A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[grmorton]

When I wrote:

You clearly don't understand the analogy I used earlier. If you bioengineer a plague that would kill millions, and go ahead and release it, you are morally responsible for what it does. You are also legally responsible for what it does. But you don't actively insert the virus into each and every victim.
It seems to me that you are making the logical argument,
god sets Satan in motion
therefore God causes individual acts of evil.
That is a nonsequitur

that wasn't 'misrepresenting you' that was telling you what I think of your views. You may not agree, you may not like my view of your position, but there it is.

I really shouldn't be doing this, but because I've been so badly misrepresented after doing my best to make sure I'm not doing that, and making myself clear I had to come back.

See above.

No, it's not a non-sequitur in this case. By attributing Satan's evil to God, you are removing the free will component. This is the component that shows God is not to be held responsible for the evil acts of others. He knows better, he has been given adequate knowledge, and yet he still chose to disobey the Creator of the universe. That's on him, not on God. The same would apply to people, since he appears to have the same level of free will that we do. That you aren't seeing where your views lead does not make those problems go away.

I think your view requires God to be blind to what Satan would do. That takes omniscience away from God. God in some sense becomes Plato's demiurge, who created Satan but really was unaware of what Satan would do. Now, maybe that is your position, but omniscience has been the classical christian view of God for millennia.

No doubt you will say I am misrepresenting you again, but I am merely stating where I see your views leading. If you can say where my views lead, why can't I say where I think your views lead? Or is this a one way street here?

While I don't fully agree with tabibito, I think he is far closer to the mark about this subject than you

Well we all have our opinions and preferences. lol

[robrecht]

I need some references on this. Original authors?!?!!? I do not believe we have any knowledge of who may be the original authors of Genesis. I need more information on this before we go much further. I believe the predominant view historically in Hebrew, Christian and Islamic traditions, Adam and Eve are indeed real persons.

It is a matter of scholarly study and discussion. Take a look at Claus Westermann's 3-volume commentary on Genesis or any other scholarly treatment.

The belief that a person existed referenced in ancient text does not remotely mean any sort of literal meaning of the text itself.

It is not an all or nothing question of completely literal vs nonliteral. My comparison was between more and less literal. You believe that Adam and Eve were the first human couple to know God. This is a more literal reading of Genesis than those who do not think that the biblical story literally refers to a historically existing first couple. It is silly for you to deny this.

Well, I do not have a direct answer to those questions, except there is indication that modern humans were more intelligent and adaptive then earlier humanoids. The current evidence indicates that modern humans hybridized and/or absorbed other related humanoids as they migrated out of Africa.

One of the interpretations of Genesis described by Abdul'baha was that the tree life represents the Word of God and the tree of good and evil represents humanity and the snake in the tree represents the darker side or sinful nature of humans. This symbolism does not describe Adam and Eve as being at fault for the sinful nature of humanity.

In the spiritual evolution of humanity, Adam is represented as the embryonic stage of the development of the soul.

If you do not have a direct answer to a simple question about your belief, have you entertained the possibility that your belief might be irrational? What were the sources of Bahá'u'lláh's knowledge of Adam and Eve?

[Darth Ovious]

And I would like only those to respond here, please.

And, mods, if this is not the best place for this thread, please feel free to move it.

Hi Mossy

I suppose I should answer this since it pertains to my beliefs.

My question is, where do Adam and Eve fit in your belief that God used evolution to create?

My thoughts are not rigid on it at all so I do have room to make amendments if others make better explanations, especially since I am not entirely knowledgeable on the mechanics of evolution but I personally think that Adam and Eve were the first Humans to have evolved to a state that was considered human if that makes sense. The term human in this context refers to a human being who came to a realisation of morality as well as a certain degree of cogitative ability.

[tabibito]

Here is where your view piles assumption upon assumption. You assume you know what God would do in other worlds, when before you said they were irrelevant and thus not mentioned. Seems to me that this assumes you have a level of knowledge of what God would do in alternative universes which you could not possibly possess. This approach to theological theory building makes you rather than God the Architect.

Nope - I assume that God has the capacity to preempt anything deleterious. I also assume that God will use that ability when he sees fit - which, in the normal course, he won't do independently. A potentially irrecoverable disaster does not fall under the heading of "normal course".

That being said, I do not draw any conclusions about the efficacy of sacrifices to other gods.

[rogue06]

At the steakhouse of your choice, yes.

I think that I might have provided sufficient explanation in this thread that I blew my free steak dinner

[tabibito]

I really appreciate the input from you all on this question.

I have a couple more, if you don't mind.

First, where does the narrative in Genesis change from analogy or symbolic language to actual factual accounting?

IMO, the accounts of Genesis are in doubt until the time of Abraham, or rather, Abram - long about Genesis 11:27 or so. If nothing else, the time sequence prior to that account is messed up. I do believe that Adam and Eve were actually created as the Bible states, and that Noah is a possibility - provided that the word translated as "the world" should actually be "the land" (Hebrew using the same word for both). But those are just my opinions.

[shunyadragon]

It is a matter of scholarly study and discussion. Take a look at Claus Westermann's 3-volume commentary on Genesis or any other scholarly treatment.

You made statements concerning the question of 'original authors' and not considering Adam and Eve as literal persons. Referring to a three volume commentary work does not help here. I may when I am at Duke check out these dusty tomes at the library, but for the discussion here you need to be specific in your references to back up claims.

It is not an all or nothing question of completely literal vs nonliteral. My comparison was between more and less literal. You believe that Adam and Eve were the first human couple to know God. This is a more literal reading of Genesis than those who do not think that the biblical story literally refers to a historically existing first couple. It is silly for you to deny this.

I deny any sort of literal interpretation of the text of Genesis, and so does the Baha'i scripture. The Dominant view of most Jews is also to deny any sort of literal interpretation of Genesis text. I believe and the Baha'i writings confirm Adam and Eve were a literal couple that began the Adamic cycle. One error on my part I will correct. Yes, Adam was the first manifestation of God for the Adamic cycle, but my error, not necessarily the first person to know God. Adam began the cycle of Revelation that began ~6,000 years before Muhammad, also called the Prophetic cycle. There were likely cycles prior to Adam and Eve, particularly cycles of Creation. This cycle is characterized by the rise of Civilizations. The Revelation of Baha'u'llah begins a new Universal Cycle.

Yes, The first physical humans likely arose between ~100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

If you do not have a direct answer to a simple question about your belief, . . .

Your simple question did not involve the Baha'i writings nor an issue of my belief.

. . . have you entertained the possibility that your belief might be irrational? What were the sources of Bahá'u'lláh's knowledge of Adam and Eve?

Foolish notion on which to base ones faith. Baha'u'llah, Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi taught that Adam and Eve were real peersons, so does the dominant view of the teachings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The dominant view in traditional Christianity of the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' blaming Adam and Eve for all the suffering, pain, sin and death, are bizzaro enough for me to reject these claims in traditional Christianity. The belief in Adam and Eve being literal persons is not a very big issue.

I actually answered the questions you asked, but the questions were not necessarily directly related to the Baha'i writings and teachings on the subject.

You neglected one of my questions so I will ask again. If indeed all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, who were not necessarily the first physical human beings, was belief in God somehow instrumental in their descendents' evolutionary survival?

Why would other physical human beings, those who did not know God, if they existed, not survive?

Well, I do not have a direct answer to those questions, except there is indication that modern humans were more intelligent and adaptive then earlier humanoids. The current evidence indicates that modern humans hybridized and/or absorbed other related humanoids as they migrated out of Africa. [note] Baha'i basically teaches that this evolution of humanity was destined to be Created by 'Natural Processes' that the result would be humanity as we know it today.

One of the interpretations of Genesis described by Abdul'baha was that the tree life represents the Word of God and the tree of good and evil represents humanity and the snake in the tree represents the darker side or sinful nature of humans. This symbolism does not describe Adam and Eve as being at fault for the sinful nature of humanity.

In the spiritual evolution of humanity, Adam is represented as the embryonic stage of the development of the soul.

Source: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-30.html

Question.—What is the truth of the story of Adam, and His eating of the fruit of the tree?

Answer.—In the Bible it is written that God put Adam in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and take care of it, and said to Him: “Eat of every tree of the garden except the tree of good and evil, for if You eat of that, You will die.” 1 Then it is said that God caused Adam to sleep, and He took one of His ribs and created woman in order that she might be His companion. After that it is said the serpent induced the woman to eat of the tree, saying: “God has forbidden you to eat of the tree in order that your eyes may not be opened, and that you may not know good from evil.” 2 Then Eve ate from the tree and gave unto Adam, Who also ate; their eyes were opened, they found themselves naked, and they hid their bodies with leaves. In consequence of this act they received the reproaches of God. God said to Adam: “Hast Thou eaten of the forbidden tree?” Adam answered: “Eve tempted Me, and I did eat.” God then reproved Eve; Eve said: “The serpent tempted me, and I did eat.” For this the serpent was cursed, and enmity was put between the serpent and Eve, and between their descendants. And God said: “The man is become like unto Us, knowing good and evil, and perhaps He will eat of the tree of life and live forever.” So God guarded the tree of life.

If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how much less of the Divinity—that Divinity Who has organized this infinite universe in the most perfect form, and its innumerable inhabitants with absolute system, strength and perfection.

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings.
. . .
This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the others.

Salutations be upon you.

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

You made statements concerning the question of 'original authors' and not considering Adam and Eve as literal persons. Referring to a three volume commentary work does not help here. I may when I am at Duke check out these dusty tomes at the library, but for the discussion here you need to be specific in your references to back up claims.

I was only responding to your request about information on the original authors: "Original authors?!?!!? I do not believe we have any knowledge of who may be the original authors of Genesis. I need more information on this before we go much further." Claus Westermann's 3-volume commentary is a very good place to start in learning about the scholarly discussion of the original authors of Genesis. As for my reading of Genesis and the intent of at least one/some of the original authors, I am quite able to defend that view on my own. But, if I recall correctly, Claus Westermann holds the same opinion so if you do decide to look up his or other relevant scholarly research on the topic, you will also see that my view is quite common among scholars.

I deny any sort of literal interpretation of the text of Genesis, and so does the Baha'i scripture. The Dominant view of most Jews is also to deny any sort of literal interpretation of Genesis text. I believe and the Baha'i writings confirm Adam and Eve were a literal couple that began the Adamic cycle. One error on my part I will correct. Yes, Adam was the first manifestation of God for the Adamic cycle, but my error, not necessarily the first person to know God. Adam began the cycle of Revelation that began ~6,000 years before Muhammad, also called the Prophetic cycle. There were likely cycles prior to Adam and Eve, particularly cycles of Creation. This cycle is characterized by the rise of Civilizations. The Revelation of Baha'u'llah begins a new Universal Cycle.

Yes, The first physical humans likely arose between ~100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Your simple question did not involve the Baha'i writings nor an issue of my belief.

Yes, it most certainly did. It involved reconciling your erstwhile stated belief (now corrected) that Adam and Eve were the first to know God with your understanding of the scientific theory(ies) of evolution.

Foolish notion on which to base ones faith. Baha'u'llah, Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi taught that Adam and Eve were real peersons, so does the dominant view of the teachings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Please clarify your two statements underlined above: "... The Dominant view of most Jews is also to deny any sort of literal interpretation of Genesis text. ... Adam and Eve were real peersons, so does the dominant view of the teachings of Judaism ..."

The dominant view in traditional Christianity of the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' blaming Adam and Eve for all the suffering, pain, sin and death, are bizzaro enough for me to reject these claims in traditional Christianity. The belief in Adam and Eve being literal persons is not a very big issue.

I consider it a very big issue when one wants to understand the original intent of the various authors and editors.

I actually answered the questions you asked, but the questions were not necessarily directly related to the Baha'i writings and teachings on the subject.

Now that you've changed your beliefs to be in better accord with actual Baha'i teaching, my question changes to your understanding of Adam and Eve as living 6,000 years before Muhammad. What is the ultimate source of this belief? Is it not ultimately based on a partly literal reading of this information from the book of Genesis, perhaps as mediated through Islam and Baha'i channels?

Well, I do not have a direct answer to those questions, except there is indication that modern humans were more intelligent and adaptive then earlier humanoids. The current evidence indicates that modern humans hybridized and/or absorbed other related humanoids as they migrated out of Africa. [note] Baha'i basically teaches that this evolution of humanity was destined to be Created by 'Natural Processes' that the result would be humanity as we know it today.

One of the interpretations of Genesis described by Abdul'baha was that the tree life represents the Word of God and the tree of good and evil represents humanity and the snake in the tree represents the darker side or sinful nature of humans. This symbolism does not describe Adam and Eve as being at fault for the sinful nature of humanity.

In the spiritual evolution of humanity, Adam is represented as the embryonic stage of the development of the soul.

Source: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-30.html

Question.—What is the truth of the story of Adam, and His eating of the fruit of the tree?

Answer.—In the Bible it is written that God put Adam in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and take care of it, and said to Him: “Eat of every tree of the garden except the tree of good and evil, for if You eat of that, You will die.” 1 Then it is said that God caused Adam to sleep, and He took one of His ribs and created woman in order that she might be His companion. After that it is said the serpent induced the woman to eat of the tree, saying: “God has forbidden you to eat of the tree in order that your eyes may not be opened, and that you may not know good from evil.” 2 Then Eve ate from the tree and gave unto Adam, Who also ate; their eyes were opened, they found themselves naked, and they hid their bodies with leaves. In consequence of this act they received the reproaches of God. God said to Adam: “Hast Thou eaten of the forbidden tree?” Adam answered: “Eve tempted Me, and I did eat.” God then reproved Eve; Eve said: “The serpent tempted me, and I did eat.” For this the serpent was cursed, and enmity was put between the serpent and Eve, and between their descendants. And God said: “The man is become like unto Us, knowing good and evil, and perhaps He will eat of the tree of life and live forever.” So God guarded the tree of life.

If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how much less of the Divinity—that Divinity Who has organized this infinite universe in the most perfect form, and its innumerable inhabitants with absolute system, strength and perfection.

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings.
. . .
This is one of the meanings of the biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the others.

Salutations be upon you.

© Copyright Original Source

I am familiar with this text from Abdu’l-Bahá. Were there earlier Baha'i teachings from Bahá’u’lláh about Adam and Eve?

[robrecht]

... I believe and the Baha'i writings confirm Adam and Eve were a literal couple that began the Adamic cycle. One error on my part I will correct. Yes, Adam was the first manifestation of God for the Adamic cycle, but my error, not necessarily the first person to know God. Adam began the cycle of Revelation that began ~6,000 years before Muhammad, also called the Prophetic cycle. ... [/cite]

Are you sure this is correct? I've seen others calculate the approximately 6,000 years of the Adamic Cycle up until the 19th century CE (eg, the declaration of the Báb in 1844) rather than up until the time of Muhammad.

"... the Blessed Báb, Prophet and Herald of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh, Founder of the Dispensation marking the culmination of the six thousand year old Adamic Cycle, Inaugurator of the five thousand century Bahá’í Cycle."

http://www.bahai.org/library/authori...el-faith/#f=f4

[grmorton]

IMO, the accounts of Genesis are in doubt until the time of Abraham, or rather, Abram - long about Genesis 11:27 or so. If nothing else, the time sequence prior to that account is messed up. I do believe that Adam and Eve were actually created as the Bible states, and that Noah is a possibility - provided that the word translated as "the world" should actually be "the land" (Hebrew using the same word for both). But those are just my opinions.

I at least want to point out where tabibito and I agree. I agree eretz should be translated the land. I agree that the time sequence is out of order, because I believe the days of Gen. 1 are Days of Proclamation,, proclamations from God on what the world would be like. the days were not the creative days. Gen. 2 is billions of years after Gen. 1. I do believe that Noah is real and know one geologic event which absolutely matches the biblical description.

[shunyadragon]

I was only responding to your request about information on the original authors: "Original authors?!?!!? I do not believe we have any knowledge of who may be the original authors of Genesis. I need more information on this before we go much further." Claus Westermann's 3-volume commentary is a very good place to start in learning about the scholarly discussion of the original authors of Genesis. As for my reading of Genesis and the intent of at least one/some of the original authors, I am quite able to defend that view on my own. But, if I recall correctly, Claus Westermann holds the same opinion so if you do decide to look up his or other relevant scholarly research on the topic, you will also see that my view is quite common among scholars.

The problem is I believe it is best worded 'among some scholars.' The problem is in traditional Christianity the belief is dominant that Adam and Eve are real persons. I can study and read the views of many different scholars, but that is not where the history of the traditional Christian beliefs lie.

Yes, it most certainly did. It involved reconciling your erstwhile stated belief (now corrected) that Adam and Eve were the first to know God with your understanding of the scientific theory(ies) of evolution.

No reconciling necessary, on the one hand we are considering the spiritual evolution of humanity, and on the other the physical evolution of humanity. No problem.

Please clarify your two statements underlined above: "... The Dominant view of most Jews is also to deny any sort of literal interpretation of Genesis text. ... Adam and Eve were real peersons, so does the dominant view of the teachings of Judaism ..."

No problem. Very similar to the Baha'i view of Genesis. Adam and Eve are believed to be real persons, and the text is considered symbolic and interpreted in varying ways.

I consider it a very big issue when one wants to understand the original intent of the various authors and editors.

I do not. We will have to agree to disagree.

Now that you've changed your beliefs to be in better accord with actual Baha'i teaching,. . .

False and a misrepresentation of what I said. I said I was in error concerning what the Baha'i text describes as the Adamic cycle. My beliefs have not changed. I could care less if the Adamic cycle was 6,000, 10,000 or 200,000 years long. This past stuff. I am concerned about my beliefs concerning the problems of the world today.

. . . my question changes to your understanding of Adam and Eve as living 6,000 years before Muhammad. What is the ultimate source of this belief? Is it not ultimately based on a partly literal reading of this information from the book of Genesis, perhaps as mediated through Islam and Baha'i channels?

I would have to check and let you know. I could be mistaken as before. These issues are not a big thing to me.

I am familiar with this text from Abdu’l-Bahá. Were there earlier Baha'i teachings from Bahá’u’lláh about Adam and Eve?

I am sure there are. I can take look see.

[shunyadragon]

Are you sure this is correct? I've seen others calculate the approximately 6,000 years of the Adamic Cycle up until the 19th century CE (eg, the declaration of the Báb in 1844) rather than up until the time of Muhammad.

No, I am not sure that I am correct. It is not real important to me when the Adamic cycle ended, but I will check. I am more concerned about what is happening today and what the Baha'i writings offer in terms of guidance, and the prayers for today's world.

The past is in the ashes and dust, and the ancient religions dwell in the past, and spend to much time second guessing ancient issues. For me, it is passing interest in history not much more.

[robrecht]

The problem is I believe it is best worded 'among some scholars.' The problem is in traditional Christianity the belief is dominant that Adam and Eve are real persons. I can study and read the views of many different scholars, but that is not where the history of the traditional Christian beliefs lie.

Here you say the problem is "the history of traditional Christian beliefs" but below with respect to your own beliefs you say that the past is in dust and ashes and you are only concerned about the present. Kind of a double standard. You castigate older religions for their beliefs of the past and do not accept their progress of theological thought.

No reconciling necessary, on the one hand we are considering the spiritual evolution of humanity, and on the other the physical evolution of humanity. No problem.

When you believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve, an historical couple, and also believe that Adam and Eve were the first to know God, you are in fact linking the both physical evolution of humanity and the spiritual evolution of humanity to the same historical couple.

No problem. Very similar to the Baha'i view of Genesis. Adam and Eve are believed to be real persons, and the text is considered symbolic and interpreted in varying ways.

But not totally symbolic. You believe in accord with Baha'i writings and in accord with the text of Genesis that Adam and Eve were a literal couple who lived some 6,000 years ago. That part of the text you believe to be literal. That is a more literal reading of the text than those of us who do not believe that Adam and Eve were an actual historical couple from whom all humankind descended.

I do not. We will have to agree to disagree.

Then you do not really care much about understanding the intent of the original authors.

False and a misrepresentation of what I said. I said I was in error concerning what the Baha'i text describes as the Adamic cycle. My beliefs have not changed. I could care less if the Adamic cycle was 6,000, 10,000 or 200,000 years long. This past stuff. I am concerned about my beliefs concerning the problems of the world today.

No, the issue of the Baha'i dating of Adamic cycle was a later mistake of yours that I pointed out to you subsequently. The error that you admitted to prior to that was that previously you said that Adam was the first to know God and subsequently you said that this was an error and that Adam was not necessarily the first person to know God. Try to be honest.

I would have to check and let you know. I could be mistaken as before. These issues are not a big thing to me.

Why not extend the same courtesy to Christians? Are not Christian theologians and exegetes likewise free to concern themselves with the modern world and thought and, apparently, able to interpret the historicity of Adam and Even more liberally than you.

I am sure there are. I can take look see.

[Darth Ovious]

I think that I might have provided sufficient explanation in this thread that I blew my free steak dinner

Nevermind, if you're ever the UK then I will get you a steak here. Although our steaks tend not to be as big but I think there a few places that do 20 ounce steaks upwards that I could find for you.

[shunyadragon]

Here you say the problem is "the history of traditional Christian beliefs" but below with respect to your own beliefs you say that the past is in dust and ashes and you are only concerned about the present. Kind of a double standard. You castigate older religions for their beliefs of the past and do not accept their progress of theological thought.

No double standard at all. What you describe as 'progress in theological thought' has not changed the fundamental doctrines and dogmas of the traditional Christian Churches.

When you believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve, an historical couple, and also believe that Adam and Eve were the first to know God, you are in fact linking the both physical evolution of humanity and the spiritual evolution of humanity to the same historical couple.

The descendancy of Adam and Eve is spiritual/physical in the Prophetic Age. The details on this may need some more study on my part, but again my primary concerns are not the dust and ashes of the past, and the interpretation of ancient scripture. There is both the spiritual and physical hybridization. Science does not deal with spiritual evolution. As a scientist I consider the theory of evolution to represent the physical history of life and humanity.

But not totally symbolic. You believe in accord with Baha'i writings and in accord with the text of Genesis that Adam and Eve were a literal couple who lived some 6,000 years ago. That part of the text you believe to be literal. That is a more literal reading of the text than those of us who do not believe that Adam and Eve were an actual historical couple from whom all humankind descended.

The only part of the text that is considered true is that Adam and Eve were real persons. The rest of the text is not considered literal. Your hung up on this, but this is a very similar belief in Judaism. We will have to disagree to disagree on this point. Nothing else in Genesis is considered necessarily literal in the Baha'i Faith and the dominant view in Judaism.

Then you do not really care much about understanding the intent of the original authors.

I consider the original authors of Genesis as well as the rest of the Pentateuch as completely unknown and multiple authors, and most likely a rewrite, edited, and compilation of earlier pre-Babylonian, Babylonian and Canaanite texts. This is also true of the Psalms and some other books of the OT that are not post exile writings. No convincing evidence of original authors of any of the Pentateuch and Psalm texts is known.

No, the issue of the Baha'i dating of Adamic cycle was a later mistake of yours that I pointed out to you subsequently. The error that you admitted to prior to that was that previously you said that Adam was the first to know God and subsequently you said that this was an error and that Adam was not necessarily the first person to know God. Try to be honest.

No, it is not a matter of my beliefs. My beliefs and concerns are not dependent on the details of ancient history. Apparently your beliefs and concerns are more into these ancient issues. I admit errors, because these texts and issues have never been a primary concern, and I will have to go back and read more to get clarification myself.

Why not extend the same courtesy to Christians? Are not Christian theologians and exegetes likewise free to concern themselves with the modern world and thought and, apparently, able to interpret the historicity of Adam and Even more liberally than you.

IT is not a matter of courtesy. There are, of course, theologians who study and propose alternate interpretations of scripture. On the individual level of believers and theologians there may be many interpretations on the edges of Christianity, but the bottom line is the doctrine and dogma of the traditional churches, which have not changed. These beliefs are taught to the believers and by far the majority believe what they are taught. The Roman Church is an excellent case and example, despite attempts to "modernize" or "liberalize?" the foundation Doctrine and Dogma has not changed, and there is no indication that anything will change. I have no problem giving the courtesy and respect to many theologians and individual believers, but the major churches do not change their foundation beliefs.

This issue has come up a number of times in our dialogue. Individual theologians and individuals and believe many different things, but the foundation of the churches remain the same. Some form new churches, like Unity and Unitarian, but this does not address the major traditional churches that do not change.