believe that Adam did not name "all the wild beasts" [Gen. 2:19] but only the remnant of them?}

St. John Chrysostome says, when speaking of the rivers of paradise: "Perhaps one who loves to speak from his own wisdom here also will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers, nor that the waters are precisely waters, but will instill in their listeners that they (under the names of rivers and waters) represented something else. But we shall not heed those people, but will believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, shall strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas" (XIII, 4).

Is there need to quote more from this Divine Father? Like St. Basil and St. Ephraim he warns us: "Not to believe what is contained in the Divine Scripture, but to introduce something else from one's own mind - this, I believe, subjects those who hazard such a thing to great danger" (XIII, 3).

Before going on I will briefly answer one objection which I have heard from those who defend evolution: they say that if one reads all the Scripture "as it is written" one will only makeoneself ridiculous. They say that if we must believe that Adam was actually made from dust and Eve from Adam's rib, then must we not believe that God has "hands," that He "walks" in Paradise, and the like absurdities? Such an objection could not be made by anyone who has read even a single commentary of the holy Fathers on the book of Genesis. All the holy Fathers distinguish between what is said about creation, which must be taken "as it is written," and what is said about God, which must be understood, as St. John Chrysostome says repeatedly, "in a God-befitting manner." For example, St. Chrysostome writes: "When you hear, beloved, that 'God planted paradise in Eden in the east,' understand the word 'planted' befittingly of God: that is, that He commanded; but concerning the words that follow, believe precisely that paradise was created and in that very place where the Scripture has assigned it" (Homilies on Genesis, XIII, 3).

St. John of Damascus explicitly describes the allegorical interpretation of paradise to be part of a heresy, that of the Origenians. But what, then, are we to understand of those holy Father of profound spiritual life who interpret the book of Genesis and other Holy Scriptures in a spiritual or mystical sense? If we ourselves had not gone so far away from the patristic understanding of Scripture, this would present no problem whatever to us. The same text of Holy Scripture is true "as it is written" and also has a spiritual interpretation. Behold what the great Father of the desert, St. Macarius the Great, says: "That paradise was closed and that a cherubim was commanded to prevent man from entering it by a flaming sword: of this we believe that in visible fashion it was indeed just as it is written, and at the same time we find that this occurs mystically in every soul" (Seven Homilies, IV, 5).

And here is another example of the same. The divine Gregory the Theologian, in his Homily on the Theophany, writes concerning the tree of knowledge: "The tree was, according to my view, contemplation, upon which it is only safe for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter." This is a profound spiritual interpretation, of which our academic scholars might say that St. Gregory completely "allegorizes" the story of Adam and paradise. But now I am going to present an interpretation of the words of St. Gregory the Theologian by a great holy Father who lived a thousand years after him: St. Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonika. Against St. Gregory Palamas and the other hesychast Fathers who taught the true Orthodox doctrine of the "uncreated light of Mt. Tabor," there rose up the Western rationalist Barlaam. Taking advantage of the fact that St. Maximus the Confessor in one passage had called this light of the Transfiguration a "symbol of theology," Barlaam taught that this light was not a manifestation of the Divinity, not "literally" a divine light, but only a "symbol" of it.This led St. Gregory Palamas to make a reply which illuminates for us the relation between the "symbolical" and "literal" interpretation of Holy Scripture, particularly with regard to the passage from St. Gregory the Theologian which I have quoted above. He writes that Barlaam and others "do not see that Maximus, wise in divine matters, has called the light of the Lord's Transfiguration 'a symbol of theology' only by analogy. In theology, which uses analogies and intends to elevate us, objects which have anexistence of their own become also spiritual symbols; it is in this
sense that Maximus calls this light a "symbol".. Similarly, Gregory the Theologian has called the tree of knowledge of good and evil 'contemplation,' having in his contemplation considered it as a symbol of this contemplation which is intended to elevate us; but it does not follow that what is involved isan illusion without existence of its own. For the divine Maximus also makes Moses the symbol of judgment, and Elijah the symbol of foresight! Are they too then supposed not to have really existed, but to have been invented 'symbolically'?" (Triad II, 3:21-23).

Thus the patristic interpretation of the book of Genesis makes it quiteimpossible to harmonize the account of Genesis with the theory of evolution, which requires an entirely "allegorical" interpretation of the text in many places where the patristic interpretation will not allow this. The doctrine that Adam was created, not from dust, but by development from some other creature, is a novel teaching which is entirely foreign to Orthodox Christianity.

At this point the "Orthodox evolutionist" might try to salvage his position by trying to say that we now know more than the holy Fathers about nature and therefore we really can interpret the book of Genesis better than they. But even the "Orthodox evolutionist" knows that the book of Genesis is not a scientific treatise, but a divinely-inspired work of cosmogony and theology. The interpretation of the divinely-inspired Scripture is clearly the work of God-bearing theologians, not of natural scientists. It is true that in the book of Genesis many "facts" of nature are presented. But it must be carefully noted that these facts are not facts such as we can observe now, but an entirely special kind of facts: the creation of the heaven and the earth, of all animals and plants, of the first man. I have already pointed out that the holy Fathers teach quite clearly that the creation of the firstman Adam, for example, is quite different from the generation of men today; it is only the latter that science can observe, and about the creation of Adam it offers only philosophical speculations, not scientific
knowledge.

According to the holy Fathers, it is possible for us to know something of this first-created world, but this knowledge is not accessible to natural science. I will discuss this question further below.

I have to say that George dismays me. His dogmatic belief in evolution hasled him to positions that are overtly heretical. I don't use this wordmerely of views that contradict YEC, but only of views that contradict the foundational truths of Christianity. Overt heresies are all too common among TEs while they are rare among OECs. And GM has grossly misrepresented the views of the great leaders of the early church to the opposite of what they really taught, but that is something he has in common with a number of OECs.

[Warcraft3]

I would agree that the majority of the church fathers who addressed this particular issue (the issue of the length of the days) were most likey YEC.

The problem I see with some of the quotes is I read alot of general comments about the text without ever reading an explanation of the text.

Many of the comments (despite the eloquent speech, allusions to deep spiritual truths, and references to symbolism) do not address the reasons why a YEC view is troublesome within the text.

I see no explanation for how there can be a "day" and "night" or an "evening" and "morning" without a literal sun.

Impressive sounding language is irrelevant to me unless specific problems are addressed and explained.




Russ

[jkendall]

The problem with this discussion is the faith in science Christians have. Science has its place, but it cannot be used to disprove the evidence of scripture. Science is afterall a discipline developed by fallible men and women who were not there at the time of creation. Only one was present, God, and he has given us His personal eyewitness account of how he created heavens and the earth--the bible.

It amazes, although it shouldn't, how well-educated individuals often miss the simple truth of scripture. When the text reads "so the evening and the morning were the first day." It simply means one single 24-hr day. Recently, I read an article on how a group of scientists are trying to recreate the evolutionary beginnings of life. They are trying to accomplish this using hi-tech equipment designed by intelligent people! They are trying to recreate a random act by intelligent means. The irony of that is laughable.

Unfortunately, Christians are poisoned with the lie evil-lutionary theory that it taints their theology with the concept of millions and billions of years of evoutionary development was necessary for humans and other life to exist. Evolutionary theory is no longer a scientific discipline that has been disproved time and time again. It's sole purpose now is to remove God out of the equation completely in order for man to continue living his life without ever being accountable for his sin to a holy God who abhors his sin.

Science neither proves nor disproves the bible and it never can. It can only confirm what scriptures has already stated about how life came into being.

[Warcraft3]

Hey there jkendall......


Just to let you know.....this thread is about the text mainly, not to debate evolution.


It amazes, although it shouldn't, how well-educated individuals often miss the simple truth of scripture. When the text reads "so the evening and the morning were the first day." It simply means one single 24-hr day.

Then please explain how there can be an "evening" or "morning" without the sun?

Unfortunately, Christians are poisoned with the lie evil-lutionary theory that it taints their theology with the concept of millions and billions of years of evoutionary development was necessary for humans and other life to exist. Evolutionary theory is no longer a scientific discipline that has been disproved time and time again. It's sole purpose now is to remove God out of the equation completely in order for man to continue living his life without ever being accountable for his sin to a holy God who abhors his sin.

Science neither proves nor disproves the bible and it never can. It can only confirm what scriptures has already stated about how life came into being.

This thread is not about evolution. Please stick to the text itself.



Russ

[George Murphy]

I don't think I've ever before had so many heresies attributed to me at one shot! But serious theology requires more than polemic. I'll respond briefly to each point but serve notice now that in the future I will not feel obligated to spend my time replying to posts of people who haven't bothered to read what I've written, who distort it, &c.

That rules out evolution then, since the main reason for believing it was to disallow "a divine foot in the door". :teeth:This is so hilariously false that it's not worthy of response.

Bonhoeffer is not Scripture. Paul said that the evidence for God from creation was so clear that people are "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-32).Who said Bonhoeffer was scripture? To say that the world points to God as creator (a "pointing" that everybody distorts, which is Paul's real point) does not mean that God has to be invoked as an element of scientific explanation.

Paul argued, the world can't be understood without clearly pointing to God's eternal attributes and divine power.No, he does not say this & the explanatory power of science in cases quite apart from evolution show that this isn't true. One adds nothing scientifically
to an explanation of planetary motion in terms of the laws of gravitation & mechanics by adding "God does it" - though as a matter of putting science in a larger theological context that's true.


This is an abuse of the kenosis, and is more like the kenotic heresy. First, it was only the Second Person of the Trinity that "emptied himself"; second, this emptying was really an addition of human nature not any subtraction of the divine attributes. In reality, Jesus merely gave up independent exercise of these divine attributes without the Father's authority (which is why He didn't know the day or the hour). See Meaning of kenosis: emptying by adding (http://www.biblicaltraining.org/classes/theology_s/05_t.html).This assumes that kenosis was merely a temporary tactic by one person of the Trinity who in general does insist on clinging to the privileges of divinity. It is better understood, in the context of the theology of the cross, as a revelation of the character of God. "For in 'pouring himself out' and 'humbling himself to death on the cross' Christ Jesus has revealed the character of God himself." [Gordon D. Fee, Paul's Letter to the Philippians (William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI, 1995), pp.196.]

This is rank blasphemy, grossly violating the First and Greatest Commandment. And what about Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge." Proverbs 10:9 says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." GM says exactly the opposite. His evolutionary "theology" is so anti-biblical that it can't be called "Christian" any more than Spong can.You might try reading Eberhard Juengel, God as the Mystery of the World (Eerdmans, 1983), though it may be a bit taxing. I can hardly do justice to it here but he makes the point that to say that God is "necessary" means that the existence of God depends on certain things other than God, and that therefore God should really be said to be "more than necessary." But at the same time the hiddenness of God means that we can operate in the world without recognizing God, & that therefore God can be considered unnecessary. I confess though to being a bit casual with my language previously.


No, the Second Person of the Trinity He especially became "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), because He specifically took on human nature, not angelic or any other nature (Heb. 2:14). GM's view is the heresy of panentheism, not biblical theism. It commits the ultimate authority of blurring the foundational distinction between Creator and Creation (Rom.1:25).It would be interesting to know when panentheism has ever been declared a formal heresy - which of course has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a panentheist. & it would be interesting to have you point out the formal error in this argument:

Christ is fully divine & fully human (Jn.1:1-14, &c, Chalcedon).
Evolutionary theory says that humans are part of the evolutionary process.
If evolution is true, Christ qua human is part of the evolutionary process.
Because of the communication of attributes, what is true of the human nature is true of the person.
Therefore the divine Second Person of the Trinity is part of the evolutionary process & God can be said to be part of that process.
(If one accepts a genus tapeinoticum an even stronger statement can be made but I won't insist on that here.)

Yes, true Christians (as opposed to liberal modernists) are offended by modernistic ideas that contradict the Bible!Those who hold a theology of glory (& as Luther says "do not deserve to be called theologians") are offended by the cross.

This is similar to the Patripassian heresy, where the Father suffers in the Son. I have grave doubts about whether GM is a Trinitarian since he blurs the Persons.Just knowing the names of heresies doesn't qualify one as a theologian. The patripassian heresy was a type of modalism that says that the Father was crucified. I have not said that It is not the same as what might be called theopaschianism, which says, inter alia, that the Father as well as the Son suffered the separation attendant upon the cross. The really fundamental question is whether God is capable of suffering or whether our theology is to be constrained by the assumptions of Greek philosophy (to state the matter with slight prejudice!) That is indeed an issue but if it's to be discussed, let's do so without all the innuendo. (Of course you know that the theopaschite formula, "One of the Trinity was crucified," was approved at II Constantinople.)

Your statements about my lack of trinitarian belief are horse apples. In fact, my understanding of the Trinity emphasizes the distinction of persons more than some traditional formulations. Moltmann is helpful here, though I certainly don't go all the way with his social view of the Trinity.

Yes, and Christ interpreted the people and events as real history, and said that people were there "from the beginning of creation" not billions of years after a mythical big bang.No, he didn't. Mk.10:6 is best understood as meaning that from the beginning of creation of humanity God made them male & female. If you insist on interpreting it as "from the beginning of the creation of the universe" it's wrong even on a YEC view because there humanity wasn't created till Day 6, not on Day 1.

& of course the phrase "mythical big bang" is typical YEC smokescreen, like the apocryphal note in the margin of a sermon: "Argument weak here - shout like hell!"

Prove it! Maybe refute articles harmonizing them such asTwo Creation Accounts? (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html) This looks like GM denies biblical inerrancy, which means he has departed from the historic evangelicalism.I don't know why I'm bothering to reply at length since you aqpparently haven't read what I wrote before with any case. Specifically, "Recognizing this as part of true & authoritative scripture, we then have to ask what types of literature we're dealing with."

As to "prove it" - well, just the order of creation of living things is one pointer.
Land plants - sea creatures - land animals - male & female humans isn't the same as male human - land plants - animals - female human.

Everything my textbook claimed as a "proof" of evolution is no such thing - oh, do tell me about the peppered moths, similar embryos, Miller's Experiment, dog breeding and all the other things :hrm: And even before I was a Christian, my science teacher couldn't answer my questions about evolution! [quote]

I doubt that you know what constitutes "proof" in science. Fossil distribution
(vertically & horizontally), geographical distribution of extant species, homologies in gross anatomy, biochemical relationships, & embryological similarities (yes - though not in a simplistic Haeckelian sense) are some things that provide considerable supporting evidence for evolution. It is of course not a perfect scientific theory - there is no such thing - but vastly better qua science than proposed alternatives.


[quote] Right, this shows that GM's true authority are the human opinions of "science" rather than God's Word.What I said was, "c) a & b together point to the conclusion that we should not read the Genesis accounts as historical or scientific accounts. They are true & authoritative statements about God & our world & our lives but they are fundamentally theological statements about those things.'

Any fair reader, whether he/she agrees with my view of the genre of the Genesis accounts or not, will see that my view is the opposite of what has been attributed to me.

But Paul treated it as real history in 1 Tim. 2:13-14 - both the order of creation and the fact that Eve was really deceived while Adam was not. And if Adam was not a real historic first man, then what about Jesus, the Last Adam? Where do the mythical people end and the real people start in Luke 3?The term "mythical is used rather carelessly here but waiving that I'd say, probably around Abraham.

No way! They all believed in God's instantaneous creative acts using material He had created, which were different from the way God now sustains His creation. Here is an article
The patristic teaching on evolution (http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/sc_e_patr.html)

'What do the holy Fathers say about this? I have already quoted St.Ephraim the Syrian, whose whole commentary on Genesis describes how all God's creative acts are done in an instant, even though the whole "Days" of creation last 24 hours each. ....'[quote]

It was very generous of you to include this long article but it was also irrelevant. What I said was:

"While Gen.1 is not an historical account of the way life developed, it's important that the picture that's given of the creation of life is one of mediated creation, God commanding the elemnts of the world to bring forth life in accord with the capabilities he's given them. This understanding was quite common among the church fathers."

If you had read this with any care you would have seen that I attributed no evolutionary theory to the Fathers nor did I say anything about the speed with which they believed life to have come forth at God's command. I am not trying to say that the Fathers understood biological evolution or the big bang: We have learned some things since the 4th century. I referred only to their understanding - which is quite clear from Gen.1 itself - that living things were created mediately from the earth & waters. Since your article cites St. Ephrem, I'll quote just the following:

"Thus, through light and water the earth brought forth everything. While God is able to bring forth everything from the earth without these things, it was His will to show that there was nothing created on earth that was not created for the purpose of mankind or for his service." ("Commentary on Genesis" in St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works (The Catholic University of America, Washington, 1994), p.82.)

Ernest Messenger's Evolution and Theology (Macmillan, 1932) has a detailed treatment of the patristic evidence from a fairly conservative RC standpoint.

[quote] I have to say that George dismays me. His dogmatic belief in evolution hasled him to positions that are overtly heretical. I don't use this wordmerely of views that contradict YEC, but only of views that contradict the foundational truths of Christianity. Overt heresies are all too common among TEs while they are rare among OECs. And GM has grossly misrepresented the views of the great leaders of the early church to the opposite of what they really taught, but that is something he has in common with a number of OECs.Just to take the latter point, I have just shown that my supposed misrepresentation of the Fathers is due to your failure to read what I wrote. I try to be reasonably careful with my statements. You don't seem to be so concerned about that.

Shalom,
George

[rogero]

George,

Your last post (#13) was an interesting one and contained valuable counter arguements, but it really needs to be gone through and formatted properly -- dangling "[quotes]" and the like. It would be good to have this done so that it could be used for future reference.

Roger

[dizzle]

Can we please keep the thread on topic? I am not the thread starter but am pretty close since I requested it to be started. I do not wish to go through the Hornbook of Heresies, but to examine the Scriptural arguments for TE.

[George Murphy]

Can we please keep the thread on topic? I am not the thread starter but am pretty close since I requested it to be started. I do not wish to go through the Hornbook of Heresies, but to examine the Scriptural arguments for TE.Let me expand that a bit. What I proposed initially was theological discussion of TE. While study of biblical material is essential for that, theology involves more than simply citing scripture correctly. It is fides quarens intellectum, an attempt to understand God & God's relationship to ourselves & the world from the standpoint of Christian faith. That includes attempts to understand issues raised by science and technology which are not addressed directly by scripture.

My own approach to TE that I outlined in my initial post is strongly christological, so I wasn't really unhappy to have the christological & trinitarian questions introduced by LeiLani brought into the discussion. I'm just sorry it was done so poorly.

Shalom,
George



Shalom,
George

[dizzle]

Okay George, I just really don't want this to turn into a heresy spitting match.

[George Murphy]

Okay George, I just really don't want this to turn into a heresy spitting match.Nor do I. Accusations of heresy aren't nearly as helpful as some people think. Heresy - as distinguished from simple apostasy - is usually the result of overamphasizing some aspect of the faith at the expense of others, and thus really calls for balance rather than mere elimination. And determination of whether or not some person's views are heretical is the task of the church & not of individuals.

Shalom,
George

[LeiLani]

I don't think I've ever before had so many heresies attributed to me at one shot! But serious theology requires more than polemic.

George, you are the one who said that you write in a deliberately provocative manner. So you shouldn't whine that people are provoked! And it was absolutely appalling that you could say that God is unnecessary — you still haven't responded to my points that love of God was the primary commandment, and fear of Him was the beginning of wisdom and knowledge.

I'll respond briefly to each point but serve notice now that in the future I will not feel obligated to spend my time replying to posts of people who haven't bothered to read what I've written, who distort it, &c.

You've got one heck of a nerve, the way you distort the Bible and the Church Fathers to read an essentially atheistic worldview into some sort of “Christian” theology. Quoting lots of modernist liberal theologians doesn't impress me in the slightest. Christian theology must be firmly grounded on Scripture, which Christ said "cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

Just knowing the names of heresies doesn't qualify one as a theologian. The patripassian heresy was a type of modalism that says that the Father was crucified. I have not said that

:doh: I said your views were similar to it. Try reading what I actually say :bonk:

No, he didn't. Mk.10:6 is best understood as meaning that from the beginning of creation of humanity God made them male & female. If you insist on interpreting it as “from the beginning of the creation of the universe” it's wrong even on a YEC view because there humanity wasn't created till Day 6, not on Day 1.

For goodness' sake, this nonsense has already been dealt with. The phrase is always used of the beginning of the creation itself, not just humanity. What else would humanity have been — some third sex GM would like to inform us about? And day six is so close to the beginning in a ~4000-year timescale that it was right at the beginning, given biblical standards of numerical precision. There is no way to say that if we swung down from the trees a few seconds before midnight, as long-agers claim.

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply at length since you aqpparently haven't read what I wrote before with any case. Specifically, “Recognizing this as part of true & authoritative scripture, we then have to ask what types of literature we're dealing with.”

And you claimed it contradicted itself, which is an attack on inerrancy. As to what type of literature Genesis 1-11 is, it's just the same type as Genesis 12-22 as amply shown by the Hebrew grammar. If you dispute this, do so by showing that they are different types of literature. But you have an impossible job - they blend into each other seamlessly.

As to "prove it" - well, just the order of creation of living things is one pointer. Land plants - sea creatures - land animals - male & female humans isn't the same as male human - land plants - animals - female human.

GM didn't even bother to read the article I cited. :read: This shows from the Hebrew that Genesis 2:19 is a pluperfect, casting the readers back to the creation of the animals God HAD formed and now brings to Adam. Stop wasting our time with these long-discredited skeptical arguments.

So why not state up front whether you accept biblical inerrancy. And don't play games - most of us would accept
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm). If you deny inerrancy, you may as well know now that you haven't a hope of convincing us that your view is acceptable. We were actually hoping for a TE defense that took a high view of biblical authority (of course there isn't one!).

The term "mythical is used rather carelessly here but waiving that I'd say, probably around Abraham. Don't play games with me. I am using “mythical” in the common meaning as “non-historical” as well you know. But you have a huge problem, because Abraham is the son of Terah according to both
Genesis 11 and Luke 3. So on what ground do you claim that Abraham was
historical and Terah was not? There is no break in the texts! And on what grounds do you deny that Adam and Eve were historical when Paul clearly treated them as such, as shown above.

Also, the authors of Hebrews gave us many examples of heroes of the faith in ch. 11. There is not the slightest hint that he regarded Abel, Enoch and Noah as any less historical than Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and the rest.

Just to take the latter point, I have just shown that my supposed misrepresentation of the Fathers is due to your failure to read what I wrote. I try to be reasonably careful with my statements. You don't seem to be so concerned about that.

I am concerned about the way you point to the Fathers believing that God created from pre-existing matter (which no YEC disputes) to reading evolutionary ideas into them. For their views to be compatible with evolution, you would need to show that they believed that matter itself had the capacity and that it was just a normal process not a supernatural instantaneous one.

[kuboes1831]

[QUOTE=LeiLani]George, you are the one who said that you write in a deliberately provocative manner. So you shouldn't whine that people are provoked! And it was absolutely appalling that you could say that God is unnecessary — you still haven't responded to my points that love of God was the primary commandment, and fear of Him was the beginning of wisdom and knowledge.



You've got one heck of a nerve, the way you distort the Bible and the Church Fathers to read an essentially atheistic worldview into some sort of “Christian” theology. Quoting lots of modernist liberal theologians doesn't impress me in the slightest. Christian theology must be firmly grounded on Scripture, which Christ said "cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

QUOTE]

George, you are a naughty boy, nearly as bad as Glenn and myself.

[Anthony]

Hey George,

I'm not sure which side I come down on. I do accept biblical inerrancy, and I also believe there's good evidence for much of the evolutionary "story". I've yet to see a thoroughly coherent version of theistic evolution though.

Here are some issues I'd like to see you deal with, when you get a moment...

-My main issue is "the Fall". What do we do with it? Was there pre-Fall animal predation? Genesis seems to imply that all creatures were vegetarian prior to the fall. If we accept evolutionary history, we certainly can't accept this. It seems that the best strategy for a theistic evolutionist is to interpret Genesis along mythological lines - the tale of Adam and Eve representing human stages of the innocence and the subsequent fall from it (or whatever the most popular liberal line is nowadays).

-Another issue would be related to natural evil. Why would God create in such a way? I understand your argument about God not wanting to *appear* necessary, so I can see a seemingly self-sufficient natural process as a hindrance to that. I think that's a good argument. If our only artifacts undoubtedly confirmed some sort of instantaneous creation, I think this would be borderline coercion on God's part. *But*, while I have no problem with *a* process of creation that is seemingly more "natural", *the* process of creation from the TE perspective is difficult to deal with. The "red in tooth and claw" reality of nature now, and especially throughout evolutionary history, seems to call for a theodicy that either denies the suffering of animal life altogether or justifies it with the higher-order good of its end result. What line do you take? I don't really understand "free process" theodicies like that of Polkinghorne (i.e. - God had to endow creation with randomness in order for us to evolve free will within it), as they seem to collapse with the simple question of "why?" God would have to bring free will about in such a manner. Perhaps they just haven't been probed philosophically enough, but that no major philosophers of religion have even attempted to support them (to my knowledge) seems telling.

Let me know your thoughts on these issues.

Thanks,
Anthony

[George Murphy]

I said that I would feel under no obligation to respond further if there was no indication that what I said was going to be read with any care. That's pretty much the case here & I'm not going to take my time arguing with "What I tell you three times is true" assertions. I will respond briefly to the first statement, thinking that perhaps something can be salvaged from this exchange by narrowing the field a bit. Debating the meaning of the Genesis creation accounts before anything has been said about hermeneutical principles will not accomplish much.

George, you are the one who said that you write in a deliberately provocative manner. So you shouldn't whine that people are provoked! And it was absolutely appalling that you could say that God is unnecessary — you still haven't responded to my points that love of God was the primary commandment, and fear of Him was the beginning of wisdom and knowledge.I never said that I always write in a provocative manner, just that I had done so in one earlier post. & if I provoke people, I hope it's to think & not just to accuse people of heresy. But far from whining, I thought your ill-tempered post was sadly amusing.

I said that God is "willing to be considered unnecessary" and elaborated on that (following) Juengel by saying that God is not necessary but more than necessary. Is nuance beyond you?

The kind of understanding of the world that science gives, thorough though it is, can ultimately lead to the conclusion that the world is "pointless," as Weinberg so honestly stated. It is only in a larger theological context informed by God's revelation in Christ, that we see larger meaning & hope for the world. It's in that sense that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom - wisdom, not simply knowing a lot of things. & it's precisely in that way that I appeal to the repeated biblical claim that "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" in The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross, pp.69-72. But that's a very different thing from saying that the fear of the LORD is needed for scientific understanding of the world - a claim that scripture doesn't make and that is refuted by the fact that (e.g.)Weinberg, atheist though he is, has done brilliant work in physics.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Anthony -
You've raised some good questions. They are not new questions, as you probably realize, but they're no less important for that. & willingness to wrestle with these questions theologically is one thing that distinguished between what I referred to in an initial post as deep TE from shallow TEs that just say, "God created through evolution so there's no problem" (which has too often been the view of modern theologians.

(& BTW, I don't mean to suggest that the approach I offer is the only possible deep TE.)

Hey George,

I'm not sure which side I come down on. I do accept biblical inerrancy, and I also believe there's good evidence for much of the evolutionary "story". I've yet to see a thoroughly coherent version of theistic evolution though.The main problem I have with the idea of "inerrancy" is that people usually mean by it not only that scripture is true but that it must be true in a particular way - i.e., as accurate historical narrative. They fail to ask the questions "What type of text is this?" & "How are we to read it?" I believe that the Genesis accounts are true (though different) theological statements about God & creation, but I don't believe that we should read them as historical or scientific reports - much less as a unified historical & scientific report.

Here are some issues I'd like to see you deal with, when you get a moment...

-My main issue is "the Fall". What do we do with it? Was there pre-Fall animal predation? Genesis seems to imply that all creatures were vegetarian prior to the fall. If we accept evolutionary history, we certainly can't accept this. It seems that the best strategy for a theistic evolutionist is to interpret Genesis along mythological lines - the tale of Adam and Eve representing human stages of the innocence and the subsequent fall from it (or whatever the most popular liberal line is nowadays).I would not say "mythological" because it suggests stories about something that happened in some time before history. Gen.,1 & 2 deal with our world, but deal with it theologically & not in terms of natural science.

I think that views of the eastern church can be helpful in thinking about the origin of sin. (This is something I'm still thinking about, & I hope to have an article ready for submission relatively soon.) The Orthodox generally don't think of the first humans being created in a mature & extremely wise & skilled condition but as immature, intended to develop toward greater maturity & fellowship with God. Sin was then not an abrupt fall from a perfect condition but more like getting off the path of development that God intended for them. & Gen.4-11 suggests a general picture of humanity getting farther & farther off track, more distant from God. I don't think this need result in a minimizing of the existential problem of original sin: Augustine wasn't completely wrong.

But as far as animal predation is concerned, the fossil record certainly indicates that it was taking place long before humanity came on the scene.
Here is one place where we need to use science to help us to decide among possible interpretations of scripture.

-Another issue would be related to natural evil. Why would God create in such a way? I understand your argument about God not wanting to *appear* necessary, so I can see a seemingly self-sufficient natural process as a hindrance to that. I think that's a good argument. If our only artifacts undoubtedly confirmed some sort of instantaneous creation, I think this would be borderline coercion on God's part. *But*, while I have no problem with *a* process of creation that is seemingly more "natural", *the* process of creation from the TE perspective is difficult to deal with. The "red in tooth and claw" reality of nature now, and especially throughout evolutionary history, seems to call for a theodicy that either denies the suffering of animal life altogether or justifies it with the higher-order good of its end result. What line do you take? I don't really understand "free process" theodicies like that of Polkinghorne (i.e. - God had to endow creation with randomness in order for us to evolve free will within it), as they seem to collapse with the simple question of "why?" God would have to bring free will about in such a manner. Perhaps they just haven't been probed philosophically enough, but that no major philosophers of religion have even attempted to support them (to my knowledge) seems telling.I think that Polkinghorne's "free process defence" is true as far as it goes. I would add that it is only possible for us to understand the world if God somehow constrains divine action to within the limits of some kind of scientific laws. If God were always rescuing creatures miraculously, we might be safer but we would never grow up.

But Polkinghorne's argument can be given deeper grounding. Remember that I'm approaching this from the standpoint of a theology of the cross, and one aspect of this is that God participates in the suffering of the world. & he participates on trhe side of the losers in the "struggle for survival" - because he exsperiences death, & in the short run Pilate & Caiaphas are the winner. (& since some always want to jump to the conclusion that I ignore the resurrection, I don't. It is the resurrection of the crucified that gives hope to the world.)

Now that doesn't provide a neat solution to the theodicy problem. But it does say that - in anthropomorphic terms - God doesn't just require creatures to pay the price for the development of a free process creation while remaining unscathed himself. God too pays a price. The bottom line is, whether we understand the "why" of evil in the world process or not, God's in it with us.

Luther said "The cross alone is our theology." I would add that in a basic way the cross alone is our theodicy. Or at least, a theodicy that doesn't appeal to the cross of Christ isn't worth much.

I hope this is helpful.

Shalom,
George

[Anthony]

Anthony -
The main problem I have with the idea of "inerrancy" is that people usually mean by it not only that scripture is true but that it must be true in a particular way - i.e., as accurate historical narrative. They fail to ask the questions "What type of text is this?" & "How are we to read it?" I believe that the Genesis accounts are true (though different) theological statements about God & creation, but I don't believe that we should read them as historical or scientific reports - much less as a unified historical & scientific report.

I would not say "mythological" because it suggests stories about something that happened in some time before history. Gen.,1 & 2 deal with our world, but deal with it theologically & not in terms of natural science.

I'm not *certain* we should read them as mythological narratives either. I actually remain pretty open to all of the views. Even when it comes to YEC, I do not rule out the possibility in my own mind. I'm humble enough to think we could be completely wrong in areas we think we're most certain, including science. I just don't think YEC makes for a good apologetic.

But I do think the "earmarks" of mythology are present in Genesis -- if one wanted to make that argument. Contrary to what you write, it does seem to be a primordial space & time - where the laws of nature as we know them simply don't apply (no death, violence, sin, separation from the divine, etc.). An enchanted world full of talking animals, and symbolic trees. Genesis obviously gets more "historical" as we move along, but it does not at all seem to be initially set in the world we presently know.

I think that views of the eastern church can be helpful in thinking about the origin of sin. (This is something I'm still thinking about, & I hope to have an article ready for submission relatively soon.) The Orthodox generally don't think of the first humans being created in a mature & extremely wise & skilled condition but as immature, intended to develop toward greater maturity & fellowship with God. Sin was then not an abrupt fall from a perfect condition but more like getting off the path of development that God intended for them. & Gen.4-11 suggests a general picture of humanity getting farther & farther off track, more distant from God. I don't think this need result in a minimizing of the existential problem of original sin: Augustine wasn't completely wrong.

Well, I would definitley like to see an extended treatment of this issue and how it fits into TE. Do you have a web-page?

But as far as animal predation is concerned, the fossil record certainly indicates that it was taking place long before humanity came on the scene.
Here is one place where we need to use science to help us to decide among possible interpretations of scripture.

I think that Polkinghorne's "free process defence" is true as far as it goes. I would add that it is only possible for us to understand the world if God somehow constrains divine action to within the limits of some kind of scientific laws. If God were always rescuing creatures miraculously, we might be safer but we would never grow up. .

Well, in regards to "free process", I don't see why God simply couldn't intervene to bring about our free will capacity. If it would have prevented millions of yrs. of animal suffering due to the randomness required to bring it about naturally, and the theological baggage that comes along with that, it seems more than worth it. I think this issue needs much further philosophical exploration. These are the questions that theistic evolutionists need to start looking into more deeply. And while I'm making recommendations to theistic evolutionists, here are a couple other areas that need more looking into IMHO:

-Polkinghorne makes some other comments regarding the millions of yrs. of death of anaerobic bacteria helping to convert the oxygen in the atmosphere. And it was interesting to hear Hugh Ross elaborate on long spans of animal death bringing about the natural resource-rich world required for technological civilization. I think this is another area that should be given a thorough investigation and presentation. In what ways has the death of animals prepared the earth for our habitation?

-How much *do* animals suffer? Surely there's a world of science out there on the subject. I've seen enough philosophical treatments from Christian apologists arguing that it cannot be proved that animals the kind of consciousness that would truly allow them to experience what we call pain in morally significant ways. While helpful, I just don't think this is enough. Glenn Miller has done the best job I've seen as far as assessing the quantity and quality of this kind of suffering:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/predator.html

Given our tendancy of our society to project human emotions onto and portray human emotions through animals, I find this kind of research extremely helpful.

But Polkinghorne's argument can be given deeper grounding. Remember that I'm approaching this from the standpoint of a theology of the cross, and one aspect of this is that God participates in the suffering of the world. & he participates on trhe side of the losers in the "struggle for survival" - because he exsperiences death, & in the short run Pilate & Caiaphas are the winner. (& since some always want to jump to the conclusion that I ignore the resurrection, I don't. It is the resurrection of the crucified that gives hope to the world.)

Now that doesn't provide a neat solution to the theodicy problem. But it does say that - in anthropomorphic terms - God doesn't just require creatures to pay the price for the development of a free process creation while remaining unscathed himself. God too pays a price. The bottom line is, whether we understand the "why" of evil in the world process or not, God's in it with us.

Luther said "The cross alone is our theology." I would add that in a basic way the cross alone is our theodicy. Or at least, a theodicy that doesn't appeal to the cross of Christ isn't worth much. .

Yes -- all so deeply true. Presented exactly as it should be. Not an answer but our only comfort. And this is where we're at, isn't it. Faith in the God who suffers with us in solidarity, and has proven that He will redeem His creation. It is the way we must look at things, and this view is what sustains us in the face of the mystery of evil. Unfortunately its only enough for the believer. I still think we need to take our understanding as far as it will go -- make evil as intelligible as possible for the sake of the unbeliever...

Anthony

[George Murphy]

I'm not *certain* we should read them as mythological narratives either. I actually remain pretty open to all of the views. Even when it comes to YEC, I do not rule out the possibility in my own mind. I'm humble enough to think we could be completely wrong in areas we think we're most certain, including science. I just don't think YEC makes for a good apologetic.

But I do think the "earmarks" of mythology are present in Genesis -- if one wanted to make that argument. Contrary to what you write, it does seem to be a primordial space & time - where the laws of nature as we know them simply don't apply (no death, violence, sin, separation from the divine, etc.). An enchanted world full of talking animals, and symbolic trees. Genesis obviously gets more "historical" as we move along, but it does not at all seem to be initially set in the world we presently know.One indication that Gen.2 is talking about the real world is its mention of the Tigris & Euphrates, 2 rivers we can point out on maps. But I agree that there are "earmarks" of myth, mythological elements, in the accounts, as there are in other parts of scripture. But the biblical writers never simply succumb to a mythical world view. I find Bravard Childs concept of "broken myth" (in Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, Alec. R. Allenson, Naperville IL, 1960) very helpful. The biblical writers use the elements of pagan myth to speak about the faith of Israel - as, e.g., the myth of an attempt to overthrow the supreme god in Canaanite myth is used to speak of the fall of Babylon in Is.14:12-21.


Well, I would definitley like to see an extended treatment of this issue and how it fits into TE. Do you have a web-page?My webpage is http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ (http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/) . In addition to the book I've already mentioned, one place in which I deal with these issues is my contribution to the recent book edited by Keith R. Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003). I would add that I think that this book is an excellent introduction to evangelical TE thinking, with chapters dealing with the relevant science, history, & theology. Chapter 20, "Evolution and Original Sin" by Robin Collins, also speaks to the issues you raise.


Well, in regards to "free process", I don't see why God simply couldn't intervene to bring about our free will capacity. If it would have prevented millions of yrs. of animal suffering due to the randomness required to bring it about naturally, and the theological baggage that comes along with that, it seems more than worth it. I think this issue needs much further philosophical exploration. These are the questions that theistic evolutionists need to start looking into more deeply. And while I'm making recommendations to theistic evolutionists, here are a couple other areas that need more looking into IMHO:Polkinghorne's argument isn't simply that free process is needed in order to bring about creatures with free will. He begins his discussion of theodicy by recalling the tradition "free will" argument - i.e., that if God is going to allow us really to have free will & its consequences, God must limit his action in the world. He then explicitly broadens that by saying that if all created things are to have genuine integrity and function in accordance with their natures,
then natural processes must in a sense be free from divine action that overrides their natural capacities - capacities which, it's important to note. God has given them. & that doesn't mean that God does nothing at all with them, but that God operates in accord with their capabilities, which requires that God limit his action.

So the argument really stands or falls with one's decision about whether such "free process" is important. As I argued earlier, I think it is because it's what makes it possible for us to understand our world "from the inside" so to speak. In fact, some regularity of natural processes is important even for non-rational creatures. If plants that were nutritious today were toxic tomorrow, animals couldn't survive.

-Polkinghorne makes some other comments regarding the millions of yrs. of death of anaerobic bacteria helping to convert the oxygen in the atmosphere. And it was interesting to hear Hugh Ross elaborate on long spans of animal death bringing about the natural resource-rich world required for technological civilization. I think this is another area that should be given a thorough investigation and presentation. In what ways has the death of animals prepared the earth for our habitation?Yes, & natural selection argues that competition, privation, loss, death & extinction are what drive the evolutionary process. We don't need to exaggerate the "red in tooth & claw" aspect of it, but death is involved. & that's one reason why I feel that an adequate TE has to have the cross at the center.

-How much *do* animals suffer? Surely there's a world of science out there on the subject. I've seen enough philosophical treatments from Christian apologists arguing that it cannot be proved that animals the kind of consciousness that would truly allow them to experience what we call pain in morally significant ways. While helpful, I just don't think this is enough. Glenn Miller has done the best job I've seen as far as assessing the quantity and quality of this kind of suffering:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/predator.html

Given our tendancy of our society to project human emotions onto and portray human emotions through animals, I find this kind of research extremely helpful.I agree that the question of animal suffering is important theologically. Conversely, we need to take seriously the implications of "all things" in texts like Eph.1:10 & Col.1:20 & "the whole creation" of Rom.8:22, that God's saving work in Christ isn't limited to the human race - though speculations about "dog heaven" &c may not be very profitable.


Yes -- all so deeply true. Presented exactly as it should be. Not an answer but our only comfort. And this is where we're at, isn't it. Faith in the God who suffers with us in solidarity, and has proven that He will redeem His creation. It is the way we must look at things, and this view is what sustains us in the face of the mystery of evil. Unfortunately its only enough for the believer. I still think we need to take our understanding as far as it will go -- make evil as intelligible as possible for the sake of the unbeliever...
Yes, that's a necessary task for apologetics. At the same time, there is a fundamental senselessness about evil, so the fact that we can't completely understand it is really in accord with what evil is (or isn't if one thinks of evil as fundamentally negative).


Shalom,
George

[Anthony]

George -

I won't have much time before Saturday, but, in regards to free process theodicy (which I'm still having a hard time understanding), the problem is that the natures God has created his creatures with are in conflict with one another. The goals of the lion conflict with the goals of the gazelle. So, if there was no "Fall" for the animal kingdom, it just pushes the philosophical question back to: Why did God create them with natures that necessitate such suffering? More specifically -- What are the higher-order goods involved, and can we imagine better ways in which He could have arrived at them?

I realize you didn't start this thread to give a natural evil theodicy, but, as a Christian who considers the evidence to favor an evolutionary process, and wants to believe we can reconcile evolution with the Biblical God, I see this as *the* largest hurdle for any theory of theistic evolution. TEs have to get their imaginations working. I think your argument related to God's hiddenness is a start, but needs further elucidation.

Does the shock of the competition, chaos, danger, tragedy etc. of nature all around us emphasize how radically we differ from nature itself? Does it force a response from that part of us that is the "image of God" -- a recognition that somehow we transcend it all with our morality, reason, creativity, love, etc.? Is the lack of care and competition of nature there to allow the non-believer to observe and extrapolate such a scenario to apply to the human realm, giving him a back door -- a justification to indulge in his "natural" self, a "reason" to say that God is unnecessary and deny that spiritual part of him that transcends nature (as we know so many evolutionists have done), hence leaving his decision to seek and obey God a purely internal one based on whether or not he will acknowledge what God has implanted in him?

Does the dark side of nature somehow point us toward God? Does it tell us something about God - that He has a ferocious or dark side to His nature as some philosophers of religion suppose?

Sorry for the run-ons...Its late and I'm in a rush...

Thanks,
Anthony

[George Murphy]

Hey there jkendall......

Just to let you know.....this thread is about the text mainly, not to debate evolution.


Then please explain how there can be an "evening" or "morning" without the sun?


This thread is not about evolution. Please stick to the text itself.I'm sorry that I somehow missed this post a few days ago, since it misrepresents the purpose of the thread which I started. It is indeed about evolution, "theistic evolution" in particular. It is not just to discuss "the text," although scripture is essential to any Christian understanding of evolution.
I don't think "Biblical Languages" is the idea forum for the discussion but have followed Dee Dee's suggestion.

& I would also ask, what text? I'm guessing that you mean the early chapters of Genesis. But that is by no means the only part of the Bible that is important for such discussion.

Shalom,
George

[John Reece]

I'm sorry that I somehow missed this post a few days ago, since it misrepresents the purpose of the thread which I started. It is indeed about evolution, "theistic evolution" in particular. It is not just to discuss "the text," although scripture is essential to any Christian understanding of evolution.
I don't think "Biblical Languages" is the idea forum for the discussion but have followed Dee Dee's suggestion.

& I would also ask, what text? I'm guessing that you mean the early chapters of Genesis. But that is by no means the only part of the Bible that is important for such discussion.

Shalom,
George

Since the thread starter does not really have a question or contribution regarding any particular biblical text, but rather wishes to focus on "theistic evolution" from a theoretical rather than a text-based perspective, it does seem that some other forum would be a more appropriate venue.

[dizzle]

John, I suggested this forum because I am interested in the text. Theories must be harmonized with the text, but since this is an exegetical and hermeuntical forum, I still think it best. And I really would lke the bedrock to be the TEXT. That has always been my issue with TE. Wether it can philosophically work is the second barrier, if it can't pass the TEXT test, the philosophy doesn't matter to me. There are members here who make philosophical arguments for homosexuality. But they don't deal with the TEXT, and we must pass that hurdle. That is not to say that philosophy should not come into the talk at all, but again, does it comport with the TEXT?


But I am glad you are on this thread John, can you please give me your opinion of Glenn's argument here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=610596&postcount=5

Is it textually possible? Is his grammar arguments proper? Strengths? Weaknesses? I am really interested in your take. And for the record, I haven't the foggiest notion what John's position is on YEC/OEC/TE whatsoever.

I am trying to find out when GP may be around to take a look at it. Glenn has claimed that the TEXT actually teaches evolution in very general ways and NOT special creation. I want to find out if this is possible - and of course other areas of Scripture may rule it out (and I think they do - particularlly the issue of suffering, death, decay etc. - Romans 8 for one)

[George Murphy]

Since the thread starter does not really have a question or contribution regarding any particular biblical text, but rather wishes to focus on "theistic evolution" from a theoretical rather than a text-based perspective, it does seem that some other forum would be a more appropriate venue.Please note this sentence in my previous post, and especially the word "just":

'It is not just to discuss "the text," although scripture is essential to any Christian understanding of evolution.'

I am not talking about a purely "theoretical" discussion of evolution. An adequate theological discussion of evolution of course must involve scripture.
But theology involves more than simply citing biblical texts. Among other things, it requires the theologian to take into account the way the world is - & in the present case that means looking at the best available scientific evidence.

But it is also inadequate to focus narrowly on Gen.1-3 and ask whether or not those texts "teach evolution." The biblical writers 3000-2000 years ago didn't know about anything like biological evolution in a modern sense, just as they didn't know about Maxwell's equations, &c - & I see no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit tried to put into the texts scientific information that wasn't known in contemporary cultures.

It's another matter to see if in scripture there are ideas about creation being intended to develop in some way in the course of time. (& I think there are.)
If that is the case then we can say that scripture is open to an evolutionary understanding.

& I repeat what I said earlier: Before we start looking at detailed exegesis of particular texts, we need to talk about broader hermeneutical principles.

I don't care a lot what forum this discussion takes place in. It's here now, but should not be constrained by the forum's title.

Shalom,
George

[shunyadragon]

Personally I would like a few more references to Hebrew texts with different interprtations to chew on than banter. Relevant evolution theory and scientific philosophy and theological questions are welcome discussion points by me.

A BIG question I have is there potentially more than ONE interpretation of the Pentateuch from the perspective of Christian and Jewish theology.

[John Reece]

John, I suggested this forum because I am interested in the text. Theories must be harmonized with the text, but since this is an exegetical and hermeuntical forum, I still think it best. And I really would lke the bedrock to be the TEXT. That has always been my issue with TE. Wether it can philosophically work is the second barrier, if it can't pass the TEXT test, the philosophy doesn't matter to me. There are members here who make philosophical arguments for homosexuality. But they don't deal with the TEXT, and we must pass that hurdle. That is not to say that philosophy should not come into the talk at all, but again, does it comport with the TEXT?

But I am glad you are on this thread John, can you please give me your opinion of Glenn's argument here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=610596&postcount=5

Is it textually possible? Is his grammar arguments proper? Strengths? Weaknesses? I am really interested in your take. And for the record, I haven't the foggiest notion what John's position is on YEC/OEC/TE whatsoever.

I am trying to find out when GP may be around to take a look at it. Glenn has claimed that the TEXT actually teaches evolution in very general ways and NOT special creation. I want to find out if this is possible - and of course other areas of Scripture may rule it out (and I think they do - particularlly the issue of suffering, death, decay etc. - Romans 8 for one)

Dee Dee,

I clicked on the link in your comment above, but I can't tell who is saying what to whom, so I must reserve comment.

Blessings,

John

[dizzle]

John I will take a look at it tonight and try to give quotes of the areas I would love your input on. The background is this - I had asked Glenn (who is a theistic evolutionist) for his textual argument that Genesis teaches or is compatible with evolution. He has made certain arguments of grammar that I was interested in having some opinion on.

[George Murphy]

John, I suggested this forum because I am interested in the text. Theories must be harmonized with the text, but since this is an exegetical and hermeuntical forum, I still think it best. And I really would lke the bedrock to be the TEXT. That has always been my issue with TE. Wether it can philosophically work is the second barrier, if it can't pass the TEXT test, the philosophy doesn't matter to me. There are members here who make philosophical arguments for homosexuality. But they don't deal with the TEXT, and we must pass that hurdle. That is not to say that philosophy should not come into the talk at all, but again, does it comport with the TEXT?


But I am glad you are on this thread John, can you please give me your opinion of Glenn's argument here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=610596&postcount=5

Is it textually possible? Is his grammar arguments proper? Strengths? Weaknesses? I am really interested in your take. And for the record, I haven't the foggiest notion what John's position is on YEC/OEC/TE whatsoever.

I am trying to find out when GP may be around to take a look at it. Glenn has claimed that the TEXT actually teaches evolution in very general ways and NOT special creation. I want to find out if this is possible - and of course other areas of Scripture may rule it out (and I think they do - particularlly the issue of suffering, death, decay etc. - Romans 8 for one)While I agree with Glenn on many things, I should make it clear here that I do
not think that Genesis 1 or 2 "teach [biological] evolution." Glenn is right that
Gen.1 clearly has a picture of mediated creation of living things. (Which does not mean that life is described as developing independently of God!) & Gen.1, especially in its larger canonical context, is open to ideas of temporal development. Both of those concepts are important components of an evolutionary theological view, but of course they are not scientific theories of biological evolution.

& again, basic hermeneutical principles need to be talked about before detailed exegesis will be very helpful here. If, as I argued in my original post, the question is approached in terms of a theology of the cross, if "true theology and the recognition of God are in the crucified Christ" & Is.45:15 is a statement about the characteristic way in which God works in the world, then our understanding of the creator in Gen.1 & 2 has to be seen in that light.

Shalom,
George

[dizzle]

Gen.1 clearly has a picture of mediated creation of living things.

I am not fully understanding what you mean by "mediated" - please explain before I comment.

[George Murphy]

I am not fully understanding what you mean by "mediated" - please explain before I comment.In Gen.1 God does not create living things directly but commands the earth and the waters to bring them forth. They do not appear out of nothing.

One thing that is frequently lacking in theological discussions of evolution, especially from those who oppose evolution, is adequate reflection on the way God works in the world. Without denying that God can do things without the mediation of creatures - i.e., the common understanding of miracles - it seems clear that in the vast majority of cases God does act with & through creaturely agency. One traditional expression of the doctrine of providence that is that God concurs or cooperates with creatures, acting with them but not overriding their natural capabilities. Benjamin Wirt Farley, The Providence of God (Baker, 1988) provides a good introduction from a Reformed standpoint.

I have argued further (though the idea is not original with me) that divine kenosis means, among other things, that God limits divine action to what is within the capabilities of creatures. This is why science is able to explain what goes on in the world without referring to God. An application of these ideas to cosmology & evolution is my article (which I think is available via the asa website) "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's Functional Integrity" (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53, 7, 2001).

The picture that one gets in Gen.1 is that, in creating the earth & waters, God has given them the ability to bring forth living things when God so commands. In particular, there is no basis here for the idea that the origin of life is a miracle, in the traditional sense of being beyond the capacity of created things even with divine cooperation.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

George -

I won't have much time before Saturday, but, in regards to free process theodicy (which I'm still having a hard time understanding), the problem is that the natures God has created his creatures with are in conflict with one another. The goals of the lion conflict with the goals of the gazelle. So, if there was no "Fall" for the animal kingdom, it just pushes the philosophical question back to: Why did God create them with natures that necessitate such suffering? More specifically -- What are the higher-order goods involved, and can we imagine better ways in which He could have arrived at them?

I realize you didn't start this thread to give a natural evil theodicy, but, as a Christian who considers the evidence to favor an evolutionary process, and wants to believe we can reconcile evolution with the Biblical God, I see this as *the* largest hurdle for any theory of theistic evolution. TEs have to get their imaginations working. I think your argument related to God's hiddenness is a start, but needs further elucidation.I agree that the theodicy question is important, and the presence of Job in the canon encourages us to consider it. But notice the answer that Job finally gets. As I think Chesterton sums it up somewhere, Job says to God "I don't understand," and God replies, "That's right - you don't understand." Job never does get an "explanation," & Rom.9:20 reminds us that we shouldn't be too pushy about demanding one.

Even with a traditional reading of Genesis and reading Ch.3 as an abrupt fall, there is no statement that all animal death is due to human sin. So the idea that there was such death before humanity came on the scene isn't that radical a claim - which is not to say that animal suffering is of no concern.

A world that can be understood thoroughly from "within" in terms of natural processes obeying rational laws is a gift, because it means that we are able to understand it & live in the world as mature adults. If God were always performing miracles to keep bad things from happening then we might be safe & happy like babies in a nursery, but we'd have no clue what was going on & no control over our own lives.

But such a world must be one in which life also emerges through natural processes - processes which God cooperates with but doesn't override. If life is to evolve, it will be (to oversimplify considerably) through Lamarckian (transmission of acquired characters) or Darwinian (natural selection) means. & it's hard to see how transmission of acquired characters could work in a significant way: Information goes from germ cells to body, not vice versa. (I know that there continue to be claims for Lamarckian phenomena, but they seem to be at best of minor importance.) So evolution is going to be a process in which natural selection plays a major role - & that means competition, loss, suffering, death, & extinction.

The goal toward which scripture points is the ultimate uniting of "all things" with Christ - Eph.1:10. That suggests that the evolution of intelligent life is something that was necessary for the accomplishment of God's purpose - so that there would be an intelligent species in whom God could become incarnate. There is, as we've noted, a price to be paid for this, & the point I've made is that the price is not paid only by creation. God himself participates in the suffering of the world, preeminently on the cross.

Does this "justify" God in creating in that way. All I can do in to say in faith
that the ultimate accomplishment of God's purpose will make it worthwhile.

Does the shock of the competition, chaos, danger, tragedy etc. of nature all around us emphasize how radically we differ from nature itself? Does it force a response from that part of us that is the "image of God" -- a recognition that somehow we transcend it all with our morality, reason, creativity, love, etc.? Is the lack of care and competition of nature there to allow the non-believer to observe and extrapolate such a scenario to apply to the human realm, giving him a back door -- a justification to indulge in his "natural" self, a "reason" to say that God is unnecessary and deny that spiritual part of him that transcends nature (as we know so many evolutionists have done), hence leaving his decision to seek and obey God a purely internal one based on whether or not he will acknowledge what God has implanted in him?

Does the dark side of nature somehow point us toward God? Does it tell us something about God - that He has a ferocious or dark side to His nature as some philosophers of religion suppose?I don't believe that there is a hidden God who differs in character from the revealed God - as if the revealed God were love but that that's just a mask for a hateful God. But God is hidden, most paradoxically in his revelation in the cross. If we start from there then we can see in the dark side of nature "the presence of a God who conceals himself" as Pascal said. That's the proper order, to start from Calvary - which is why I called my book The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross. But if you try to go the other way & start from nature, the dark side may (if you're honest & don't just ignore it in favor of the flowers) lead you to think that the creator is a God of wrath, or indifferent to suffering - or non-existent.

Shalom,
George

[dizzle]

In Gen.1 God does not create living things directly but commands the earth and the waters to bring them forth. They do not appear out of nothing.

One thing that is frequently lacking in theological discussions of evolution, especially from those who oppose evolution, is adequate reflection on the way God works in the world. Without denying that God can do things without the mediation of creatures - i.e., the common understanding of miracles - it seems clear that in the vast majority of cases God does act with & through creaturely agency. One traditional expression of the doctrine of providence that is that God concurs or cooperates with creatures, acting with them but not overriding their natural capabilities. Benjamin Wirt Farley, The Providence of God (Baker, 1988) provides a good introduction from a Reformed standpoint.

I have argued further (though the idea is not original with me) that divine kenosis means, among other things, that God limits divine action to what is within the capabilities of creatures. This is why science is able to explain what goes on in the world without referring to God. An application of these ideas to cosmology & evolution is my article (which I think is available via the asa website) "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's Functional Integrity" (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53, 7, 2001).

The picture that one gets in Gen.1 is that, in creating the earth & waters, God has given them the ability to bring forth living things when God so commands. In particular, there is no basis here for the idea that the origin of life is a miracle, in the traditional sense of being beyond the capacity of created things even with divine cooperation.

Shalom,
George


Okay now I understand what you mean, but unfortunately I lost my thought. And now I remember I was goikng to distill for John Reece the questiohns I had about Glenn's argument. I am giong to wait until I hear further on that before (if and when) I comment further.

[John Reece]

Okay now I understand what you mean, but unfortunately I lost my thought. And now I remember I was goikng to distill for John Reece the questiohns I had about Glenn's argument. I am giong to wait until I hear further on that before (if and when) I comment further.

Dee Dee,

After reading all the related threads and posts, I do not think I'll have anything more to offer regarding Glenn's argument.

I think it’s a waste of time and energy to quibble over exegesis of the Hebrew text. The English versions are clear enough renderings of the meaning of the text.

The positions of YEC, OE, and TE are all based upon presuppositions, and I would rather not get involved in presupposition-based controversies.

Blessings,

John.

[dizzle]

Dee Dee,

After reading all the related threads and posts, I do not think I'll have anything more to offer regarding Glenn's argument.

I think it’s a waste of time and energy to quibble over exegesis of the Hebrew text. The English versions are clear enough renderings of the meaning of the text.

The positions of YEC, OE, and TE are all based upon presuppositions, and I would rather not get involved in presupposition-based controversies.

Blessings,

John.

I have a grammar question from his post that I will PM you about. Isn't eschatology a presupposition-based controversy at times?

[John Reece]

Isn't eschatology a presupposition-based controversy at times?

Yes, which is why I'm inclined to opt-out of arguments about eschatology when the arguments become more presuppositional than exegetical.

[George Murphy]

The positions of YEC, OE, and TE are all based upon presuppositions, and I would rather not get involved in presupposition-based controversies.Virtually any position in any subject you can name is based upon presuppositions - or axioms, or postulates, or whatever you want to call them. If you're only willing to engage in presupposition-free discussions you'll be reduced to silence.

Shalom,
George

[John Reece]

Virtually any position in any subject you can name is based upon presuppositions - or axioms, or postulates, or whatever you want to call them. If you're only willing to engage in presupposition-free discussions you'll be reduced to silence.

Shalom,
George

:nc:

:smile:

[George Murphy]

Okay now I understand what you mean, but unfortunately I lost my thought. And now I remember I was goikng to distill for John Reece the questiohns I had about Glenn's argument. I am giong to wait until I hear further on that before (if and when) I comment further.Thanks for your reply. Let me know if you have further thoughts on the matter (or remember the old one :)).

Shalom,
George

[learning]

Virtually any position in any subject you can name is based upon presuppositions - or axioms, or postulates, or whatever you want to call them. If you're only willing to engage in presupposition-free discussions you'll be reduced to silence.

Shalom,
George

Is that like 'God said it, I believe it, that settles it?' ? :)

ie. said what?
believe what?
settle what?

My problem when I read all the sides of YEC, OEC, and TE, I see they all make sense depending what I am reading at the time, so I've sort settled for the same thing I settle for in pre, a, and post millenialism, pan-millenialism, that it will all pan out in the end, that I can trust that God surely must know what He's doing (cause I sure don't sometimes) and therefore He knows HOW He made this world, and I'm satisfied that He did make it, and How is something that scientists will be figuring out for as long as we're here.

[George Murphy]

The following post is a copy of #101 on "Questions to TEs" in Natural Sciences 101. You can look in previous posts there for background on it.

Charleen -
Sorry I've let a lot pile up here before responding. I'm going to answer here but will also transfer this to the Deep Theistic Evolution thread in Biblical Languages 301. I think further discussion would work better there.

So humans were not created at enmity with God, but evolved to enmity with God.Yes, that's a theological description of the way human evolution took place.

So you're saying that the theological Adam and Eve represent that humanity at one time trusted and obeyed God but then sin evolved.At least they had the possibility of trusting & obeying God fully.

So you are saying that morality evolved and that is what allows "sin"? Only moral agents can sin so once man evolved morally, only then he could sin?Yes, but don't let the word "moral" through you off. "Morality" usually means the way we deal with other creatures, but our fundamental relationship is not to creatures but to God. Conversely, sin is first of all against God, as both
Gen.3 & Rom.1 indicate. Only when humans were able to be aware of a "Higher Power" (for of course they didn't start off with a full knowledge of the trinity!) could they be responsible before that Power.


They don't "have to" sin, but they do because it was "inevitable" given their animalistic nature? Do you believe man has a sin nature? Do you believe we have a sin nature because we have an animalistic nature? So we have the same nature as animals but since we can know right and wrong morally and that God can speak to us in some way, we are accountable to not obey our animal natures? So God has taught us His nature (in our hearts, perhaps) and this is how we are accountable even though we have an animal nature disposed to behaviors which are considered sin because we are moral agents. So did morality evolve or is morality a direct consequence of being able to "hear" God in some way?There's a lot to unpack here & I don't think I can do it all right now. Just a few comments:

As I said earlier, the idea of a "sin nature" is a problem because it suggests that our nature - what it means to be human - is essentially sinful. & it isn't. Even as sinners we are creatures of God. (In fact Augustine says that even the devil, insofar as he simply exists, is a creature of God and therefore essentially good!)

& even talking about things in terms of "natures" is a problem because that's a legacy of the Greek philosophical tradition which described God & the world in terms of unchanging "substances" or "natures." But of course evolution means that humanity has changed: Quite apart from the question of sin, the cratures that exist today are different from their ancestors of ten or a hundred million years ago.

Our being descended from pre-human animals is not in itself sinful. But the way in which we make use of that inheritance is.

This is what I have a problem with because if the fall of man is just "getting off the right road" naturally, then we should be able to get back on the "right road" naturally. So Christ could have just come down to teach us to get back on the right road and not have to pay for it.
............................

Let me get this right. We are corrupted by sin which means since we can hear from God, we have morals and when we disobey we are on the wrong path. Can man not just pick himself back up and get on the right path now that he has evolved enough to control himself? What about those godly grannies in the world, are they corrupted by sin even if they were as good as the first hominids who tried to stay on course?Well, the problem is that the 1st hominids didn't try to stay on course! & the whole development of our cultural environment makes sin more and more inevitable - even for godly grannies. We don't "fear, love and trust in God above all things."

What I'm suggesting is that original sin is more an environmental than a hereditary condition. There's a tendency to think of environmental influences as relatively minor things that we could shake off if we wanted to, in contrast to genetic ones, which are supposed to be hard wired. But a little reflection will show that it isn't that simple. A good example just isn't always enough to change the effects of an abusive childhood or something like that.

Instead of thinking of original sin as a kind of genetic disease, I would suggest that it's more like fetal alcohol syndrome. That is not "genetic" but "environmental" (i.e., an effect of the uterine environment), but it's something a child is born with. & that example shows, in passing, how sin can affect a person even before birth.

So Christ redeems us from the wrong path. Why does such a thing need a sacrafice when one can just get back on the right path by themselves? And maybe there were some hominids who actually stayed on the right path and did not stray--do they need a Savior as well?The basic testimony of scripture in this regard is that all people are sinners.
Paul makes that case at length in Rom.1:18-3:20 without even mentioning Adam (who doesn't show up till Ch.5). So apparently there's no one who didn't stray. & note also that the common claim that there's no need for Christ if there was no historical Adam is empty. Sin as a proble that affects everyone is a reality, whether or not we understand how it originated.

Now why the sacrifice? OTOH the NT emphatically says that the death of Christ "must" happen (Mk.8:31), that it was "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23) &c. OTOH there is no single explanation given of how the cross & resurrection save us. The language of sacrifice of course is used - but also that of ransom, of victory over the powers of evil, of "draw[ing] all people to myself" (Jn.12:32) - & others. Theologians have developed various "theories of the atonement" based on different passages. All of them are helpful in some ways & not in others - & none of these theories have ever (whatever some Christians think) been declared by the church catholic to be the one and only way to understand the work of Christ. My own feeling is that the NT idea of "new creation" is helpful here because it can easily be connected with the reorientation of humanity - getting it back on track. & in order to carry out this work of new creation, God went down to the very depths of the old creation, into death.
(That's very sketchy but it's getting close to dinnertime.)

So the choice Adam and Eve had in the Garden is a theological representation of hominids who naturally developed an understanding for right and wrong but who choose wrong instead of right.Yes, but remember when you say "naturally" that God is at work all the time through natural processes.

So, it is not just God knowing in advance man would sin but that God created him so that he most certainly will sin.But not so that he had to sin.

So not all of the early chapters of Genesis is historical information but made up for some reason like to teach a point? So names were invented to help make points? So there is no way of knowing which bits are authentic and which are made up to make a theological point?I wouldn't say there's no way. That's what historical, archeological &c investigation is for. & I wouldn't say that parts that aren't historical are "inauthentic." Jesus' parables aren't all historical accounts, but they are certainly "authentic" statements about what the Kingdom of God is like, who our neighbors are, &c.
...............

Shalom,
George

[Augustine2004]

I find disturbing John Reece's apparent belief that there is no way to decide between presuppositional systems. Random choice only?

[John Reece]

I find disturbing John Reece's apparent belief that there is no way to decide between presuppositional systems. Random choice only?

Augustine2004,

Would you mind posting a verbatim quote of John Reece that indicates a "belief that there is no way to decide between presuppositional systems."

Or, a verbatim quote of John Reece that indicates anything related to "random choice only".

John Reece

[George Murphy]

Augustine2004,

Would you mind posting a verbatim quote of John Reece that indicates a "belief that there is no way to decide between presuppositional systems."

Or, a verbatim quote of John Reece that indicates anything related to "random choice only".

John ReeceThese issues of epistemology are important but they are likely to get beyond the scope of this thread rather quickly.

Shalom,
George

[Augustine2004]

Would you mind posting a verbatim quote of John Reece that indicates a "belief that there is no way to decide between presuppositional systems."
Or, a verbatim quote of John Reece that indicates anything related to "random choice only".My apologies. Those were mistaken inferences from posts #39 and on. Perhaps my own epistemological system needs an overhaul.

[George Murphy]

It seems rather strange to me that there appears to be little interest in discussion of creation-evolution issues either in this forum or in Theology 201, while they are hotly debated in Natural Sciences 101. It seems that Christians are much more interested in talking about the scientific questions that are involved than about trying to clarify and understand the relevant theological issues. Why is this?


Shalom,
George

[Solly]

It seems rather strange to me that there appears to be little interest in discussion of creation-evolution issues either in this forum or in Theology 201, while they are hotly debated in Natural Sciences 101. It seems that Christians are much more interested in talking about the scientific questions that are involved than about trying to clarify and understand the relevant theological issues. Why is this?


Shalom,
George

probably because that is how the whole debate has been presented, and the context in which it takes place: are you a real evangelical? Then you must be [enter creationist viewpoint]. It's become a matter of polemics rather than homiletics. To engage with the text, we simply must nail our colours to the mast, and that centres on the scientific validity of Gen 1-11.

For myself, my interest in Genesis 1-11 focuses on:
The image of God: our call to servant dominion
The Sabbath: God's eschatological plan for the world
The Covenantal structure that underlies the first creation account: God's grace extended towards the world
Christ: how it all fits with Him; I am reading Barth at the moment.
What these mean for our witness to the world, and our action in the world.

I came to aetiology from eschatology, since I believe that eschatology is not simply a matter of piecing together some texts from the NT, but it grows out of the whole revelation and action of God from the beginning. I cannot decide on whether post/a/premill views are correct, or pret/historicist/futurist views, until I know what God intended when he started the whole thing off. I cannot decide if theonomy is an expression of God's will for the world until I know what he intended when he started the world.

I am very interested in the relationship between the findings of modern scientific research and inquiry and the text. I am not sure the text gives us what science does - and I believe firmly that we can investigate this world, we can think about it, and theorise validly - as per your Bonhoeffer quote - and find truth about the world. That is why I have been talking over the idea of Genesis as myth in another thread. Glenn, as with YECs and some OECs, seeks clear match between the creation proclamations and the actual events in history. Do we have to do that? Do we lose truth if we don't do that? Do we lose the validity of the teaching if we don't do that?

Btw George, where can I find a list of your books, since my Amazon list 128 items.

I'll try and dig into my Dictionary of the Old Testament:Penteteuch tonight.

John, are you able to provide some clips from commentaries like Wenham, Westermann, Breuggemann, Waltke?

[Solly]

3) Science is relevant - indeed essential - for this discussion. & that means science done without theological (or anti-theological) presuppositions -
"secular science" if you will. In fact, one of the things I'll argue is that the hiddenness of divine action toward which the cross of Christ points means that we should be able to understand the world etsi deus non daretur, "though God were not given." (The phrase was popularized by Bonhoeffer, though he didn't originate it.)
But conversely, science is only of theological relevance when placed in an explicitly theological context. In particular, science in itself does not talk about "creation", which is a theological concept.

Do you think the concept of 'Creation' has any role in scientific investigation, whether it be the origins of the universe, the planet, life, or the species? Or should science - done in a theological context - have the courage to say, At this point we can say no more.

5) What are the implications of such a theology [of the cross] for an understanding of evolution? Here I'll just sketch, briefly & inadequately, a few points.
a) God's activity in the world is characteristically hidden - cf.Is.45:15 (a verse emphasized both by Luther & by Pascal). As I argued above, this means that the world can be understood without reference to God.

How much of the world?

b) That claim will be offensive to many Christians who think that the idea of God is "necessary" in order to understand the world. No. Part of the divine kenosis (Phil.2:5-11) is that God is willing to be considered unnecessary. As Bonoeffer puts it, God is willing to be pushed out of the world onto a cross.

But isn't it part of the teaching of scripture, that having ignored God - pushed him onto the cross - that we no longer rightly understand [Rom 1]?

c) As God Incarnate, Christ is fully divine and fully human. & if evolution is right (as I think it is), "fully human" means that God has become part of the evolutionary process - an idea that of course is offensive to many Christians.

Not exactly sure what you mean here, since it seems to mix a metaphysical statement with an historical one. Christ sired no children, he has left nothing in the gene pool. Rather, God is creating a new humanity, which is not an evolutionary move.

I argue that that is essentially the scandal of the cross.

I don't think many here would accept that God's participation in the evolutionary process is a scandal (which, in its biblical context, means stumbling stone.) It sounds somewhat panentheist to me.

Furthermore, on the cross God experiences the suffering & death that are part of that process -
a crucial consideration for theodicy challenges often directed against TE. & the resurrection of Christ is the reason for hope - not only for humanity but for the world.

But the cross was judgment on sin, which causes death; rather than what would be a normal part of the evolutionary process.

6) Some will be surprised that I've said nothing yet about Gen.1 & 2. There are 2 reasons for that.
a) We are to interpret Genesis in the light of the NT, and specifically in the light of Christ, not vice versa.
b) While the Genesis texts are of course important, they are by no means the only important ones dealing with creation. Starting somewhere else can have the advantage of avoiding getting stuck in well-worn ruts of familiar debates. In an earlier book, The Trademark of God, I started with the exodus tradition & Is.40-55 before moving to Genesis.

I like that; Salvation and Eshcatology. Too often missed.

7) Briefly on Gen.1 & 2. Recognizing this as part of true & authoritative scripture, we then have to ask what types of literature we're dealing with. Are we to read these as historical narrative, liturgy, theological polemic, or what? Here I'll just make the following points:
a) Gen.1:1-2:4a & 2:4b-25 (briefly, Gen.1 & Gen.2) are separate creation texts that talk about God's creation of the world and life in different ways. They cannot be "harmonized" as historical narratives without doing violence to one or both.
b) These accounts, read as historical/scientific accounts, do not agree with what science has overwhelmingly shown us about the development of the universe & life.
c) a & b together point to the conclusion that we should not read the Genesis accounts as historical or scientific accounts. They are true & authoritative statements about God & our world & our lives, but they are fundamentally theological statements about those things.

Or, mythical!! using that word in Tolkien's sense.

e) While Gen.1 is not an historical account of the way life developed, it's important that the picture that's given of the creation of life is one of mediated creation, God commanding the elemnts of the world to bring forth life in accord with the capabilities he's given them. This understanding was quite common among the church fathers.

Good point. And surely part of your hiddenness of God theology, that he is hidden in the means.

f) As Westermann has argued, the culmination of the 1st creation story is the Sabbath, which in Jewish & Christian thought has always been understood as pointing toward the eschaton. That fact that this of course is not yet accomplished (though the risen Christ is its prolepsis) means that the creation story looks toward the future. It's open ended. In particular, it doesn't mean that God stopped doing anything at some point near the beginning of the universe - cf.Jn.5:17.


Again good points.

[John Reece]

. . .

John, are you able to provide some clips from commentaries like Wenham, Westermann, Breuggemann, Waltke?

:huh:

Hi Solly,

Having written all I wrote above, about being disinclined to get involved in any discussion on this thread, my first response to reading your words above was "John Who"?

So I went back and reviewed all the prior posts on this thread and did not see any by any other John, so I take it you are referring to me.

Then I remember another exchange with you in this forum. See post # 2 on the following thread, started by you:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24507

Blessings,

John

[Solly]

Hi Solly,

Having written all I wrote above, about being disinclined to get involved in any discussion on this thread, my first response to reading your words above was "John Who"?

So I went back and reviewed all the prior posts on this thread and did not see any by any other John, so I take it you are referring to me.

Yes, you John.
I know you said you were not taking part in the discussion - but since you're here anyway I was just wondering if you could lay your hands on some commentaries to help us in the textual basics, at least until GrayPilgrim shows up.

Then I remember another exchange with you in this forum. See post # 2 on the following thread, started by you:

OK, I didn't remember that. Thanks anyway. :cheers: slly

[Augustine2004]

I think it’s a waste of time and energy to quibble over exegesis of the Hebrew text. The English versions are clear enough renderings of the meaning of the text.I had read the Bible in English and never in Hebrew several times, yet I did not know about this jussive thing 'Then God said "Let . . .". It made a big difference to me.

[Augustine2004]

I think what we ought to do is to not give up on the historical approach so easily. Try to develop a history that harmonizes with both the text and current scientific findings (accepted with due caution of course). grmorton's efforts are not wholly satisfactory yet, but does that mean we ought to give up, throw up our hands, and say it's all myth or allegory or whatever? Can we say that the assumption of history does not work at all for the following reasons [hypothetical as of now, yet to be listed]?

[George Murphy]

For myself, my interest in Genesis 1-11 focuses on:
The image of God: our call to servant dominion
The Sabbath: God's eschatological plan for the world
The Covenantal structure that underlies the first creation account: God's grace extended towards the world
Christ: how it all fits with Him; I am reading Barth at the moment.
What these mean for our witness to the world, and our action in the world.
............................................
I am very interested in the relationship between the findings of modern scientific research and inquiry and the text. I am not sure the text gives us what science does - and I believe firmly that we can investigate this world, we can think about it, and theorise validly - as per your Bonhoeffer quote - and find truth about the world. That is why I have been talking over the idea of Genesis as myth in another thread. Glenn, as with YECs and some OECs, seeks clear match between the creation proclamations and the actual events in history. Do we have to do that? Do we lose truth if we don't do that? Do we lose the validity of the teaching if we don't do that?As you probably have seen from discussions between Glenn & myself, he & I have rather different views on this. I think you've provided a good start on a list of important theological themes in early Genesis. I would add:
Creation by the Word,
Mediated creation,
The importance of human community,
(which, following Moltmann, one can see
as an aspect of the image of the Trinity -
though this is an a posteriori result of
reading the texts from a NT standpoint),
& sin as a disruption of creation rather than
something essential to it.

Btw George, where can I find a list of your books, since my Amazon list 128 items.

Here it is:

The Trademark of God (Morehouse-Barlow, Wilton, CT, 1986)


Cosmic Witness (with LaVonne Althouse and Russell Willis) (CSS, Lima OH, 1996)

Toward a Christian View of a Scientific World (CSS, Lima OH, 2001)

The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross (Trinity Press International, Harrisburg PA, 2003)

Pulpit Science Fiction (Scheduled for publication in 2005 by CSS.)

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Do you think the concept of 'Creation' has any role in scientific investigation, whether it be the origins of the universe, the planet, life, or the species? Or should science - done in a theological context - have the courage to say, At this point we can say no more.I think that "creation" ought to be regarded as a theological concept. Science can talk about origins but not about creation - though science can contribute to our understanding of creation when its results are placed in a larger context.

But creation isn't limited to a theological explanation of how the world or humanity first arose. Belief in God's present activity in the world - providence - is part of the doctrine of creation. But here science can explain, e.g., how babies are born without reference to God: We don't have to appeal to an Intelligent Embryologist or something of the sort.

It's questionable whether science can explain the world completely just on math/logic grounds because of Goedel's incompleteness theorem. In fact, Hawking seems to have come to the conclusion that a genuine TOE isn't possible on such grounds. & beyond that, it seems certain that even if science can explain the world thoroughly, it can't explain why there is any world, or why this one & not another.

In answer to my statement, "God's activity in the world is characteristically hidden - cf.Is.45:15 (a verse emphasized both by Luther & by Pascal). As I argued above, this means that the world can be understood without reference to God" you asked

How much of the world?I already responded to this partially above. I don't want to rule out miracles in the sense they're usually understood - God doing things immediately that are beyond the capacity of creatures. But I think there's no reason to think we have to appeal to them to understand, e.g., the origin of life.

But isn't it part of the teaching of scripture, that having ignored God - pushed him onto the cross - that we no longer rightly understand [Rom 1]?We no longer rightly understand God: The basic problem that Rom.1 points to is idolatry. But that doesn't mean we can't understand the world.

In answer to my statement, "As God Incarnate, Christ is fully divine and fully human. & if evolution is right (as I think it is), "fully human" means that God has become part of the evolutionary process - an idea that of course is offensive to many Christians," you replied -

Not exactly sure what you mean here, since it seems to mix a metaphysical statement with an historical one. Christ sired no children, he has left nothing in the gene pool. Rather, God is creating a new humanity, which is not an evolutionary move.The historical Jesus was God Incarnate. ("The historical Jesus is the historic Christ.") It's true that Jesus had no biological children (unless you believe the Da Vinci Code!) But the new humanity you speak of, the Body of Christ, is in a sense (as Teilhard de Chardin suggested) the next stage of evolution - a primarily cultural rather than purely biological phase. (I've written some things about this but a great deal still needs to be worked out. & as one of my profs said, "Teilhard did not major in clarity.")

I don't think many here would accept that God's participation in the evolutionary process is a scandal (which, in its biblical context, means stumbling stone.)The following is an example of what I mean:

Theistic evolution ... makes man a half-evolved, half-created being who is a remodeled ape, so to speak. It also makes the Lord Jesus Christ into a very specially made-over ape. But the Bible says that He is the Creator of the universe ... .[Robert E. Kofahl, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter (Beta Books, San Diego, 1980), p.17.]


It sounds somewhat panentheist to me.If Jesus is fully human then he shares all common evolutionary history with other lifeforms & has the same anatomical & biochemical relationships with them that we do. & if he's truly God, then God shares those things.

I don't describe my own views as "panentheist" but I don't argue vehemently if others do. Panentheism, literally the view that God is in everything, is hardly heretical. It probably seems so to some because it's become closely identified with process theology, but I think that narrows the concept unnecessarily. & at least eschatologically we're told that "God will be all in all" (I Cor.15:28).

Part of the bad press that panentheism has gotten is a result of the fact that some people who describe their view in that way (e.g., Matthew Fox) let the "en" slip away.

But the cross was judgment on sin, which causes death; rather than what would be a normal part of the evolutionary process.It was judgment on sin but also, in an immediate as well as a remote sense, the result of sin - that of Pilate & Caiaphas et al getting rid of any threat to their power. & the fact that we have such inclinations - though not that we yield to them - is an aspect of natural selection.
......................


Good point. And surely part of your hiddenness of God theology, that he is hidden in the means.Yes. This is why Luther refers to the things through which God works in the world as "masks of God."

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

George,

As I have been giving your ideas some thought over these past days, I've been trying to imagine a hypothetical converstation with the Apostle Paul over the issues here. From all indications, he believed Adam a real person. This leads me to believe that there must not be anything "wrong" with believing that they were real folks who lived as Genesis portrays them.

Do you see a big problem scientifically with believing that fully modern humans are descendent of one man and one woman somewhere in the range of 100,000 years ago?

I know of at least one organization, Reasons to Believe, who put forth the idea that fully modern humans arose in the recent past (range of 100,000 years ago). Is this wrong? From what I gather it is correct that fully modern humans are of recent origin.

What is your evidence that fully modern humans did not arise from a small population within the range of 100,000 years ago?

~Charleen

[shunyadragon]

I think that "creation" ought to be regarded as a theological concept. Science can talk about origins but not about creation - though science can contribute to our understanding of creation when its results are placed in a larger context.

But creation isn't limited to a theological explanation of how the world or humanity first arose. Belief in God's present activity in the world - providence - is part of the doctrine of creation. But here science can explain, e.g., how babies are born without reference to God: We don't have to appeal to an Intelligent Embryologist or something of the sort.

It's questionable whether science can explain the world completely just on math/logic grounds because of Goedel's incompleteness theorem. In fact, Hawking seems to have come to the conclusion that a genuine TOE isn't possible on such grounds. & beyond that, it seems certain that even if science can explain the world thoroughly, it can't explain why there is any world, or why this one & not another.

In answer to my statement, "God's activity in the world is characteristically hidden - cf.Is.45:15 (a verse emphasized both by Luther & by Pascal). As I argued above, this means that the world can be understood without reference to God" you asked

I already responded to this partially above. I don't want to rule out miracles in the sense they're usually understood - God doing things immediately that are beyond the capacity of creatures. But I think there's no reason to think we have to appeal to them to understand, e.g., the origin of life.

We no longer rightly understand God: The basic problem that Rom.1 points to is idolatry. But that doesn't mean we can't understand the world.
Agreed. In the future science may provide some insight into the spiritual nature of existence, but any efforts up until the present have been fruitless and frustrated by the non-falsifiability of the Divine nature of existence.

In answer to my statement, "As God Incarnate, Christ is fully divine and fully human. & if evolution is right (as I think it is), "fully human" means that God has become part of the evolutionary process - an idea that of course is offensive to many Christians," you replied -

The historical Jesus was God Incarnate. ("The historical Jesus is the historic Christ.") It's true that Jesus had no biological children (unless you believe the Da Vinci Code!) But the new humanity you speak of, the Body of Christ, is in a sense (as Teilhard de Chardin suggested) the next stage of evolution - a primarily cultural rather than purely biological phase. (I've written some things about this but a great deal still needs to be worked out. & as one of my profs said, "Teilhard did not major in clarity.")

The following is an example of what I mean:

Theistic evolution ... makes man a half-evolved, half-created being who is a remodeled ape, so to speak. It also makes the Lord Jesus Christ into a very specially made-over ape. But the Bible says that He is the Creator of the universe ... .[Robert E. Kofahl, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter (Beta Books, San Diego, 1980), p.17.]


If Jesus is fully human then he shares all common evolutionary history with other lifeforms & has the same anatomical & biochemical relationships with them that we do. & if he's truly God, then God shares those things.
I have always found the belief in seperatness of humanity and God from creation puzzling. The Christian repugnance of the intimate relationship of humanity to creation is not Biblical. Biblically humanity, plants and all animals arose from the same earth by God's hand. We are all intimately related regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not. God will be all in all" (I Cor.15:28).There is a physical and a spiritual evolution described in the Bible and Jesus was both and in reality they are not seperable.

I don't describe my own views as "panentheist" but I don't argue vehemently if others do. Panentheism, literally the view that God is in everything, is hardly heretical. It probably seems so to some because it's become closely identified with process theology, but I think that narrows the concept unnecessarily. & at least eschatologically we're told that "God will be all in all" (I Cor.15:28).

Part of the bad press that panentheism has gotten is a result of the fact that some people who describe their view in that way (e.g., Matthew Fox) let the "en" slip away.

It was judgment on sin but also, in an immediate as well as a remote sense, the result of sin - that of Pilate & Caiaphas et al getting rid of any threat to their power. & the fact that we have such inclinations - though not that we yield to them - is an aspect of natural selection.
......................


Yes. This is why Luther refers to the things through which God works in the world as "masks of God." I do not believe in panentheism, because God cannot be defined as being in or a part of anything. There is an intimate personal relationship between God and creation that cannot be defined from the human point of view. The bottom line is the nature of God is ultimately unknowable and 'masked' from us.

If we could know God through science there would no need for revelation.

[Augustine2004]

The phrase is always used of the beginning of the creation itself, not just humanity. . . . And day six is so close to the beginning in a ~4000-year timescale that it was right at the beginning, given biblical standards of numerical precision. There is no way to say that if we swung down from the trees a few seconds before midnight, as long-agers claim.I was reviewing the posts in this thread, and I have a thought or two about this passage quoted above I'd like to toss on here. Let me see what you think. I can't prove the quoted passage wrong, but I think it is indeed questionable.

1. It seems reasonable to infer from the context that Jesus meant the creation of human beings.
2. His hearers would not have really cared whether He meant the universe or human beings. They did not have our modern standards of femto-second precision and passion for it. They would not have seen any need for scientific precision.
3. Note the phrase above, 'given biblical standards of numerical precision.' I do not see why LeiLani took care to specify 'numerical precision,' but it seems a mite convenient for her position to include that modifier, given that the ancient Near East peoples were as apt to use loose wording in non-numeric affairs as in numeric.
4. What would Jesus have said instead, if a great many years did separate the creation of human beings from the beginning of the creation of the universe, that could have been better than his actual utterance? A person wishing to be precise by today's scientific standard would have said something like, 'The same day that Adam was created, God also created Eve. He created them male and female.' [I could go on, but perhaps it is now more than enough for such a minor issue.]

[Solly]

As you probably have seen from discussions between Glenn & myself, he & I have rather different views on this. I think you've provided a good start on a list of important theological themes in early Genesis. I would add:
Creation by the Word,
Mediated creation,
The importance of human community,
(which, following Moltmann, one can see
as an aspect of the image of the Trinity -
though this is an a posteriori result of
reading the texts from a NT standpoint),
& sin as a disruption of creation rather than
something essential to it.

Thanks for that. As you name names I gather more idea of where you are coming from: Bonhoeffer, Moltmann. Not that I disagree with it.

Book list
Thanks for that also.

I think that "creation" ought to be regarded as a theological concept. Science can talk about origins but not about creation - though science can contribute to our understanding of creation when its results are placed in a larger context.

Gotchya. A division of labour, but with theology supply the context. I can see how writers like Moltmann, Torrance, Polkinghorne, etc would encourage that point.

But creation isn't limited to a theological explanation of how the world or humanity first arose. Belief in God's present activity in the world - providence - is part of the doctrine of creation. But here science can explain, e.g., how babies are born without reference to God: We don't have to appeal to an Intelligent Embryologist or something of the sort.

Yes; being a monist myself, ala John W Cooper, in Body Soul and Life Everlasting, I no longer have to have the idea that God is sitting by every bedside, waiting to insert a soul at conception. God sustains the universe, it rests upon him, but it also does its own thang.

It's questionable whether science can explain the world completely just on math/logic grounds because of Goedel's incompleteness theorem. In fact, Hawking seems to have come to the conclusion that a genuine TOE isn't possible on such grounds. & beyond that, it seems certain that even if science can explain the world thoroughly, it can't explain why there is any world, or why this one & not another.

I often here physicists and cosmologists on the radio [BBC] explaining that their province is how questions, not why questions.

I already responded to this partially above. I don't want to rule out miracles in the sense they're usually understood - God doing things immediately that are beyond the capacity of creatures. But I think there's no reason to think we have to appeal to them to understand, e.g., the origin of life.

I would differ there, in the sense that Creation is ultimately a work of God. If science cannot answer the why, and may not be able to answer the how, then God stands at the fountainhead. Creation is a miracle, in the Biblical sense of 'work of power', a work only God could do.

Re Rom 1: We no longer rightly understand God: The basic problem that Rom.1 points to is idolatry. But that doesn't mean we can't understand the world.

Good. I was wondering how you fitted it in, as some use it to support an anti-realist stance to scientific endeavour.

The historical Jesus was God Incarnate. ("The historical Jesus is the historic Christ.") It's true that Jesus had no biological children (unless you believe the Da Vinci Code!) But the new humanity you speak of, the Body of Christ, is in a sense (as Teilhard de Chardin suggested) the next stage of evolution - a primarily cultural rather than purely biological phase. (I've written some things about this but a great deal still needs to be worked out. & as one of my profs said, "Teilhard did not major in clarity.")

I think this is a matter of words. if you want to call it evolution so be it, but i would not. The Bible calls it New Creation, and I am happy with that.

Re scandal: Theistic evolution ... makes man a half-evolved, half-created being who is a remodeled ape, so to speak. It also makes the Lord Jesus Christ into a very specially made-over ape. But the Bible says that He is the Creator of the universe ... .[Robert E. Kofahl, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter (Beta Books, San Diego, 1980), p.17.]

If Jesus is fully human then he shares all common evolutionary history with other lifeforms & has the same anatomical & biochemical relationships with them that we do. & if he's truly God, then God shares those things.

And your view on Christ's origination? Was his human body/nature a special work of God, or is he a natural product? Ie, your understanding of the Bible's teaching on virgin birth, and his assumption of a body prepared for him.

It was judgment on sin but also, in an immediate as well as a remote sense, the result of sin - that of Pilate & Caiaphas et al getting rid of any threat to their power. & the fact that we have such inclinations - though not that we yield to them - is an aspect of natural selection.
Ok, I think I see where you are going with that.

Blessings

[Solly]

I have always found the belief in seperatness of humanity and God from creation puzzling. The Christian repugnance of the intimate relationship of humanity to creation is not Biblical. Biblically humanity, plants and all animals arose from the same earth by God's hand. We are all intimately related regardless of whether you believe in evolution or not. God will be all in all" (I Cor.15:28).There is a physical and a spiritual evolution described in the Bible and Jesus was both and in reality they are not seperable.

It is not a belief as such, but a misunderstanding. There are two Genesis accounts, and they show on the one hand humanity's part in creation - I am loathe to say humanity is the pinnacle of creation, since that implies an anthropocentricism i don't hold, but cultures have - but it also, as Francis Schaeffer pointed out, shows the discontinuity between humanity and the reast of creation, by the communion with God that is established, and the fact that the image of God rests on it: that image dealing particularly with humanity's stewardship dominion of creation as God's vice-regent. That has been much abused by humanity, as dominion has become domination. A true Christian ecological theology must get back to the original intent, although also go forward to the fact that God has raised up Christ as the new Adam, the new vice-regent, and we in submission to him, not our own authority and autonomy, which was the cause of the fall. I am Barthian enough to say that God always intended that Christ should be vice regent, and that the fall was the necessary way of bringing all into submission, knowingly. Creation itself awaits this final event.

I do not believe in panentheism, because God cannot be defined as being in or a part of anything. There is an intimate personal relationship between God and creation that cannot be defined from the human point of view. The bottom line is the nature of God is ultimately unknowable and 'masked' from us.

If we could know God through science there would no need for revelation.

Yes, very good point. All our knowledge of God is analogical, and some analogies are clearer that others. The psalmist could say:
Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Psa 19:2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
Psa 19:3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.
Psa 19:4 Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun,
Psa 19:5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
Psa 19:6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

but the Christian says:
2Co 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
And notice the reference to creation!!

[Solly]

I think what we ought to do is to not give up on the historical approach so easily. Try to develop a history that harmonizes with both the text and current scientific findings (accepted with due caution of course). grmorton's efforts are not wholly satisfactory yet, but does that mean we ought to give up, throw up our hands, and say it's all myth or allegory or whatever? Can we say that the assumption of history does not work at all for the following reasons [hypothetical as of now, yet to be listed]?

there is nothing wrong with this, and there are many, YEC, OEC and others who sek to do this. But either the history has to be comformed to the text, as in YEC, or the text to the history, as in OEC and Glenn's variety of TE. That is not a harmonisation as such.

One question that is often asked is: what is the text type of the Genesis accounts. Some say it is simple history, contiguous with the rest of the historical account. But that leaves aside the purpose of the text, its context, and its readership. Would the first readers have expected something that conforms to 21st cent. standards of historiography? I can't say I believe that, even as a YEC. The ANE cultures used myth for their creation stories, and those myths segued into the historical accounts and genealogies. Scripture is incarnated in a culture, it is not some ethereal substance that descends from above. It is incarnated in the minds of the writers, or else you have mediumistic automatic writing which they could not understand. Scriptural revelation works through the culture it arrives in, that is why we make so much these days of the Hebraic clothes revelation comes dressed in. L S Thornton, in Revelation and the Modern World, points out that the failure of Liberalism with regard to the Bible, was that it thought it could divest revelation of the Hebraic clothes, and see the naked truth, when in actual fact it just reclothed it in 19th century philosophical clothes. Now there are some who want to redress it in 21st century scientistic clothes, instead of studying the clothes God dressed his truth in. That is the starting point.

[reyvin]

there is nothing wrong with this, and there are many, YEC, OEC and others who sek to do this. But either the history has to be comformed to the text, as in YEC, or the text to the history, as in OEC and Glenn's variety of TE. That is not a harmonisation as such.

One question that is often asked is: what is the text type of the Genesis accounts. Some say it is simple history, contiguous with the rest of the historical account. But that leaves aside the purpose of the text, its context, and its readership. Would the first readers have expected something that conforms to 21st cent. standards of historiography? I can't say I believe that, even as a YEC. The ANE cultures used myth for their creation stories, and those myths segued into the historical accounts and genealogies. Scripture is incarnated in a culture, it is not some ethereal substance that descends from above. It is incarnated in the minds of the writers, or else you have mediumistic automatic writing which they could not understand. Scriptural revelation works through the culture it arrives in, that is why we make so much these days of the Hebraic clothes revelation comes dressed in. L S Thornton, in Revelation and the Modern World, points out that the failure of Liberalism with regard to the Bible, was that it thought it could divest revelation of the Hebraic clothes, and see the naked truth, when in actual fact it just reclothed it in 19th century philosophical clothes. Now there are some who want to redress it in 21st century scientistic clothes, instead of studying the clothes God dressed his truth in. That is the starting point.

I think you're on the money here Solly but I will stick one minor thing to think about in here and it's this: Indeed the writers had their own preconceived thoughts and culture when writing. But what we need to consider above all is what God had in mind with the words He allowed in His book. Thinking about it from a totally different subject from C/E, take messianic prophecies. Did anyone other than God Himself realize the impact of Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 before it came to full bloom? My point in saying this is that perhaps the text is saying more than what even the writer(s) realized at the time.

[Solly]

I think you're on the money here Solly but I will stick one minor thing to think about in here and it's this: Indeed the writers had their own preconceived thoughts and culture when writing. But what we need to consider above all is what God had in mind with the words He allowed in His book. Thinking about it from a totally different subject from C/E, take messianic prophecies. Did anyone other than God Himself realize the impact of Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53 before it came to full bloom? My point in saying this is that perhaps the text is saying more than what even the writer(s) realized at the time.

Veering into hermeneutics for a while...

Yes, you are right. As far as scripture is concerned, God is the author, and what a blessing that we can read it thousands of years later and find we worship the same God, and experience him in the same way.
Also, as George would point out, our ultimate reference for interpreting the OT, and all of the Biblical witness, is Christ, since he is the fulfillment. Creation cannot be properly understood apart from him, so that we, in our time, have the best advantage over the original hearers.
As far as Messianic prophecies are concerned, could the original hearers say, this speaks of Jesus of Nazareth? No. Could they say it spoke of God's promised agent, known as Messiah. I believe that for a lot of it they could, if not immediately, then upon reflection as the Jewish writings did, even of Isa 53, and more securely through the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

It is therefore highly likely that the text is saying more - [sensus plenior?] - than what is written. Or else preaching would have finished long ago, all would have been said. However, while, on the matter of prophecy, there are areas that might not be very clear, yet the reason for the revelation was to inform the immediate hearers in some, by grace or judgment - after all, Ahab probably didn't believe the Immanuel prophecy. In the context of Genesis as a canonical religious text, that would mean those who heard if from at least Moses' day, down to modern times. Given that through most of that time there would be a reliance on metaphysical/mythical theories of the universe, not historico-scientific views, then the question can at least be asked if the text was meant to be read in the latter way.
Contrariwise, I know it can be argued that, in time, scientific research should confirm the surface reading, and allow a deeper reading that further confirms the fact, in conjunction with other creation texts. However, a lot of what I have heard recently is mostly assertion that the conclusions must be wrong, and anti-realist as regards what science done by scientists working from a naturalistic stance can do. We no longer live in a day when dogma could be promulgated, and all would conform to avoid an auto da fe. God gave us minds to think, and even as sinners, we can still think, even if it ends up with us rejecting what we find because it points us towards God: hence the nedd for the Spirit empowered Gospel.

Interpretation of the Bible starts with the original setting, in so far as we can determine that, both it's incarnated setting in language and history, and in the canon of the people of God. From there we, as Christians, include the relation of all truth as derived from and focussed upon Christ, and from there to ourselves. George is right in seeking to do that, and for me that is more important than trying to set dates, because I am not sure that is what the text is about, despite our proclivity for doing so, and for determining the day the earth was created, whether Christians or Jews.

As I have been discussing on another thread, the truths of scripture can be more than a simple collation of facts, and the Genesis account could well be a case of God saying - bearing in mind the polemical nature of a creatoin account amongst other creation accounts in ANE - THIS is how it is, I am in charge, and this is who you are. When I remind my son that he should obey his father, I don't need to give him a detailed account of conception and gestation, and all that DNA stuff to prove it.
slly

[shunyadragon]

there is nothing wrong with this, and there are many, YEC, OEC and others who sek to do this. But either the history has to be comformed to the text, as in YEC, or the text to the history, as in OEC and Glenn's variety of TE. That is not a harmonisation as such.

One question that is often asked is: what is the text type of the Genesis accounts. Some say it is simple history, contiguous with the rest of the historical account. But that leaves aside the purpose of the text, its context, and its readership. Would the first readers have expected something that conforms to 21st cent. standards of historiography? I can't say I believe that, even as a YEC. The ANE cultures used myth for their creation stories, and those myths segued into the historical accounts and genealogies. Scripture is incarnated in a culture, it is not some ethereal substance that descends from above. It is incarnated in the minds of the writers, or else you have mediumistic automatic writing which they could not understand. Scriptural revelation works through the culture it arrives in, that is why we make so much these days of the Hebraic clothes revelation comes dressed in. L S Thornton, in Revelation and the Modern World, points out that the failure of Liberalism with regard to the Bible, was that it thought it could divest revelation of the Hebraic clothes, and see the naked truth, when in actual fact it just reclothed it in 19th century philosophical clothes. Now there are some who want to redress it in 21st century scientistic clothes, instead of studying the clothes God dressed his truth in. That is the starting point.

The problem I see with this reasoning is I do not consider the traditional Christian interpretation of the OT in Hebraic clothing. Check out the Judaism section for some of the many differences. I have followed and studied many differences in the interpretation of Ot prophecy, concepts of salvation, interpretatins of Genesis and the Pentateuch and find little concordance between the various traditional Christian interpretations and that worn by Hebriac clothing.

[Solly]

The problem I see with this reasoning is I do not consider the traditional Christian interpretation of the OT in Hebraic clothing. Check out the Judaism section for some of the many differences. I have followed and studied many differences in the interpretation of Ot prophecy, concepts of salvation, interpretatins of Genesis and the Pentateuch and find little concordance between the various traditional Christian interpretations and that worn by Hebriac clothing.

There will of course be differences in interpretation, which is not the same thing. The return to an understanding of the hebraic clothing is a more recent developement, since before it was more tied to current philosophical methodologies, ie Aristotelianism, Existentialism, etc. That's not to say that we have a clear unaffected approach now, that would be impossible, but for the last, oo, 3 to 5 decades the Biblical theology movement has sought to do that.
Equally, modern Jewish interpreation is as much affected by the systems it has passed through as Christianity, and can be no more Hebraic that Xty. Hence you can even get atheistic Jews.

[George Murphy]

George,

As I have been giving your ideas some thought over these past days, I've been trying to imagine a hypothetical converstation with the Apostle Paul over the issues here. From all indications, he believed Adam a real person. This leads me to believe that there must not be anything "wrong" with believing that they were real folks who lived as Genesis portrays them.

Do you see a big problem scientifically with believing that fully modern humans are descendent of one man and one woman somewhere in the range of 100,000 years ago?

I know of at least one organization, Reasons to Believe, who put forth the idea that fully modern humans arose in the recent past (range of 100,000 years ago). Is this wrong? From what I gather it is correct that fully modern humans are of recent origin.

What is your evidence that fully modern humans did not arise from a small population within the range of 100,000 years ago?~CharleenNo problem with the idea that Homo sapiens developed relatively recently, as you indicate. But a "small population" is not necessarily "one man and one woman." Population geneticists argue that there must have been a larger gene pool than that to give rise to our present species - I've heard estimates on the order of 1000 as a minimum.

I agree that Paul probably did think of Adam & Eve as historical individuals who lived a few thousand years before his time - though we can't get inside his head to be sure. But then we have to ask whether that believe is essential to the way Adam & Eve function theologically in the texts.

& I don't think there's anything wrong with believing that Adam & Eve were historical individuals - meaning that it isn't heretical to believe that. I wouldn't refuse to give communion to a YEC, but I think such a person's ideas about history & science are wrong. Of course the situation today is different from that centuries ago: Science does give us some new knowledge. So it's quite understandable that Paul - & Augustine, Aquinas, Luther & others before the rise of modern science could read Genesis in the ways they did, but there's less excuse for doing so today.

Having said that YEC is not in itself heretical, I have to add that those who insist that Genesis is the foundation of our faith, imply that one has to reject evolution to be a Christian &c, have seriously distorted theological priorities. Christ is the foundation of our faith, & a person can be a committed Christian without having an opinion one way or another on the historicity of Genesis 1-3.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Yes; being a monist myself, ala John W Cooper, in Body Soul and Life Everlasting, I no longer have to have the idea that God is sitting by every bedside, waiting to insert a soul at conception. God sustains the universe, it rests upon him, but it also does its own thang.I'd expand that a bit. God not only sustains creation but also cooperates, or concurs, with creatures in their actions. So God is always active in the world but does not (at least in the vast majority of cases) override them.

I often here physicists and cosmologists on the radio [BBC] explaining that their province is how questions, not why questions.That common distinction reflects an overemphasis on the observational aspect of science and doesn't give enough credit to theoretical work. (Full disclosure statement: I'm a theorist!) Science does both. Kepler found out how the planets move around the sun - elliptical orbits &c. But why do they move that way? Newton answered the question - to accuracy sufficient in the 17th century - with his laws of mechanics & gravitational. Later on Einstein was able to find a more satisfying "why" answer which also explains with greater precision some of the more detailed "how" data (like the precession of Mercury's orbit) that had been found.

But those are, so to speak, "penultimate whys." Ultimate whys - like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" - are things science can't deal with.

In response to my statement, "But I think there's no reason to think we have to appeal to them [miracles] to understand, e.g., the origin of life," you said:

I would differ there, in the sense that Creation is ultimately a work of God. If science cannot answer the why, and may not be able to answer the how, then God stands at the fountainhead. Creation is a miracle, in the Biblical sense of 'work of power', a work only God could do.Creation is ultimately a work of God. Science can't explain why the particular math patterns that we approximate by are laws of physics are "activated" as our universe. But given the fact that they are, I don't know that any further miracles - i.e., God acting outside those laws - are needed to explain how the world & life have developed.

I think this is a matter of words. if you want to call it evolution so be it, but i would not. The Bible calls it New Creation, and I am happy with that.I certainly have no objection to the concept of new creation. But just as we can understand biological evolution as a process through which God creates, I think it's possible to understand some aspects of cultural evolution as means through which which God brings about new creation. The development of the Christian community has always been seen as the work of the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit didn't wait to do anything until Pentecost. When the Nicene Creed calls the Spirit "the Lord, the giver of life" it means all life.

And your view on Christ's origination? Was his human body/nature a special work of God, or is he a natural product? Ie, your understanding of the Bible's teaching on virgin birth, and his assumption of a body prepared for him.I believe that Jesus was conceived of a virgin, though I don't think that belief is as essential as Christians have often thought. It is certainly not essential to belief in the divinity of Christ. (Paul & John both speak of him as divine and pre-existent but say nothing about virginal conception.)

In any case, Jesus was the son of Mary and has a thoroughly human, Jewish, ancestry. That is certainly the point of the genealogies in Mt. & Lk. (however we may debate their details) & of Rom.9:5. I don't think one can press Heb.10:5 to suggest that God set apart some humanity that was essentially different from what the rest of us have.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

No problem with the idea that Homo sapiens developed relatively recently, as you indicate. But a "small population" is not necessarily "one man and one woman." Population geneticists argue that there must have been a larger gene pool than that to give rise to our present species - I've heard estimates on the order of 1000 as a minimum.


George,

Population geneticists argue that there must have been a larger gene pool than one man and one woman that gave rise to our present species. You have heard estimates on the order of 1000 as a minimum. Is it impossible to get an entire population from a single pair? I'm no geneticists, but I have heard of hamsters in North America...well, anyway...I'm sure it is different give their size, short generation time/multiple births per adult, etc but tell me why it is impossible that mankind arose from a single pair, especially considering God's vested interest in them.

I agree that Paul probably did think of Adam & Eve as historical individuals who lived a few thousand years before his time - though we can't get inside his head to be sure. But then we have to ask whether that believe is essential to the way Adam & Eve function theologically in the texts.

I think it does as far as sin, etc....we still need to discuss this further in the near future...



Of course the situation today is different from that centuries ago: Science does give us some new knowledge. So it's quite understandable that Paul - & Augustine, Aquinas, Luther & others before the rise of modern science could read Genesis in the ways they did, but there's less excuse for doing so today.

George, this gets scary for me. I've heard many give an excuse like this so that homosexual issues get all changed around. The argument goes like this: because Paul did not understand homosexuality in light of science, and because now "science" has opened our eyes on this issue, it should no longer be understood that homosexuality is an abomination from God and those who practice such things are in no danger of hell fire--all because Paul was not scientifically informed when he wrote the texts. Please compare and contrast this with Paul being wrong about Adam and Eve and now we "know better" because of our understanding of science. What is your view on the homosexual debate?

Having said that YEC is not in itself heretical, I have to add that those who insist that Genesis is the foundation of our faith, imply that one has to reject evolution to be a Christian &c, have seriously distorted theological priorities.

Y'know, I have a mind to "give" you evolution of everything but man (though I personally think that the ID guys have good arguments regarding the gaps in the fossil record and the orgin of life and I go with their arguments.) There is theological significance in understanding sin and man's nature that are not satisfyingly met with your TE view, however, so I am not willing to give up man's special creation. There are those who say I don't have to give up man's special creation and I can still respect science (the old earth creationists). I have not seen anything that has swayed me from taking that position.

Please advise what the biggest challenges are to believe that fully modern humans are not evolutionarily connected with previous ancestors.

[George Murphy]

George,

Population geneticists argue that there must have been a larger gene pool than one man and one woman that gave rise to our present species. You have heard estimates on the order of 1000 as a minimum. Is it impossible to get an entire population from a single pair? I'm no geneticists, but I have heard of hamsters in North America...well, anyway...I'm sure it is different give their size, short generation time/multiple births per adult, etc but tell me why it is impossible that mankind arose from a single pair, especially considering God's vested interest in them.I'm not a population geneticist & don't have the scientific expertise to say that humanity arising from a single pair is impossible. Perhaps we ought to go back to the Natural Sciences forum & ask those with more knowledge of the field for their input. & I certainly am not claiming that it couldn't be so theologically. If it turned out that science could with some plausibility identify a single male & single female Homo sapiens as our ancestors, fine.
All I'm saying here is that that's not the way science seems to point now & there's no compelling theological reason to say it must have been that way.

George, this gets scary for me. I've heard many give an excuse like this so that homosexual issues get all changed around. The argument goes like this: because Paul did not understand homosexuality in light of science, and because now "science" has opened our eyes on this issue, it should no longer be understood that homosexuality is an abomination from God and those who practice such things are in no danger of hell fire--all because Paul was not scientifically informed when he wrote the texts. Please compare and contrast this with Paul being wrong about Adam and Eve and now we "know better" because of our understanding of science. What is your view on the homosexual debate?If we're going to discuss this extensively we probably should start another thread. Briefly -

Scripture does condemn homosexual activity and has nothing at all positive to say about it. Homosexuality is not God's final intention for creation.

Having said that, there is still the question of how to deal with homosexuality. What we do know today, & apparently people in Paul's time didn't, is that a small percentage of people have a "nonvolitional homosexual orientation" (briefly, "are homosexual"). I.e., while most people, without making a deliberate choice in the matter, are attracted to members of the opposite sex, persons with such a homosexual orientation are, without making a deliberate choice in the matter, attracted to persons of the same sex. The underlined words are critical - I'm not talking about basically heterosexual persons who for one reason or another sometimes engage in with homosexual activity. We don't yet have a clear understanding of why some people have this orientation but a few do. & for most it isn't something that can be changed.

Then we have to ask in the 1st place if Paul had such persons in view? Or was he condemning the type of homosexual behavior he knew of in Greco-Roman society, which was generally participated in by heterosexuals & was often exploitative? Did Paul envision anything like a committed & faithful relationship between two persons of the same sex?

Further, how is the Christian community to deal homosexuals? Should we require complete abstinence for them? Or should we give some recognition to committed same-sex partnerships, not as something equivalent to marriage but as a way of helping homosexual persons deal with their situation and avoiding greater sin - promiscuity &c. Such partnerships would be seen in a way as the best of less than ideal choices, similar to the way in which the church has generally viewed divorce or war.

I've been involved in a good deal of controversy about this as an ELCA pastor serving in an Episcopal parish. If you know anything of those churches you know homosexuality has been a hot issue in both. This doesn't make me an expert but I have given a good deal of thought to the matter. My own view is that the church should state that homosexuality is not God's final purpose for creation, that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that there should be some recognition of committed & faithful same-sex unions. I do not see any strong reason why homosexual persons who are unwilling to remain celibate should be ordained.

Two comments about your post on this.

1) Why put science in quotes? Scientific investigation can tell us some things about human sexuality, though not as much as some researchers claim.

2) Don't be too quick to call homosexual activity "abomination." Yes, male homosexual activity is labelled that way in Lev.18:22, but in the KJV eating shellfish is called an abomination in Lev.11:11. NRSV uses "detestable" in the latter place: The Hebrew words are different. But these are technical terms for cultic offences and don't have the same sense of revulsion that we have with the word "abomination." If you would tell someone who's eating scallops that what they're doing is detestable, don't tell all homosexuals that what they're doing is abomination.

My point there is not to deny that male homosexuality is condemned in Lev. But homosexuality should not be described (as I've heard it) as the worst of sins, &c. It isn't. C.S. Lewis' comments on this in Surprised by Joy are helpful.

But back to the Adam question. When Paul speaks about homosexual activity, it's clear that his purpose is to say something about it & not just to use it as a way of talking about something else. It's not so clear that his references to Adam are intended to teach us about the historicity of Adam rather than to bring out the significance of the work of Christ. So the two types of texts aren't really parallel.

Y'know, I have a mind to "give" you evolution of everything but man (though I personally think that the ID guys have good arguments regarding the gaps in the fossil record and the orgin of life and I go with their arguments.) There is theological significance in understanding sin and man's nature that are not satisfyingly met with your TE view, however, so I am not willing to give up man's special creation. There are those who say I don't have to give up man's special creation and I can still respect science (the old earth creationists). I have not seen anything that has swayed me from taking that position.

Please advise what the biggest challenges are to believe that fully modern humans are not evolutionarily connected with previous ancestors.It depends on what you mean "special creation." It's one thing to say - as the official RC position essentially does - that at some point in the evolutionary process God did something miraculous to make certain hominids into creatures with rational souls. It's quite another to have modern humans suddenly appear with no biological connection with other species. That seems highly unlikely scientifically, for the close similarity of our biochemistry, anatomy &c with other species makes such a connection pretty obvious. & theologically this cuts off the Incarnation from the rest of creation.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

I'm not a population geneticist & don't have the scientific expertise to say that humanity arising from a single pair is impossible. Perhaps we ought to go back to the Natural Sciences forum & ask those with more knowledge of the field for their input. & I certainly am not claiming that it couldn't be so theologically. If it turned out that science could with some plausibility identify a single male & single female Homo sapiens as our ancestors, fine.
All I'm saying here is that that's not the way science seems to point now & there's no compelling theological reason to say it must have been that way.

If we're going to discuss this extensively we probably should start another thread. Briefly -

Scripture does condemn homosexual activity and has nothing at all positive to say about it. Homosexuality is not God's final intention for creation.

Having said that, there is still the question of how to deal with homosexuality. What we do know today, & apparently people in Paul's time didn't, is that a small percentage of people have a "nonvolitional homosexual orientation" (briefly, "are homosexual"). I.e., while most people, without making a deliberate choice in the matter, are attracted to members of the opposite sex, persons with such a homosexual orientation are, without making a deliberate choice in the matter, attracted to persons of the same sex. The underlined words are critical - I'm not talking about basically heterosexual persons who for one reason or another sometimes engage in with homosexual activity. We don't yet have a clear understanding of why some people have this orientation but a few do. & for most it isn't something that can be changed.

Then we have to ask in the 1st place if Paul had such persons in view? Or was he condemning the type of homosexual behavior he knew of in Greco-Roman society, which was generally participated in by heterosexuals & was often exploitative? Did Paul envision anything like a committed & faithful relationship between two persons of the same sex?

Further, how is the Christian community to deal homosexuals? Should we require complete abstinence for them? Or should we give some recognition to committed same-sex partnerships, not as something equivalent to marriage but as a way of helping homosexual persons deal with their situation and avoiding greater sin - promiscuity &c. Such partnerships would be seen in a way as the best of less than ideal choices, similar to the way in which the church has generally viewed divorce or war.

I've been involved in a good deal of controversy about this as an ELCA pastor serving in an Episcopal parish. If you know anything of those churches you know homosexuality has been a hot issue in both. This doesn't make me an expert but I have given a good deal of thought to the matter. My own view is that the church should state that homosexuality is not God's final purpose for creation, that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that there should be some recognition of committed & faithful same-sex unions. I do not see any strong reason why homosexual persons who are unwilling to remain celibate should be ordained.

Two comments about your post on this.

1) Why put science in quotes? Scientific investigation can tell us some things about human sexuality, though not as much as some researchers claim.

2) Don't be too quick to call homosexual activity "abomination." Yes, male homosexual activity is labelled that way in Lev.18:22, but in the KJV eating shellfish is called an abomination in Lev.11:11. NRSV uses "detestable" in the latter place: The Hebrew words are different. But these are technical terms for cultic offences and don't have the same sense of revulsion that we have with the word "abomination." If you would tell someone who's eating scallops that what they're doing is detestable, don't tell all homosexuals that what they're doing is abomination.

My point there is not to deny that male homosexuality is condemned in Lev. But homosexuality should not be described (as I've heard it) as the worst of sins, &c. It isn't. C.S. Lewis' comments on this in Surprised by Joy are helpful.

But back to the Adam question. When Paul speaks about homosexual activity, it's clear that his purpose is to say something about it & not just to use it as a way of talking about something else. It's not so clear that his references to Adam are intended to teach us about the historicity of Adam rather than to bring out the significance of the work of Christ. So the two types of texts aren't really parallel.

It depends on what you mean "special creation." It's one thing to say - as the official RC position essentially does - that at some point in the evolutionary process God did something miraculous to make certain hominids into creatures with rational souls. It's quite another to have modern humans suddenly appear with no biological connection with other species. That seems highly unlikely scientifically, for the close similarity of our biochemistry, anatomy &c with other species makes such a connection pretty obvious. & theologically this cuts off the Incarnation from the rest of creation.

Shalom,
George

George,

I asked you a tough question, thanks for being direct. I won't challenge your views on this thread of homosexuality, I've argued this on different threads and since it is not the main topic, I'll not pursue it here. But I must say I disagree with you, strongly.

I did have a feeling that you probably did take that view. I think it may follow that if you believe Paul was wrong about Adam, being unscientifically trained at the time, then he could be wrong on a number of things. It seems to lessen the authority of his writtings, with new knowledge informing the scriptures he wrote.

This is a big reason why I am unwilling to yield the historocity of Adam. But don't give up on me, George. My biggest challenges are yet to come.

It's quite another to have modern humans suddenly appear with no biological connection with other species. That seems highly unlikely scientifically, for the close similarity of our biochemistry, anatomy &c with other species makes such a connection pretty obvious. & theologically this cuts off the Incarnation from the rest of creation.

I need to look into this more. I think anatomy is not a challenge when you consider the same creator. I need to understand more about the biochemistry. Old Earth creationists seem to think there is not a problem with this. I need to do more research.

I just ordered a book called "The Dawn of Human Culture", have you heard of it?

[George Murphy]

George,

I asked you a tough question, thanks for being direct. I won't challenge your views on this thread of homosexuality, I've argued this on different threads and since it is not the main topic, I'll not pursue it here. But I must say I disagree with you, strongly.

I did have a feeling that you probably did take that view. I think it may follow that if you believe Paul was wrong about Adam, being unscientifically trained at the time, then he could be wrong on a number of things. It seems to lessen the authority of his writtings, with new knowledge informing the scriptures he wrote.

This is a big reason why I am unwilling to yield the historocity of Adam. But don't give up on me, George. My biggest challenges are yet to come.As you say, this isn't the thread for detailed debate about homosexuality. I do hope, though, that you saw that I was not just saying "Paul was wrong: Homosexual activity is fine." If he was wrong it wasn't in condemning homosexual activity as he knew it. It was in a lack of awareness (shared with his culture in general, & in fact with general opinion until recently) that there are some persons who have a homosexual orientation that they haven't chosen. So it's really a matter of Paul's anthropology being limited rather than just wrong.


I need to look into this more. I think anatomy is not a challenge when you consider the same creator. I need to understand more about the biochemistry. Old Earth creationists seem to think there is not a problem with this. I need to do more research.As to the anatomy, sure, one could imagine God choosing to make separate species with structures - e.g., whales' flippers, birds' wings, dogs' legs, & human arms - that all look like modifications of the same basic design. But
since these really aren't optimal designs, how plausible is that? & the argument seems forced when you find a lot of other structures that are also homologous?

I just ordered a book called "The Dawn of Human Culture", have you heard of it?I haven't seen this. Who's the author?

[Augustine2004]

Hiya George Murphy! Let me put this question squarely in front of you. Do you believe that some parts of the Bible are wrong?

[A Beautiful Truth]

As you say, this isn't the thread for detailed debate about homosexuality. I do hope, though, that you saw that I was not just saying "Paul was wrong: Homosexual activity is fine." If he was wrong it wasn't in condemning homosexual activity as he knew it. It was in a lack of awareness (shared with his culture in general, & in fact with general opinion until recently) that there are some persons who have a homosexual orientation that they haven't chosen. So it's really a matter of Paul's anthropology being limited rather than just wrong.

We all have an orientation to do things we ought not, should we therefore do those things because we were born so? If our sin nature is like you say, a sort of Infant Alcohol Syndrome, then we should expect no different then to constantly have battle what comes "natural" to do. Why is homosexuality different?

I may be oriented towards lust and adultry. Who said anyone was been hard wired for monogomous relationships?

What if you are wrong, George, you could very well be misleading people in the worst way. What is worse, denying what comes natural in this life but rejoicing in the next in the victory of Christ, or living how your nature dictates in this life and be in complete sorrow forever? Is Jesus not worth more than any physical relationship in this life?

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethern, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment. Jas. 3:1

To me, it is not worth the risk if you are wrong about the homosexual issue, George. You are giving hearty approval to those who practice such things (even inside a homosexual "monogomous" relationship as you say.) It's not worth the risk of being wrong, for both they who practise and they who give the approval.

As to the anatomy, sure, one could imagine God choosing to make separate species with structures - e.g., whales' flippers, birds' wings, dogs' legs, & human arms - that all look like modifications of the same basic design. But
since these really aren't optimal designs, how plausible is that? & the argument seems forced when you find a lot of other structures that are also homologous?

One, I don't think man has come up with a better designs. Gaining one thing often leads to the loss of another. It is hard for me to judge less than optimal designs when there may be so much unknown about why God did what he did. I've heard examples of things that seem less than optimal designs (man's eye, Panda's thumb) but later we discover that there was goodness in the design afterall. As far as homologous designs elsewhere--hey if it works...

Concerning the book I mentioned, The Dawn of Human Culture

I haven't seen this. Who's the author?

Richard Klein and Blake Edgar

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471252522/ref=sib_rdr_dp/102-2480235-9670560?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books#product-details

[George Murphy]

Hiya George Murphy! Let me put this question squarely in front of you. Do you believe that some parts of the Bible are wrong?1st, I have to say that my understanding of Gen.1-3 has never depended on claims that these texts are wrong. But there are wrong ways of reading them, & if you do that you're making them say something that's wrong.

Here's an example I've often used with classes in discussing Gen.1 & 2, different gospel accounts &c. I give them a sheet on which there are 2 texts about the death of Lincoln. One is the account in a good bio of Lincoln by Benjamin Thomas describing his being shot by Booth & his death the next morning. It shows the care of a good historian to get details correct. The other text is Walt Whitman's poem "O Captain, my Captain," in which Lincoln Lies "cold and dead" on the deck of the ship that he has brought safely into port.

These texts don't agree - if you read them both as historical narrative. If Whitman's poem therefore "wrong"? Does it have to be harmonized with Thomas's account by having Lincoln carried from Ford's Theater to a ship anchored in the Potomac? I think that the relevance of this to comparison of biblical texts with one another, or with other historical or scientific data is clear.

Having said that, we have to recognize that the biblical text is in some cases accomodated to contemporary views of history, science &c which today, with good reason, we don't accept. E.g., the sky isn't a solid dome with waters above it, as pictured in Gen.1. But Gen.1 should be read as a theological statement about God as creator of the universe - however science comes to understand the universe.

I realize that some people will think I'm dodging your question by making it a question of interpretation. In large part, & to the extent it impacts most major theological issues, it is. But I'll add that there are points where biblical writers seem simply to have made a slip. The OT passage referred to in Mt.27:9-10 is from Zechariah, not Jeremiah. Yes, I know that there's the accounts in Jeremiah about the potter's house & buying a field, & Mt. no doubt thought of them because of his writing about the potter's field in v.7. That explains why he attributed the passage about the 30 pieces of silver to Jeremiah but doesn't make it a correct citation.

Sorry to cut this short. Gotta run & get ready for church.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

1st, I have to say that my understanding of Gen.1-3 has never depended on claims that these texts are wrong. But there are wrong ways of reading them, & if you do that you're making them say something that's wrong.

Here's an example I've often used with classes in discussing Gen.1 & 2, different gospel accounts &c. I give them a sheet on which there are 2 texts about the death of Lincoln. One is the account in a good bio of Lincoln by Benjamin Thomas describing his being shot by Booth & his death the next morning. It shows the care of a good historian to get details correct. The other text is Walt Whitman's poem "O Captain, my Captain," in which Lincoln Lies "cold and dead" on the deck of the ship that he has brought safely into port.

These texts don't agree - if you read them both as historical narrative. If Whitman's poem therefore "wrong"? Does it have to be harmonized with Thomas's account by having Lincoln carried from Ford's Theater to a ship anchored in the Potomac? I think that the relevance of this to comparison of biblical texts with one another, or with other historical or scientific data is clear.

It is still unclear what parts in the creation account need to be viewed in what way, however. I asked you about the geneologies. They either are real people or they are not. You seemed hesitant to say which ones were real folks, which were not, citing the possibility that names and realistic details were given to make the account more realistic to the audience. But we know that it cannot be that they are both historical and ficticious. In what way do we divide the poetry from the history in the above example and do we apply those ways to the Genesis text?

Having said that, we have to recognize that the biblical text is in some cases accomodated to contemporary views of history, science &c which today, with good reason, we don't accept. E.g., the sky isn't a solid dome with waters above it, as pictured in Gen.1. But Gen.1 should be read as a theological statement about God as creator of the universe - however science comes to understand the universe.

Some recognize that the Genesis account is speaking of the development of the water cycle--I don't think solid dome is demanded from the text.

I realize that some people will think I'm dodging your question by making it a question of interpretation. In large part, & to the extent it impacts most major theological issues, it is. But I'll add that there are points where biblical writers seem simply to have made a slip. The OT passage referred to in Mt.27:9-10 is from Zechariah, not Jeremiah. Yes, I know that there's the accounts in Jeremiah about the potter's house & buying a field, & Mt. no doubt thought of them because of his writing about the potter's field in v.7. That explains why he attributed the passage about the 30 pieces of silver to Jeremiah but doesn't make it a correct citation.

I believe you are wrong about Matthew making a "slip". The following gives a reasonable answer to your charge of Matthews "slip".

When it came to interpreting the Old Testament, it was comon to bring passages together based on words they had in common (this is the second of Hillel the Elder's seven rules of interpretation). In this case, it is clear that Jeremiah and Zechariah have several words in common, especially potter and shekel. Probably potter is the key term. As even the English reader might suspect from the information above, the quotation in Matthew is really Zechariah mixed with several phrases taken from Jeremiah. Again, we need to remember that while this may not be an acceptable way of citing Scripture today (although it is still done by accident!), it was a perfectly acceptable technique in the Palestine of Matthew's day....What we have, then, is Matthew pulling together at least two texts in Jeremiah with one text in Zechariah to show that there was a type of biblical prefiguring of Judas's actions, down to the amount of blood money and the fact that it was given to a potter and was used for the purchase of a field. While the logic of this type of exegesis is strange to the modern Western way of thinking, it would have been viewed as quite normal in Matthew's time. Likewise it was normal for Matthew to cite the more important prophet, Jeremiah, despite the fact that most of his material came from Zechariah. Thus judged by first-century standards, Matthew is quite accurate and acceptable in what he does.

[Augustine2004]

One lesson from Charleen's post to me is that while God does not lie, and the Bible is the word of God, understanding it correctly is tricky, in that it's often extremely difficult to avoid mistakes in doing so. Einstein said, "God aint a lair but He's slick." (Einstein wanted to mimic 1930s gangster speech.)

[George Murphy]

It is still unclear what parts in the creation account need to be viewed in what way, however. I asked you about the geneologies. They either are real people or they are not. You seemed hesitant to say which ones were real folks, which were not, citing the possibility that names and realistic details were given to make the account more realistic to the audience. But we know that it cannot be that they are both historical and ficticious. In what way do we divide the poetry from the history in the above example and do we apply those ways to the Genesis text?In my example of the 2 texts about Lincoln's death, 1 way we make some distinctions is by considering the way the texts were written. Thomas's shows the kind of caution about details characteristic of a modern historian. E.g., he says that Booth shouted "something that sounded like sic semper tyrannis" - one can't completely trust witnesses for such a detail with an unexpected occurrence like that. & Whitman's text has an obvious poetic structure. Now an historical account can be in poetic form - e.g., "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" - but that's a clue.

But it this case determination comes from external evidence. I.e., there's a mass of evidence (diaries, newspapers, &c) that agree with Thomas's account and no support for any claim that Whitman's is accurate history.

As to the genealogies, I would say 1st that I don't know whether or not Serug was a real historical figure or not. & 2d, I don't mean to be flippant but I have to ask "How much difference does it make?" I think that Abram was not only an historical but an "historic" figure. & I think it's important to make the theological statement that his history is continuous with a history of the human race that goes back to its beginning. Presumably that means he had great-grandfathers, but whether or not the name of one of them was Serug
(as distinguished from the belief that this is a "theological genealogy") doesn't seem very important to me.

Some recognize that the Genesis account is speaking of the development of the water cycle--I don't think solid dome is demanded from the text.Yes, it's referring to the water cycle. But that cycle was understood in terms of literal "waters above the heavens," & when "the windows of the heavens were opened" (Gen.7:11) the water came down as rain.

The Hebrew word raqia` is related to a verb which can refer to hammering out or covering something with metal plates - Is.40:19, Jer.10:9 - "suggesting a think sheet stretched out to form the vault of the sky" (Speiser, Genesis). KJV of course has "firmament," NRSV renders it "dome" & Westermann has "solid vault." Of course since it is stretched out one can translate it "expanse" as NIV does - but that seems like an ambiguous way to avoid an anachronistic picture of the world.



I believe you are wrong about Matthew making a "slip". The following gives a reasonable answer to your charge of Matthews "slip".

When it came to interpreting the Old Testament, it was comon to bring passages together based on words they had in common (this is the second of Hillel the Elder's seven rules of interpretation). In this case, it is clear that Jeremiah and Zechariah have several words in common, especially potter and shekel. Probably potter is the key term. As even the English reader might suspect from the information above, the quotation in Matthew is really Zechariah mixed with several phrases taken from Jeremiah. Again, we need to remember that while this may not be an acceptable way of citing Scripture today (although it is still done by accident!), it was a perfectly acceptable technique in the Palestine of Matthew's day....What we have, then, is Matthew pulling together at least two texts in Jeremiah with one text in Zechariah to show that there was a type of biblical prefiguring of Judas's actions, down to the amount of blood money and the fact that it was given to a potter and was used for the purchase of a field. While the logic of this type of exegesis is strange to the modern Western way of thinking, it would have been viewed as quite normal in Matthew's time. Likewise it was normal for Matthew to cite the more important prophet, Jeremiah, despite the fact that most of his material came from Zechariah. Thus judged by first-century standards, Matthew is quite accurate and acceptable in what he does.I know this type of argument and am not terribly impressed with it here. It's a stretch to claim that Mt is referring to Jer.18:1-11 & 32:1-16. & while we may consider Jer more important than Zech, it isn't as far as citations in the passion narratives are concerned.

But perhaps more imnportantly, I would call attention to the inconsistency of your approach to interpretation. In the case of this text your authorities are saying that we have to look not at modern methods of citation but the way in which textual references were written at the time Mt was written. But then in Genesis you are not willing to interpret things like the dome of the sky in the way in which people of the time would have understood the phrase, but try to read into it some understanding that's in accord with the modern view of the world.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

But it this case determination comes from external evidence. I.e., there's a mass of evidence (diaries, newspapers, &c) that agree with Thomas's account and no support for any claim that Whitman's is accurate history.

I agree the Genesis texts were not written as a science text. But I guess what I would like to know is how much of it is true in an actual sense, and how much is true in a theological sense.

It has been hard for me to get the fullness of something being theologically true as opposed to being historically true, even if that history was framed in the context as it was. I believe the days are broadly consecutive, creation history framed in the context of a work week. For it to be a science text would be impossible for it's purpose. But I think just saying it is theologically true misses that the text actually tells us truth about the history of creation. Please clarify if I am not getting how far "theologically true" goes as far as history is concerned.


As to the genealogies, I would say 1st that I don't know whether or not Serug was a real historical figure or not. & 2d, I don't mean to be flippant but I have to ask "How much difference does it make?" I think that Abram was not only an historical but an "historic" figure. & I think it's important to make the theological statement that his history is continuous with a history of the human race that goes back to its beginning. Presumably that means he had great-grandfathers, but whether or not the name of one of them was Serug
(as distinguished from the belief that this is a "theological genealogy") doesn't seem very important to me.

George, while you have this figured out in your head, this is still very new to me. It is a stretch for me and I am trying to follow. A "theological geneology" up until now is something I have never considered. I've been giving this a lot of thought.

Yes, it's referring to the water cycle. But that cycle was understood in terms of literal "waters above the heavens," & when "the windows of the heavens were opened" (Gen.7:11) the water came down as rain.

The Hebrew word raqia` is related to a verb which can refer to hammering out or covering something with metal plates - Is.40:19, Jer.10:9 - "suggesting a think sheet stretched out to form the vault of the sky" (Speiser, Genesis). KJV of course has "firmament," NRSV renders it "dome" & Westermann has "solid vault." Of course since it is stretched out one can translate it "expanse" as NIV does - but that seems like an ambiguous way to avoid an anachronistic picture of the world.

I do not know if the Hebrews believed that the sky was a literal dome but the text does refer to the water cycle and that of course means that there is water in the "heavens" as water vapor. Even if the Hebrews believed falsely about it, the truth is that there is waters in the atmosphere. If the text was supernaturally inspired, the seperation of the waters could indeed be a reference to the water cycle.


I know this type of argument and am not terribly impressed with it here. It's a stretch to claim that Mt is referring to Jer.18:1-11 & 32:1-16. & while we may consider Jer more important than Zech, it isn't as far as citations in the passion narratives are concerned.

I did not start my citation early enough in the text. I'd like to cite previous to my other because I think it give the argument support:



The quotation is not entirely a quotation of Zechariah. The majority of the quotation does come from Zechariah 11:13, but there is a change from teh first person singluar ("I") to the third plural ("they"). Furthermore, there is no field mentioned in Zechariah (in fact, in Matthew the NRSV follows the Syriac translation and has "the treasury" instead of "the potter" because Matthew clearly is not quoting Zechariah about the location). Finally, Zechariah does not include the phrase "as the Lord commanded me."

Second, Jeremiah is also involved with potters (Jer 17:1-11;19:1-13--in this second passage he purchases something from a potter). Furthermore, Jeremiah purchases a field (Jer 32:6-15), although the price is seventeen pieces of silver rather than thirty. Finally, Jeremiah 13:5 has the phrase "as the Lord commanded me" (RSV) (which also has to do with a purchase).

In the first century the Old Testament did not come as a bound volume with chapters and verses. Instead, the work was a series of scrolls. Shorter books were often put together on a single scroll. For example, Zechariah would be part of "The Book of the Twelve", a single scroll containing all twelve minor prophets....

Afterwards, the author says that it was common to bring passages together based on words they had in common, etc

I think it reasonable that Matthew would have cited the major prophet given that he clearly did bring Jeremiah and Zechariah together to make his point. He could have cited both, but according to the authors, it was unnessesary given the culture, etc.


But perhaps more imnportantly, I would call attention to the inconsistency of your approach to interpretation. In the case of this text your authorities are saying that we have to look not at modern methods of citation but the way in which textual references were written at the time Mt was written. But then in Genesis you are not willing to interpret things like the dome of the sky in the way in which people of the time would have understood the phrase, but try to read into it some understanding that's in accord with the modern view of the world.



People may have understood it as such, but it does not mean that their error makes the Bible in error. This is also so with the sun "rising and setting". Though many may have believed that the sun did the action, their error does not make the scripture in error. I believe it to be with our case as well. Though the sky may have appeared as a dome, the scriptures in Genesis do not nessesarily teach that it was a dome. It is referring to the water cycle even though it may have used words that described the appearance as a dome.

[Solly]

Jumping over the foregoing, since I wasn't here at the wekend, and cutting to the exegetical chase:

Gen 1 & 2 creation accounts.
I read in an article defending the historicity of the creation accounts that they are of a peice with the rest of Genesis, because of the use of the genealogical markers in the text.
However, Gen 1.1-2.3 does not have a genealogical marker, and 2.4 precedes the second account.
Also, the ESV almost consistantly translates 'Adam' as 'the man' to emphasis a point in the name.
So that we seem to have a second creation account beginning with a genealogical account, following what appears to be a general creation account in which nothing is specifically named.
The second account is more in line with the distinctive ideas of the OT, ie of election and call, of being set apart to the service of God, of a covenantal flavour, a place of blessing, communion with God, etc., which would lead up to - and is indicated by an historical coonection with - Abraham and then Israel, and for Christians Jesus.
What case can be - has been - made for the first account as a general introduction, not historic, but theological, polemical, 'mythical/spiritual' from which the special call of Adam then follows, just as we have in the rest of the bible general accounts followed by specific accounts. How would we interpret Gen 1 historically/scientifically; can we; do we need to?

[reyvin]

How would we interpret Gen 1 historically/scientifically; can we; do we need to?

Understanding the sort of writing that it is is obviously essential. Understanding what God wanted/wants to express in the words chosen is also essential. Having said that, perhaps it is using imagery to express a truth, ie: mankind is created by God and is specially set aside, yet bodily isn't any better off than any other animal could easily be the point of the words in Genesis when describing the creation of man; DOES it have to be literally true that God used dirt only, and instantly? Perhaps the choice of dirt (we're described as clay elsewhere) in this part of the text is a point to humble us, yet the stressing of God's direct intervention is a point to tell us that we're more than simple animals. If this is true, the writer of Genesis wasn't 'wrong', but rather we're wrong for trying to force an interpretation on it that was never meant.

But, the bigger point to this thread is thrown way off track now. I think Dee Dee has in mind the idea that TE's set out their interpretation of the text in here and let those who know the language judge what is and isn't permissible in the hebrew.

[Solly]

But, the bigger point to this thread is thrown way off track now. I think Dee Dee has in mind the idea that TE's set out their interpretation of the text in here and let those who know the language judge what is and isn't permissible in the hebrew.

That is partly why I posted this; it was likely impossible that we would not get diverted in some ways though.

Understanding the sort of writing that it is is obviously essential. Understanding what God wanted/wants to express in the words chosen is also essential. Having said that, perhaps it is using imagery to express a truth, ie: mankind is created by God and is specially set aside, yet bodily isn't any better off than any other animal could easily be the point of the words in Genesis when describing the creation of man; DOES it have to be literally true that God used dirt only, and instantly? Perhaps the choice of dirt (we're described as clay elsewhere) in this part of the text is a point to humble us, yet the stressing of God's direct intervention is a point to tell us that we're more than simple animals. If this is true, the writer of Genesis wasn't 'wrong', but rather we're wrong for trying to force an interpretation on it that was never meant.

I think all of us would agree on a broad range of topics that the two creation accounts teach us, about God, creation, our place in it, our relationship and responsibility to God etc. I have seen Gen 1 described as a hymn, over the weekend. YECs state that Genesis is all historical, and that the text type does not allow any other interprettion. My post is drawing attention to this matter.

interestingly, i note you address things in a similar fashion to what I have raised already: the 'truth' of Genesis. must it be seen in Enlightenment terms of factuality as accepted in scientific or legal circles? Can it be true without being strictly historical - or as you say, the writer of Genesis wasn't 'wrong'.

[A Beautiful Truth]

DOES it have to be literally true that God used dirt only, and instantly? Perhaps the choice of dirt (we're described as clay elsewhere) in this part of the text is a point to humble us, yet the stressing of God's direct intervention is a point to tell us that we're more than simple animals. If this is true, the writer of Genesis wasn't 'wrong', but rather we're wrong for trying to force an interpretation on it that was never meant.

We are all made of "dirt", we share the same elements as the dirt. Our bodies contain the elements from exploded stars, which is found in dirt. I don't think this is meant to be a humbling statement.

I wonder if it is significant that as the account says man was made of the dirt, it also says animals were made of the dirt. Notice that in the Gen. 2 account, we do not expect that the birds and animals were made instantly (birds were made on day five, animals day six), so why do we have to demand that man was also made instantly? Additionally, the account says man was made somewhere else and then put in the Garden. I suppose if I were a TE, I could use these in favor of my argument, perhaps.

yet the stressing of God's direct intervention is a point to tell us that we're more than simple animals. If this is true, the writer of Genesis wasn't 'wrong', but rather we're wrong for trying to force an interpretation on it that was never meant

"never meant" might be a problem. I think the writer actually did mean to say Adam was historical.

It is the geneologies and also the fallen nature of man that hold me up from embracing TE.

[George Murphy]

But, the bigger point to this thread is thrown way off track now. I think Dee Dee has in mind the idea that TE's set out their interpretation of the text in here and let those who know the language judge what is and isn't permissible in the hebrew.With all due respect, I started this thread & did not intend for it to be limited to exegesis of the hebrew text. That needs to be a fundamental part of a serious theological discussion of evolution, but such a discussion can't end there.

I think that a study of the texts can conclude that they are open, without forcing, to an evolutionary understanding (which is a different thing from saying that they "teach evolution.") It's the scientific evidence that leads us to say that evolution ("macroevolution" if you will) has taken place.

But that isn't the end of the story, for then we need to think about how to develop our understandings of theological anthropology, sin, & salvation in ways that take evolution into account. & that's the part of the task that I find most challenging & most necessary if the church is going to be equipped to carry out its mission in the modern world. The thing that I find most frustrating about anti-evolutionary activities among Christians is that they hinder the church's mission. Details upon request.

Shalom,
George

[Augustine2004]

I do not understand why you guys are so reluctant to assume the historicity of Genesis, pile all the data we can find on it, and see if it holds up under the weight. If it does not, then we can consider myth assumptions etc. Or is it the case that your gut feeling tells you that Genesis cannot be straight history? In that case we can still go ahead with the program given above. Perhaps that way it will eventually become explicit why you feel that Genesis is not meant to be straight history.

[George Murphy]

I do not understand why you guys are so reluctant to assume the historicity of Genesis, pile all the data we can find on it, and see if it holds up under the weight. If it does not, then we can consider myth assumptions etc. Or is it the case that your gut feeling tells you that Genesis cannot be straight history? In that case we can still go ahead with the program given above. Perhaps that way it will eventually become explicit why you feel that Genesis is not meant to be straight history.The data has been piled on it (i.e., the belief that both Gen. creation accounts are historical narratives) & it collapses. Briefly, the internal evidence is that there are 2 different accounts which cannot both be historically accurate. The external evidence is that the earth wasn't created in 6 days roughly 6000 years ago.

Shalom,
George

[Augustine2004]

. . .the internal evidence is that there are 2 different accounts which cannot both be historically accurate.Meaning that no harmonization can be found? Perhaps you just need to exercise your imagination a little more.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Meaning that no harmonization can be found? Perhaps you just need to exercise your imagination a little more.

I've heard it explained that the second account is like a parenthetical note that narrows in and focuses on man's activities on day six.

[Augustine2004]

Yes, and if two accounts of the same events are included, why should they have all the same details, anyhow? I wonder what George Murphy thinks of the fact that the 4 gospels differ.

[Solly]

I don't know about George, but for myself I do not think that we are supposed to produce a harmony of Gen 1 & 2, or of the Gospels.

First, re Gen, that is to seriously misunderstand the text, and the way OT texts are written. And certainly, using your imagination can be a signal for a free for all, just as it used to be with allegorical interpretation. I am sure if God wanted a single creation account he would have given us one. As mentioned, it seems to me that Gen 1 gives us the general background, just as the OT writers often do, and then Gen 2 focuses on the call of man to the service of God, as is reflected throughout the OT, and I think may well have been read in that light. Either the order of creation between the two accounts is different and unreconcilable and we give it up to the JEDP thesis, or the texts are saying two different things not requiring reconciliation.

Second, having preached through a lot of Matthew and faced issues of harmonisation, i can say that the desire for harmonisation seriously undervalues the individual texts, and the Biblico-theological stance from which they are written. You cannot get away from the fact that the writers change the order of events, draw out implications of Christ's teaching in words he may not have said - unless he said it on different occasions, but not everything was repeatable - and in the first place they had no intention of writing an historical account as we would write it.

Yes, let us seek the historical basis; but that historical basis will not appear necessarily in the words of Gen 1 & 2. I personally think that Glenn is stretching matters when he seeks to make the flood the filling of the Meditterranean basin. That is taking historicity to too great a length for the sake of historicity, and in that sense Glenn is at one with YECs in accepting the sceptic agenda on evidential apologetics. Equally, the lengths that some YECs go to, as recorded for instance in Woodmarrappes thoughts on the ark outlined in other threads - ie animal waste sluices in a sealed ark! - are as equally tenuous.

There is no guarantee that we shall find the historical basis for the creation accounts; and the certainty of evidence for the flood appears equally as elusive to some minds. The verse from Hebrews comes into play here. Our evidence generally starts from the time of Abraham, and for which there is a lot of it. Push the boundary back as far as you can, but I don't think we will neceesarily find a stone tablet with "Cain waz ere" written on it.

[reyvin]

We are all made of "dirt", we share the same elements as the dirt. Our bodies contain the elements from exploded stars, which is found in dirt. I don't think this is meant to be a humbling statement.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that theres no truth in the statement but maybe its a double meaning? Seem to find that a lot in scripture.....ie: both the 'humbling' suggestion above and the data you presented above.

"never meant" might be a problem. I think the writer actually did mean to say Adam was historical.

Well, when I said 'never meant', I wasn't directing it toward the historicity of Adam. I myself, feel that a literal Adam cannot be avoided and those that suggest 'two Adams' or anything along that track are playing fast and loose with the text.

[reyvin]

With all due respect, I started this thread & did not intend for it to be limited to exegesis of the hebrew text. That needs to be a fundamental part of a serious theological discussion of evolution, but such a discussion can't end there.

I think that a study of the texts can conclude that they are open, without forcing, to an evolutionary understanding (which is a different thing from saying that they "teach evolution.") It's the scientific evidence that leads us to say that evolution ("macroevolution" if you will) has taken place.

But that isn't the end of the story, for then we need to think about how to develop our understandings of theological anthropology, sin, & salvation in ways that take evolution into account. & that's the part of the task that I find most challenging & most necessary if the church is going to be equipped to carry out its mission in the modern world. The thing that I find most frustrating about anti-evolutionary activities among Christians is that they hinder the church's mission. Details upon request.

Shalom,
George

But George, the reason you've got to show that your view is permissible is exactly because of organizations who are rabidly anti-evolutionary. Their side of the story is constantly pushed and very little is heard from TEs in reply. Using the word propoganda has negative connotations but I can't think of a better word so....

Indeed you did start the thread and explaining your view in detail for us is absolutely fine, but if the view is beyond what exegesis of the text allows, then you aren't going to convince many and the battle will rage on (as it likely will anyway, but if you can show that the text allows such a reading you're two steps ahead in the game).

[George Murphy]

Meaning that no harmonization can be found? Perhaps you just need to exercise your imagination a little more.I didn't say that no harmonization can be found. I can play that game too - forcing Gen.2 into Day 6 of Gen.1, ignoring the different orders of events, the different atmospheres of the accounts, the different divine titles - & of course ignoring comparison of Gen.1 with geological history. But is the result plausible? Not unless the "hard core" of your hermeneutics is the historical accuracy of both texts, something you're going to insist on no matter what.

I should add that what becomes questionable here, & in similar situations, is not the idea of harmonization itself but the insistence that texts be harmonized as historical narratives. The appropritae kind of harmonization is theological. This doesn't mean making the texts say exactly the same thing, but having a large enough understanding of creation (in this case), informed by the texts in question as well as the rest of scripture, that the texts in question can be seen as complementary - & not contradictory - theological statements.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

But George, the reason you've got to show that your view is permissible is exactly because of organizations who are rabidly anti-evolutionary. Their side of the story is constantly pushed and very little is heard from TEs in reply. Using the word propoganda has negative connotations but I can't think of a better word so....

Indeed you did start the thread and explaining your view in detail for us is absolutely fine, but if the view is beyond what exegesis of the text allows, then you aren't going to convince many and the battle will rage on (as it likely will anyway, but if you can show that the text allows such a reading you're two steps ahead in the game).I didn't say that exegesis of the text is unimportant. In fact, I said that it "needs to be a fundamental part of a serious theological discussion of evolution." But -

In the 1st place, as I've pointed out before, the relevant questions can't be answered by just jumping in and studying the details of the Hebrew text. Some fundamental issues of hermeneutics ought to be considered 1st. What is the interpretive center of scripture? Do biblical texts have to be historical narratives in order to be true & authoritative? Did the Holy Spirit &/or the biblical writers accomodate their some of their expressions to the common understandings of the cultures in which the text was written?

& in fact, any part of the Bible ought to be read finally in its canonical context of the whole of scripture. One can make the case that such a reading reveals a developmental view of history - which is not identical with biological evolution but is open to it, & is certainly not a static view of creation. (That liberal C.S. Lewis :wink: says much the same thing.) So one could make the case that one ought to approach the Genesis texts with an eye open for such a developmental view.

2d, anti-evolutionists tend to take a hard line position & never really admit the significance of any arguments that don't agree with that position. E.g., it was pointed out early in this discussion that the idea of mediated creation of living things in Gen.1 is a point that is compatible with the idea that God acts through natural processes to bring about life, & therefore with evolution. This is not to say that Gen.1 "teaches evolution" but it does suggest one way in which the text might be open to an evolutionary understanding. But when this is pointed out to anti-evolutionists, their response is usually "We'll get back to you on this." (Cf. earlier in this thread.) & after a few exchanges of this sort one wonders what is really being accomplished.

& note that this hard line attitude is generally not matched by an insistence of TEs that the text must be interpreted in an evolutionary sense. Speaking only for myself, I don't say that Gen.1 & 2 "teach evolution." I have only argued that the texts are open to an evolutionary interpretation.

& 3d, it's more than a bit disingenuous for antievolutionists to suggest that nobody has done any serious study of the creation texts of Genesis & come to anything other than the conclusion that they are anything other than
historical narratives which rule out evolution. The idea that we need to start looking at the Hebrew of Gen.1 & 2 frankly reveals a very parochial attitude that doesn't even seem to be aware of mainstream biblical study for the past couple of centuries. (Which isn't to say that all of that has been correct.) Good grief! YECs should put away their AiG tracts & read Von Rad's commentary or Westermann's for a few days.

In short, it's been shown that an anti-evolutionary understanding of the Genesis texts is permissible. That doesn't mean that we should just forget about those tetxts: We can always get more out of them. But we also need to deal with other matters.

I agree with you about anti-evolutionary propaganda (which is exactly the right word) & the need to defeat it. But while exegesis of the Hebew texts is important in its place, other things are needed in such a contest. Ken Ham isn't going to bother to argue about Hebrew verbs. He'll ignore that & claim that evolution is responsible for abortion, pornography &c. & which do you think will have more appeal to most conservative Christians?

Shalom,
George

[Augustine2004]

George Murphy, before I argue further, I think I should have more on how you became a Christian and why. As for me, it was mainly my feeling that Christianity had the best historical case that I changed from agnostic to Xity. So, the question of whether Scripture is historical is important to me. I feel a little distressed whenever Christians say that Genesis is mythical (as opposed to historical?), for instance.

I do agree, though, that we should not expect Genesis to be like a modern history with events presented in a neat chronological arrangement. I will even concede that points in Genesis may NOT always be presented chronologically.

[George Murphy]

George Murphy, before I argue further, I think I should have more on how you became a Christian and why. As for me, it was mainly my feeling that Christianity had the best historical case that I changed from agnostic to Xity. So, the question of whether Scripture is historical is important to me. I feel a little distressed whenever Christians say that Genesis is mythical (as opposed to historical?), for instance.

I do agree, though, that we should not expect Genesis to be like a modern history with events presented in a neat chronological arrangement. I will even concede that points in Genesis may NOT always be presented chronologically.I became a Christian by being baptized when I was 7 weeks old. I grew up in a conservative Lutheran family & church in which evolution was rejected & Genesis was presented pretty much as straight history. As far as I can remember I always - from the time I knew what these things meant - believed in Christ, took Christian doctrine seriously, & was fairly active in the church. I managed to combine an interest in science - including cosmology - with a theological position that rejected evolution through high school. I realized as a sophomore in college that there simply wasn't any need to reject evolution: It was an untraumatic experience with no loss of faith &c. It took longer to begin to learn something about how to read the Bible in a critical way & it was ~20 years later (when I was in seminary) that I started really trying to develop an adequate theological understanding of evolution in terms of a theology of the cross.

That may not really answer the question "Why are you a Christian?" To put it simply, the knowledge of the crucified and risen Christ (& here I mean "knowledge" in a personal as well as a factual &/or theoretical sense) gives me the best understanding of my experience of myself and of the world.

Of course important parts of scripture are historical. But there are also important points that obviously are not (parables, much of the poetry, most of Revelation &c). I would again call your attention to the basic point I've stated before: There are other ways to express truth other than through historical narrative. Nobody thinks that Ps.22 is untrue because we aren't sheep.

Shalom,
George

[Augustine2004]

Solly, why don't you tell us how and why you became Christian, too?

I am concerned for a few reasons:

1. I would think many, if not most, people converted by AiG and similar organizations converted mainly or wholly because of the 'Genesis is really history' argument.
2. I however think the YEC interpretations are wrong (I think GM and Solly would concur though for different reasons).
3. Not only they are wrong, some people think the conclusions derivable from them are ridiculous (GM already has made a similar point, I think). How many people chose not to become Christian because of that I wonder and shudder.

So, people are Christians because of wrong interpretations and people are NOT Christians because of the same ones.

Won't it be wonderful if we can agree on which parts of the Bible are historical, and on an historical interpretation (if such be possible) to offer as an alternative to AiG's and similar ones?

[George Murphy]

Solly, why don't you tell us how and why you became Christian, too?

I am concerned for a few reasons:

1. I would think many, if not most, people converted by AiG and similar organizations converted mainly or wholly because of the 'Genesis is really history' argument.
2. I however think the YEC interpretations are wrong (I think GM and Solly would concur though for different reasons).
3. Not only they are wrong, some people think the conclusions derivable from them are ridiculous (GM already has made a similar point, I think). How many people chose not to become Christian because of that I wonder and shudder.

So, people are Christians because of wrong interpretations and people are NOT Christians because of the same ones.

Won't it be wonderful if we can agree on which parts of the Bible are historical, and on an historical interpretation (if such be possible) to offer as an alternative to AiG's and similar ones?The Nicene Creed says that Jesus Christ "was crucified under Pontius Pilate" (i.e., as a datable historical event); he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again". How about starting from that as the core of Christian faith?

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

George,

I've given much thought to your idea that we inherit sin similar to how an infant develops infant alchohol syndrome.

Please let me ask you more questions about this.

First let me refresh some of my earlier questions--So man at one time was "blameless" when he became aware of God. But having the knowledge of God in addition to the knowledge of the animalistic instincts he naturally possessed put him at odds immediately with himself and God. Man was accountable to follow God but the animal nature warred within him. Man could have obeyed God and not sinned and would therefore have not had a need for Christ to redeem him, for there was no sin from which to be redeemed.

But how is this different than today? Everyone has a choice to obey or not. We all choose not--WHY?

If sin is something that we inherit like "infant alchohol syndrome" that means that sin is supernaturally transferred somehow since it cannot be naturally transferred via evolution. Or am I wrong, do you think sin is inherited in some natural way?

[Augustine2004]

The Nicene Creed says that Jesus Christ "was crucified under Pontius Pilate" (i.e., as a datable historical event); he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again". How about starting from that as the core of Christian faith?Yes, but then what? Work backwards from there? Well, let's try to look at Gen 1:1 in that light, now, even before we have agreed on what hermeneutical principles to use.

Afaics, that is like an executive summary. It's an unmistakable indication that what follows is a historical account. Anybody who does not know about Jesus, for example a Jewish child prodigy, would read Gen 1:1 that way. True, there are the opening words of the Gospel of John & they, among other parts of the Bible, can deepen our understanding of Genesis 1.

After reading an abstract from a scientific paper, one expects to see the main body of a scientific paper following the abstract. Myth!?

[Solly]

Solly, why don't you tell us how and why you became Christian, too?

I am concerned for a few reasons:

1. I would think many, if not most, people converted by AiG and similar organizations converted mainly or wholly because of the 'Genesis is really history' argument.
2. I however think the YEC interpretations are wrong (I think GM and Solly would concur though for different reasons).
3. Not only they are wrong, some people think the conclusions derivable from them are ridiculous (GM already has made a similar point, I think). How many people chose not to become Christian because of that I wonder and shudder.

So, people are Christians because of wrong interpretations and people are NOT Christians because of the same ones.

Won't it be wonderful if we can agree on which parts of the Bible are historical, and on an historical interpretation (if such be possible) to offer as an alternative to AiG's and similar ones?

My first reaction is that I am not required to give my Christian credentials just to forward an argument; I am a Christian, a Calvinist, a preacher of late. That should be enough. it seems to be giving way to credentialism to have to 'give my experience'.
However, since George has done so, and i hope you will do so for parity...

I was converted in 1990 out of a nonReligious - but not religiously ignorant - background. I had read philosophy for 10 years, along with comparative religion, psychology, etc. I had started with Ayn Rand in 1980 and got to Nietzsche in 1990. In doing some research for what I vainly hoped would be a book outlining my philosophy of life I found myself suddenly confronted with the experience of the fact that I was wrong. I had been trying to determine what would make my view believable as an expression of how things really are, as opposed to any two cent philosophy you could find in a five cent SF novel; I reviewed the various worldviews, religious and nonReligious, I knew, and for the first time was struck by the fact of Christ Crucified. There was something about that fact that did not fit into my world view, something I could not explain, something which challenged me. Then it went wierd. I was taken with an overwhelming feeling that I was wrong; not just intellectually wrong, not just that I had done things wrong, but that I was wrong myself, in myself, and it had something to do with Christ on the cross. I believe that "God came in" as I later found that Joy Davidman described it, and that I was being presented not only with the fact of my wrongness, and Christ's rightness, but a choice - to continue in that wrongness, knowing it was wrong (and I had a loathing for hypocrisy) or to turn to Christ and his way, whatever it was. I turned. The rest is history.

My conversion was very much Christ based, and the historicity of that is foremost with me. I was not examining Christianity, least of all concerned with its historical basis, that came afterwards.
Even though I have been YEC since soon after my conversion, cos everyone else was and I never saw anyting other than YEC books, I was always concerned that that was not what the preaching of the Gospel was about, it was only preliminary, prologemena. Great that people might be converted through it, but not proof that they were just because they believe it. i have learnt that the most intelligent of people can believe the simplest fooleries, cf Arthur Conan Doyle and fairies.

[George Murphy]

George,

I've given much thought to your idea that we inherit sin similar to how an infant develops infant alchohol syndrome.

Please let me ask you more questions about this.

First let me refresh some of my earlier questions--So man at one time was "blameless" when he became aware of God. But having the knowledge of God in addition to the knowledge of the animalistic instincts he naturally possessed put him at odds immediately with himself and God. Man was accountable to follow God but the animal nature warred within him. Man could have obeyed God and not sinned and would therefore have not had a need for Christ to redeem him, for there was no sin from which to be redeemed.

But how is this different than today? Everyone has a choice to obey or not. We all choose not--WHY?

If sin is something that we inherit like "infant alchohol syndrome" that means that sin is supernaturally transferred somehow since it cannot be naturally transferred via evolution. Or am I wrong, do you think sin is inherited in some natural way?1st, scripture doesn't explain how a condition of sinfulness is transmitted from one generation to another. It says that all people are sinners, that the first humans sinned, & that there's some connection between those facts. But it doesn't explain the nature of the connection. So some theological speculation is necessary if we're to try to explain it - though it can't be unbridled speculation, but must be constrained both by what we know scientifically about humanity and biblical descriptions of our condition.

The traditional western view of the matter does not provide an adequate understanding of the transmission of a sinful condition. Augustine (the bishop of Hippo, not the participant on this thread!) thought that this happened because of the lust involved in sexual intercourse but I don't think very many people want to defend such an idea today. & it doesn't seem very plausible to claim that we inherit some kind of sinful combination of genes. (If that were the case we could in principle abolish sin by genetic engineering!)

I say all that as background to agreeing that IMO we don't yet have an adequate way of understanding all the aspects of original sin that takes evolution into account. There's been a good deal written on this & there are some fruitful ideas but nothing that seems to me completely satisfactory.

I've suggested, as you note, that original sin be thought of as a condition that is in a sense both environmental and inherited, like fetal alcohol syndrome. As an environmental effect it is of deeper significance than just other people setting bad examples for children. From the time a child is conceived, it develops in a sinful social atmosphere. Even in the womb it is affected by sin - literal fetal alcohol syndrome being just one example of how that can occur.

Or switch the metaphor. Remember that I spoke about the 1st humans getting off the right road, and moving away from God. The farther away the human race got, the more serious the separation became, so later generations aren't in the same condition that the 1st humans were. & it's this state of separation that is at the root of sin. I think it was Tillich who said something like, "Before sin is an act, it is a state."

But I repeat, I don't claim that that provides a completely satisfactory answer. But I guess that's just the reason that I get frustrated with a lot of the debates with opponents of evolution. Evolution does present us with some serious theological questions that need to be wrestled with, like the one you speak of. & those problems need adequate answers if the church is to present the Christian message convincingly in the modern world. But attention doesn't get devoted to those questions if theologians have to keep on debating issues that have really been settled already, like whether God could & did create through the evolutionary process. He did. Let's move on to work on the real theological problems.

Charleen, I should add that I don't mean that last paragraph as a criticism of you. I think you're trying to get at some of the right questions.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Yes, but then what? Work backwards from there? Well, let's try to look at Gen 1:1 in that light, now, even before we have agreed on what hermeneutical principles to use.The claim that the cross & resurrection of Christ is the interpretive center of scripture is an hermeneutical principle. My original post on this thread sketches a few ways in which it's relevant to the reading of texts about creation.

Afaics, that is like an executive summary. It's an unmistakable indication that what follows is a historical account. Anybody who does not know about Jesus, for example a Jewish child prodigy, would read Gen 1:1 that way. True, there are the opening words of the Gospel of John & they, among other parts of the Bible, can deepen our understanding of Genesis 1.

After reading an abstract from a scientific paper, one expects to see the main body of a scientific paper following the abstract. Myth!?I'm sorry but I don't understand the argument you're making here. Gen.1:1 is a kind of summary of the rest of the 1st creation account (though not of the 2d). But how does it follow that the rest is historical?

Shalom,
George

[Augustine2004]

Jaltus the Gargler has started a hermen thread that may interest some readers of this thread.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2575&page=1

[A Beautiful Truth]

1st, scripture doesn't explain how a condition of sinfulness is transmitted from one generation to another.

Y'know, George, you are right. I don't think I've been forced to look at it in the detail I have of late. If we can nail this down, things would be so much easier.

I say all that as background to agreeing that IMO we don't yet have an adequate way of understanding all the aspects of original sin that takes evolution into account. There's been a good deal written on this & there are some fruitful ideas but nothing that seems to me completely satisfactory.

I think whatever the answer, we will find harmony with Genesis because, as you say, Genesis is theologically true. Our answer is there, I believe.

Consider this:

Gen. 3:22

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from tree of life, and eat, and live forever"


What is it about having the knowledge that is so bad? God has the knowledge and is yet holy. Adam's knowledge of evil was from his own disobedience, however, so that could be the difference.

We need a connection between Genesis and Romans, obviously. Why are none righteous, exactly, why do we all sin, we are we by nature children of wrath.

How is sin transferred? Guilt by association? (What about Ezek 18, Deut. 24:16) Legally?

The sin of Adam has passed on to us through the transferrence of a marred human nature--a nature marred with sin. That is all we know, we don't know how it is passed, I think it must be spiritually passed. (Perhaps this is why our Lord was sinless--His spirit was Holy from conception)

This more easily answered in Adam, of course, who would be the father of us all. One man, one choice, one progenator of the human race--it is easier to understand like that.

I guess I am back at square one again, but I've really tried to work this out.

George, what do you say of this--God combines the natural laws He made with His special intervention (being the artist He is who takes such pleasure, obviously) to "grow" the earth for man and even "grow" a body for Him. God takes the body, puts in a spirit and you have a fully modern human literal Adam. God places him in the Garden and you know the rest of the story.

Charleen, I should add that I don't mean that last paragraph as a criticism of you. I think you're trying to get at some of the right questions.


Oh, George, I really am. Such thoughts have consumed me for these many days. I am not afraid of knowledge, I am not afraid of finding something that disproves God, I have confidence in the Lord. I do believe He wants us to "test all things" to put things up for falsifiability. Only when subjecting something up to falsifiability can one then actually give evidence for something being true.

[Solly]

What is it about having the knowledge that is so bad? God has the knowledge and is yet holy. Adam's knowledge of evil was from his own disobedience, however, so that could be the difference.

We need a connection between Genesis and Romans, obviously. Why are none righteous, exactly, why do we all sin, we are we by nature children of wrath.

How is sin transferred? Guilt by association? (What about Ezek 18, Deut. 24:16) Legally?

The sin of Adam has passed on to us through the transferrence of a marred human nature--a nature marred with sin. That is all we know, we don't know how it is passed, I think it must be spiritually passed. (Perhaps this is why our Lord was sinless--His spirit was Holy from conception)


As a Calvinist, i hold that sin is in the will; but one cannot avoid the force of Paul's comments in Romans about sin in the members/body, the matrix of sin and human nature he calls Flesh; sin still remains in the members, even once we are indwelt by the Spirit.
Christ's incarnation was in a holy body as well as spirit - I am a monist as regards human nature btw - his body was prepared for him, its human nature was purged of sin that is transmitted, so that he could assume that body into his person (the body was not a person).
Did sin pass spiritually? It certainly passed volitionally - hence we all have sinned, not just are sinners by inheritance (but don't forget the communal aspects, We all in Adam have sinned); so sin is a whole person thing that has spiritual aspects because it affects our relationship with God, not because it affects an attribute of human personality.
is it's transmission genetic? i dunno. Augustine tried to link it to sex, but he was off base.

[Augustine2004]

Afaics, that is like an executive summary. It's an unmistakable indication that what follows is a historical account. Anybody who does not know about Jesus, for example a Jewish child prodigy, would read Gen 1:1 that way. True, there are the opening words of the Gospel of John & they, among other parts of the Bible, can deepen our understanding of Genesis 1.

After reading an abstract from a scientific paper, one expects to see the main body of a scientific paper following the abstract. Myth!?
I'm sorry but I don't understand the argument you're making here. Gen.1:1 is a kind of summary of the rest of the 1st creation account (though not of the 2d). But how does it follow that the rest is historical?
Certainly that line of argument is not going to work with anyone who is disposed to read Genesis as imaginary.

I just realized that Genesis is mythic in the sense that it originated in a preliterate society. Sure, Moses wrote Genesis down, but his people were pretty much illiterate, correct? However, 'myth' still seems a putdown, as tho to say that Genesis is not really history. Let's take the Navajo as an example. Prior to the coming of the white people, didn't they think their own myths were real history? Perhaps myths can be true or false. The Hebraic myths in the Bible just happen to be the true ones, no?

[rogero]

Certainly that line of argument is not going to work with anyone who is disposed to read Genesis as imaginary.

I just realized that Genesis is mythic in the sense that it originated in a preliterate society. Sure, Moses wrote Genesis down, but his people were pretty much illiterate, correct? However, 'myth' still seems a putdown, as tho to say that Genesis is not really history. Let's take the Navajo as an example. Prior to the coming of the white people, didn't they think their own myths were real history? Perhaps myths can be true or false. The Hebraic myths in the Bible just happen to be the true ones, no?

Gus2004,

I wish you wouldn't use the word "imaginary" to describe GM's concept of "theological truth." Obfuscating language does nothing to further the discussion.

In God's Peace,

Roger

[George Murphy]

I may be out of touch for awhile & just have time for some quick responses now.

I think whatever the answer, we will find harmony with Genesis because, as you say, Genesis is theologically true. Our answer is there, I believe.

Consider this:



Gen. 3:22



Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from tree of life, and eat, and live forever"




What is it about having the knowledge that is so bad? God has the knowledge and is yet holy. Adam's knowledge of evil was from his own disobedience, however, so that could be the difference.The initial command not to eat of the tree of knowledge already implies some knowledge of good & evil. I.e., Adam knows (& apparently tells Eve) that eating of that tree is bad & not eating is good. But one of the subtle things about the story is that, in a sense, the serpent is right. When they do eat they know evil - & its distinction from good - not just as a theoretical concept but as an experienced reality.


We need a connection between Genesis and Romans, obviously. Why are none righteous, exactly, why do we all sin, we are we by nature children of wrath.Paul makes a connection. But before he does that in Ch.5 he has already emphasized the universal problem of sin in Chs.1-3.

George, what do you say of this--God combines the natural laws He made with His special intervention (being the artist He is who takes such pleasure, obviously) to "grow" the earth for man and even "grow" a body for Him. God takes the body, puts in a spirit and you have a fully modern human literal Adam. God places him in the Garden and you know the rest of the story.That is basically the modern RC position, as stated e.g. by John Paul II. It's one way of thinking about human evolution, but it does make certain assumptions about human nature (e.g., that there is a soul which is a direct creation of God and is separable from the body) that some would question.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Christ's incarnation was in a holy body as well as spirit - I am a monist as regards human nature btw - his body was prepared for him, its human nature was purged of sin that is transmitted, so that he could assume that body into his person (the body was not a person).Just one point here. The belief that the child Mary conceived was of an unfallen nature different from ours is problematic. That is a view of the western church which was one of the motivations for the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary - i.e., that Mary was cleansed of the taint of original sin at conception (by the merits of Christ!) so that the child she would conceive would be free of original sin. Barth, e.g., rejected this idea saying, "'Without sin' means that in our human and sinful existence as a man He did not sin" (CD IV, Pt.2, pp.92-93). Thomas F. Torrance elaborates on this in The Christian Frame of Mind (Helmers & Howard, 1989), pp.6-11.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Certainly that line of argument is not going to work with anyone who is disposed to read Genesis as imaginary.

I just realized that Genesis is mythic in the sense that it originated in a preliterate society. Sure, Moses wrote Genesis down, but his people were pretty much illiterate, correct? However, 'myth' still seems a putdown, as tho to say that Genesis is not really history. Let's take the Navajo as an example. Prior to the coming of the white people, didn't they think their own myths were real history? Perhaps myths can be true or false. The Hebraic myths in the Bible just happen to be the true ones, no?I don't know that "myth" is the best term for the early chapters of Genesis (& certainly don't consider them imaginary). But the idea that the OT contains "true myth" is endorsed, e.g., by C.S. Lewis in Miracles.

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

Y'know, George, you are right. I don't think I've been forced to look at it in the detail I have of late. If we can nail this down, things would be so much easier.



I think whatever the answer, we will find harmony with Genesis because, as you say, Genesis is theologically true. Our answer is there, I believe.

Consider this:

Gen. 3:22

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from tree of life, and eat, and live forever"


What is it about having the knowledge that is so bad? God has the knowledge and is yet holy. Adam's knowledge of evil was from his own disobedience, however, so that could be the difference.

We need a connection between Genesis and Romans, obviously. Why are none righteous, exactly, why do we all sin, we are we by nature children of wrath.

How is sin transferred? Guilt by association? (What about Ezek 18, Deut. 24:16) Legally?

The sin of Adam has passed on to us through the transferrence of a marred human nature--a nature marred with sin. That is all we know, we don't know how it is passed, I think it must be spiritually passed. (Perhaps this is why our Lord was sinless--His spirit was Holy from conception)

This more easily answered in Adam, of course, who would be the father of us all. One man, one choice, one progenator of the human race--it is easier to understand like that.

I guess I am back at square one again, but I've really tried to work this out.

George, what do you say of this--God combines the natural laws He made with His special intervention (being the artist He is who takes such pleasure, obviously) to "grow" the earth for man and even "grow" a body for Him. God takes the body, puts in a spirit and you have a fully modern human literal Adam. God places him in the Garden and you know the rest of the story.



Oh, George, I really am. Such thoughts have consumed me for these many days. I am not afraid of knowledge, I am not afraid of finding something that disproves God, I have confidence in the Lord. I do believe He wants us to "test all things" to put things up for falsifiability. Only when subjecting something up to falsifiability can one then actually give evidence for something being true.


Hi Charleen,

You and george set the kind of parameters that are necessary and sufficient to a TE interpretation.

Yes, it must be comprehensive and inclusive as regards the entirety of the full Gospel. It would require that the rationality of a scientifically supported context to Genesis maintain a logical continuum throughout the rest of scripture, and, in this, give credence to the suggestion that the Bible was written on a number of levels, intentionally. Even to suspect that perhaps as many as seven different archetypal understandings might be noted.
I mean to say, that the scriptures are certainly undeniably the Hebrew Epic. As such, we have every reason to respect them as such, concerning the acceptance de facto, that the bible is a book, yet many things to many to many people. It is the essence of the Jew, the detetmining aspect of his Judaism, his nationally, his cultural heritage, his Jewishness.

Personal readings need no external commentary from others at all, likewise. Beyond the meaning of Scripture vor the Jew, the writings are intrapersonal, between each reader and God.

Then, certainly the literal readings, taken verbatim, and understood clearly, just as one might hear them read to a group; even choosing specific instructional and concrete passages, those hardly needing explanation at all, this has and ought to have served the believer, too.

The mythopaeic spiritualism with us so prominently today, the vague elucidation of ideas, like eternal life, absence of pain and death, a rapture, Genesis 3, and such has had to serve in the absence of no other explanation more acceptable.

Then, the metaphysical interpretations, at least twelve different ones found in the major mainstream churches, find equal justification in the indoctrination of their members.

But, this interpretation has a continuity that must also be found in a TE. This TE must certainly embrace and enhance the meanings of passages such as you ponder in Genesis 3, incorporating those elements in a TE overview.
That is, the TE theory can not waver between the ever growing archaic metaphysical insights presently adapted, and a logical rational and concrete scientifically supported one we might call here, TE.

In conclusion here, I inform you that the composition of Genesis incorporates a literary contrivance (although it was not always literary, for instance, as in the day of Moses). This (now) written contrivance, somewhat hidden in and between the passages of Genesis, pertains to the priestly art of a once oral presentation of Genesis by the Cohanim of the Levites. It is extremely important to the concept of a TE.

In this device we have a significant proof of the validity of the TE constructions and interpretative exegesis.

I think you might suspect that this is possible. Surely, many would doubt that it could be supported by a full bible overview of its application.

Nevertheless, such is available, and the questions you are considering here, as regards Genesis 3 are important aspects of it.

(I am just reading this thread now, and I intend to start from the first post in order to understand how much of what I surmise about your readiness for TE is true.

thanxz for the opportunity to share my thoughts and butt in here.

kofhy )

[kofh2u]

It's been suggested that a thread be started here to discuss theistic evolution (henceforth TE) theologically. I'm happy to do that, & will lead off with some comments about my own approach.

1) Like many Christians who are labelled TEs, I'm not wild about the term. Among other things, it reduces God's activity to adjectival status. But it's hard to change established terminology. We should realize, however, that there's a very wide range of views among people called TEs, as following discussion will probably reveal.

2) I called this thread "Deep TE." What I mean by "shallow" TE is simply being content with saying "Evolution is God's way of creating." IMO that is true, but in itself is quite inadequate to deal with the important theological issues that arise.

3) Science is relevant - indeed essential - for this discussion. & that means science done without theological (or anti-theological) presuppositions -
"secular science" if you will. In fact, one of the things I'll argue is that the hiddenness of divine action toward which the cross of Christ points means that we should be able to understand the world etsi deus non daretur, "though God were not given." (The phrase was popularized by Bonhoeffer, though he didn't originate it.)
But conversely, science is only of theological relevance when placed in an explicitly theological context. In particular, science in itself does not talk about "creation", which is a theological concept.

4) In what theological context is discussion to take place? My fundamental claim is that it should be the theology of the cross, as expounded by Luther (but by no means limited to him or to the Lutheran tradition): "True theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ"(LW 31, p.53).
It may be appropriate to note that I've presented this view in other forums at some length, most recently & in detail in The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross (Trinity Press International, 2003). I'm glad to exppand here on my statements that follow, but a lot of references &c are in this book.

5) What are the implications of such a theology for an understanding of evolution? Here I'll just sketch, briefly & inadequately, a few points.
a) God's activity in the world is characteristically hidden - cf.Is.45:15 (a verse emphasized both by Luther & by Pascal). As I argued above, this means that the world can be understood without reference to God.
b) That claim will be offensive to many Christians who think that the idea of God is "necessary" in order to understand the world. No. Part of the divine kenosis (Phil.2:5-11) is that God is willing to be considered unnecessary. As Bonoeffer puts it, God is willing to be pushed out of the world onto a cross.
c) As God Incarnate, Christ is fully divine and fully human. & if evolution is right (as I think it is), "fully human" means that God has become part of the evolutionary process - an idea that of course is offensive to many Christians.
I argue that that is essentially the scandal of the cross. Furthermore, on the cross God experiences the suffering & death that are part of that process -
a crucial consideration for theodicy challenges often directed against TE. & the resurrection of Christ is the reason for hope - not only for humanity but for the world.

6) Some will be surprised that I've said nothing yet about Gen.1 & 2. There are 2 reasons for that.
a) We are to interpret Genesis in the light of the NT, and specifically in the light of Christ, not vice versa.
b) While the Genesis texts are of course important, they are by no means the only important ones dealing with creation. Starting somewhere else can have the advantage of avoiding getting stuck in well-worn ruts of familiar debates. In an earlier book, The Trademark of God, I started with the exodus tradition & Is.40-55 before moving to Genesis.

7) Briefly on Gen.1 & 2. Recognizing this as part of true & authoritative scripture, we then have to ask what types of literature we're dealing with. Are we to read these as historical narrative, liturgy, theological polemic, or what? Here I'll just make the following points:
a) Gen.1:1-2:4a & 2:4b-25 (briefly, Gen.1 & Gen.2) are separate creation texts that talk about God's creation of the world and life in different ways. They cannot be "harmonized" as historical narratives without doing violence to one or both.
b) These accounts, read as historical/scientific accounts, do not agree with what science has overwhelmingly shown us about the development of the universe & life.
c) a & b together point to the conclusion that we should not read the Genesis accounts as historical or scientific accounts. They are true & authoritative statements about God & our world & our lives, but they are fundamentally theological statements about those things.
d) Thus I'm not terribly interested in talking about how Eve could have really (qua historical event) been created from Adam's side. That's an important statement about the unity of humanity & relations between the sexes, & when I read that text when I preside at a wedding it has profound & true meaning. But I see no reason to talk about some divine transplant surgery + cloning as a scientific event.
e) While Gen.1 is not an historical account of the way life developed, it's important that the picture that's given of the creation of life is one of mediated creation, God commanding the elemnts of the world to bring forth life in accord with the capabilities he's given them. This understanding was quite common among the church fathers.
e) As Westermann has argued, the culmination of the 1st creation story is the Sabbath, which in Jewish & Christian thought has always been understood as pointing toward the eschaton. That fact that this of course is not yet accomplished (though the risen Christ is its prolepsis) means that the creation story looks toward the future. It's open ended. In particular, it doesn't mean that God stopped doing anything at some point near the beginning of the universe - cf.Jn.5:17.

That should be enough to get things started.

Shalom,
George


Hello mr george,

You sound here like a very competent academic and a carefully writer. I find your reflections very progressive and constructive.

This subject is extremely important to the church of this moment for a number of reasons. O of tgese reasons is emphasized by two articles in the newspaper just today.

One article states that "Protestants on track to lose U.S. majority status, survey says," and the review of the just published book, The Preservationist, which ridicules Noe. "Down, firty, and rocking the boat on Noah's Ark tale," demonstrates the problems with the church's insistence on literalism.

But, in reading this first post here, while I thoroughly agree with TE interpretation as it concerns Genesis, I believe you will have difficuly using the concept as the essential underlying hypothesis.

[kofh2u]

I appreciate Dee Dee's encouragement to start this thread. While exegesis of individual texts is important, a basic hermeneutic issue needs to be dealt with first: Can biblical texts be something other than historical narrative, history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist, & still have truth & authority as Christians have traditionally believed scripture to have?

My own answer is "Yes," & I would cite many of the parables of Jesus as just a few examples of this. Of course that does not mean that everything in the Bible can be interpreted as parabolic, fictional, &c, so this is not a drop-dead argument for the claims that Gen.1 & 2 are not to be read as historical narratives. But it does mean that that is a possibility that deserves to be considered.

One implication of that is that questions about the relationship of a text to the world cannot be decided simply by studying how words are used within the text. As a simple example, the word yom in Gen.1 means a 24 hour day.
It can have broader senses in other texts, but within the Genesis story there's no justification for making it a period of billions of years, a geological age, &c.

But one cannot move immediately from there to say "God literally created the world in 6 24 hour days." One has to decide whether or not that text is to be read as an historical account, & only if it is can the 24 hour days within the story be taken as referring to 24 hour periods in the history of the universe.

& one thing that has to be considered there is what science says about the history of the universe. This is not a matter of letting science dictate to theology, but one of theology using science to help (N.B.) to determine which interpretation of the text is to be preferred.

Shalom,
George



George, the devil hates a coward.

If we are going to entertain the hypothesis the Genesis is in fact:
A cleverly devised story-like exposition, one intended to be read as an epic tale of creation, one which is "living" in its ability to transcend the illiterate and uneducated ages of human development and social maturity, while enduring years of childish yarns of magical, non-natural processes of universal materializations... then, yes, yom surprisingly was a word choosen just because it can mean 24 hours while at some time in the days forward, it will be seen to also render tge equivalent of a duration as long as an Geological Era.

That is the first postulate to TE.

True, there will be naysayers in the kitchen, but we must stand the heat if we are going to cook up this TE interpretation.

[kofh2u]

This is a good start I think and there are good arguments for views like "the framework view" that disagree with Mortons view.

Im an advocate of Mortons view myself, even though that view does not necessarily explain everything in the text. I do believe though, that such a view is permissable within the context of Genesis specifically, and also permissable within the whole of scripture.

George gave an interesting into, which brings us into the larger context of the theology of the cross. This is a fitting context for Christians to debate these issues, since scripture ultimately centers on that doctrine.

Im curious to see how everyone (including myself) will argue their point while keeping in mind this larger context. Hopefully we will have alot of participation from each respective viewpoint.

I will write more thoughts at a later time (maybe tonight or tomorrow...)

Thanks for starting the thread George.




Russ


Before I forget, allow me to avknowledge that IMO I am the least among you wise and erudite scholars of scripture. I wish to avoid, in this confession, the accusation of arrogance.

If I seem to presume a self confidence that implies I consider myself wise, it is only an indication of long reflection this particular subject and the self assuring reinforcements of things I hope to gradually bring to your attention.

Having protectec mysrlf in this from the retort that you might be angry that I dirctly criyicize what you have said, I, well, ... criticize your statement.

We must do nothing of the sort as concerns what you have said here:
"argue... the... point while keeping in mind this larger context"

This would be tantamount to running anexperiment and reminding ourselves that the ougcome desired must be constantly subjectively superimposed upon the empirical evidence!

We must do nos] such a thing as pre-set our psychology to arrive at the concludions we already hold, or why do it?

[kofh2u]

That rules out evolution then, since the main reason for believing it was to disallow "a divine foot in the door". :teeth:



Bonhoeffer is not Scripture. Paul said that the evidence for God from creation was so clear that people are "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-32).



But as Paul argued, the world can't be understood without clearly pointing to God's eternal attributes and divine power.



This is an abuse of the kenosis, and is more like the kenotic heresy. First, it was only the Second Person of the Trinity that "emptied himself"; second, this emptying was really an addition of human nature not any subtraction of the divine attributes. In reality, Jesus merely gave up independent exercise of these divine attributes without the Father's authority (which is why He didn't know the day or the hour). See Meaning of kenosis: emptying by adding (http://www.biblicaltraining.org/classes/theology_s/05_t.html).



This is rank blasphemy, grossly violating the First and Greatest Commandment. And what about Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge." Proverbs 10:9 says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." GM says exactly the opposite. His evolutionary "theology" is so anti-biblical that it can't be called "Christian" any more than Spong can.



No, the Second Person of the Trinity He especially became "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), because He specifically took on human nature, not angelic or any other nature (Heb. 2:14). GM's view is the heresy of panentheism, not biblical theism. It commits the ultimate authority of blurring the foundational distinction between Creator and Creation (Rom.1:25).



Yes, true Christians (as opposed to liberal modernists) are offended by modernistic ideas that contradict the Bible!



This is similar to the Patripassian heresy, where the Father suffers in the Son. I have grave doubts about whether GM is a Trinitarian since he blurs the Persons.



Yes, and Christ interpreted the people and events as real history, and said that people were there "from the beginning of creation" not billions of years after a mythical big bang.



Prove it! Maybe refute articles harmonizing them such asTwo Creation Accounts? (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html) This looks like GM denies biblical inerrancy, which means he has departed from the historic evangelicalism.



:lmbo: Everything my textbook claimed as a "proof" of evolution is no such thing - oh, do tell me about the peppered moths, similar embryos, Miller's Experiment, dog breeding and all the other things :hrm: And even before I was a Christian, my science teacher couldn't answer my questions about evolution! :lol:



Right, this shows that GM's true authority are the human opinions of "science" rather than God's Word.



But Paul treated it as real history in 1 Tim. 2:13-14 - both the order of creation and the fact that Eve was really deceived while Adam was not. And if Adam was not a real historic first man, then what about Jesus, the Last Adam? Where do the mythical people end and the real people start in Luke 3?



No way! They all believed in God's instantaneous creative acts using material He had created, which were different from the way God now sustains His creation. Here is an article
The patristic teaching on evolution (http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/sc_e_patr.html)

What do the holy Fathers say about this? I have already quoted St.Ephraim the Syrian, whose whole commentary on Genesis describes how all God's creative acts are done in an instant, even though the whole "Days" of creation last 24 hours each. Let us now see what St. Basil the Great says about God's creative acts in the Six Days.

In speaking of the Third Day of creation, St. Basil says: "At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up. Likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants - rose, myrtle and laurel - all came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously upon the earth" (Hexaemeron,V, 6). Again, he says: "'Let the earth bring forth.' This brief command immediately became mighty nature and an elaborate system which brought to perfectionmore swiftly than our thoughts the countless properties of plants" (V, 10). Again, on the Fifth Day: "The command came. Immediately rivers were productive and marshy lakes were fruitful of species proper and natural to each" (VII, 1).

Likewise, St. John Chrysostome, in his commentary on Genesis, teaches:"Today God goes over to the waters and shows us that from them, by His word and command, there proceeded animate creatures. What mind, tell me, can understand this miracle? What tongue will be able worthily to glorify the Creator? He said only: 'Let it bring forth' - and there appeared a great variety of flowers, grasses, and seeds, and everything occurred by His words alone; so also here He said: 'Let the waters bring forth' and suddenly there appeared so many kinds of creeping things, such a variety of birds, that it is impossible even to enumerate them with words" (VII, 3).

Here I reiterate: I believe that in the majority of cases modern science knows more than did the saints Basil the Great, John Chrysostome, Ephraim the Syrian and other fathers concerning the characteristics of fish and similar specific facts; no one will deny that. But who knows more of the ways in which God created: modern science, which is not even sure whether God exists and, in any case, attempts to explain everything without Him; or these divinely-inspired fathers? When you say that God does not create instantly, then I believe that you propound the teaching of contemporary "wisdom" and not the teaching of the holy fathers.

In a certain sense, of course, God's creation is not instantaneous work; but even here the holy fathers are quite precise in their teaching. I have cited St. Ephraim the Syrian, who said: "It is just as intolerable to say that something was created instantaneously which, according to the Scriptures, was created in the course of six days."

Thus St. Gregory the Theologian, asserting, just as did St. Ephraim the Syrian, that creation was not "instantaneous," teaches: "Therefore, the days of creation are counted as something that is first, second, third and so onto the seventh day, and with these days is divided all that has been created and set in motion by indescribable laws, and not produced instantaneously by the Almighty Word, for Whom to think and to speak already means to accomplish in fact. If man, who was honored in being made by God and in His image, was the last to appear in the world, this is in no way amazing; because for him, as for a king, it was necessary to prepare a kingly abode, and only then lead into in the king accompanied by all the other creatures."

And St. John Chrysostome teaches: "The Almighty hand of God and His boundless wisdom would not have had any difficulty in creating everything in one day. But what am I saying? Not even in one instant. But as He had created all existing things not for His own benefit, because He, being all-satisfied, has no need of anything, - but on the contrary, created everything in accordance with His goodness and love for mankind, so He creates in stages, and through the mouth of the blessed prophet (Moses) presents us with a clear exposition of creation.. Why was man created last, if he is the most perfect of all creatures? For a just reason. When a king intends to enter a city, his arm-bearers and other members of his entourage must preceed him, so that the king might enter into a prepared place; similarly God, intending to place a king and master over all earthly creatures, first prepared all the decorations, and then created the master" (III, 3; VIII, 2).

Thus, the patristic teaching clearly tells us that God, although quite able to create everything instantly, preferred to create in stages of increasing perfection, with each stage being accomplished not in an instant, nor in the course of an indefinitely long period of time, but between these two extremes, specifically in six days.

In their commentaries on the book of Genesis, saints Ephraim the Syrian and John Chrysostome clearly look upon God's creation as the work of six regular days, each one of which God creates "immediately" and "instantaneously." Likewise St. Basil the Great, contrary to the widely-accepted opinion of Christian evolutionists, regards the acts of God's creation as immediate and sudden, believing the duration of the Six Days to have been 24 hours each, for he says in regard to the First Day: "And there was the evening, and the morning. The prophet means the duration of day and night. 'And there was the evening and the morning of one day.' Thus is determined the measure of day and night, and is gathered into a single period of time, for 24 hours fillthe duration of one day, if under day one also understands night" (Hexaemeron, II, 8).

As I have already said, I do not believe this question to be of primary significance in examining the problems of evolution; nevertheless, it is an eloquent testimony to the influence of modern philosophy on Christianevolutionists, who cannot wait to re-interpret these Six Days so as not to appear foolish in the eyes of the "wise men" of this world, who have "scientifically proved" that, no matter how creation occurred, it took place throughout millions of years. Of greater importance is the fact that these
Christian evolutionists have such a difficult time believing in a six-day creation, which presented no problems to the holy fathers, because the evolutionists do not understand what precisely occurred in these Six Days: they believe that lengthy natural processes of development took place, in accordance with the laws of our current decaying world; in fact, according to the holy fathers, the nature of that first-created world was totally different from ours, as I will show below.

Let us examine in greater detail another patristic commentary on the book of Genesis, belonging to St. John Chrysostome. Note that I do not cite little-known or dubious fathers, but only the very pillars of Orthodoxy, who present our Orthodox teaching with the greatest clarity and holiness. And in St. John's writings we do not find any "allegories" either, but a very strict interpretation of the text as it has been written. Like other fathers he speaks of Adam having been created literally out of dust, and Eve literally from Adam's rib.

He writes: "If the enemies of truth shall insist that it is impossible to produce something out of nothing, then we shall ask them: was the first man created out of earth or something else? Undoubtedly they will agree with us and will say out of earth. Then let them tell us, how could flesh be formed out of soil? Soil can only produce mud, brick, clay, tile; but how did flesh appear? How did bones, nerves, veins, fat, skin, nails, hair appear? How did so many different materials come from one essence? They will be unable to offer any reply to this" (II, 4). And again St. Chrysostome writes: "God took a single rib, it is said; but how from this single rib did He form a whole creature? Tell me, how did the taking of the rib occur? How did Adam not feel this taking?

"You can say nothing about this; this is known only by Him Who created. God did not produce a new creation, but taking from an already existing creation a certain small part, from this part he made a whole creature. What power the highest Artist God has, to produce from this small part (a rib) the composition of so many members, make so many organs of sense, and form a whole, perfect and complete being" (XV, 2-3).

If you wish, I can quote many other passages from this work, showing that St. John Chrysostome - is he not the chief Orthodox interpreter of Sacred Scripture? - everywhere interprets the sacred text of Genesis as it is written, believing that it was nothing else than an actual serpent (through whom the devil spoke) who tempted our first parents in paradise, that God actually brought all the animals before Adam for him to name, and "the names which Adam gave them remain even until now." (But according to evolutionary doctrine, many animals were extinct by the time of Adam - must we believe that Adam did not name "all the wild beasts" [Gen. 2:19] but only the remnant of them?}

St. John Chrysostome says, when speaking of the rivers of paradise: "Perhaps one who loves to speak from his own wisdom here also will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers, nor that the waters are precisely waters, but will instill in their listeners that they (under the names of rivers and waters) represented something else. But we shall not heed those people, but will believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, shall strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas" (XIII, 4).

Is there need to quote more from this Divine Father? Like St. Basil and St. Ephraim he warns us: "Not to believe what is contained in the Divine Scripture, but to introduce something else from one's own mind - this, I believe, subjects those who hazard such a thing to great danger" (XIII, 3).

Before going on I will briefly answer one objection which I have heard from those who defend evolution: they say that if one reads all the Scripture "as it is written" one will only makeoneself ridiculous. They say that if we must believe that Adam was actually made from dust and Eve from Adam's rib, then must we not believe that God has "hands," that He "walks" in Paradise, and the like absurdities? Such an objection could not be made by anyone who has read even a single commentary of the holy Fathers on the book of Genesis. All the holy Fathers distinguish between what is said about creation, which must be taken "as it is written," and what is said about God, which must be understood, as St. John Chrysostome says repeatedly, "in a God-befitting manner." For example, St. Chrysostome writes: "When you hear, beloved, that 'God planted paradise in Eden in the east,' understand the word 'planted' befittingly of God: that is, that He commanded; but concerning the words that follow, believe precisely that paradise was created and in that very place where the Scripture has assigned it" (Homilies on Genesis, XIII, 3).

St. John of Damascus explicitly describes the allegorical interpretation of paradise to be part of a heresy, that of the Origenians. But what, then, are we to understand of those holy Father of profound spiritual life who interpret the book of Genesis and other Holy Scriptures in a spiritual or mystical sense? If we ourselves had not gone so far away from the patristic understanding of Scripture, this would present no problem whatever to us. The same text of Holy Scripture is true "as it is written" and also has a spiritual interpretation. Behold what the great Father of the desert, St. Macarius the Great, says: "That paradise was closed and that a cherubim was commanded to prevent man from entering it by a flaming sword: of this we believe that in visible fashion it was indeed just as it is written, and at the same time we find that this occurs mystically in every soul" (Seven Homilies, IV, 5).

And here is another example of the same. The divine Gregory the Theologian, in his Homily on the Theophany, writes concerning the tree of knowledge: "The tree was, according to my view, contemplation, upon which it is only safe for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter." This is a profound spiritual interpretation, of which our academic scholars might say that St. Gregory completely "allegorizes" the story of Adam and paradise. But now I am going to present an interpretation of the words of St. Gregory the Theologian by a great holy Father who lived a thousand years after him: St. Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonika. Against St. Gregory Palamas and the other hesychast Fathers who taught the true Orthodox doctrine of the "uncreated light of Mt. Tabor," there rose up the Western rationalist Barlaam. Taking advantage of the fact that St. Maximus the Confessor in one passage had called this light of the Transfiguration a "symbol of theology," Barlaam taught that this light was not a manifestation of the Divinity, not "literally" a divine light, but only a "symbol" of it.This led St. Gregory Palamas to make a reply which illuminates for us the relation between the "symbolical" and "literal" interpretation of Holy Scripture, particularly with regard to the passage from St. Gregory the Theologian which I have quoted above. He writes that Barlaam and others "do not see that Maximus, wise in divine matters, has called the light of the Lord's Transfiguration 'a symbol of theology' only by analogy. In theology, which uses analogies and intends to elevate us, objects which have anexistence of their own become also spiritual symbols; it is in this
sense that Maximus calls this light a "symbol".. Similarly, Gregory the Theologian has called the tree of knowledge of good and evil 'contemplation,' having in his contemplation considered it as a symbol of this contemplation which is intended to elevate us; but it does not follow that what is involved isan illusion without existence of its own. For the divine Maximus also makes Moses the symbol of judgment, and Elijah the symbol of foresight! Are they too then supposed not to have really existed, but to have been invented 'symbolically'?" (Triad II, 3:21-23).

Thus the patristic interpretation of the book of Genesis makes it quiteimpossible to harmonize the account of Genesis with the theory of evolution, which requires an entirely "allegorical" interpretation of the text in many places where the patristic interpretation will not allow this. The doctrine that Adam was created, not from dust, but by development from some other creature, is a novel teaching which is entirely foreign to Orthodox Christianity.

At this point the "Orthodox evolutionist" might try to salvage his position by trying to say that we now know more than the holy Fathers about nature and therefore we really can interpret the book of Genesis better than they. But even the "Orthodox evolutionist" knows that the book of Genesis is not a scientific treatise, but a divinely-inspired work of cosmogony and theology. The interpretation of the divinely-inspired Scripture is clearly the work of God-bearing theologians, not of natural scientists. It is true that in the book of Genesis many "facts" of nature are presented. But it must be carefully noted that these facts are not facts such as we can observe now, but an entirely special kind of facts: the creation of the heaven and the earth, of all animals and plants, of the first man. I have already pointed out that the holy Fathers teach quite clearly that the creation of the firstman Adam, for example, is quite different from the generation of men today; it is only the latter that science can observe, and about the creation of Adam it offers only philosophical speculations, not scientific
knowledge.

According to the holy Fathers, it is possible for us to know something of this first-created world, but this knowledge is not accessible to natural science. I will discuss this question further below.

I have to say that George dismays me. His dogmatic belief in evolution hasled him to positions that are overtly heretical. I don't use this wordmerely of views that contradict YEC, but only of views that contradict the foundational truths of Christianity. Overt heresies are all too common among TEs while they are rare among OECs. And GM has grossly misrepresented the views of the great leaders of the early church to the opposite of what they really taught, but that is something he has in common with a number of OECs.


I was hoping that george might be allowed to lay out the essence and discover for us the consequences of applying the hhpothesis of TE independent of the long held opposite opinion on this subject.

All of tge comments you have made accompanied by scripture are biased by the pre-set psychological perspective you have in that you already have a conclusion drawn from reading the entire text, before we get to verse Gen1:1-2.

IMO we will be detoured by arguments concerning, for instance, whether Paul agrees or disagrees on these issues:

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God, (his Natural Laws), moved upon the face of the waters.

Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"

[Solly]

Just one point here. The belief that the child Mary conceived was of an unfallen nature different from ours is problematic.

In some sense it is meant to be, but go on...

That is a view of the western church which was one of the motivations for the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary - i.e., that Mary was cleansed of the taint of original sin at conception (by the merits of Christ!) so that the child she would conceive would be free of original sin.

This misuse of a right doctrine is no argument against it, and the idea of the ICofM, and her perpetual virginity owes as much to the influence of platonism as it does to bad exegesis. It is and remains the confession of orthodoxy that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and sanctified that which was in her, but not her herself - since she offered sacrifices after the birth of Christ - and that "holy thing" Christ assumed into himself making one new man, the start of one new humanity.

I am aware of the alternate view, put forward by, amongst others Edward Irving, that Christ took fallen sinful flesh and through the Spirit he was sanctified in all his ways; but it is not a view I am wholly convinced of yet, and it seems to go in the direction of modern kenoticism - which might explain why you and John Polkinghorne et al hold to it, I would guess! Interstingly, I found echoes of this view in the charismatics, in which Christ's uniqueness is downgraded - he is kenoticised - and he is made to be dependant upon the Holy Spirit for even the simplest piece of knowledge, so that we can be raised up a peg by that same Spirit, we can do the things he did. Christ is over-humanised, if you like, which is opposite to the incipient Apollinarianism of some quarters of the Reformed church.


"... in his incarnation, Christ took human nature as it was in Adam, not before the Fall, but after the Fall, —human nature, therefore, with its inborn corruption and predisposition to moral evil; that notwithstanding the possession of this tainted and depraved nature, Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, or of his divine nature, not only kept his human nature from manifesting itself in any actual or personal sin, but gradually purified it through struggle and suffering, until in his death he completely extirpated its original depravity, and reunited it to God. This subjective purification of human nature in the person of Jesus Christ constitutes his atonement, and men are saved, not by any objective propitiation, but only by becoming through faith partakers of Christ’s new humanity. "
—A H Strong, [I]Systematic Theology, p. 744. Fleming H. Revell. 1954.

This theory has never gained the popularity enjoyed by some of the other theories, and so it is not heard of too often. His holding of this theory resulted in Irving being deposed from the ministry of the National Church of Scotland on the charge of heresy, and he subsequently started the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Church"

Irving’s later followers softened or entirely purged the most objectionable features from this theory, but his writings reveal that he himself held that Christ in His incarnation took upon himself a human nature that was actually sinful, and that this sinful human nature was not finally purged of its sinfulness until death. He frequently quoted Hebrews 2:10: "...make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering," in proof of this.

It is hard to understand how Irving could have consistently held that Christ was at once "That Holy Thing" (Luke 1:35), yet possessed of human nature that was as fallen and corrupt as any other, yet this was precisely what he did hold. He said:

"I shall maintain until death that the flesh of Christ was as rebellious as ours, as fallen as ours...Human nature was corrupt to the core and black as hell, and this is the human nature the Son of God took upon himself and was clothed with. "
(Quoted by A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 746. Fleming H. Revell, 1954.)

This theory errs in its view of the incarnation of Christ, for it made Him to be possessed with a sinful nature, something the Scriptures deny; it was in error in its view of sin, since it held that sin could be either guiltless or guilty, and this erroneous view of sin naturally affected the view it had of the atoning work of Christ. This theory views the atonement more as a process than as a saving act accomplished for men; and it held that the saving results of Christ’s death became man’s by association with Christ, rather than by imputation, as the Scriptures show.
David Huckabee
http://www.pbministries.org/Baptists/Davis%20Huckabee/To%20Studies%20In%20Strong%20Doctrine/strong_doctrine_06_section_5.htm
I am not, of course, saying that you hold to exactly this view, just that i am aware of it in at least one form.
Barth, e.g., rejected this idea saying, "'Without sin' means that in our human and sinful existence as a man He did not sin" CD IV, Pt.2, pp.92-93).[/size][/font][/font]

I am only at CD I.1 Ch 1 §7!!

Thomas F. Torrance elaborates on this in The Christian Frame of Mind (Helmers & Howard, 1989), pp.6-11.


Be a while before I read that, I have a reading list as long as your arm!!

Blessings
Tony

[reyvin]

The initial command not to eat of the tree of knowledge already implies some knowledge of good & evil. I.e., Adam knows (& apparently tells Eve) that eating of that tree is bad & not eating is good. But one of the subtle things about the story is that, in a sense, the serpent is right. When they do eat they know evil - & its distinction from good - not just as a theoretical concept but as an experienced reality.

I don't think the sin was so much in eating something but disobeying God. A very simple, harmless set of instructions that ended up being ignored. Especially considering whom they chose to listen to and trust over God!

[shunyadragon]

I don't think the sin was so much in eating something but disobeying God. A very simple, harmless set of instructions that ended up being ignored. Especially considering whom they chose to listen to and trust over God!
In this simplistic literal sense, Adam and Eve were setup for the fall. God knew they were going to take the fruit beforehand. They were the fall guy and gal. It was in the script.

In the symbolic meaning, which is a little more in touch with reality, at some point in the past humans became morally accountable for their actions. They became human, capable of knowing God, and knew the meaning of sin. Prior to that they were like the rest of the animal knindom, innocent.

[A Beautiful Truth]

In this simplistic literal sense, Adam and Eve were setup for the fall. God knew they were going to take the fruit beforehand. They were the fall guy and gal. It was in the script.

This turns into more than what this thread discusses, of course. I think such things are probably discussed in Theology 201, but I'll say that I don't think that because God knew they would fall means that He set them up for the fall.

I don't see much difference than in the symbolic meaning, anyway. God knew ahead of time in both cases.

[A Beautiful Truth]

As a Calvinist, i hold that sin is in the will; but one cannot avoid the force of Paul's comments in Romans about sin in the members/body, the matrix of sin and human nature he calls Flesh; sin still remains in the members, even once we are indwelt by the Spirit.

I think it may be that the human spirit without rebirth in Christ would constitue the "flesh" in Paul's regard. Perhaps a fallen spirit, tranmitted spiritually, is what is fallen (this would affect the will, if a Calvinist).

(When/if you respond, please know that I have no formal training and might not understand "big" words. I had no idea what a "monist" is so thanks for explaining that.)

Christ's incarnation was in a holy body as well as spirit - I am a monist as regards human nature btw - his body was prepared for him, its human nature was purged of sin that is transmitted, so that he could assume that body into his person (the body was not a person).

So this means that if the body had to be prepared, then the body is what inherits the fallen nature, right? Again, how? Genetically? If so, then we can maybe find the sin "gene" and possibly erradicate it. I don't think it can be genetic, and therefore bodily, I think it must be intangeable--of the spirit. Again, I think a fallen spirit would constitute Paul's definition of the "flesh". Only as a Christian did Paul say that his inner man, his spirit, warred with his flesh. Before rebirth, I think the flesh and spirit are of the same sin-marred "mind".

Animals can do the same sinful things that a man can do but it is not considered sin--because animals do not have a spirit, man does. I believe it has to do with the spirit. Before the fall, man's spirit did not incline him to sin, after the fall the human spirit is changed--it is fallen, marred by sin and in need of redemption.

Did sin pass spiritually? It certainly passed volitionally - hence we all have sinned, not just are sinners by inheritance (but don't forget the communal aspects, We all in Adam have sinned);

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam..."

I think it better said that we all have a sin nature from a fallen spirit and that is why even the unborn who have not yet "sinned" (the act of sinning), still are in need of Christ's redemption.

so sin is a whole person thing that has spiritual aspects because it affects our relationship with God, not because it affects an attribute of human personality.

I would also say sin is a "whole person thing" because a spirit marred by sin affects the whole person and makes the flesh sinful. An animal has flesh but has no sin in his flesh because he has not a spirit to make it so.



Augustine tried to link it to sex, but he was off base.

Off topic: do you think he did that because A & E "covered themselves" after their eyes were open? I've always wondered why they would do that.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I don't think the sin was so much in eating something but disobeying God. A very simple, harmless set of instructions that ended up being ignored. Especially considering whom they chose to listen to and trust over God!

Yes, I too believe that the knowledge of evil was gained through disobedience. Once they disobeyed, they then had the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of evil was gained through their act.

God had knowledge of evil and it is not sin for Him, but man gained his knowledge of evil through disobedience which is sinful.

[Solly]

I think it may be that the human spirit without rebirth in Christ would constitue the "flesh" in Paul's regard. Perhaps a fallen spirit, tranmitted spiritually, is what is fallen (this would affect the will, if a Calvinist).

Yes, there is that part of it, but he still links it to our bodies, though he is careful to avoid the greek notion that matter itself is evil; it is sin that has brought about the bondage of creation, and our bodies share in that. It's what motivates it that is evil, and that is sin which affects our desires and will - which he even personifies and makes to be our master.

(When/if you respond, please know that I have no formal training and might not understand "big" words. I had no idea what a "monist" is so thanks for explaining that.)

Mucho apologies; 'monist', as in not 'dualist' - meaning body and spirit separate, or body and mind separate. there is a very good book I would recommend, Body, Soul and Life Everlasting by John W Cooper, which explains it; it is based on what Cooper calls Hebraic holistic dualism, and JP Holding refers to as Semitic Totality - more big words I'm afraid.

So this means that if the body had to be prepared, then the body is what inherits the fallen nature, right? Again, how? Genetically? If so, then we can maybe find the sin "gene" and possibly erradicate it. I don't think it can be genetic, and therefore bodily, I think it must be intangeable--of the spirit. Again, I think a fallen spirit would constitute Paul's definition of the "flesh". Only as a Christian did Paul say that his inner man, his spirit, warred with his flesh. Before rebirth, I think the flesh and spirit are of the same sin-marred "mind".

The body seen as a totality, which includes the human nature, which includes the seat of sin. The body of Christ was not a person, though it had human nature, so that nature had to be sanctified.
How it is actually transmitted, I don't know. Really. that's why Augustine took a guess at sex. i don't think it is genetic - though i could be wrong.
The reason i pointed out that I am a monist is that words such as soul, spirit, etc indicates aspects of ourselves, usually in relation to something else. Equally, it is thought that Paul uses 'Flesh' and 'Spirit' in relation to us, not as actual things but as describing spheres we inhabit, the one controlled by sin, the other by the Spirit. We inhabit the rebellious sphere of flesh just as a fish is in the sea. Our renewed nature through the Spirit is like having a deep sea diving suit put on, with an airline so we can breath.

Animals can do the same sinful things that a man can do but it is not considered sin--because animals do not have a spirit, man does. I believe it has to do with the spirit. Before the fall, man's spirit did not incline him to sin, after the fall the human spirit is changed--it is fallen, marred by sin and in need of redemption.
Our fall has to do with our relationship with God. The prohibition did not stand on its own, as it is usually stated in the idea of the Covenant of works, in which Adam was given a period of probation; rather I see it is him already stadning in the place of blessing, with his responsibilities. Adam was established as Vice regent over creation - 'dominion'; even over Eve. He should have acted as such, in dependance upon, and responsible to God. He didn't. He - not Eve, but HE - marred creation by disturbing the order of things rather than restoring order by dealing with Eve rather than following her - she was deceived, he was in transgression.
But ultimately in the purposes of God, it was so that all creation could be summed up in Christ, the real obedient responsible vice-regent in the flesh, as man, as 'mere' but also new creation, under him, in him.

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam..."

I think it better said that we all have a sin nature from a fallen spirit and that is why even the unborn who have not yet "sinned" (the act of sinning), still are in need of Christ's redemption.

Yes, but again, it is also a matter of collectivity as well. We mustn't be more individualistic about this than the Bible is. While there is an individual aspect to salvation, yet it is within the context of God's creation - and re-creation - and humanity's place in the scheme of things; the bible operates with collectives as well as individuals, more so that we do, unless we are being racist or something.

I would also say sin is a "whole person thing" because a spirit marred by sin affects the whole person and makes the flesh sinful. An animal has flesh but has no sin in his flesh because he has not a spirit to make it so.

Yup :thumb:

Off topic: do you think he did that because A & E "covered themselves" after their eyes were open? I've always wondered why they would do that.[/QUOTE]

I think he probably did, but Augustine had personal issues with sex.

[Augustine2004]

I wish you wouldn't use the word "imaginary" to describe GM's concept of "theological truth." Obfuscating language does nothing to further the discussion.How about 'fictional like The Brothers Karamazov' instead?

[kofh2u]

I would agree that the majority of the church fathers who addressed this particular issue (the issue of the length of the days) were most likey YEC.

The problem I see with some of the quotes is I read alot of general comments about the text without ever reading an explanation of the text.

Many of the comments (despite the eloquent speech, allusions to deep spiritual truths, and references to symbolism) do not address the reasons why a YEC view is troublesome within the text.

I see no explanation for how there can be a "day" and "night" or an "evening" and "morning" without a literal sun.

Impressive sounding language is irrelevant to me unless specific problems are addressed and explained
Russ

Yes, Russ, you hit the nail on the cross over...the early infusion of ancient, very ancient, now even archaic interpretations, sanctioned or not be long dead "church authorities ]" merely interferes with a rational look at what the scroptures actually say.

Cries of heresay indist that ever verses be clarified...ie; sold to us,... as meaning this or that. Why?

Agenda.
Down the road the assumed understandings of the more complete reading are made to fit better.

Except... after 2000 years, many pieces fit neither in the conceit of the indoctrinations nor the secular realities before us.

This would seem to indict them, those whose dogma demands acceptance, not TE.

You observation that night following day is figurative, analogous to the closing and opening of the curtain between acts of this Creationism Story.

I would add the even more obvious point, that DAY, itself, was not in existence until the 4th DAY.


This always bring long explanation from YEC types, but in every case, WE are asked to "go along" with an absurd rationalization, are we not?

The devil you say us a liar, but omission of these ideas, the real definition of Day, yom, and the 4th Day of creation... sun, moon, sars, time,...years, seasons,...and DAYS,... how clear can the literal truth be?

[kofh2u]

I don't know that "myth" is the best term for the early chapters of Genesis (& certainly don't consider them imaginary). But the idea that the OT contains "true myth" is endorsed, e.g., by C.S. Lewis in Miracles.

Shalom,
George


I agree that we must recognize the audiences for whom this Torah was written.

I add that the earliest of audiences where informed and reminded by these writings of Moses (after four centuries of forgetfukness) that they we immigrants and children of Abraham. The "history" they heard was not social studies.

The form of literature for them might better be called Epic.

However, for us, we must recognize that these writings are mysticism at its finest.

We are privy to an all but 100% insight into the secret knowledge of the Hebrew. As in all of these ancient forms of mysteries, their was the part understood by the masses, as if parables, and there was the ptiestly degrees of insight reserved for some few disciples. Jesus, of course, has and is and shall make us all priestly in this matter, every secret revealed.

I use this term mystery in the same sense that I would refer to the many other now lost msteries of antiquity. And, I hold out that the Hebrew Mystery wa much superior, ie; true.

The both artistic and almost magical aspect of scripture is found in it's "life." It is a living, transforming, adapting writing which grows over the ages with our own maturity and ability to understand it. It has, and will, and shall adapt itself to each new audience that matures. The Word was, and is, and shall be foreve more. (Sound vaguely familiar?)

The illiteracy of the earliest "hearers of the Word" has been replaced by our own literate and scientifically sophisticated audience. And, we stand ready to understand scripture on a new plane, nit a replacement of the old, but an augmentation.

The idea in this thread, TE, is one of seeking to reach beyond the Age of Reason, and replace dogma from the late Middlde Ages with the insights now available to us,... we who are just leaving the historical Age if Enlightenment and entering the Technological Era.

It is the magical significance of these mystical writings that the seven "days" are amazingly analogous to our own geologically confirmed understanding of Seven Eras, is it not?

Gen. 1:5 And God (The Universal Force) called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first yom (of the Azoic Era). (1)

Gen. 1:6 And God (The Universal Force) said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen. 1:7 And God ( The Universal Force) made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen. 1:8 And God (The Universal Force) called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second yom of (the Archeozoic Era). (2)

[reyvin]

In this simplistic literal sense, Adam and Eve were setup for the fall. God knew they were going to take the fruit beforehand. They were the fall guy and gal. It was in the script.

In the symbolic meaning, which is a little more in touch with reality, at some point in the past humans became morally accountable for their actions. They became human, capable of knowing God, and knew the meaning of sin. Prior to that they were like the rest of the animal knindom, innocent.

True, He knew. However the knowledge doesn't mean that He forced the choice on them; that was very much their own. What you're suggesting is like saying just because 'strip bars' exist and I end up going to one that I can blame the owner of the establishment for opening it when my wife catches me going.

If the story of the forbidden fruit is meant to be absolutely true in the most literal sense, I can't see how God is guilty of anything. The 'test' He gave them was one of harmlessness indeed...but perhaps that shows His wisdom rather than say, giving them plutonium and the means to build a nuke and only then having the fall of man occur. That make sense?

Oh and yes, Charleen is right...probably dragging this further off topic than it means to be. Sorry folks!

[A Beautiful Truth]

Mucho apologies;'monist', as in not 'dualist' - meaning body and spirit separate, or body and mind separate.

:blush: so where would I stand if I said that spirit and body are of the same mind until we are "born again"?


The body seen as a totality, which includes the human nature, which includes the seat of sin. The body of Christ was not a person, though it had human nature, so that nature had to be sanctified.

The human nature is like an animal nature. Since it is our spirit that makes us sinful while animals are not considered sinful, why did the body of Christ have to be "prepared" since His spirit was holy at conception? If the body, in and of itself is sinful, then animals are likewise sinful for their nature is really no different than ours. What is sinful is spiritually transferred and bodies are only "contaminated" with sin by sin-marred spirits. Animals have no sin-marred spirits therefore what they do naturally is not sin. What a man does naturally is sin because man has a spirit.

I think we have to nail physicality down. If sin has marred the body physically, then we should expect a physical answer. If sin has marred the human body spiritually, then we should expect a spiritual answer. I think that since what we investigate in the physical realm cannot detect "fallenness" in a physical sense, we don't have a physical answer, but a spiritual one. Fallenness is spiritually discerned, not physically discerned.

Equally, it is thought that Paul uses 'Flesh' and 'Spirit' in relation to us, not as actual things but as describing spheres we inhabit, the one controlled by sin, the other by the Spirit.

Of the Christian only, right?

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam..."

I think it better said that we all have a sin nature from a fallen spirit and that is why even the unborn who have not yet "sinned" (the act of sinning), still are in need of Christ's redemption.

Yes, but again, it is also a matter of collectivity as well. We mustn't be more individualistic about this than the Bible is. While there is an individual aspect to salvation, yet it is within the context of God's creation - and re-creation - and humanity's place in the scheme of things; the bible operates with collectives as well as individuals, more so that we do, unless we are being racist or something.

I agree with you. Please explain how a more "individualistic" view harms our conversation here. (If it is a free will/ predestination aspect I know it takes us off topic. I won't continue on about it, I wanted to know what you mean here.)

[kofh2u]

Yes, badically I quote you here:

The human nature is like an animal nature. Since it is our spirit that makes us sinful while animals are not considered sinful, ...

If the body, in and of itself is sinful, then animals are likewise sinful for their nature is really no different than ours. What is sinful is spiritually transferred {mentally}and bodies are only "contaminated" with sin by sin-marred spirits {of our psyche}. Animals have no sin-marred spirits {no conscious perconception of consequeces} therefore what they do naturally {God given instinctually} is not sin. What a man {in his Consciousness} does {unnaturally} is sin because man has a spirit {in hisconscious free will}.

If sin has marred the body physically, then we should expect a physical answer. If sin has marred the human body spiritually {mentally}, then we should expect a spiritual answer {a sin thought in the mind is as if it was or has been performed in the physical}. I think that since what we investigate in the physical realm cannot detect "fallenness" in a physical sense, we don't have a physical answer, but a spiritual {psychic} one. Fallenness is spiritually {psychic} discerned, not physically discerned.
(End of ehat you said.)


What we need to "nail down," IMO, is the perspective we can and ought decide upon from which to "view" what we are going to read in these scriptures.

It seems clear that there are (at least) seven different current perspectives. We mix them up, mix them together in debates, jump from one to another.

I list the seven to which I am referring for clarity:
1) The Hebrew Epic View
2) The Mythopaeic Story Line
3) The Literal
4) The metaphorical Interpretation
5) The Moralistic (Behavioral Modification) Reading
6) The Metaphysical Concept
7) The Informative Revelation

A TE interpretation necessarily requires that we think in the mode of The Informative Revelation. We do not know much about this approach because it is rather a new and different perspective.

We must be informed in regard to much secular knowledge, and by a close re-reading of every verse, to verify its exegesis within the TE and the remaining body of scripture.

With this in mind, a comprehensive overview is demanded, as a general frame.

This essential will pre-set our psychology in order to incorporate what we read thereafter, from Genesis forward, always with an eye on the omega, the ends, Revelation.
In this procedure, the alpha of Genesis intiates a concept which is followed by the means of all scripture between the first and the last. Between these two, Genesis's hypothesis and the theory to be verified in Revelation, there He must be, Christ.

Adding to your comments, below, this post enhances the interpretation of the meaning of original "sin."

This first disobedience was to the previous total semi-conscious, wild state, of our own animal responses.
We were effectively in God's garden, the "Eden" of the God of the Living.
Our behavior and motivations were as spotless as those of his other creatures. (Just as you say.)

We need only do a reality check, environmentally, to understand the meaning of this "original sin," the sin of choosing to "hear" the previously subconscious seven psychic "spirits."

quote:
"The human nature is like an animal nature. Since it is our spirit (our psyche) that makes us sinful (directed against life) while animals are not considered sinful (and kill not for pleasure nor stored treasures).
If the body, in and of itself is sinful, then animals are likewise sinful for their nature is really no different than ours.
What is sinful is spiritually (mentally) transferred and bodies are only "contaminated" with sin by sin-marred spirits, (self centered, selfish psychological rationals). Animals have no sin-marred spirits (all their thoughs programmed in unconscious God given instinct), therefore what they do naturally (in accord with God, Father Nature) is not sin (but normal behavior). What a man does naturally is sin because man has a (now conscious) spirit (free willing).

Consider that in the beginning, man, Adam, became the first and only conscious entity:

Gen. 3:22 And the Lord God, (as if a voice from withinAdam's Unconscious Mind), said, Behold, the man, (now a conscious psyche), is become as one of us, (self knowing and free willed), to know good and bad (intuitively): and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, (the Collective Unconscious Mind), and eat, (becoming fully awakened), and live forever, (remembering, phylogenetically, pre-existences):

The omega to follow in this TE interpretation:

Rev 21:5 And he, (the Homoiousian Mind), that sat upon the throne (of the Homoiousian Brain) said, Behold, I make all things new (in human experience). And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Revelation 22:1-3 And he shewed me a pure river of (thought as if) of water, (a flowing conscious awareness) of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne, (that is, the Homoiousian Brain) of God, (his image in the Homoiousian Mind), and of the lamb, (our archtypal Human Conscience).

[Warcraft3]

Hey there kofh2u.............

Before I forget, allow me to avknowledge that IMO I am the least among you wise and erudite scholars of scripture. I wish to avoid, in this confession, the accusation of arrogance.

If I seem to presume a self confidence that implies I consider myself wise, it is only an indication of long reflection this particular subject and the self assuring reinforcements of things I hope to gradually bring to your attention.

Having protectec mysrlf in this from the retort that you might be angry that I dirctly criyicize what you have said, I, well, ... criticize your statement.

Criticize away my friend.....I do not get angry when people disagree with me.....this is, after all, a debate forum :wink:

If everyone just agreed with me the discussions would be rather boring.....

We must do nothing of the sort as concerns what you have said here:
"argue... the... point while keeping in mind this larger context"

This would be tantamount to running anexperiment and reminding ourselves that the ougcome desired must be constantly subjectively superimposed upon the empirical evidence!

We must do nos] such a thing as pre-set our psychology to arrive at the concludions we already hold, or why do it?

Im not sure what you are saying here.....

Since the focal point of scripture within a Christian context is the theology of the cross then it would seem wise to include that central doctrine when considering any interpretation of scripture. It is important because scripture seems to focus on that event more than any other.....and so it is the central doctrine of the whole of scripture.

Why do you think we should not consider such a theology when looking at Genesis?



Russ

[Warcraft3]

Hello again kofh2u.......


Yes, Russ, you hit the nail on the cross over...the early infusion of ancient, very ancient, now even archaic interpretations, sanctioned or not be long dead "church authorities ]" merely interferes with a rational look at what the scroptures actually say.

Yes, sometimes tradition can hinder, rather than help illuminate the meaning of scripture. But tradition is still something to consider when considering a particular interpretation.

Cries of heresay indist that ever verses be clarified...ie; sold to us,... as meaning this or that. Why?

Agenda.

Perhaps..........although my agenda is simply to understand the text for what it is saying. I can honestly say that in this area I do not believe I have any axe to grind.

Down the road the assumed understandings of the more complete reading are made to fit better.

Except... after 2000 years, many pieces fit neither in the conceit of the indoctrinations nor the secular realities before us.

This would seem to indict them, those whose dogma demands acceptance, not TE.

You observation that night following day is figurative, analogous to the closing and opening of the curtain between acts of this Creationism Story.

Yes there are some very good arguement to believe the days are not really literal......at least not in the YEC sense.

I rarely attack the framework view (and other views like it) since I think they make some very good arguements as to why their view may be correct. I do not know which one is, although I currently believe it is Mortons view that is correct.

But as can be seen from this thread....there are other views that still make storng arguements.

I would add the even more obvious point, that DAY, itself, was not in existence until the 4th DAY.

Yes......in a way I totally agree you here.


This always bring long explanation from YEC types, but in every case, WE are asked to "go along" with an absurd rationalization, are we not?

I agree that the YEC explanations I have heard sound too contrived for my liking and I believe they commit the same error (in my opinion) that OECs make......adding or reading something into the text not because it is implied, but because their view can not explain certain aspects of the text.

The devil you say us a liar, but omission of these ideas, the real definition of Day, yom, and the 4th Day of creation... sun, moon, sars, time,...years, seasons,...and DAYS,... how clear can the literal truth be?

Yes......I agree that the overall implications of day four make a YEC reading somewhat troublesome.




Russ

[kofh2u]

Hey there kofh2u........
Criticize away my friend.....I do not get angry when people disagree with me.....this is, after all, a debate forum :wink:

If everyone just agreed with me the discussions would be rather boring.....


Im not sure what you are saying here.....

Since the focal point of scripture within a Christian context is the theology of the cross then it would seem wise to include that central doctrine when considering any interpretation of scripture. It is important because scripture seems to focus on that event more than any other.....and so it is the central doctrine of the whole of scripture.

Why do you think we should not consider such a theology when looking at Genesis?
Russ

Oh, thankz for the invitation to reply.

What I am saying is that with faith, there is no need to presume anything sbout what the scriptures say, beyond one or two all encompassing hypotheses.
This is the method that science utilizes to discover truth, and, again, certainly we intuitively suspect the Truth IS Christ. But, in the formality of our investigation concerning just how TE is inclusive in scripture, we ought read Genesis, IMO, without preliminary quafication.

This seems especially emphasized in that, beyond our own edification in searching the scriptures, we remember that Christ is particularly concerned with the unbeliever, for it is for those not saved that his Word speaks out in each and every generation, over again and again.

Faith is what I say assures us that our unbiased reading will bear out the truth which we know, and, in this openness, even the secular community can hopefully agree that the truth speaks for ktself,... ...without need to believe in us, our presumptions before the task of a critical review.

Am I making myself more clear, or are you saying, "Woooohhh... no way... we GOTTA make sure to censor anything that seems to spin around what we already thought on this, in our metaphysical and spiritualistic interpretation?

[kofh2u]

Hello again kofh2u.......

1) Yes, sometimes tradition can hinder, rather than help illuminate the meaning of scripture. But tradition is still something to consider when considering a particular interpretation.

2) Perhaps..........although my agenda is simply to understand the text for what it is saying. I can honestly say that in this area I do not believe I have any axe to grind.

3) Yes there are some very good arguement to believe the days are not really literal......at least not in the YEC sense.

4) I rarely attack the framework view (and other views like it) since I think they make some very good arguements as to why their view may be correct.

5) I do not know which one is, although I currently believe it is Mortons view that is correct.

6) But as can be seen from this thread....there are other views that still make storng arguements.

7) Yes......in a way I totally agree you here.

8) I agree that the YEC explanations I have heard sound too contrived for my liking and I believe they commit the same error (in my opinion) that OECs make......adding or reading something into the text not because it is implied, but because their view can not explain certain aspects of the text.

9) Yes......I agree that the overall implications of day four make a YEC reading somewhat troublesome.


10) Russ


10) Russ, as I read your post I realize how critical am. I don't mean it personally, in your case, morton's, or anyone else. I have difficulty expressing mysrlf in posting bavk and forth. Perhaps because I do not have people directly in front of me, I often can't even imsge how to communicate tge udeas.
I am sorry for the many places above where I seem to be insisting on my point of view.

9) I am happy to find so easy an acquiescence to the 4th day comment. You will not believe how often people have given weak reply and merely disappeared from further conversation. I get zero satisfaction from making commentary that is the kast word on the subject, because there iare 50 chapters just in Genesis. TE has much to be discussed, don't you think,if it is to be utilized as one of the seven ways to unseal the complicated text.

8) You encourage me in pursuing TE further, even in the sake of discussion, that these comments are both lliteral and analogous concerning the dictionary meaning of yom, day, in the Hebrew, and the 4th day dilemma for literal interpretators.

7) I wonder what you think about the interpretation of Elohim, plural for creator God,.. that is, reverently, mind you, referring to Elohim as the UniversalmPower, First Cause, Prime Mover, Unmoved Mover, etc...

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God, (The Universal Force) created the heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters.

6) - (5) -(4) - (3): I guess I sound like I am disputing these other six perspectives from which the scriptures may and have been interpreted. No, I am sublimenting, or complementing these ideas. Each one has had useful appkication and is proof of a faith in Truth of scripture. Each has been the answer to the doubters and Anti-christs throughout history, each in its own time and each quite satisfactory hypothesis for that age. Tge Ttaditionalist is not mockec]d in TE. These concepts which have been the foundation of belief in its day has also added and elucidated much. The scholars whose love of the Word is to be commended and whose many still valid teachings are not denigrated by adding TE in the hindsight. I apologize if it sounded like replacement of docttine was the point.
The way I see it, we have been told to accomodate our understanding of the Word to the knowledge of these amazing days, now, in the Age of Infornation.

Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold, (the golden spiritual insights), tried in the fire (of human understanding) that thou mayest be rich (in continued religious leadership); and (buy) white (blank pages for new doctrine as) raiment (to revise the books of your misinterpretations), that thou mayest be clothed (in human rationality), and that the shame of thy nakedness, (as visited in Geocentricism), do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve (of modern insights to apprise thine thinking), that thou mayest see (the unsupportability of thy intuitive irrationalities).

(2) Me too. And, it is good to share these thoughts together. By agenda, I meant that some people have written their thought down and now have a vested interest in merchanfising thw wares of their book. This is not to say that I feel the tables of their temple ought be overturned, becausevI suspect their interest in not pecuniary, but hope of distributing their contributions in an act of Christian sharing. And, I do not see TE competing with that interest, They rightfully represent the last gasps of dominance in such ideas, as in the YEC publications and magazine articles about searches for the Ark, for instance.
This is as it ought be, just, IMO, time is running out on these archaic theories.

(1) The traditional interpretations are not the hinderence as I see it.
The confusion that some people have in distinguishing the difference between the two separate ideas, faith in Jesus and belief that in the end that He is the way, the Truth, and the light confused with faith and belie in one's indisputable understand of scripture, traditional and ancient not withstanding is often the problem.

Rev. 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, (who is the spirit of a sociological drive towards Social Harmony), when he shall begin to sound (in an Age of Great Technology), the mystery of God, should be finished: (Man is evolving, mentally!) as he hath (informed) his servants the prophets.


Thank you for interacting with me on tgese posts,
kofhy

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yes, badically I quote you here:

The human nature is like an animal nature. Since it is our spirit that makes us sinful while animals are not considered sinful, ...

If the body, in and of itself is sinful, then animals are likewise sinful for their nature is really no different than ours. What is sinful is spiritually transferred {mentally}and bodies are only "contaminated" with sin by sin-marred spirits {of our psyche}. Animals have no sin-marred spirits {no conscious perconception of consequeces} therefore what they do naturally {God given instinctually} is not sin. What a man {in his Consciousness} does {unnaturally} is sin because man has a spirit {in hisconscious free will}.

If sin has marred the body physically, then we should expect a physical answer. If sin has marred the human body spiritually {mentally}, then we should expect a spiritual answer {a sin thought in the mind is as if it was or has been performed in the physical}. I think that since what we investigate in the physical realm cannot detect "fallenness" in a physical sense, we don't have a physical answer, but a spiritual {psychic} one. Fallenness is spiritually {psychic} discerned, not physically discerned.
(End of ehat you said.)


What we need to "nail down," IMO, is the perspective we can and ought decide upon from which to "view" what we are going to read in these scriptures.

It seems clear that there are (at least) seven different current perspectives. We mix them up, mix them together in debates, jump from one to another.

I list the seven to which I am referring for clarity:
1) The Hebrew Epic View
2) The Mythopaeic Story Line
3) The Literal
4) The metaphorical Interpretation
5) The Moralistic (Behavioral Modification) Reading
6) The Metaphysical Concept
7) The Informative Revelation

A TE interpretation necessarily requires that we think in the mode of The Informative Revelation. We do not know much about this approach because it is rather a new and different perspective.

We must be informed in regard to much secular knowledge, and by a close re-reading of every verse, to verify its exegesis within the TE and the remaining body of scripture.

With this in mind, a comprehensive overview is demanded, as a general frame.

This essential will pre-set our psychology in order to incorporate what we read thereafter, from Genesis forward, always with an eye on the omega, the ends, Revelation.
In this procedure, the alpha of Genesis intiates a concept which is followed by the means of all scripture between the first and the last. Between these two, Genesis's hypothesis and the theory to be verified in Revelation, there He must be, Christ.

Adding to your comments, below, this post enhances the interpretation of the meaning of original "sin."

This first disobedience was to the previous total semi-conscious, wild state, of our own animal responses.
We were effectively in God's garden, the "Eden" of the God of the Living.
Our behavior and motivations were as spotless as those of his other creatures. (Just as you say.)

We need only do a reality check, environmentally, to understand the meaning of this "original sin," the sin of choosing to "hear" the previously subconscious seven psychic "spirits."

quote:
"The human nature is like an animal nature. Since it is our spirit (our psyche) that makes us sinful (directed against life) while animals are not considered sinful (and kill not for pleasure nor stored treasures).
If the body, in and of itself is sinful, then animals are likewise sinful for their nature is really no different than ours.
What is sinful is spiritually (mentally) transferred and bodies are only "contaminated" with sin by sin-marred spirits, (self centered, selfish psychological rationals). Animals have no sin-marred spirits (all their thoughs programmed in unconscious God given instinct), therefore what they do naturally (in accord with God, Father Nature) is not sin (but normal behavior). What a man does naturally is sin because man has a (now conscious) spirit (free willing).

Consider that in the beginning, man, Adam, became the first and only conscious entity:

Gen. 3:22 And the Lord God, (as if a voice from withinAdam's Unconscious Mind), said, Behold, the man, (now a conscious psyche), is become as one of us, (self knowing and free willed), to know good and bad (intuitively): and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, (the Collective Unconscious Mind), and eat, (becoming fully awakened), and live forever, (remembering, phylogenetically, pre-existences):

The omega to follow in this TE interpretation:

Rev 21:5 And he, (the Homoiousian Mind), that sat upon the throne (of the Homoiousian Brain) said, Behold, I make all things new (in human experience). And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Revelation 22:1-3 And he shewed me a pure river of (thought as if) of water, (a flowing conscious awareness) of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne, (that is, the Homoiousian Brain) of God, (his image in the Homoiousian Mind), and of the lamb, (our archtypal Human Conscience).

Kofh2U,

You know that I think you are a very creative individual. But I think you make some things too...too...well, too complicated!

I think we can loose much when we put too much of our own thoughts into a passage. I believe in Ocham's razor. I think it a good philosophy to have. I also think it best to pretty much believe what is attainable by the average man. If we think we come away with some knowledge that is "new", we may be in danger of thinking we have some "hidden" knowledge that God has not revealed to the majority. I think thinking like that can be dangerous, actually. I think cults start out like that.

God bless,

Charleen

[kofh2u]

Kofh2U,

You know that I think you are a very creative individual. But I think you make some things too...too...well, too complicated!

I think we can loose much when we put too much of our own thoughts into a passage. I believe in Ocham's razor. I think it a good philosophy to have. I also think it best to pretty much believe what is attainable by the average man. If we think we come away with some knowledge that is "new", we may be in danger of thinking we have some "hidden" knowledge that God has not revealed to the majority. I think thinking like that can be dangerous, actually. I think cults start out like that.

God bless,

Charleen

Yes, Oscam's Razor is a very effective tool. The discussions on tweb demonstrate that after 2000 years of debate, no one particular insight into scripture answers all the many remaining mysteries, neither in the simplicity desired by a clean cut of Oscam's razor, nor the lengthy pronostications emanating from the multitudinous religious denominations.
Those metaphysically grounded ideas which we have before us, of the six types of interpretations I posted above in this thread, are totally irrational whether true or not. It is in that which they, those six current dogmas of the churches, also require faith... along with the required faith in Christ and his truth to be revealed.

Why fear another interpretation, especially when armed with Oscam's philosophy? We can check it against scripture and compile a list of unanswered matters.

John 10:20 He has a demon and is insane.

( From:The Living Bible, Campus Life Magazine, Youth for Christ International)

Matt. 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Matt. 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master,
and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them o his household?

more later.
thank though, because I realize you have my interest at heart.

But why not respond to the message instead of fearing a mad messenger?

kofhy

[A Beautiful Truth]

Why fear another interpretation, especially when armed with Oscam's philosophy? We can check it against scripture and compile a list of unanswered matters.

Truth is, kofh2u, I don't understand half of what you write. I told you before I think you are probably a very, very, bright individual. As of now in my life, I do not have the time, nor the inclination, to concentrate that hard to try to figure out your meanings in your posts in order to comment on what you write.

Please understand,

Charleen

[Augustine2004]

This might seem offtopic at first . . .

The Internet is not a net, a thing to catch animals with. The chair of a committee is not something to sit on (if she happens to be a woman and the sitter happens to be a man not her husband, she might slap him with a sexual harassment suit). The periodic table of the chemical elements is not something to chop onions on.

Now, let's try the exercise of explaining the Internet to an ancient Hebrew, limiting ourselves to his vocabulary. One not-bad try would be 'tree of knowledge and misinformation.'

Indeed, now I think of it, 'tree of knowledge' in Genesis does seem to be a metaphor for something that is not readily and easily explained in the language of the average ancient Hebrew. A push-back that may immediately occur to you is that God warned Adam & Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge. True, but that is in keeping with the metaphor anyhow.

One point in favor is that the ancient Hebrew was of a poetic turn of mind, more so than most Americans. Perhaps he or she would not necessarily think of the tree of knowledge as an actual plant with leaves and bark.

Now consider: The Internet is full of information on how to build or obtain deadly stuff. It is also where we get to access Theology Web, a force for good. I am thankful that most of us are mature and saintly enough to use the Internet for good purposes, but I don't have to mention people like Osama bin Laden, sigh, who might utilize it for nefarious purposes. What do you think of Adam with a nuclear bomb? Would you give a child a loaded gun?

Your thoughts?

[kofh2u]

This might seem offtopic at first . . .

The Internet is not a net, a thing to catch animals with. The chair of a committee is not something to sit on (if she happens to be a woman and the sitter happens to be a man not her husband, she might slap him with a sexual harassment suit). The periodic table of the chemical elements is not something to chop onions on.

Now, let's try the exercise of explaining the Internet to an ancient Hebrew, limiting ourselves to his vocabulary. One not-bad try would be 'tree of knowledge and misinformation.'

Indeed, now I think of it, 'tree of knowledge' in Genesis does seem to be a metaphor for something that is not readily and easily explained in the language of the average ancient Hebrew. A push-back that may immediately occur to you is that God warned Adam & Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge. True, but that is in keeping with the metaphor anyhow.

One point in favor is that the ancient Hebrew was of a poetic turn of mind, more so than most Americans. Perhaps he or she would not necessarily think of the tree of knowledge as an actual plant with leaves and bark.

Now consider: The Internet is full of information on how to build or obtain deadly stuff. It is also where we get to access Theology Web, a force for good. I am thankful that most of us are mature and saintly enough to use the Internet for good purposes, but I don't have to mention people like Osama bin Laden, sigh, who might utilize it for nefarious purposes. What do you think of Adam with a nuclear bomb? Would you give a child a loaded gun?

Your thoughts?

Hello Augustine2004,
Off topic?

Maybe not.

Many readers of Genesis come away misquoting, as do you, concerning this "apple tree" in the garden of Eden, calling it "the tree of knowledge."

As you can check, this is The Tree of the Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL."

It seems related to human Intuition, doesn't itz? Related to that archetypal Functional Facility sourced in the Jungian Anima?

Could we infer that somehow, the behavior motivated by this psychic apparatus is what is sinful?

From the Latin root, anima means the mind, particular that aspect of mind so observable and dominant in women.

The implication of eating this fruit, is that we then act as if we understand the consequences of our behavior in terms of morals, rules, and especially sexual mores.
This is the original sin, a form of consciousness, is an instrument of our free will. Who is this serpent that told Eve it would be good to eat? Is the serpent in a garden, an environment of mind? Are we reading about the first conscious entities interacting with one another? Could Adam be the masculine Libido, the snake the Id, source of the Pleasure Principle?

Is this "garden" the once unconscious and totally instinctual world of life, a world without humanoid Consciousness?

The TE interpretation could support such a 21st century view.

Certainly God is not against us eating from a tree of knowledge. He is all about truth. That people gloss over this tree of knowing of good and evil, ignoring the point that it concerns good and evil, infers that much of Genesis is misunderstood. Original sin becomes a symbol for metaphysical conjectures. People, here, posting earlier concerning such non-sensical hypotheses as to how this sin could be passed on generation after generation. Obviously, Modern Homo sapiens is a creature using this facility subconsciously, without recognition of the errors attributed to its use.

Is what I am saying "good or evil?"

Do people decide from a gut reaction, intuitively? Is the garden of Eden a metaphor concerning the Subconscious Mind of man? Did Adam and Eve consciously clothe themselves because sexual mores seemed good, nakedness evil?
Was Eve, metaphorical reference for a psychic "rib,"an evolved subconscious psychic facility of Intuition maturing in our earliest relative up the evolutionary ladder?

Gen. 2:9 And out of the (chemicals of the) ground made the Lord God to grow every (psychic) tree that is pleasant to the (in-)sight (of man), and good for the food (of thought); the tree of life, (the Collective Unconscious Mind) also in the midst of the garden (of the mind), and the (sub-conscious) tree, (the Anima/animus), (the source) of the knowledge of good and evil.

[Augustine2004]

Hello, Kof

Oh, no! I misspelled your name, Kofhu2. My apologies <kidding>. Re my misquoting the B. re the t. of k., that is to say, the tree of knowledge of good and evil . . .

Well, K, I don't know much about psychology. Never read Jung. What I do think is that you really do come up with unusual interpretations of the scripture. This is not to discourage you from offering them, this is just a compliment. Mind-stretching.

However, the ancient Hebrew does not know anything about modern psychology. Indeed, I suspect you should read books about ancient Hebrew society, culture and language. http://www.tektonics.org/arsenal.html has a list of books you might like to peruse.

With Christian regard, Gus2004

[George Murphy]

I've been away for awhile & won't try to respond to everything that's been said here in my absence. I will toss out a thought that's relevant to some of the discussions about original sin & evolution.

One question that's sometimes been raised is, how could Christ be free from the effects of original sin? & one way to answer that is in terms of Augustine's belief that original sin is transmitted because of the inordinate desire involved in sexual intercourse. If that's the case & if Jesus was conceived of a virgin then he would have been free from such sin. E.g., the way in which the Augsburg Confession states the doctrine of original sin seems to point in this direction. ("Since the fall of Adam all people begotten in the natural way [so natuerlich geboren sind] are born with sin ...")

But this has a consequence that no one before the 20th century would have thought of: Any human clone - & indeed some babies conceived through IVF (depending on how the sperm was obtained) would be free from original sin.

This would seem to demolish Augustine's idea, at least in the way in which it is usually understood. Of course there are other things wrong with A's idea (e.g., its rather warped view of sex) so this may seem like a solution to a non-problem, but it seemed to be worthy of mention.

This idea of Augustine differs from the belief that original sin is some type of taint (whether strictly "genetic" or not) that is passed on from parents to children quite apart from any ideas about the sinfulness of sexual intercourse. But then virginal conception doesn't make Jesus free of original sin - unless, as I noted earlier, Mary was freed from original sin at her conception, as RC teaching holds.

Shalom,
George

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

George,

So nice to have you back.

I hope that you will enter our discussion over in Natural Sciences--the topic came up again. I cannot let this rest and I would appreciate your input

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30638&page=2

Thanks,

Charleen

[kofh2u]

Hello, Kof

Oh, no! I misspelled your name, Kofhu2. My apologies <kidding>. Re my misquoting the B. re the t. of k., that is to say, the tree of knowledge of good and evil . . .

Well, K, I don't know much about psychology. Never read Jung. What I do think is that you really do come up with unusual interpretations of the scripture. This is not to discourage you from offering them, this is just a compliment. Mind-stretching.

However, the ancient Hebrew does not know anything about modern psychology. Indeed, I suspect you should read books about ancient Hebrew society, culture and language. http://www.tektonics.org/arsenal.html has a list of books you might like to peruse.

With Christian regard, Gus2004

Hahaaa...
I guess you could get me on that, interpreting the prophecy of Revelation and ignoring that it was written for people who lived 3300 years ago!

How would they be expected to understand the meanings I post in the 21st century?

Of course, those people did not understand, did they?

Today, most say they understand hard bible concepts only in terms of metaphysical explanations, ie; non-concrete, irrational non-scientific terms.

Now, here is the matter in short, what I post can not be denied by the science community, but is not acceptable to the religious community.

What I see is that the posters here stick to ancient doctrines that have not the power to explain a list, a long list of things. Not explain t
em rationally. Not explain them to educated scoffers.

I can.

Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold, (the golden spiritual insights), tried in the fire (of human understanding) that thou mayest be rich (in continued religious leadership); and (buy) white (blank pages for new doctrine as) raiment (to revise the books of your misinterpretations), that thou mayest be clothed (in human rationality), and that the shame of thy nakedness, (as visited in Geocentricism), do not appear; and anoint thine eyes wit eyesalve (of modern insights to apprise thine thinking), that thou mayest see (the unsupportability of thy intuitive irrationalities).

[Augustine2004]

Revelation 3,300 years ago?

[kofh2u]

Hello, Kof

Oh, no! I misspelled your name, Kofhu2. My apologies <kidding>. Re my misquoting the B. re the t. of k., that is to say, the tree of knowledge of good and evil . . .

Well, K, I don't know much about psychology. Never read Jung. What I do think is that you really do come up with unusual interpretations of the scripture. This is not to discourage you from offering them, this is just a compliment. Mind-stretching.

However, the ancient Hebrew does not know anything about modern psychology. Indeed, I suspect you should read books about ancient Hebrew society, culture and language. http://www.tektonics.org/arsenal.html has a list of books you might like to peruse.

With Christian regard, Gus2004


I don't think I responded to you statement that neither you nor the ancient zHebrews knew anything about psychology.

I believe you know ALL you need to, really, and the ancient Hebrews are the ones who explained it!

These sources of motivation behind our behavior are called evil, and they apparently have long been just that.

They are the seven evil "godlike" entities referred to by Jesus in the Book of Matthew. But, we are familiar with them, roses by other names, that is all that is different:

Satan = Libido = physical urges and drives

Lucifer = Id = The Pleasyre Principle

Baalzebub = Self = The Reality Principle

Mammon = Ego - The Aggressive Drive

False Prophet = Superego = Logical/mathematical thinking

False Shepherd = Sense of psychic bakance = Harmony Principle = Self-efficacy

Devil = Anima/animus = The Feminine Principle

And, of course,
The Holy Spirit = Conscience = Interpersonal Integrity

[George Murphy]

George,

So nice to have you back.

I hope that you will enter our discussion over in Natural Sciences--the topic came up again. I cannot let this rest and I would appreciate your input

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30638&page=2
Charleen -

I looked over the thread you referenced & decided that unfortunately the discussion was too far along for me to be able to contribute useful to it there. Briefly, the idea that original sin can be dealt with adequately in terms of the sin of Adam simply being imputed to all other humans is one that doesn't impress me much. The supposed parallel with the imputation of the righteousness of Christ only works if one views justification as a kind of legal fiction - that God pretends we're righteous even though we really aren't. Admittedly that idea has often been held. But it ignores the fact that what God says happens - God's word is creative. So while God indeed declares us righteous when we aren't, that declaration itself is the basis for our sanctification.

Now by the same token, God's declaration that people are sinners because of Adam's sin would mean that God makes people sinners, so that God would be the cause of sin. & that's obviously problematic.

We can pursue that further on this thread if anyone wants to. It makes more sense here: I still think that debating essentially theological issues under the heading of "natural sciences" is strange.

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

"Now by the same token, God's declaration that people are sinners because of Adam's sin would mean that God makes people sinners, so that God would be the cause of sin. & that's obviously problematic."

This one sentence, itself, has too many terms all tied into long doctrines.
These terms "God," and "sin," and "sinners" who are guilty by genetic inheritance, and a God who can be guilty of creating sin is a confusing as the assumption of one who detests it, but manufactures it.

These are all presumptuous focal points for which there are teachings that have been satisfactory response once, but no longer work.

We all know these church doctrines have long been unsuccessful answers, and the proof lies in that you admit, that we will be no more successful, suggesting, "debate" is coming.

This "orignal sin," described in allegory form, is found within the first three chapters, a mere two pages into the Torah. Defining terms eliminates some of the semantical difficulties a young secular teenager, for instance, might have in what she reads thus far in the Bible.

What do you say to this young person, a person who already expects a long winded, non-stop explanation that ends, leaving the proselyte worse off than when she began, ... ie, here, debating the same concepts with us, years later?

Define God, based ONLY on what she and I have read so far, Gen 1-3..

Explain the "rib."

Why is nakeness such a prominent part of the matter, and does not apparently God perfer nudity?

What are these Cherubim who now keep us out of the garden?

Is the garden a real place trapped by a border of four rivers in the Middle East,... because people are still in it, then.

What is the Tree of Life?

What is your definition of the Tree of the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL?

What I am saying to you people is that an educated, intelligent young girl KNOWS you don't have a clue, and that you will be occupying her valuable time. The consequences will be frustration. If she engages serious reflection concerning the ancient explanations, meeting here with us in her future,... guessing and selling totally unrelated other ideas of our own,... sanctification, justification, speculation,..

We MUST do better.

Protestantism in America has fallen to 53% in the listing of religious affiliation. Another humorous book came out last week, widely editorialized, mocking the Noah's Ark story by focusing upon all the animal (bull and dinosaur) crap that would need shoveling.

Do se my concern, these ancient long winded reply are not to the point, like in the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation.

Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold, (the golden spiritual insights), tried in the fire (of human understanding) that thou mayest be rich (in continued religious leadership); and (buy) white (blank pages for new doctrine as) raiment (to revise the books of your misinterpretations), that thou mayest be clothed (in human rationality), and that the shame of thy nakedness, (as visited in Geocentricism), do not appear; and anoint thine eyes wit eyesalve (of modern insights to apprise thine thinking), that thou mayest see (the unsupportability of thy intuitive irrationalities).

[George Murphy]

"Now by the same token, God's declaration that people are sinners because of Adam's sin would mean that God makes people sinners, so that God would be the cause of sin. & that's obviously problematic."

This one sentence, itself, has too many terms all tied into long doctrines.
These terms "God," and "sin," and "sinners" who are guilty by genetic inheritance, and a God who can be guilty of creating sin is a confusing as the assumption of one who detests it, but manufactures it.

These are all presumptuous focal points for which there are teachings that have been satisfactory response once, but no longer work.

We all know these church doctrines have long been unsuccessful answers, and the proof lies in that you admit, that we will be no more successful, suggesting, "debate" is coming.1st, you have apparently misunderstood me. I was referring to the attempt - set out in the thread that Charleen cited - to understand original sin in terms of the legal imputation of Adam's sin to the rest of humanity. I thought that I made it clear that I didn't agree with that argument & was pointing out what I saw as one defect in it.

2d, I'm afraid that your wording is confusing & while I understand your general point I'm not sure of the details of your criticism. I gather that you think that traditional terminology and concepts for dealing with "original sin" are inadequate & to a considerable extent I agree. But what we need to do today is not simply to dump the doctrinal forms of the past but to try to express, in more terms that are more satisfactory today, what our ancestors in the faith were trying to saying back then. & to do that, we have to 1st understand what they were saying.

What I am saying to you people is that an educated, intelligent young girl KNOWS you don't have a clueThis is just bombast. Of course we want to express the Christian message in ways that are comprehensible to people today. We need to be able to communicate with your "educated, intelligent young girl" but that doesn't mean that she gets to sit in judgment on the message itself. God's word judges us, not vice versa. Of course nobody, whether educated, intelligent, & young or not, likes the idea that he or she is a sinner.

We MUST do better.

Protestantism in America has fallen to 53% in the listing of religious affiliation. Another humorous book came out last week, widely editorialized, mocking the Noah's Ark story by focusing upon all the animal (bull and dinosaur) crap that would need shoveling.We sure won't do better by trying to argue for the historical accuracy of a worldwide flood.

Do se my concern, these ancient long winded reply are not to the point, like in the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation.If "ancient long winded reply" means "trying to do serious theology within the Christian tradition" then I plead guilty.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

The ANE cultures used myth for their creation stories, and those myths segued into the historical accounts and genealogies.

Oh, Solly, I am going over this thread again and I see that I missed this post of yours.

Please, explain this. This is important to our discussion.

Scripture is incarnated in a culture, it is not some ethereal substance that descends from above. It is incarnated in the minds of the writers, or else you have mediumistic automatic writing which they could not understand. Scriptural revelation works through the culture it arrives in, that is why we make so much these days of the Hebraic clothes revelation comes dressed in. L S Thornton, in Revelation and the Modern World, points out that the failure of Liberalism with regard to the Bible, was that it thought it could divest revelation of the Hebraic clothes, and see the naked truth, when in actual fact it just reclothed it in 19th century philosophical clothes. Now there are some who want to redress it in 21st century scientistic clothes, instead of studying the clothes God dressed his truth in. That is the starting point.

We need more of this understanding. Have you any more to say about it?

~Charleen

[A Beautiful Truth]

As I have been discussing on another thread, the truths of scripture can be more than a simple collation of facts, and the Genesis account could well be a case of God saying - bearing in mind the polemical nature of a creatoin account amongst other creation accounts in ANE - THIS is how it is, I am in charge, and this is who you are. When I remind my son that he should obey his father, I don't need to give him a detailed account of conception and gestation, and all that DNA stuff to prove it.
slly

I did not read this the first time around, Solly, I am glad I am going through this thread again. I am so far very comfortable with what you are saying here.

What needs to be worked out is how to justify this way of looking at the text--"THIS is how it is, I am in charge, and this is who you are" with sin--how it is transferred if not by the actual account in Adam. I am not wholly satisfied with the thought that God endowed mankind with spirit collectively and that they all went astray. That seems to show that it was fixed from the beginning if *no one* made it. Just can't get passed this, though I'd very much like to embrace the ideas you and George have been tossing around.

~Charleen

[reyvin]

George,

After several pages I guess I've got to ask: How then, do you read the G 1 account? I realize you're an evolutionist...but then how do you treat the text fairly both exegetically and linguistically? Not an attempt at being disagreeable here, just wanting to get 'the straight dope'.

[kofh2u]

I did not read this the first time around, Solly, I am glad I am going through this thread again. I am so far very comfortable with what you are saying here.

What needs to be worked out is how to justify this way of looking at the text--"THIS is how it is, I am in charge, and this is who you are" with sin--how it is transferred if not by the actual account in Adam. I am not wholly satisfied with the thought that God endowed mankind with spirit collectively and that they all went astray. That seems to show that it was fixed from the beginning if *no one* made it. Just can't get passed this, though I'd very much like to embrace the ideas you and George have been tossing around.

~Charleen



Oscam's answer:

Gen. 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, (Consciousness), thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof (relying upon free will) thou shalt surely die (as a species).

[A Beautiful Truth]

Oscam's answer:

Gen. 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, (Consciousness), thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof (relying upon free will) thou shalt surely die (as a species).

So you are saying God did not want man to have his own consciousness? ?

~Charleen

[A Beautiful Truth]

Now by the same token, God's declaration that people are sinners because of Adam's sin would mean that God makes people sinners, so that God would be the cause of sin. & that's obviously problematic.


Quite so. I have not seen a way passed it. I think it fails, so far, then.

So back to our problem here of all men collectively "falling". George, if *no one* made it, certainly it was not a fair test. I am no closer to solving these issues. Please, let us continue until we have spoken all that we can about it.

~Charleen

[Augustine2004]

I probably need to reread many posts here, but it seems to me that some people should be thinking of sin as not having a right relationship with God Our Lord, including having a reverent attitude. This might be oversimplifying, but nevertheless it perhaps must be part of our understanding of sin. One example is a person who is rather ignorant of, and makes no effort to know, Jesus Christ. Also, we don't expect babies to be born with the right relationship. Maybe that is one instance of original sin.

[George Murphy]

I probably need to reread many posts here, but it seems to me that some people should be thinking of sin as not having a right relationship with God Our Lord, including having a reverent attitude. This might be oversimplifying, but nevertheless it perhaps must be part of our understanding of sin. One example is a person who is rather ignorant of, and makes no effort to know, Jesus Christ. Also, we don't expect babies to be born with the right relationship. Maybe that is one instance of original sin.I think it was Tillich who said that before sin is an act, it is a state. We commit sinful acts because we are estranged from God. Luther brings this out very well in his explanation of the 10 Commandments in the Small Catechism, by making obedience to #s 2-10 dependent on keeping 1. ("We should fear and love God that we may not ...")

A few years ago a local atheist in a letter to the paper made the statement "All babies are born 100% atheists." He apparently thought that he was making a very telling point against Christianity but Christians who hold a traditional view of original sin will just reply, "You got that right."

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Quite so. I have not seen a way passed it. I think it fails, so far, then.

So back to our problem here of all men collectively "falling". George, if *no one* made it, certainly it was not a fair test. I am no closer to solving these issues. Please, let us continue until we have spoken all that we can about it.
Just because a whole class fails a test doesn't mean that it was necessarily unfair. Maybe they all goofed off & didn't study. God doesn't grade on a curve.

But more seriously: Part of the problem may be in thinking of of the problem of sin as one of failing an arbitrary test. But if God acts (as I believe he normally does) through natural processes, and human beings developed through those processes, then what confronted the first humans was not an arbitrarily posed test but a severe tension between the way they'd developed and what was required of them when they were able somehow to be aware of some aspect of God's will for them.

& most important: God's aim in creation was not simply those first humans. Even before they came into being, God's purpose was the Incarnation, the "one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin" (Heb.4:15). & our possibility of being sinless is in him.

(BTW, "tested" there could also be rendered "tempted" - peirazo can mean either or both.)

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

George,

After several pages I guess I've got to ask: How then, do you read the G 1 account? I realize you're an evolutionist...but then how do you treat the text fairly both exegetically and linguistically? Not an attempt at being disagreeable here, just wanting to get 'the straight dope'.I'm not ignoring this but don't have the time to do it justice right now. Bug me if I don't get back to it in a few days.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

Just because a whole class fails a test doesn't mean that it was necessarily unfair. Maybe they all goofed off & didn't study. God doesn't grade on a curve.

Cute analogy. Keeping up the analogy--or perhaps it reflects poorly on the instructor...

But more seriously: Part of the problem may be in thinking of of the problem of sin as one of failing an arbitrary test. But if God acts (as I believe he normally does) through natural processes, and human beings developed through those processes, then what confronted the first humans was not an arbitrarily posed test but a severe tension between the way they'd developed and what was required of them when they were able somehow to be aware of some aspect of God's will for them.

But we are completely speculating at this point--I don't like it here, we have no grounding. To develop this, we have to speculate how long this time period lasted to make it justified in securing all men thereafter into this "fallen" state--or maybe you have a better understanding.

Then, possibly, we have to ask, what of the part of the myth, or theological message, if mankind *would have* chosen God? What then? According to the Garden story, they could have lived there with the Tree of Life which would have sustained them physically.

I heard someone say that since the account was written as Moses and the Israelites were in the dessert, that the Garden analogy helped them with their view/hope of the promised land.


(BTW, "tested" there could also be rendered "tempted" - peirazo can mean either or both.)

Please explain further. I know He tests us but He does not tempt us with evil. Please explain.

[kofh2u]

So you are saying God did not want man to have his own consciousness? ?

~Charleen


I guess.

Seems that man's consciousness creates a state of freedom, a process where man himself can will that his behavior take a course perhaps off the more instinctual way that is compatible with his more satisfactiory evolution.

But, at thus point in the scripture, Gen 2, I am merely invent this supposition based upon what I have read so far. I reserve the right to rethink this as I continue.

But, so far this seems to complement this other post:

"But if God acts, as I believe he normally does, through natural processes,..."

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters.

..."and human beings developed through those processes. What confronted the first humans..."

Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God, Father Nature, formed (the first humanoid), man, (Ramaphiticus), from the dust of (12 families of chemical elements) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils (oxygen), the breath of life; and man became a living soul, (psyche).

This represented what "...was not an arbitrarily posed test, but a severe tension between the way they'd developed and what was required of them when they were able somehow to be aware of some aspect of God's will for them."

Gen. 3:3 But of the tree of (Conscious) knowledge of good and evil (ideas) God, hath said, Ye shall not "eat"of it, lest ye die (and become an extinct species).

[Augustine2004]

Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God, Father Nature, formed (the first humanoid), man, (Ramaphiticus), from the dust of (12 families of chemical elements) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils (oxygen), the breath of life; and man became a living soul, (psyche).

Gen. 3:3 But of the tree of (Conscious) knowledge of good and evil (ideas) God, hath said, Ye shall not "eat"of it, lest ye die (and become an extinct species).Kofh2u, I could not help feel that you are making, begging your pardon, a mockery of the Bible. 'Ramaphiticus'?? If you were not making a mockery of the Bible, where did you get such an idea?

[kofh2u]

Kofh2u, I could not help feel that you are making, begging your pardon, a mockery of the Bible. 'Ramaphiticus'?? If you were not making a mockery of the Bible, where did you get such an idea?



Rev. 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich (a large denominational church), and increased with goods (accumulated art treasure, land, and income from tithes), and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched (without secularly acceptable scripture confirmations), and miserable, (entrapped in erroneous doctrine and blind dogma), and poor (in a declining membership), and nake (and unprotected from the ever growing Age of Enlightment):

[George Murphy]

I guess.

Seems that man's consciousness creates a state of freedom, a process where man himself can will that his behavior take a course perhaps off the more instinctual way that is compatible with his more satisfactiory evolution.

But, at thus point in the scripture, Gen 2, I am merely invent this supposition based upon what I have read so far. I reserve the right to rethink this as I continue.

But, so far this seems to complement this other post:

"But if God acts, as I believe he normally does, through natural processes,..."

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters.

..."and human beings developed through those processes. What confronted the first humans..."

Gen. 2:7 And the Lord God, Father Nature, formed (the first humanoid), man, (Ramaphiticus), from the dust of (12 families of chemical elements) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils (oxygen), the breath of life; and man became a living soul, (psyche).

This represented what "...was not an arbitrarily posed test, but a severe tension between the way they'd developed and what was required of them when they were able somehow to be aware of some aspect of God's will for them."

Gen. 3:3 But of the tree of (Conscious) knowledge of good and evil (ideas) God, hath said, Ye shall not "eat"of it, lest ye die (and become an extinct species).I'm afraid I can't comment on this since I don't have the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Cute analogy. Keeping up the analogy--or perhaps it reflects poorly on the instructor...Perhaps. But if the instructor is God, isn't the 1st alternative more likely?

But we are completely speculating at this point--I don't like it here, we have no grounding. To develop this, we have to speculate how long this time period lasted to make it justified in securing all men thereafter into this "fallen" state--or maybe you have a better understanding.There is a certtain amount of speculation involved in trying to think about how the 1st hominids to have some awareness of God might have thought and acted. But that speculation need not be completely baseless. We do know something about the processes by which humanity arose (natural selection) and the behavior of our nearest extant primate relatives. And this suggests that the 1st humans, while not compelled to sin, would have had a strong tendency to engage in actions that we would consider sinful. So the possibility of any significant "golden age" doesn't seem very high.

Then, possibly, we have to ask, what of the part of the myth, or theological message, if mankind *would have* chosen God? What then? According to the Garden story, they could have lived there with the Tree of Life which would have sustained them physically.Even if that's the case, it means that the 1st humans in that story were not of themselves immortal. And the point of the story as it now stands is that the possibility of immortality was not attained by the 1st humans.

& in the larger context, the Tree of Life is the cross.

I heard someone say that since the account was written as Moses and the Israelites were in the dessert, that the Garden analogy helped them with their view/hope of the promised land.The picture of a garden created out of dry land does seem to correspond to the hopes of desert nomads.

Please explain further. I know He tests us but He does not tempt us with evil. Please explain."Tempt" & "test" are closely related. The KJV of Gen.22:1 says that "God did tempt Abraham" but NRSV says "God tested Abraham." The Hebrew nsh, like Greek peirazo, can bear both senses. James 1:13 says "God tempts no one."
Peirazei has to have that meaning there, for God does test people, & if this is to be consistent with the Genesis story we have to say "God tested Abraham."

To test means to put a task before a person to see how well he/she can do.
A good teacher wants pupils to be able to pass the tests that are posed. To tempt means to put some possibility before a person to try to get him or her to do something wrong. What is placed before the person can be both.

Think of the stories of Jesus' temptations in the wilderness. The things offered to Jesus by "the tempter" are indeed temptations to leave the path required of the Son of God, & the tempter is trying to get him to leave that path. But God allows these temptations & uses them as tests to show that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. When the tempter says "If you are the Son of God ..." it's a temptation to a wrong understanding of what it means to be the Son of God. What Jesus shows by resisting these suggestions is what it really does mean.

& while we are given few details, it seems that the Marcan account of the temptation (1:12-13), where Jesus is with the wild beasts, may picture Jesus as recapitulating the testing of Adam, but passing where Adam failed. (As the stories in Mt & Lk picture Jesus going through the same tests as Israel in the wilderness.)

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

I'm afraid I can't comment on this since I don't have the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Shalom,
George


Dan. 12:10 ...: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Dan. 12:10 ...: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Kof2u, do you have any other reason for thinking of George Murphy as "wicked" besides the fact that he did not understand your post? Are we all to be committed to understanding your posts to be deemed wise and to avoid being called "wicked"?

I once again tell you of my concern for you that you need to be careful you do not fall into the mindset of cults with your "special knowledge" that you have and deem others "wicked" when they do not understand.

God has obviously gifted you, please be vigilant to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, including in His simplicity. Even a child can understand what is really important about Christianity, never forget that.

~Charleen

[A Beautiful Truth]

Perhaps. But if the instructor is God, isn't the 1st alternative more likely?

There is a certtain amount of speculation involved in trying to think about how the 1st hominids to have some awareness of God might have thought and acted. But that speculation need not be completely baseless. We do know something about the processes by which humanity arose (natural selection) and the behavior of our nearest extant primate relatives. And this suggests that the 1st humans, while not compelled to sin, would have had a strong tendency to engage in actions that we would consider sinful. So the possibility of any significant "golden age" doesn't seem very high.


George, it just seems strange to me to try to explain humanity naturalistically but then add this whole spiritual element to it. It does not seem consistent to me.


George, do you have much knowledge about ancient Near East cultures and their myths used to explain things? Solly brought up a point a while back that I want to investigate.

As I have been discussing on another thread, the truths of scripture can be more than a simple collation of facts, and the Genesis account could well be a case of God saying - bearing in mind the polemical nature of a creatoin account amongst other creation accounts in ANE - THIS is how it is, I am in charge, and this is who you are. When I remind my son that he should obey his father, I don't need to give him a detailed account of conception and gestation, and all that DNA stuff to prove it.
slly (bold mine)

Scripture is incarnated in a culture, it is not some ethereal substance that descends from above. It is incarnated in the minds of the writers, or else you have mediumistic automatic writing which they could not understand. Scriptural revelation works through the culture it arrives in, that is why we make so much these days of the Hebraic clothes revelation comes dressed in. L S Thornton, in Revelation and the Modern World, points out that the failure of Liberalism with regard to the Bible, was that it thought it could divest revelation of the Hebraic clothes, and see the naked truth, when in actual fact it just reclothed it in 19th century philosophical clothes. Now there are some who want to redress it in 21st century scientistic clothes, instead of studying the clothes God dressed his truth in. That is the starting point.

What do you know of this?

& in the larger context, the Tree of Life is the cross.

So even if it was not a literal story, we have a God inspired theological truth in it, is that what you are saying?

The picture of a garden created out of dry land does seem to correspond to the hopes of desert nomads.

And in our lives we have heaven with the Tree of Life once more to look forward to...

"Tempt" & "test" are closely related. The KJV of Gen.22:1 says that "God did tempt Abraham" but NRSV says "God tested Abraham." The Hebrew nsh, like Greek peirazo, can bear both senses. James 1:13 says "God tempts no one."
Peirazei has to have that meaning there, for God does test people, & if this is to be consistent with the Genesis story we have to say "God tested Abraham."

To test means to put a task before a person to see how well he/she can do.
A good teacher wants pupils to be able to pass the tests that are posed. To tempt means to put some possibility before a person to try to get him or her to do something wrong. What is placed before the person can be both.



George, I still have not figured out how or why the test/temptation of the first "spiritually awakened" beings ended with them? If we are to take the evolutionary understanding of man, why did man's oppurtunity to have a nature free free of sin end with them? (Is this where the answer would be, well, we have this understanding because this is what the theological explaination tells us in the Garden account in Genesis)

Also, I have not been able to really understand the likening of infant alcohol syndrome. This is just not connecting yet for me.


& while we are given few details, it seems that the Marcan account of the temptation (1:12-13), where Jesus is with the wild beasts, may picture Jesus as recapitulating the testing of Adam, but passing where Adam failed.

This is stretching me--how is the test similar?

(As the stories in Mt & Lk picture Jesus going through the same tests as Israel in the wilderness.)

Interesting, I like it.

[George Murphy]

Charleen -

I apologize for my delay in responding. Among other things, I've been trying to free myself up for more intensive research on just the issues you want to pursue, original sin &c. So my responses will be rather tentative &
brief.


George, it just seems strange to me to try to explain humanity naturalistically but then add this whole spiritual element to it. It does not seem consistent to me.I'm not really try to "add" a spiritual element to the physical. I think it's more plausible to think of humans as unified entities - body/soul/spirit/mind - & so want to talk about God's relationship with such entities.


George, do you have much knowledge about ancient Near East cultures and their myths used to explain things? Solly brought up a point a while back that I want to investigate.
What do you know of this?I'm not an expert on ANE cultures but I think what Solly said is plausible.



So even if it was not a literal story, we have a God inspired theological truth in it, is that what you are saying?Pretty much

George, I still have not figured out how or why the test/temptation of the first "spiritually awakened" beings ended with them? If we are to take the evolutionary understanding of man, why did man's oppurtunity to have a nature free free of sin end with them? (Is this where the answer would be, well, we have this understanding because this is what the theological explaination tells us in the Garden account in Genesis)

Also, I have not been able to really understand the likening of infant alcohol syndrome. This is just not connecting yet for me.Our environment - not just the physical one but our cultural & spiritual environment - has changed. As humans continued to sin they got farther from God & thus were less & less able to resist temptation. My anaogy of fetal alcohol syndrome was intended to illustrate that: From birth, & even before, we are subjected to spiritually destructive influences, even though they are not strictly encoded in our genes. (Fetal alcohol syndrome is not genetic but is an consequence of the uterine environment.)

This is stretching me--how is the test [Mk. 1:12-13 & Gen.3] similar?
The connection is admittedly an inference. In the temptation stories in Mt & Lk it's pretty clear - from the verses of Dt. that Jesus quotes in response to the tempter - that he is being subjected to the same temptations/tests Israel faced in the wilderness. Israel - God's "firstborn son" (Ex.4:22) - failed. But Jesus - God's son by nature - passes.

When we turn to Mk the temptation story is told quite differently. But the presence of the "wild beasts" recalls Adam naming the animals in Gen.2, so we might guess (in analogy with what Mt & Lk do) that Jesus is to be seen here as resisting the temptation to which Adam succumbed. It is a guess, but I think not a crazy one.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

A further note on the "transmission" of original sin. In the western tradition this has often been thought of in rather individualistic terms - each one of us is a sinner from birth. That corresponds to the very individualistic way that salvation has been thought of (especially in American Christianity). But this tends to ignore the corporate character of sin - that we aren't just a bunch of individuals who all happen to be sinners but that we are parts of a group that is sinful.

The corporate or social character of sin has gotten more attention since the rise of the social gospal movement in the early 20th century & more recently has been emphasized by liberation theologians & others who today talk about "structures of sin" in societies that continue economic injustice, racism &c. Now that kind of thing clearly has been open to being politicized & used simply as a way of those who disagree with some groups economic &c policies. In attention, the individual aspect of sin shouldn't be ignored. But the idea that there are "structures of sin" in the world is helpful in understanding the strong "environmental" aspect of original sin & its transmission from one generation to another that I've referred to. Children who grow up in a racist society "naturally" become racists &c.

Comments?

Shalom,
George

[reyvin]

A further note on the "transmission" of original sin. In the western tradition this has often been thought of in rather individualistic terms - each one of us is a sinner from birth. That corresponds to the very individualistic way that salvation has been thought of (especially in American Christianity). But this tends to ignore the corporate character of sin - that we aren't just a bunch of individuals who all happen to be sinners but that we are parts of a group that is sinful.

The corporate or social character of sin has gotten more attention since the rise of the social gospal movement in the early 20th century & more recently has been emphasized by liberation theologians & others who today talk about "structures of sin" in societies that continue economic injustice, racism &c. Now that kind of thing clearly has been open to being politicized & used simply as a way of those who disagree with some groups economic &c policies. In attention, the individual aspect of sin shouldn't be ignored. But the idea that there are "structures of sin" in the world is helpful in understanding the strong "environmental" aspect of original sin & its transmission from one generation to another that I've referred to. Children who grow up in a racist society "naturally" become racists &c.

Comments?

Shalom,
George

Just bumping this back in here for ya George:

George,

After several pages I guess I've got to ask: How then, do you read the G 1 account? I realize you're an evolutionist...but then how do you treat the text fairly both exegetically and linguistically? Not an attempt at being disagreeable here, just wanting to get 'the straight dope'.

[kofh2u]

Just bumping this back in here for ya George:

George,

After several pages I guess I've got to ask: How then, do you read the G 1 account? I realize you're an evolutionist...but then how do you treat the text fairly both exegetically and linguistically? Not an attempt at being disagreeable here, just wanting to get 'the straight dope'.


Yes, you ask the right questions, indeed.

Two Genesis verses can be interpreted as illustrated below, which gives foundation for concept of free will sin that follows everthereafter.

Gen. 1:26 And God, (The Universal Force, the Macrocosmos), said, "Let us, (the Natural Laws), make man, (a human mind,) in our image (to model us, the Universe, as in a Microcosmos of his mind, in order that our image might be modeled after our own orderly organization): and let him (that human mind,) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."


Then the original problem concerning the Tree of Good and Evil....

Gen. 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, (Consciousness), thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, (relying henceforth upon free will), thou shalt surely die (as a species).


Enter the evil spirits:

1) Satan = Libido = physical urges and drives

2) Lucifer = Id = The Pleasyre Principle

3) Baalzebub = Self = The Reality Principle

4) Mammon = Ego - The Aggressive Drive

5) False Prophet = Superego = Logical/mathematical thinking

6) False Shepherd = Sense of psychic balance = Harmony Principle = Self-efficacy

7) Devil = Anima/animus = The Feminine Principle

[George Murphy]

Just bumping this back in here for ya George:

George,

After several pages I guess I've got to ask: How then, do you read the G 1 account? I realize you're an evolutionist...but then how do you treat the text fairly both exegetically and linguistically? Not an attempt at being disagreeable here, just wanting to get 'the straight dope'.I’m finally getting around to some sort of response to this request. I should say first that the primary questions about Genesis 1, at least as they have to do with issues of creation and evolution, are hermeneutical rather than exegetical. Thus in the following I’m not going through a verse by verse treatment. But I’ll be glad to respond to specific questions about the way I read the text.

Briefly, Genesis 1:1-2:4a is a theological statement about God’s creation of the world and of humanity in particular. By that I don’t mean that it’s a treatise of systematic theology in the modern sense, but that its intention to convey a convincing message about “God and divine things.” This message about God and God’s work is expressed in language and though forms of the cultures of the ancient near east, and the picture there of the physical structure of the world (with the “dome” of the heavens and the “waters above the heavens” &c) is that of an ancient culture. Theologically this is to be understood as God’s accommodation to the capacities of people at a particular place and time, an accommodation which has some elements in common with the Incarnation.

Though I would not be dogmatic about it, I think that the belief of most critical scholars that this creation story took the form that we now have around the sixth century B.C. Among other things, the fact that it seems to have at least a couple of elements of polemic against ideas about creation in Babylonian polytheism (the divine status of the celestial bodies and the servile status of humanity) is consistent with this idea.


Did the writer of this account think of it as account of “history as it really happened?” I can’t say for sure – and I don’t think anybody else can either. (Scholars sometimes imagine that they have an unrealistic ability to get inside the heads of people in very different cultures of thousands of years ago.) Probably the writer thought of the account as one of events that took place in the distant past but some care is needed. It seems likely that the placement on the creation of the “lights” on the 4th day was deliberate polemic against astral worship, & a writer who did that would have realized that he was not doing that for the sake of historical order.


In any case, I don’t think that we should now read this account, in its canonical context, as historical. There is evidence both internal (the differences between this account and Genesis 2:4b-25) and external (scientific evidence about the age of the earth and the history of life) to the contrary.


But of course that does not mean that the text is not true and authoritative for Christians, or that the theological points it makes are insignificant. Among the latter I would mention:

God’s complete sovereignty over the world.

Creation by the Word.

The distinction between the world and God.

The goodness of creation.

The mediated character of the creation of living things.

The special privilege and responsibility of humanity.

The creation of time and the intention that creation should move toward a goal,
symbolized by the Sabbath.

I have already mentioned the polemic against Babylonian religion with
its worship of the heavenly bodies and its belief that human beings were made to
be slaves of the gods.

I have not mentioned here the concept of creatio ex nihilo. I think, following
Westermann, that the traditional rendering of 1:1 is correct: “In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth.” As he puts it, this is as "a heading that takes in everything in the narrative in one single sentence." (Claus Westermann, Genesis 1:1-11: A Commentary [Augsburg, 1984], p.94.) Certainly this account does not picture God as completely sovereign over creation, but it isn’t completely clear that there’s no pre-existing material. A clear concept of creatio ex nihilo only emerges later. II Maccabees 7:28 is the first explicit statement of the concept.


I hope that this is helpful & will be glad to expand upon any points if anyone would like. Needless to say, I don’t expect everyone to agree completely with what I’ve said here.


Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

George,

Good post, well thought.

Please help me understand this last part:

Certainly this account does not picture God as completely sovereign over creation, but it isn’t completely clear that there’s no pre-existing material. A clear concept of [/font][/size]creatio ex nihilo only emerges later. II Maccabees 7:28 is the first explicit statement of the concept.

Thanks, as always,

~Charleen

[George Murphy]

George,

Good post, well thought.

Please help me understand this last part:

Thanks, as always,

~CharleenIt would have helped if I hadn't typed just the opposite of what I meant. I said "Certainly this account does not picture God as completely sovereign over creation ... ". What I meant was, "Certainly this account does picture God as completely sovereign over creation ... " [That's what I get for too much fine tuning.]

The basic meaning of creatio ex nihilo is that ultimately creation depends on God alone - the absence of pre-existing material is only part of it. But in Gen.1 that latter part isn't completely clear, & the "waters" of v.2 have suggested to some people that there is a primordial ocean out of which God creates the world. Later parts of the Bible - like II Macc. or Rom.4:17 - make this clearer.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

It would have helped if I hadn't typed just the opposite of what I meant. I said "Certainly this account does not picture God as completely sovereign over creation ... ". What I meant was, "Certainly this account does picture God as completely sovereign over creation ... " [That's what I get for too much fine tuning.]



Yes, that's comforting. Just making sure my world did not get shifted again from under my feet.

~Charleen

[kofh2u]

Kof2u, do you have any other reason for thinking of George Murphy as "wicked" besides the fact that he did not understand your post? Are we all to be committed to understanding your posts to be deemed wise and to avoid being called "wicked"?

I once again tell you of my concern for you that you need to be careful you do not fall into the mindset of cults with your "special knowledge" that you have and deem others "wicked" when they do not understand.

God has obviously gifted you, please be vigilant to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, including in His simplicity. Even a child can understand what is really important about Christianity, never forget that.

~Charleen


Charleen...

shame on u... putting words in my mouth sbout George being evil.

I never said such a thing.

Geo said he could not understand, and I posted Daniel's prophecy that in the end times, therevwill be those who do, those who do not.

George need not infer that he is neither wise enough to understand nor evil.

In time, he may see the light of what the scriptures plainly say.

It is so evident, just in the discussion between you and him, that this questions about original sin remainsunanswered to the satsfaction of many, including you. Perhaps, with the evolution of human Consciousness, and the attendant Free Will it brings to only Modern Homo sapiens, the connection with the Garden story is wrong, but not open to ridicule or dries of heresay, which George seemed to suggest to me.

Since this thread addresses theistic evolution, and implies many people see Genesis as very compatible with Darwinism... why would Geo be so insulting about a hypothesis of interpretation which is carried out fully throughput Genesis linking paleontology with the scriptural Truth?

Surely, the traditional unreal metaphysics you perfer will in generations to come find evermore fewer in the audience than a campatibility of theistic evolution and plain bible English.

Protestantism has fallen to 53% of the religious affiliation of Americans, down from 60% 10 years ago and 99% in 1776,....

Are you sure SO you are on the right side of issues?

[George Murphy]

Charleen...

shame on u... putting words in my mouth sbout George being evil.

I never said such a thing.

Geo said he could not understand, and I posted Daniel's prophecy that in the end times, therevwill be those who do, those who do not.

George need not infer that he is neither wise enough to understand nor evil.

In time, he may see the light of what the scriptures plainly say.

It is so evident, just in the discussion between you and him, that this questions about original sin remainsunanswered to the satsfaction of many, including you. Perhaps, with the evolution of human Consciousness, and the attendant Free Will it brings to only Modern Homo sapiens, the connection with the Garden story is wrong, but not open to ridicule or dries of heresay, which George seemed to suggest to me.

Since this thread addresses theistic evolution, and implies many people see Genesis as very compatible with Darwinism... why would Geo be so insulting about a hypothesis of interpretation which is carried out fully throughput Genesis linking paleontology with the scriptural Truth?

Surely, the traditional unreal metaphysics you perfer will in generations to come find evermore fewer in the audience than a campatibility of theistic evolution and plain bible English.

Protestantism has fallen to 53% of the religious affiliation of Americans, down from 60% 10 years ago and 99% in 1776,....

Are you sure SO you are on the right side of issues?Let me be blunt. I made the remark I did about your earlier post because it was incoherent. You have not written clearly, the numeropus misspellings being only a minor part of the problem. If you can set out your interpretation of Genesis in clear (and relatively brief) English then I will try to give it serious attention.

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

Let me be blunt. I made the remark I did about your earlier post because it was incoherent. You have not written clearly, the numeropus misspellings being only a minor part of the problem. If you can set out your interpretation of Genesis in clear (and relatively brief) English then I will try to give it serious attention.

Shalom,
George


True.
I speak to you with stammering tongue.

Thank U for clarifying your annoyance with the messenger, spelking and poorly expressed ideas...

I can apologize for inconveniences in deciphering my comments, but the message itself is beyond rational criticism.

One may elect to favor ancient ideas, traditional interpretations, used to explain scripture, accepting metaphysics for the Physics. One might contend heresay in presenting concrete, rational, and scientific insights. And, one might distain the lack of proper English in recounting these ideas.

But, in this present environment where mocking Creationism, Noah's Flood, Noah's Ark, the numbers in Numbers, the love of Father-God in promoting ethnic cleansings, and the irrationality of life eternal, for example, similar treatment between Christians who merely distain one another's reasons for Faith seems inexcusable.

If I seem particularly weak academically, it is as we might expect:

Isa. 32:4 The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.

[George Murphy]

[QUOTE=kofh2u]True.
I speak to you with stammering tongue.

Thank U for clarifying your annoyance with the messenger, spelking and poorly expressed ideas...
QUOTE]

I am not annoyed with the messenger. I simply don't know what he is saying. Lack of eloquence is one thing. Lack of coherence is another. "If the bugle gives and indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?" (I Cor.14:8).

Shalom,
George

[kofh2u]

[QUOTE=kofh2u]True.
I speak to you with stammering tongue.

Thank U for clarifying your annoyance with the messenger, spelking and poorly expressed ideas...
QUOTE]

I am not annoyed with the messenger. I simply don't know what he is saying. Lack of eloquence is one thing. Lack of coherence is another. "If the bugle gives and indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?" (I Cor.14:8).

Shalom,
George


Oh....

i'm sorey... i taught youse were saying i was hearatickling akording to your philosophy.

Yes, if yoj check back, i stink u will saw thats i post verbatim on scripture from scripture interpreted by the Freudian bibble... so, ignor my hard to understood ingles and just focus your archaic interpretations on these 21st Century quotes and compare them as regards acceptability to the informed secular community as concerns reasonable meaning on their level if understand.

For instance, I begin my own review of the Freudian Bible Interpretation by comparing Genesis with Revelation... reading about the first and the last of the Word, God:

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego): and out of his mouth went a two-edged sword (cutting both secular and theological understandings): and his countenance was as the sun (of rationality) shineth in his strength (of secular knowledge).

[Augustine2004]

Kofh2u, there is no such thing as the Freudian 'Bibble.' Freud was no Christian, and he never published anything on interpretations of the Bible according to his theories ('hypotheses' may be more accurate) afaik.

[kofh2u]

Kofh2u, there is no such thing as the Freudian 'Bibble.' Freud was no Christian, and he never published anything on interpretations of the Bible according to his theories ('hypotheses' may be more accurate) afaik.


True.
Freud was a self proclaimed Jewish atheists, and from what I read, a very naughty boy.

Freud did not publish a bible. It is published though.

I have had other responds to exerpts which ignored the content of my post, but argued that this bible does not exist.

I was even told that since it could not be found on the www or in book stores it was impossible for the 144,000 first editions to even exist. But they do.

Now, Freud would agree that this is just the Denial Stage of a Dissociative Pathology which doesn't want to face reality, and which is content in the warm embrace of a society of others which comforts such lunacy.

That Freud would be acknowledged in the title reflects only his name saken attachment to the field of Human Behavior. He was our first thinker to realize that evil spirits lie within, in a kingdom of mind that governs human behavior. This doesn't mean Freud's behavior was so great. A sinner like us all, for sure.

And, that Einstien, who was more Agnostic than Jewish, supports the primal concept of God, the Father, as that which existed prior to the Big Bang... ie, Absolute Energy.
Well, that doesn't excuse him, either, for sin, and he was not an angel. Nevertheless, if we give Einstein his due, then BEFORE "In the beginning"... there was no matter... ONLY energy, ie, God:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God, (The Universal Force) created the heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters.

[Augustine2004]

Freud was a self proclaimed Jewish atheists, and from what I read, a very naughty boy.

Freud did not publish a bible. It is published though.

I have had other responds to exerpts which ignored the content of my post, but argued that this bible does not exist.

I was even told that since it could not be found on the www or in book stores it was impossible for the 144,000 first editions to even exist. But they do.

Now, Freud would agree that this is just the Denial Stage of a Dissociative Pathology which doesn't want to face reality, and which is content in the warm embrace of a society of others which comforts such lunacy.

That Freud would be acknowledged in the title reflects only his name saken attachment to the field of Human Behavior. He was our first thinker to realize that evil spirits lie within, in a kingdom of mind that governs human behavior. This doesn't mean Freud's behavior was so great. A sinner like us all, for sure.
Two possibilities, among others, that I see here: (1) You are being naughty yourself. (2) You are taking a book interpretation by a naughty person entirely too seriously. One exhibit is the paragraph, "Now, Freud . . . " Non sequitur, to say the least. The fact that unicorns do not exist does not mean that the world is in denial and wants comfort for being mad. If that sentence I just wrote makes sense at all . . .

Would you permit a bit of wordplay? If so, what is a Freud frued? Someone who's got his mind all backwards.

[George Murphy]

True.
Freud was a self proclaimed Jewish atheists, and from what I read, a very naughty boy.

Freud did not publish a bible. It is published though.

I have had other responds to exerpts which ignored the content of my post, but argued that this bible does not exist.

I was even told that since it could not be found on the www or in book stores it was impossible for the 144,000 first editions to even exist. But they do.

Now, Freud would agree that this is just the Denial Stage of a Dissociative Pathology which doesn't want to face reality, and which is content in the warm embrace of a society of others which comforts such lunacy.

That Freud would be acknowledged in the title reflects only his name saken attachment to the field of Human Behavior. He was our first thinker to realize that evil spirits lie within, in a kingdom of mind that governs human behavior. This doesn't mean Freud's behavior was so great. A sinner like us all, for sure.

And, that Einstien, who was more Agnostic than Jewish, supports the primal concept of God, the Father, as that which existed prior to the Big Bang... ie, Absolute Energy.
Well, that doesn't excuse him, either, for sin, and he was not an angel. Nevertheless, if we give Einstein his due, then BEFORE "In the beginning"... there was no matter... ONLY energy, ie, God:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God, (The Universal Force) created the heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws) moved upon the face of the waters.The phrase "the 144,000 first editions" makes me wary. & Einstein wasn't an agnostic but a Jewish pantheist whose attachment to the ideas of Spinoza was very clear. Max Jammer's Einstein and Religion (Princeton, 1999) is a good treatment of his religious views.

But this is well off the topic that I labelled "deep theistic evolution," at least in the sense that most people would use the phrase "theistic evolution." It might be best if kofh2u would start a separate thread to discuss these ideas.

Shalom,
George

[reyvin]

George,

Are you suggesting that there is no truth written in Genesis aside from incorrect observations by ancients that didn't know any better? This is too watered down to be considered inspired at that point and no better off than anyone else's cosmonogy if that is the stance you assert.

[George Murphy]

George,

Are you suggesting that there is no truth written in Genesis aside from incorrect observations by ancients that didn't know any better? This is too watered down to be considered inspired at that point and no better off than anyone else's cosmonogy if that is the stance you assert.Is this a response to my post #174, which was in reply to your request for my understanding of Gen.1? If so, why didn't you bother to read it? There I said, among other things:

But of course that does not mean that the text is not true and authoritative for Christians, or that the theological points it makes are insignificant. Among the latter I would mention:

God’s complete sovereignty over the world.

Creation by the Word.

The distinction between the world and God.

The goodness of creation.

The mediated character of the creation of living things.

The special privilege and responsibility of humanity.

The creation of time and the intention that creation should move toward a goal,
symbolized by the Sabbath.

Shalom,
George

[reyvin]

Is this a response to my post #174, which was in reply to your request for my understanding of Gen.1? If so, why didn't you bother to read it? There I said, among other things:

But of course that does not mean that the text is not true and authoritative for Christians, or that the theological points it makes are insignificant. Among the latter I would mention:

God’s complete sovereignty over the world.

Creation by the Word.

The distinction between the world and God.

The goodness of creation.

The mediated character of the creation of living things.

The special privilege and responsibility of humanity.

The creation of time and the intention that creation should move toward a goal,
symbolized by the Sabbath.

Shalom,
George

George,

I'm not meaning to sound offensive. Perhaps I read your above response wrong but it seemed a little heated. Yes, indeed I did read your quick response to my question and I must have misunderstood you because that is what prompted my statement/question.
In a nutshell, do you then hold to what format of understanding the text? Framework, analogical....etc...? I don't mean to make this sound like a test but: which is your view and how do you justify it? (Something everyone needs to answer but since you're representing the TE position I'm shooting it your way).

[rogero]

George,

I'm not meaning to sound offensive. Perhaps I read your above response wrong but it seemed a little heated. Yes, indeed I did read your quick response to my question and I must have misunderstood you because that is what prompted my statement/question.
In a nutshell, do you then hold to what format of understanding the text? Framework, analogical....etc...? I don't mean to make this sound like a test but: which is your view and how do you justify it? (Something everyone needs to answer but since you're representing the TE position I'm shooting it your way).


Is this a multiple choice question? Do you have a comprehensive list from which to choose? Perhaps a poll is in order? I wasn't aware that one had to stake out a particular position on the interpretation of Genesis, other than a minimal one in which God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth -- answering the "who" and "why" but not necessarily the "how".

[Augustine2004]

. . . are hermeneutical rather than exegetical.I thought I would pick up a sense of what that meant as the thread evolved, but I never did, and it still bothers me. Both 'hermeneutical' and 'exegetical' have the same root meaning, namely interpretation. I have to ask what you mean by that quoted phrase, if that's OK with you.

[Augustine2004]

Is this a multiple choice question? Do you have a comprehensive list from which to choose? Perhaps a poll is in order? I wasn't aware that one had to stake out a particular position on the interpretation of Genesis, other than a minimal one in which God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth -- answering the "who" and "why" but not necessarily the "how".Well, what would it look like to people if one said, "I've tried and tried and tried to make some scientific sense of Genesis, and I never could. So I would advise you to take a minimal interpretation [whatever that is, if it does make sense!]." I am afraid that is the impression some people would get from the message of your post.

[rogero]

Well, what would it look like to people if one said, "I've tried and tried and tried to make some scientific sense of Genesis, and I never could. So I would advise you to take a minimal interpretation [whatever that is, if it does make sense!]." I am afraid that is the impression some people would get from the message of your post.

Minimal means minimal, Gus. I don't have any problem with folks trying to concord or theologize things further, they just can't contradict the tangible physical evidence that the Creator leaves behind for inquiring minds who have bothered to study the same. I reiterate to Reyyin -- what is the list of Genesis interpretations from which Christians (and theists in general) have to choose?

R

[George Murphy]

George,

I'm not meaning to sound offensive. Perhaps I read your above response wrong but it seemed a little heated. Yes, indeed I did read your quick response to my question and I must have misunderstood you because that is what prompted my statement/question.
In a nutshell, do you then hold to what format of understanding the text? Framework, analogical....etc...? I don't mean to make this sound like a test but: which is your view and how do you justify it? (Something everyone needs to answer but since you're representing the TE position I'm shooting it your way).Yeah, I was kind of annoyed because in response to my statement about Gen.1, including what I saw as important theological truths there, you said "Are you suggesting that there is no truth written in Genesis aside from incorrect observations by ancients that didn't know any better?" This showed that you had paid no attention to what I said. & to be blunt, it suggests that your original question was inspired by an agenda into which I feel no obligation to fit my views.

I will leave it to biblical scholars to discuss the best way to designate the form of Gen.1:1-2:4a - whether or not it is "saga," its relationship with later genealogies, &c. While I think it's important to understand the meaning of the text for those by its writers & those who first heard & read it, I'm more interested as a theologian in its present meaning in the context of the whole of scripture. (The distinction between "biblical scholars" & "theologians" is admittedly artificial because theology has to be based on scripture. But there is a distinction of emphasis.)

When you ask whether I see the format as "framework, analogical ...", you seem to have in mind the question: How do you correlate the biblical account with modern scientific understandings of origins? But I don't try to interpret the text in that fashion. It is a theological statement about God's creation of the world and humanity, making use of pre-modern understandings of the world. The earth, seas, plants, celestial bodies, animals & humans that it speaks of are the real earth, seas &c, not symbols of anything. But those things are not spoken of as coming into being by the processes that modern science describes, simply because the biblical writers & their audiences didn't know about those processes. The point is that they are brought into being by God. & that is an affirmation we can make today.

Shalom,
George

[reyvin]

Minimal means minimal, Gus. I don't have any problem with folks trying to concord or theologize things further, they just can't contradict the tangible physical evidence that the Creator leaves behind for inquiring minds who have bothered to study the same. I reiterate to Reyyin -- what is the list of Genesis interpretations from which Christians (and theists in general) have to choose?

R

Heh...I almost fear to answer this because I don't want to give off the impression that I'm some sort of authority. Perhaps thats the purpose of this entire thread, no?
The question being: What are the actual allowable interpretations/stances on the text? It's obviously not a list of ingrediants to make a ham sandwich, nor is it a declaration of independance. Soooo....at minimum, which views does the language allow for? The current list seems to be TE, YEC, OEC, and FI. At least those the the most popular ones that are well known for the most part. There are scholars with credentials as good as anyone else's that can be found to support the choices above, but then you'll read from another how 'so and so' is wrong and their view is not/cannot be correct.
I'm just wanting to get the straight shot from someone with the knowledge and honest enough to say (with no axe to grind) which views are truly allowed by the text.

[reyvin]

Yeah, I was kind of annoyed because in response to my statement about Gen.1, including what I saw as important theological truths there, you said "Are you suggesting that there is no truth written in Genesis aside from incorrect observations by ancients that didn't know any better?" This showed that you had paid no attention to what I said. & to be blunt, it suggests that your original question was inspired by an agenda into which I feel no obligation to fit my views.

I will leave it to biblical scholars to discuss the best way to designate the form of Gen.1:1-2:4a - whether or not it is "saga," its relationship with later genealogies, &c. While I think it's important to understand the meaning of the text for those by its writers & those who first heard & read it, I'm more interested as a theologian in its present meaning in the context of the whole of scripture. (The distinction between "biblical scholars" & "theologians" is admittedly artificial because theology has to be based on scripture. But there is a distinction of emphasis.)

When you ask whether I see the format as "framework, analogical ...", you seem to have in mind the question: How do you correlate the biblical account with modern scientific understandings of origins? But I don't try to interpret the text in that fashion. It is a theological statement about God's creation of the world and humanity, making use of pre-modern understandings of the world. The earth, seas, plants, celestial bodies, animals & humans that it speaks of are the real earth, seas &c, not symbols of anything. But those things are not spoken of as coming into being by the processes that modern science describes, simply because the biblical writers & their audiences didn't know about those processes. The point is that they are brought into being by God. & that is an affirmation we can make today.

Shalom,
George


George, indeed I am asking that question. I absolutely did pay attention to what you'd written but that answer strikes me as empty; no offense. If someone asked you if the Exodus account occurred in some form or fashion as it was recorded for us, how would you respond? You can't very well write it off as something that affirms that the Hebrews are Gods chosen people but the events recorded really have nothing to do with reality. Same holds for the G 1 account. I'm absolutely not saying what the YEC say and take a wooden view of it either though. If we're to affirm inspiration, I think the text has to speak a little louder than what you're suggesting.
By affirming that the text is doing nothing more than saying 'God made it all' is all fine and good but it seems to leave us feeling a little 'short' about it doesn't it? Doesn't the narrative strike you as a gradual marching onward until His rest? But I realize perhaps thats just my/our mindset working upon the text in a way it wasn't meant to be.
Again as I'd said above, all I'm asking for is someone with no axe to grind and with knowledge to be honest and say what the exegesis/hermeneutics allow for.

[rogero]

Heh...I almost fear to answer this because I don't want to give off the impression that I'm some sort of authority. Perhaps thats the purpose of this entire thread, no?



Fear not, I'm certainly not an "authority", just an interested layperson.



The question being: What are the actual allowable interpretations/stances on the text? It's obviously not a list of ingrediants to make a ham sandwich, nor is it a declaration of independance. Soooo....at minimum, which views does the language allow for? The current list seems to be TE, YEC, OEC, and FI. At least those the the most popular ones that are well known for the most part. There are scholars with credentials as good as anyone else's that can be found to support the choices above, but then you'll read from another how 'so and so' is wrong and their view is not/cannot be correct.



Those are views of ongins overall, which are primarily ways to explain the natural evidence as Creation. They are not "interpretations of Genesis", by which I mean how to read the Genesis account as someone who accepts the Bible as scripture. In my weak-minded opinion, the broad categories of interpretation (which are then of course more sharply defined with specifics) are 1) metaphorical/allegorical/"true" myth 2) Concordism, which at its extreme end contains AiG-type YECs 3) Fideism, which contains many of the extreme YECs -- their intepretation of Genesis is right, regardless of the physical evidence to the contrary. 2) is a very broad category, and includes certain YECs, all OECs, even some TEs (like Glenn Morton). 3) includes many (most?) TEs. [Ediited to fix this obvious mistake. I mean (1) includes many (most?) TEs.]
But this is only my layman's observation, I could be wrong.

I think you mean interpretations in the sense of historical-grammatical ("literal"), gap/chaos, Framework, Analogous Days, Days of Proclamation, Metaphorical/poetic, etc...

At least, that's the kind of list I was asking for.





I'm just wanting to get the straight shot from someone with the knowledge and honest enough to say (with no axe to grind) which views are truly allowed by the text.



I'm not sure you're going to find someone with no axe to grind, and I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Everyone has SOME opinion on Genesis and origins. To ask the opinion of a pure Hebrew scholar who has no knowledge or interest in science will give you a biased view. IMO, this is only asking for fideism --- just caring what the Bible sez, without considering tangible reality. For example, This seems to be the view of a particular person who has been posting recently in Natural Sciences. Creation week is a miracle and it doesn't matter about anything else. The trouble with the fideistic view is that God becomes a cruel deceiver to all who bother to study and learn about His creation. I find that view totally unacceptable theologically, even IF that's what the "best" exegesis of Genesis is.

Heck, but maybe that's what you mean about having an axe to grind?

In God's Peace,

Roger

[George Murphy]

George, indeed I am asking that question. I absolutely did pay attention to what you'd written but that answer strikes me as empty; no offense. If someone asked you if the Exodus account occurred in some form or fashion as it was recorded for us, how would you respond? You can't very well write it off as something that affirms that the Hebrews are Gods chosen people but the events recorded really have nothing to do with reality. Same holds for the G 1 account. I'm absolutely not saying what the YEC say and take a wooden view of it either though. If we're to affirm inspiration, I think the text has to speak a little louder than what you're suggesting.
By affirming that the text is doing nothing more than saying 'God made it all' is all fine and good but it seems to leave us feeling a little 'short' about it doesn't it? Doesn't the narrative strike you as a gradual marching onward until His rest? But I realize perhaps thats just my/our mindset working upon the text in a way it wasn't meant to be.
Again as I'd said above, all I'm asking for is someone with no axe to grind and with knowledge to be honest and say what the exegesis/hermeneutics allow for.I'm in a hurry right now & can only answer briefly. I think that the Exodus corresponds to a real historical event, though not with 2.5 million people. The fact that I don't think one biblical text is historical narrative doesn't mean none are.

Of course the text shows "a gradual marching onward until His rest." But does that mean that it's historical narrative?

The idea that the entire universe is the creation of one God is hardly common currency among religions, & certainly not in modern culture. The claim is especially non-trivial when made about the God of Israel: A major point of the Genesis story is to say that the God of the Exodus is the creator.

But - you are badly misrepresenting what I said when you reduce it to 'God made it all.' & the additional things that I listed (which were not meant to be exhaustive) are similarly not just pieces of standard brand religion (as the glaring contrasts with Babylonian mythology show).

More later.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

I thought I would pick up a sense of what that meant as the thread evolved, but I never did, and it still bothers me. Both 'hermeneutical' and 'exegetical' have the same root meaning, namely interpretation. I have to ask what you mean by that quoted phrase, if that's OK with you.
I'm in a rush right now. Let me quote The Westminster Dictionary of Theology, s.v. "Hermeneutics."

"Hermeneutics is thus the science of the interpretative process which begins with determination of the original meaning of the text (exegesis) and leads to elucidation of its sense for modern readers (exposition, paraphrase or sermon)."

Shalom,
George

[reyvin]

I'm in a hurry right now & can only answer briefly. I think that the Exodus corresponds to a real historical event, though not with 2.5 million people. The fact that I don't think one biblical text is historical narrative doesn't mean none are.

Of course the text shows "a gradual marching onward until His rest." But does that mean that it's historical narrative?

The idea that the entire universe is the creation of one God is hardly common currency among religions, & certainly not in modern culture. The claim is especially non-trivial when made about the God of Israel: A major point of the Genesis story is to say that the God of the Exodus is the creator.

But - you are badly misrepresenting what I said when you reduce it to 'God made it all.' & the additional things that I listed (which were not meant to be exhaustive) are similarly not just pieces of standard brand religion (as the glaring contrasts with Babylonian mythology show).

More later.

Shalom,
George

Believe me when I tell you that if I've misrepresented you its not intentional. Misunderstood would be a much better term.

So then, you agree that it's (G 1) a sequential narrative? I assume so, as you'd said: "Of course the text shows "a gradual marching onward until His rest."

But also you'd said (and I agree): But does that mean that it's historical narrative?
I'd answer yes but not in the sense of my high schoolers' textbook on history.

But, you've got have a reasonable explanation to what is narrated. The writer obviously meant something by it.
For example, do you agree that the text teaches that animals in the sea are older than humans? (Day 5 vs 6) or that humanity was the final creation after land life (generally speaking of course)? Or, do you think it means something else by the way its presented?

[reyvin]

Those are views of ongins overall, which are primarily ways to explain the natural evidence as Creation. They are not "interpretations of Genesis", by which I mean how to read the Genesis account as someone who accepts the Bible as scripture.

Yes, I more meant the 'interpretations of'. Not to sling rocks in any direction but take AiG's stance for example. They treat it as though there is no other reasonable way to read the account and anything less than what they insist is completely wrong. Bottom line to me pointing this out is that even what they espouse is an interpretation of the text and not the text itself.

And when I say axe to grind, I'm referring to those who act in that exact way. There's a prominent YEC person here (not naming names because I DON'T want to sling mud) who will, when confronted with a source showing that a church father or anyone prior to Darwin did NOT hold to a 24 hour rendering of the text simply waves them off as being influenced from something else or that they really didn't know hebrew after all and therefore the opinion cited is garbage. Simply put, there's no two way street when speaking with an axe grinder.

[kofh2u]

Minimal means minimal, Gus. I don't have any problem with folks trying to concord or theologize things further, they just can't contradict the tangible physical evidence that the Creator leaves behind for inquiring minds who have bothered to study the same. I reiterate to Reyyin -- what is the list of Genesis interpretations from which Christians (and theists in general) have to choose?

R


1) The Hebrew Epic View
2) The Mythopaeic Story Line
3) The Literal Interpretation (YEC)
4) The metaphorical Interpretation
5) The Moralistic (Behavioral Modification) Reading
6) The Metaphysical Concept (OEC)
7) The Informative Science Revelation (TE)
8) Hebrew Kabbalahistic Application

[rogero]

1) The Hebrew Epic View
2) The Mythopaeic Story Line
3) The Literal Interpretation (YEC)
4) The metaphorical Interpretation
5) The Moralistic (Behavioral Modification) Reading
6) The Metaphysical Concept (OEC)
7) The Informative Science Revelation (TE)
8) Hebrew Kabbalahistic Application


K, Thanks! Very interesting. I've never heard of #5, not sure exactly what #8 is, and I don't know why OEC is called "metaphysical" -- unless you're referring to a certain brand of OEC. Also, how do you distinguish among #1, #2, and #4?

Do you have a source for this list, or is this original? Where does your Freudian interpretation fit in?

R

[kofh2u]

Yes, I more meant the 'interpretations of'. Not to sling rocks in any direction but take AiG's stance for example. They treat it as though there is no other reasonable way to read the account and anything less than what they insist is completely wrong. Bottom line to me pointing this out is that even what they espouse is an interpretation of the text and not the text itself.

And when I say axe to grind, I'm referring to those who act in that exact way. There's a prominent YEC person here (not naming names because I DON'T want to sling mud) who will, when confronted with a source showing that a church father or anyone prior to Darwin did NOT hold to a 24 hour rendering of the text simply waves them off as being influenced from something else or that they really didn't know hebrew after all and therefore the opinion cited is garbage. Simply put, there's no two way street when speaking with an axe grinder.


If i read u correctly, it seems that you say it is wrong, insisting on the infallibility of one's hypothesis concerning interpretation.

I could not agree more on two accounts.

First, if we are actually interested in "the SCIENCE of the interpretative process," then every hypothesized interprettion i have studied runs into serious problems with its theories that follow.

Each step requires another assumption, idea, guess or hypothesis in order to continue. Science is the reverse of sucha process. Ll theories build upon the one initial axiom or hypothsis, and as each theory adds, credibiity grows.

For instance, the literal YEC has need to ask for our acquiesence to one magical, mythopaeic unearthly impossibility after another, i.e.; Noah's flood, Noah's Ark, 2.5 million Exodus, etc.

Secondly, it seems under these circumstances that for George to sit in the seat of Moses, both adamant about his own "TRUTH," and so biasedly offended, so easily, by all competing ideas, even suggesting that one of my own is intentionally disrespectful to the integrity of his HYPOTHESIS, ...well, ... Jesus was crucified by the Rule Books of interpretation held with just such aut ority as were many of the saints of the Inquisition. I would not want that blood on my own hands through association, 4 sure.

[reyvin]

If i read u correctly, it seems that you say it is wrong, insisting on the infallibility of one's hypothesis concerning interpretation.


This is exactly what I'm saying. Interpretation (regardless of who's) is no replacement for the Word itself.

[kofh2u]

This is exactly what I'm saying. Interpretation (regardless of who's) is no replacement for the Word itself.


Oh, good!

Then I am encouraged by discovering such a sensible person on Tweb.

Absolutely. It if super fine that a person is so convicted that the Word of God makes sense to him/her. From then on, the Christian attitude and behavior is all that is necessary. There is no need to have faith in a particular way of understanding scripture if the basic message is clear, and clearly axted upon.

I wonder if you concur that we are awaiting the Tfuth that will change us all, regardless kf our preconceived nogion of meanings?


Rev. 5:5 And one of the twenty-four elders saith unto me (in my mind), Weep not: behold, the Lion of Judah, the root of David hath prevailed to open the book (of Sacred Hebrew Scriptures), and to loose (the mystery of) the seven seals thereof.

[Augustine2004]

To anyone trying to figure out my posts. My apologies for my confusion over the term 'theological truth.' My thinking is now that all it ought to mean is 'some true statement about God.' What confused me was that some people used the term in such a way that I got the impression that they meant that a statement can have several levels of meaning, from the literal to deeper levels, and the literal can be false, whereas the deeper levels can be true.

That is not so, giving due consideration to the ambiguity, imprecision, and equivocation inherent in language. Interpretations can be true or false. By itself a statement means nothing. It has to be interpreted first, no exception. Of course one can always try a literal interpretation first to see if it makes sense or is useful in some way. If not, then try other interpretations. So, really, 'theological truth' in some sense other than 'a true statement about God' is really otiose or otherwise nonsense.

Unfortunately, it is not so black and white. No interpretation can ever capture the truth perfectly. It is like the blind men feeling the elephant. What they say about the elephant are only partially true. One interpretation may be closer to the truth than another. However, one interpretation may capture a few aspects of the truth whereas another interpretation captures others, so that we cannot really say without giving criteria for judgment which is closer to the truth.

Perhaps we ought to never say that an interpretation is true. We can say something like that it is the best one that has been offered so far, regarding what it says about God. Or what it says about the scientific aspect of creation. Or whatever.

(Yet another complication: statements may exist such that no more-or-less faithful interpretation can possibly be even close to the truth.)

[reyvin]

Absolutely. It if super fine that a person is so convicted that the Word of God makes sense to him/her. From then on, the Christian attitude and behavior is all that is necessary. There is no need to have faith in a particular way of understanding scripture if the basic message is clear, and clearly axted upon.

I wonder if you concur that we are awaiting the Tfuth that will change us all, regardless kf our preconceived nogion of meanings?


As to the first part, yes I agree that God could very well have been saying something else through His inspired writer, but the point can't be pushed too awful far of course. In other words, someone saying that John 4 can be translated to understand hydraulic machinery seems totally false.

As to the second part (your question), what do you mean by awaiting truth that will change us all? I'd say once you commit yourself to Christ you're certainly changed forever.

[kofh2u]

As to the first part, yes I agree....

As to the second part (your question), what do you mean by awaiting truth that will change us all? I'd say once you commit yourself to Christ you're certainly changed forever.


1Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (of our awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (in our thoughts), and the dead (Collective Unconscious Minds) shall be raised incorruptible, (unperverted in clarity and memory), AND WE SHALL BE CHANGED (into Homoiousian beings).

[George Murphy]

Believe me when I tell you that if I've misrepresented you its not intentional. Misunderstood would be a much better term.I'm sure that misrepresentation was unintentional. But when I list the following points as important theological truths in Gen.1:

"God’s complete sovereignty over the world.
Creation by the Word.
The distinction between the world and God.
The goodness of creation.
The mediated character of the creation of living things.
The special privilege and responsibility of humanity.
The creation of time and the intention that creation should move toward a goal,
symbolized by the Sabbath."

& you declare this "empty" & reduce it to "God made it all," I think it's quite clear that my view is badly misrepresented. This cannot have been due to any particular subtilty of mine: I think that that listing is quite clear. So I can't see why you would have misunderstood it unless you simply aren't interested in theological statements of that sort.
My suspicion that this is the case is strengthened by the fact that, even after I repeated this list, you have not acknowledged that I said anything substantive.

So then, you agree that it's (G 1) a sequential narrative? I assume so, as you'd said: "Of course the text shows "a gradual marching onward until His rest."Of course. Who ever denied it? Day 1, Day 2 &c - it's pretty obvious. & in fact I referred to this in my original listing, one of my points being, "The creation of time and the intention that creation should move toward a goal,
symbolized by the Sabbath."

"But also you'd said (and I agree): But does that mean that it's historical narrative?
I'd answer yes but not in the sense of my high schoolers' textbook on history."Luke 10:30-35 is a "sequential narrative" & if those verses are read in isolation it ould not be unreasonable to say that they were an account of an historical occurrence. When they are read in a larger context - the lawyer's question and the point Jesus is making - it's clear that they don't have to be. & that doesn't just mean that they are not history in the sense of your high schoolers' textbook. Whether or not such events ever happened at all is irrelevant to the purpose for which the story is told.

I am not saying that Gen.1 is a "parable" in just the sense that the story of the Good Samaritan is. I am making the point that one can't determine historicity just from the superficial form of the account or by reading it in isolation. This has to do with the distinction between exegesis and hermeneutics that I made earlier.

But, you've got have a reasonable explanation to what is narrated. The writer obviously meant something by it.& then one also has to ask what the text means in the larger context of scripture & the world, which may be rather different from the meaning of the original writer. More on this below.

For example, do you agree that the text teaches that animals in the sea are older than humans? (Day 5 vs 6) or that humanity was the final creation after land life (generally speaking of course)? Or, do you think it means something else by the way its presented?Do you agree that the text teaches that the sun was created after vegetation? If so (& it's pretty obvious), & if you agree (as I hope you do) with the sun came into being before life on earth, then you'll have to conclude that Gen.1 should not be understood as a modern scientific account of the origin of the earth.

After these necessary preliminaries, let's move on to interpretation.

Read in isolation, Gen.1 of course describes the origin of the universe and life as a sequence of creative acts by God, prefaced with the summary of v.1.
It makes use of the understanding of the world prevalent in the ancient near east - e.g., the dome of the sky & the waters above the heavens. The account seems to be crafted in part as theological polemic against Babylonian polytheism, as I've already noted.

The command given to humanity to "fill the earth & subdue it" points toward a future, and thus indicates that the world has not been created in a state of static perfection. God creates the world with time, and thus intends that it has a history. Consistent with this is the view that the Sabbath does not mean God's cessation from activity but represents the ultimate future of history.But that also means we have to be careful about saying that this is an "historical" account. It is trans-historical, for it represents the creation of history itself.

Now we have to widen our scope and look at Gen.1:1-2:4a in the context of all of scripture. This requires saying something about hermeneutical principles. One that I adopt, & in fact regard as central, can be stated in Luther's words, "All scripture everywhere speaks only of Christ." I.e., the interpretive center of scripture is Christ. In particular, the