A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense. What part of 'all creation is revelatory' do you not understand?

I have referred you to the key theologians; it's up to you read them if you care to better understand the Christian intellectual tradition. I doubt you have ever taken my advice to better acquaint yourself with modern Catholic fundamental theology of revelation so your view of Christian limits put on revelation are probably uninformed.

I do not believe so, my knowledge is based on the actual Doctrines and Dogma of the Roman Church that have not changed. There are, of course, modern theologians who offer other interpretations and different beliefs, but do not represent changes in the basic Doctrine, Dogma and Catechism of the Roman Church.

My point is that you require me to begin with citations of the the Baha'u'llah when discussing Baha'i views of Adam and Eve when you yourself did not do so. The extreme irony of this point is that I was merely asking you for such citations in an effort to educate myself about additional Baha'i views, about which you yourself were evidently ignorant. My question of you is still essentially the same. Aside from figurative or symbolic allusions to other Adams, we have established that you do, in fact, believe that Adam and Eve lived approximately 6,000 years ago as a real historical couple, 'though not necessarily the first human couple. I don't think you have yet answered my question as to whether or not you believe that all modern humans are descended from this couple that lived 6,000 years ago.

If you want to understand the Baha'i view as Revelation than we begin with Baha'u'llah. You are the one that requested the references by Baha'u'llah and I provided them for you. Actually the references to Abdul'baha concerning Adam are described as one interpretation and others are possible, and should grounded in the writings of Baha'u'llah concerning Adam.

The other Adams ARE NOT figurative nor symbolic allusions to 'other Adams.' There are no references that indicate that the 'other Adams' are symbolic nor figurative. My point is clear the Adam of the prophetic cycle is not the first Adam nor first cycle of Revelation for humanity according to the citations of the writings of Baha'u'llah. I believe the Adamic cycle is very real and Adam and Eve are real persons who lived at the beginning of the Adamic Prophetic cycle beinning about ~6,000 years ago.

[shunyadragon]

I can discuss whatever I like. I actually think you are the one being not only selective but also reductionist in preferring to distinguish and discuss only foundational doctrines and dogmas and not the theological understanding of those doctrines and dogmas. In fact, there's really no such thing as doctrines and dogmas apart from the theological understanding of those theological doctrines and dogmas. One can make an analogy to scientific theories. The reality under study, eg, gravity, does not change much over millions and billions of years, but the scientific theories by which one seeks to understand the reality is continually evolving and the manner in which this evolving theoretical knowledge is applied in various practical applications is also subject to continual change and novelty. This is why fundamental theology and scriptural exegesis can have a profound effect upon how doctrines and dogmas are understood theologically. Thinking that you can discuss theological doctrines and dogma apart from their (evolving) theological understanding also betrays your literalist and propositional approach to revelation, at least your attitude toward the revelatory texts and pronouncements of other religions.

It is not my literalist perspective, it is that of the Doctrine and Dogma of traditional Christianity and the Roman Church. I have acknowledged the evolving theological understanding of other interpretations, but in Christianity they have not changed the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of Christianity. Actually I believe the better evolving theology is in the writings of the Baha'i Faith, allow other interpretations of Genesis

Once again, your 'some theologians' seems to minimize the import in that I am referring not merely to 'some theologians' but much more expansively to leading theologians from the second century on and a major school of theology that has developed and flourished over centuries and by many leading scholars of our own time, some have even claimed the majority of contemporary Catholic theologians, including at least a couple of Cardinals. The theological diversity that I am referring to here does indeed represent a significant voice in the earliest tradition in a couple of critical issues and as it has been more completely fleshed out more recently.

You have not demonstrated any 'majority' nor influence nor change in the foundation Doctrines and Dogmas of Christianity.

There is no need to acknowledge the tautology that traditional churches maintain traditional theological interpretations of traditional doctrines. That is merely your preferred <snip>, which does not engage good theology.

Not my preferred, it is the preferred Doctrine and Dogma of the traditional churches and the Roman Church.

I understand that that you have now corrected your remarks to only refer to NT authors, but it is important to consider the likely intent of the original authors and editors of the authoritative text, which for the Catholic church at least, is the Hebrew text. You cannot understand the Hebrew text of Genesis by only relying upon Paul's allusive use.

it took quite a while for you to acknowledge it. 'Likely intent?' You need to better than that. The original authors and editors are completely unknown, and most likely dating back to Canaanite and pre- Babylonian texts.

You had already (also selectively) quoted this section and I referred back to your link and gave additional information that is indeed also important to to this topic. My point in giving this particular additional quote was not to argue for the additional material being based on a literal interpretation, but rather to show some similarity to Christian interpretations of the text of Genesis, which are undeniable.

Undeniable is a big statement. You have referred to nothing yet of substance.

I've noted this multiple times now, but I nonetheless wanted to correct you on what I took to be the issue being clarified, ie, your restriction of your earlier remarks as not referring to the authors of the Hebrew scriptures.

It was not necessary to repeated wasted posts beyond my initial clarification statement

It is a constant refrain in your oft repeated refusal to discuss theology, preferring instead your tired religious <snipe>.

I have not stated the number, but I have noted that others have referred to this view being the majority view of contemporary Catholic theologians. My own experience is anecdotal as I can only speak of the hundred or so theologians I have studied with and known personally, among whom there is almost universal agreement on this point.

Nothing cited to demonstrate this very extreme claim.

[quote[ This is another characteristic of <snip>, citing tautologies as if they are self-evident and meaningful. They are indeed self-evident, but also meaningless. Failure to engage good theology. [/quote]

You have cited nothing to support your claims.

You are not quoting me correctly. I was merely referring to Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI as acknowledging theological diversity and fundamental alternative theological views as expressed by Hans Urs von Cardinal Balthasar, but I could also refer back to Paul VI, speaking through a spokesperson, being open to the process of rethinking the theology of original sin to be in accord with the properly scientific theory of evolution. While he personally expressed a very traditional theology and signaled some reservations about some contemporary proposals, he nonetheless encouraged the rethinking process to continue and was evidently comfortable with the theology of original sin being in a state of flux at the time. Subsequently, Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, was himself accused by traditionalists of denying the dogma of Original Sin. Of course, he did not deny the dogma, but his theological expression of its meaning in contemporary terms was unacceptable to those who, like yourself, prefer <snipe>to good theological dialogue and debate.

You have cited nothing to support your claims

But why do you still avoid the question? Why avoid the topic of the most likely original intent of the authors of the book of Genesis? My point is that at least one/some of the authors/editors of the book of Genesis did not consider Adam and Eve to be merely a literal historical couple so named but rather a poetic narrative evoking general truths about humanity and our strained relationship to God and all creation. Have you nothing at all to say about this point? Other than the anti-intellectual stance that we cannot know the original intent of the authors/redactors/editors? Why would one so flippantly dismiss huge swaths of scholarly method and opinion?

You have cited nothing to support the existence of 'original authors'/editors of Genesis nor the Pentateuch. No huge swaths of scholarly method and opinion cited.

No, I have not affirmed that Adam is a historical person. You completely misunderstand my perspective and have yet to engage it properly.

Then you need to clarify your slippery position, and ah . . . with reasonable sources.

[robrecht]

I do not believe so, my knowledge is based on the actual Doctrines and Dogma of the Roman Church that have not changed. There are, of course, modern theologians who offer other interpretations and different beliefs, but do not represent changes in the basic Doctrine, Dogma and Catechism of the Roman Church.

If you want to understand the Baha'i view as Revelation than we begin with Baha'u'llah. You are the one that requested the references by Baha'u'llah and I provided them for you. Actually the references to Abdul'baha concerning Adam are described as one interpretation and others are possible, and should grounded in the writings of Baha'u'llah concerning Adam.

The other Adams ARE NOT figurative nor symbolic allusions to 'other Adams.' There are no references that indicate that the 'other Adams' are symbolic nor figurative. My point is clear the Adam of the prophetic cycle is not the first Adam nor first cycle of Revelation for humanity according to the citations of the writings of Baha'u'llah. I believe the Adamic cycle is very real and Adam and Eve are real persons who lived at the beginning of the Adamic Prophetic cycle beinning about ~6,000 years ago.

You're still avoiding my question. Why? And it was you yourself who said that "the name Adam is symbolic of the first Manifestation of God for a many cycles of Revelation in human history likely going back to the physical beginnings of humanity."

[robrecht]

It is not my literalist perspective, it is that of the Doctrine and Dogma of traditional Christianity and the Roman Church. I have acknowledged the evolving theological understanding of other interpretations, but in Christianity they have not changed the foundation Doctrine and Dogma of Christianity. Actually I believe the better evolving theology is in the writings of the Baha'i Faith, allow other interpretations of Genesis

You have not demonstrated any 'majority' nor influence nor change in the foundation Doctrines and Dogmas of Christianity.

Once again, as I've stated several times already, I have not set out to demonstrate any change in fundamental doctrines or dogmas of Christianity. In vain do you point out that I have not done what I never set out to do.

Not my preferred, it is the preferred Doctrine and Dogma of the traditional churches and the Roman Church.

it took quite a while for you to acknowledge it.

False. I acknowledged it the very same day, as I have already pointed out to you.

'Likely intent?' You need to better than that. The original authors and editors are completely unknown, and most likely dating back to Canaanite and pre- Babylonian texts.

You have not yet even agreed to the possibility of discussing the scholarly views of the likely intent of the original authors, redactors and editors. If you are concerned about the ancient origins of these stories, we need only speak of the final texts that we have before us.

Undeniable is a big statement. You have referred to nothing yet of substance.

Do you deny the similarity of interpretations among Christians and the Baha'i view I cited?

It was not necessary to repeated wasted posts beyond my initial clarification statement

Apparently it was because you claimed your correction was about whether Adam and Even lived 6,000 or 10,000 years ago, which was not the clarification I was speaking about.

Nothing cited to demonstrate this very extreme claim.

Exactly which claim is it that you consider very extreme?

You have cited nothing to support your claims.

Exactly which claims do you doubt?

You have cited nothing to support your claims

I haven't said anything very controversial or that is in doubt among those who are familiar with contemporary theology. If you can point to any specific claims that you have reason to doubt, perhaps I can more effectively direct you to a specific remedy for your particular ignorance.

You have cited nothing to support the existence of 'original authors'/editors of Genesis nor the Pentateuch. No huge swaths of scholarly method and opinion cited.

I have referred you to Claus Westermann's 3-volume commentary as a good place to start your education about the scholarly discussion of this.

Then you need to clarify your slippery position, and ah . . . with reasonable sources.

Nothing slippery about it. I have expressed the same position throughout this thread, that at least one/some of the authors/redactors/editors of the Genesis creation accounts did not consider Adam to be merely a historical figure. I am the source of my position. If you agree to discuss the Hebrew text, I can provide all the necessary support for my position.

[shunyadragon]

You're still avoiding my question. Why? And it was you yourself who said that "the name Adam is symbolic of the first Manifestation of God for a many cycles of Revelation in human history likely going back to the physical beginnings of humanity."

I have clearly stated that name is symbolic, and Adam is a real person at the beginning of each cycle of Revelation.

Plase state the question Why? that you want answered.

[robrecht]

I have clearly stated that name is symbolic, and Adam is a real person at the beginning of each cycle of Revelation.

Plase state the question Why? that you want answered.

Once again, do you believe that all modern humans are descended from Adam and Eve, an historical couple that lived 6,000 years ago?

[shunyadragon]

Once again, do you believe that all modern humans are descended from Adam and Eve, an historical couple that lived 6,000 years ago?

ALL humanity is descendent from an earlier Adam as I originally stated when humanity first became human, probably ~100.000 to 200.000 years ago, or possibly older. The misunderstanding is it has been a long time since I read or studied the different sources concerning what Baha'u'llah wrote concerning Adam. Thanks to your request I made an effort to go back and read these sources. There have been other Adams and cycles of Revelation throughout human history. As I said before, I never have been particularly concerned with this aspect of ancient history of religion. Your efforts to pressure me to look back over the scripture, particularly that of Baha'u'llah was helpful in correcting any misinformation as to what the Baha'i writings stated concerning Adam. I am more concerned with the spiritual world today. Yes, the Adam and Eve of ~6000 years ago was the first revelation of the 'Prophetic Cycle' that is the source of Revelation for all of humanity that culminated with the Revelation of the Bab.

I do believe that the descendants of Adam and Eve moved throughout the world over the past ~6,000 years as the lineage of Revelation in all cultures Revealing the spiritual knowledge and prophecies of 'Prophetic Cycle.' The descendants of Adam are in all these cultures. This is an interpretation on my part.

[shunyadragon]

You have not yet even agreed to the possibility of discussing the scholarly views of the likely intent of the original authors, redactors and editors. If you are concerned about the ancient origins of these stories, we need only speak of the final texts that we have before us.

I know of no evidence of original authors, and you have presented none.

Do you deny the similarity of interpretations among Christians and the Baha'i view I cited?

No, but the Baha'i Faith has acknowledged multiple interpretations without the burden of the fixed interpretation of the Fall and Original Sin.

Apparently it was because you claimed your correction was about whether Adam and Even lived 6,000 or 10,000 years ago, which was not the clarification I was speaking about.

The citations of the scriptures of Baha'u'llah described what I had learned some time in the past that there were Adamic cycles through out the history of humanity 100,000 to 200,000 or years ago since human was first human, and of course throughout the universe in all inhabited planets. I acknowledged that the first manifestation of God of the prophetic cycle was Adam and existed ~6,000 years ago. According to Baha'i scriptures these manifestations of God are real and the cycles of Revelation are real. The 'name Adam' can also be symbolic of the 'first manifestation of God for a cycle, and it is possibly they also had another name or title in the ancient cycles.

Exactly which claim is it that you consider very extreme?

Exactly which claims do you doubt?

That there can be known original authors/editors of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch as well, and the interpretations of these original authors.

I have referred you to Claus Westermann's 3-volume commentary as a good place to start your education about the scholarly discussion of this.

You need to cite the reference more specifically. It is not available to me. Does it refer to specific authors of Genesis, and document sources for this knowledge. Just citing a three volume Tome doe snot work here. You can cite Westermann specifically, and his source that an original author/editor is in some way known. Actually if you give me some page numbers and annotated references where he documents this claim it may save me some time rooting through a three volume tome.

Nothing slippery about it. I have expressed the same position throughout this thread, that at least one/some of the authors/redactors/editors of the Genesis creation accounts did not consider Adam to be merely a historical figure. I am the source of my position. If you agree to discuss the Hebrew text, I can provide all the necessary support for my position.

Not merely a historical figure does not indicate that Adam was not a historical figure, in fact it indicates that Adam is a historical figure. Yes, there may be more 'evolved' interpretations of Genesis as acknowledged in the Baha'i writings. You still have not cited and quoted your sources that document this claim. I will eventually look up this three volume tome, but for purposes of constructive dialogue you need to cite and quote sources concerning this outrageous claim of 'original authors' of Genesis. Westermann had to cite a source on 'original authorship; What is that source?'

[Adrift]

I know of no evidence of original authors, and you have presented none.

In his book Who Wrote the Bible?, Richard Friedman, suggests that Deuteronomy was written by Jeremiah (or by his assistant, Baruch). He believes the E source was written by Levite priests from Shiloh in the Northern kingdom. He believes that the J source was written by Aaronid priests in the Southern kingdom. He believes that the P source was written by Aaronid priests under the direction of Hezekiah. He believes that Ezra was the final redactor of JEDP.

[shunyadragon]

In his book Who Wrote the Bible?, Richard Friedman, suggests that Deuteronomy was written by Jeremiah (or by his assistant, Baruch). He believes the E source was written by Levite priests from Shiloh in the Northern kingdom. He believes that the J source was written by Aaronid priests in the Southern kingdom. He believes that the P source was written by Aaronid priests under the direction of Hezekiah. He believes that Ezra was the final redactor of JEDP.

This is a very general reference to many possible authors/editors, and not any specific reference to 'original authors' and what their interpretation was. This is particularly true of Genesis.

Your brief summary, some which is hypothetical, reinforces my view that Genesis evolved from earlier Canaanite and pre-Babylonian, and beyond this has multiple editors, not authors.

In reality, all of the Pentateuch, is an evolved edited compilation with no known 'original authors.'

This view reinforces the Theistic Evolutionist view that Genesis is based on evolved mythical stories, and should not be used to interpret the history of the earth, life and humanity.

[Adrift]

This is a very general reference to many possible authors/editors,

Of course it's a general reference. This is a message forum. In order for the reference to go from general to specific it would require a book length description. That book, and other books like it, have already been written and have been recommended.

and not any specific reference to 'original authors' and what their interpretation was. This is particularly true of Genesis.

Friedman names two specific references to original authors, Jeremiah, who he believes wrote Deuteronomy, and Ezra, who he believes edited/redacted JEDP.

Your brief summary, some which is hypothetical, reinforces my view that Genesis evolved from earlier Canaanite and pre-Babylonian,

I don't see how my brief summary reinforces that view, but so what if it does?

and beyond this has multiple editors, not authors.

Someone had to have originally authored something. Stories about a tribe wandering a desert, about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Joshua don't come out of nowhere.

In reality, all of the Pentateuch, is an evolved edited compilation with no known 'original authors.'

Friedman apparently disagrees. He believes that at least some of the authors can be known, if not specifically by name, then narrowed down to time and place.

[robrecht]

ALL humanity is descendent from an earlier Adam as I originally stated when humanity first became human, probably ~100.000 to 200.000 years ago, or possibly older. The misunderstanding is it has been a long time since I read or studied the different sources concerning what Baha'u'llah wrote concerning Adam. Thanks to your request I made an effort to go back and read these sources. There have been other Adams and cycles of Revelation throughout human history. As I said before, I never have been particularly concerned with this aspect of ancient history of religion. Your efforts to pressure me to look back over the scripture, particularly that of Baha'u'llah was helpful in correcting any misinformation as to what the Baha'i writings stated concerning Adam. I am more concerned with the spiritual world today. Yes, the Adam and Eve of ~6000 years ago was the first revelation of the 'Prophetic Cycle' that is the source of Revelation for all of humanity that culminated with the Revelation of the Bab.

I do believe that the descendants of Adam and Eve moved throughout the world over the past ~6,000 years as the lineage of Revelation in all cultures Revealing the spiritual knowledge and prophecies of 'Prophetic Cycle.' The descendants of Adam are in all these cultures. This is an interpretation on my part.

I understand that you believe that the descendants of Adam and Eve moved throughout the world over the past ~6,000 years and are in all cultures revealing the spiritual knowledge and prophecies of 'Prophetic Cycle,' but that is not the queastion I've been asking you. Once again, do you believe that all modern humans are descended from Adam and Eve, an historical couple that lived 6,000 years ago?

[shunyadragon]

You are not quoting me correctly. I was merely referring to Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI as acknowledging theological diversity and fundamental alternative theological views as expressed by Hans Urs von Cardinal Balthasar, but I could also refer back to Paul VI, speaking through a spokesperson, being open to the process of rethinking the theology of original sin to be in accord with the properly scientific theory of evolution. While he personally expressed a very traditional theology and signaled some reservations about some contemporary proposals, he nonetheless encouraged the rethinking process to continue and was evidently comfortable with the theology of original sin being in a state of flux at the time. Subsequently, Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, was himself accused by traditionalists of denying the dogma of Original Sin. Of course, he did not deny the dogma, but his theological expression of its meaning in contemporary terms was unacceptable to those who, like yourself, prefer <snipe>to good theological dialogue and debate.

It is not a matter of not quoting you correctly In referring to these popes and or other theologians you have failed to provide direct citations of what they said to support your assertions, which is SOP for Twebb discussions. I am familiar with some of these sources and there statements on these matters, and believe you are over stating the interpretations of what they mean. That is why I want to see their words in citations to support your assertions.

Still waiting

[shunyadragon]

I understand that you believe that the descendants of Adam and Eve moved throughout the world over the past ~6,000 years and are in all cultures revealing the spiritual knowledge and prophecies of 'Prophetic Cycle,' but that is not the queastion I've been asking you. Once again, do you believe that all modern humans are descended from Adam and Eve, an historical couple that lived 6,000 years ago?

I answered the question in the previous post! Please respond to that!

"ALL humanity is descendent from an earlier Adam as I originally stated when humanity first became human, probably ~100.000 to 200.000 years ago, or possibly older. The misunderstanding is it has been a long time since I read or studied the different sources concerning what Baha'u'llah wrote concerning Adam. Thanks to your request I made an effort to go back and read these sources. There have been other Adams and cycles of Revelation throughout human history. As I said before, I never have been particularly concerned with this aspect of ancient history of religion. Your efforts to pressure me to look back over the scripture, particularly that of Baha'u'llah was helpful in correcting any misinformation as to what the Baha'i writings stated concerning Adam. I am more concerned with the spiritual world today. Yes, the Adam and Eve of ~6000 years ago was the first revelation of the 'Prophetic Cycle' that is the source of Revelation for all of humanity that culminated with the Revelation of the Bab.

I do believe that the descendants of Adam and Eve moved throughout the world over the past ~6,000 years as the lineage of Revelation in all cultures Revealing the spiritual knowledge and prophecies of 'Prophetic Cycle.' The descendants of Adam are in all these cultures. This is an interpretation on my part."

To add I believe all humanity has a genetic relationship to the Adam and Eve of ~6,000 years ago as their descendants moved throughout the world in the 'Prophetic Cycle' as a part of the Revelation of God to all humanity. All the people of the world also are descendant and related to all the previous Adams of previous cycles of humanity. This is somewhat confirmed in the science of the evolution of humanity, as waves of migrations out of Africa that are hybrids and genetically related to the previous migrations. There was a 'First Adam' sometime in the distant past when humanity first became human in Africa, and yes all of humanity would be related and descendant from this 'First Adam,' as described in the writings of Baha'u'llah as many cycles of Revelation, each beginning with it's own 'Adam.' This use of the title 'Adam' represents the 'symbolic name,' not the real name of the first Revealer of God's word for each cycle.

[robrecht]

No, but the Baha'i Faith has acknowledged multiple interpretations without the burden of the fixed interpretation of the Fall and Original Sin.

So it seems you do not disagree with my point here after all.

I know of no evidence of original authors, and you have presented none.

That there can be known original authors/editors of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch as well, and the interpretations of these original authors.

You need to cite the reference more specifically. It is not available to me. Does it refer to specific authors of Genesis, and document sources for this knowledge. Just citing a three volume Tome doe snot work here. You can cite Westermann specifically, and his source that an original author/editor is in some way known. Actually if you give me some page numbers and annotated references where he documents this claim it may save me some time rooting through a three volume tome.

Not merely a historical figure does not indicate that Adam was not a historical figure, in fact it indicates that Adam is a historical figure. Yes, there may be more 'evolved' interpretations of Genesis as acknowledged in the Baha'i writings. You still have not cited and quoted your sources that document this claim. I will eventually look up this three volume tome, but for purposes of constructive dialogue you need to cite and quote sources concerning this outrageous claim of 'original authors' of Genesis. Westermann had to cite a source on 'original authorship; What is that source?'

It seems you're not really understanding about how scholarship works in these matters. I have not made any outrageous claims. It is standard fare for historico-critical exegetical scholars to discuss and try to understand what is the probable intent of the original authors as well as that of later redactors and editors of a text in their multiple historical contexts. There is no single citation that can be given to provide evidence for this scholarly methodology. It is an long-standing and ongoing scholarly discussion that has been going on for over a century. Claus Westermann's 3-volume commentary is a good introduction to this discussion insofar as he provides a rather good summary of the history of this discussion as part of his own explication. If you are willing to discuss the Hebrew text, I will support my own view, which is not that unusual, but it is nonetheless my own presentation of the evidence of the text, which I have presented here before. My own view is that at least one/some of the authors/redactors/editors of the current Hebrew text of Genesis did not consider Adam to be a single historical individual, which is my own belief as well, but I acknowledge that some parts of the text also do treat him as a single historical individual. I personally do not. Westermann's commentary is rather dated, but my observations also hold up in the application of more recent poetic narrative exegetical methodologies that Westermann was not able to summarize at that time.