A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[robrecht]

Your reading tunnel vision into one quote, and then citing Abdul'baha in another where he states that his interpretation IS ONE OF MANY. Bad on your part. Your ignoring the fact that the other citations make it clear that humanity is descendant from many Adams.

Yes Abdul' baha was the official exemplar of Baha'u'llah and "Authorative Writings and Guidance," but your choosing to selectively ignore the fact that Abdul'baha's writings also contain commentary and interpretations that are not absolute. You have chosen to ignore my other references as to what is absolutely authoritive and do not change. and the foundation principles concerning science and religion.

It is not a matter of selecting some writings as authoritative and some not when clearly, some are commentary and interpretation, and the basic Baha'i principles rule as the guide to understanding. Unlike in archaic Dogma and Doctrine based on ancient Canaanite and pre-Babylonian myths ruling traditional Christianity. Example, many if not most Christians believe the Bible is a literal unhanging infallible God inspired document. the Baha'i Faith acknowledges a changing and evolving body of knowledge, including the interpretation of Baha'i scripture. The difference is abundantly clear.

Your selective dance agenda attacking the Baha'i Faith is overwhelmingly obvious 'living in a glass house and throwing stones.'

ad hominem characterization of my questions.

[shunyadragon]

Obviously, you have been.

Your oblivious support of the following, based only on 'my reading makes it difficult for me to misrepresent you. You need to present some sources and references to this, or 'my reading' becomes 'my palm reading.'

With respect to the early fathers, popes, cardinals, and recent theologians, this does not relate to the exegesis of the Hebrew text of Genesis, but rather, as I said very explicitly (187), to the primacy of the Incarnation alternative to the traditional felix culpa Augustinian theology of Adam's original sin being the cause and reason for the incarnation as necessary for redemption. This alternative school of theology directly negates the most important theological presupposition of the way in which Original Sin has generally been understood in the West and laid the groundwork for a more evolutionary vision of creation, redemption and the incarnation.

First, almost ALL the early church fathers believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Second, felix culpa remains the foundation for ALL traditional church beliefs.

Third, you have failed to demonstrate 'a more evolutionary vision of creation, redemption and the incarnation.' other than a 'my reading' interpretation. No other sources quoted to support this.

There is no reason why you cannot carry on a dialogue (and perhaps even learn) about the meaning of the Hebrew text of Genesis.

It is good that you want to gain a more coherent interpretation of the Baha'i scriptures and faith, but I see no reason why you cannot also gain a more coherent interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.

Most definitely WE can learn more of the possible different readings of the Hebrew text of Genesis, but first we need to base OUR learning on substantive dialogue from academic source properly cited, and not just 'my reading'

Rogue06 did post #21 and post #31 some interesting insight into his 'my reading' problems with Genesis, but nothing new here.

Example: Years ago in the Judaism section of the forum several good Jewish academics posted extensively on the OT with translations and references for interpretations. I have saved these on my hard drive and study them. This is a learning exercise, and not unsupported 'my reading.'

Example: Over the years showmeproof has presented great threads on the relationship of Canaanite and pre-Babylonian origins of OT literature and issues like polytheism in early Judaism. I learned a lot from these threads.

I do not consider these arguments to be either valid and true, nor invalid or false. They just represent very coherent well documented and references dialogue and arguments, which is lacking in a 'my reading' only argument.

[robrecht]

Your oblivious support of the following, based only on 'my reading makes it difficult for me to misrepresent you.

Now that you understand, you will no doubt not misrepresent me on this point going forward.

You need to present some sources and references to this, or 'my reading' becomes 'my palm reading.'

No need to be derogatory before you have even seen the justification of my reading of the Hebrew text.

First, almost ALL the early church fathers believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

So what?

Second, felix culpa remains the foundation for ALL traditional church beliefs.

Which is why it has been important for theologians to critically address the theological presuppositions of church doctrines in order for them to be better understood theologically.

Third, you have failed to demonstrate 'a more evolutionary vision of creation, redemption and the incarnation.' other than a 'my reading' interpretation. No other sources quoted to support this.

You are still misunderstanding by equating the theological tradition and school I have pointed out to you with my reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis. The priority of the Incarnation evolutionary and continuous view of creation and redemption is well known. I have directed you to the major proponents.

Most definitely WE can learn more of the possible different readings of the Hebrew text of Genesis, but first we need to base OUR learning on substantive dialogue from academic source properly cited, and not just 'my reading'

I have indeed already obtained the necessary training to advance my own reading in a scholarly manner. The question is whether you are willing to engage in dialogue about it or not. If you only want to view other scholarly readings of Genesis, you are certainly free to do so and you can use such readings and references to test or critique my reading of the Hebrew.

Rogue06 did post #21 and post #31 some interesting insight into his 'my reading' problems with Genesis, but nothing new here.

See also his Post #30. So now do you realize the importance and feasibility of the scholarly discussion of the intent of the original authors'/redactors'/editors'?

Example: Years ago in the Judaism section of the forum several good Jewish academics posted extensively on the OT with translations and references for interpretations. I have saved these on my hard drive and study them. This is a learning exercise, and not unsupported 'my reading.'

My reading of the text can be supported by an understanding of the Hebrew text. Translations and references are great, but it is also important to read the actual text being commented upon by others. My own reading is indeed informed by several years of education under Hebrew and other scholars and I am very much indebted to them. Sometimes I can remember a reference or conversation but I prefer to encounter the text directly whenever possible.

Example: Over the years showmeproof has presented great threads on the relationship of Canaanite and pre-Babylonian origins of OT literature and issues like polytheism in early Judaism. I learned a lot from these threads.

Of course, but I think showmeproof would also be the first to acknowledge the value of knowing and using the original languages directly. He has picked up some of this indirectly by reading others, but I'm sure he would love to dive deeper into the original texts.

I do not consider these arguments to be either valid and true, nor invalid or false. They just represent very coherent well documented and references dialogue and arguments, which is lacking in a 'my reading' only argument.

So far, you have only posted translations of a few verses and part of a commentary. What I propose to do is examine several chapters of a text in the original language. If you have any reason to doubt my analysis, you are welcome to ask for clarification and some references should indeed be easy to track down by me or you, if you so desire, if you have any reason to suspect that my reading of the text is mere 'palm reading'.

[shunyadragon]

Each and every and likely all Adams are the Fathers of humanity as described by Baha'u'llah, and I gave added explanation in my interpretation no problem.

[robrecht]

Each and every and likely all Adams are the Fathers of humanity as described by Baha'u'llah, and I gave added explanation in my interpretation no problem.

Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, 2011, p. 389:

[shunyadragon]

Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, 2011, p. 389:

This may be ok, but a word of caution is warranted. Nowhere in the Baha'i writings is there a belief that Adam and Eve are in any way at fault for a 'Fall' or 'Original Sin' as the beginning of sinful bondage for all of humanity. The 'sinful bondage' would simply part of the fallible nature of humanity from the time the first Adam and the first human. Sort of possibly the lost of innocence of the nature of the animal kingdom.

I will take note of this for future reference.

[robrecht]

This may be ok, but a word of caution is warranted. Nowhere in the Baha'i writings is there a belief that Adam and Eve are in any way at fault for a 'Fall' or 'Original Sin' as the beginning of sinful bondage for all of humanity. The 'sinful bondage' would simply part of the fallible nature of humanity from the time the first Adam and the first human. Sort of possibly the lost of innocence of the nature of the animal kingdom.

Which is why I say it is pretty similar to Fiorenza's characterization modern Catholic theology: "But the single most important conclusion of Catholic biblical studies relative to original sin consists in breaking down the misinterpretations of the story of Adam and Eve and their 'fall' as a descriptive historical account

[shunyadragon]

Which is why I say it is pretty similar to Fiorenza's characterization modern Catholic theology: "But the single most important conclusion of Catholic biblical studies relative to original sin consists in breaking down the misinterpretations of the story of Adam and Eve and their 'fall' as a descriptive historical account

If that is the case they may be coming around to the Baha'i beliefs.

An important point about the Baha'i view of the messianic cycles is that all the Manifestations of God represent a continuous genealogy as described in the Bible and the Quran. This genealogy extends through the history of humanity as the Fathers of humanity.

Another point is that Revelation and Creation is a continuous evolving process through many worlds. Life is described as continuous evolving process through all worlds including the physical world, usually described as none living. This is something like the Gaia belief, but not personification as Gaia believes. It is the attributes, images and nature of God throughout the cycles of Creation and Revelation. What science describes as Evolution is simply a part of a continuous process of an evolving Creation.

This is where the scalar difference comes into the picture.

[robrecht]

If that is the case they may be coming around to the Baha'i beliefs.

An important point about the Baha'i view of the messianic cycles is that all the Manifestations of God represent a continuous genealogy as described in the Bible and the Quran. This genealogy extends through the history of humanity as the Fathers of humanity.

Another point is that Revelation and Creation is a continuous evolving process through many worlds. Life is described as continuous evolving process through all worlds including the physical world, usually described as none living. This is something like the Gaia belief, but not personification as Gaia believes. It is the attributes, images and nature of God throughout the cycles of Creation and Revelation. What science describes as Evolution is simply a part of a continuous process of an evolving Creation.

This is where the scalar difference comes into the picture.

Don't forget that it is in part motivated by exegesis of the book of Genesis so both Baha'i and Catholic theologians (and others) are perhaps coming around to the probable original intent of the authors/redactors/editors of Genesis, at least as far as Adam and Eve are concerned. With respect to the scalar differences, we already did away with that canard (188,189,191,192,193,195, 197, 210).

[shunyadragon]

Don't forget that it is in part motivated by exegesis of the book of Genesis so both Baha'i and Catholic theologians (and others) are perhaps coming around to the probable original intent of the authors/redactors/editors of Genesis, at least as far as Adam and Eve are concerned. With respect to the scalar differences, we already did away with that canard (188,189,191,192,193,195, 197, 210).

As far as the Baha'i Faith goes it is not based scholarly exegesis. It is based on Revelation. Actually as far as the 'Official Doctrine and Dogma of traditional Christian churches, nothing has changed. Talking heads mean little until something of substance has changed.

[robrecht]

As far as the Baha'i Faith goes it is not based scholarly exegesis. It is based on Revelation. Actually as far as the 'Official Doctrine and Dogma of traditional Christian churches, nothing has changed. Talking heads mean little until something of substance has changed.

Scholarly exegesis is merely trying to understand the texts, whether you consider them to be revelation or not. Scholarship is mostly just the communal learning of foreign languages and the historical and sociological contexts in which the texts were written. No reason to denigrate scholars as 'talking heads'. Without their translations, you would not be able to understand your revelatory texts. Likewise, without the scientific community there would be no advance in understanding of our physical universe, which we also consider revelatory.

[shunyadragon]

Scholarly exegesis is merely trying to understand the texts, whether you consider them to be revelation or not. Scholarship is mostly just the communal learning of foreign languages and the historical and sociological contexts in which the texts were written. No reason to denigrate scholars as 'talking heads'. Without their translations, you would not be able to understand your revelatory texts. Likewise, without the scientific community there would be no advance in understanding of our physical universe, which we also consider revelatory.

The 'problem remains,' all the substance you have provided for your argument is 'my reading.' Periodically you throw out names 'talking heads,' but no citations of substance to support your view. Again, 'my reading' does not impress me, and especially the lack of good specific serious citations that propose and sort of 'change' in the fundamental doctrines and dogmas of the traditional churches.

[robrecht]

The 'problem remains,' all the substance you have provided for your argument is 'my reading.' Periodically you throw out names 'talking heads,' but no citations of substance to support your view. Again, 'my reading' does not impress me, and especially the lack of good specific serious citations that propose and sort of 'change' in the fundamental doctrines and dogmas of the traditional churches.

You have not even heard any of the explanation of or support for my reading! Just characterized it as nothing more than palm reading and announced that you are unimpressed by it without even hearing it. You have only wanted references to quotations of others, and when I give you that of a preeminent theologian, not merely speaking of his own view, but summarizing the work of modern exegetes and supporting my position exactly you denigrate it as nothing more than 'talking heads'. If you are ready to enter into the substance of the text and my reading of it, I will proceed. My position, which you supposedly chose to engage at one point, has never been about changing doctrines and dogmas of traditional churches, but rather the proper exegetical understanding of the text at hand, and its implications for the theological understanding of the text and doctrines based upon it. If you want to discuss the text and the theological understanding of doctrines, we can proceed. But if you merely want to continue your tired polemic against traditional churches being, well, traditional, I see no real point worth discussing.

[shunyadragon]

You have not even heard any of the explanation of or support for my reading! Just characterized it as nothing more than palm reading and announced that you are unimpressed by it without even hearing it. You have only wanted references to quotations of others, and when I give you that of a preeminent theologian, not merely speaking of his own view, but summarizing the work of modern exegetes and supporting my position exactly you denigrate it as nothing more than 'talking heads'. If you are ready to enter into the substance of the text and my reading of it, I will proceed. My position, which you supposedly chose to engage at one point, has never been about changing doctrines and dogmas of traditional churches, but rather the proper exegetical understanding of the text at hand, and its implications for the theological understanding of the text and doctrines based upon it. If you want to discuss the text and the theological understanding of doctrines, we can proceed. But if you merely want to continue your tired polemic against traditional churches being, well, traditional, I see no real point worth discussing.

I do not see any 'real' point in continuing the discussion, because 'my reading' is too nebulous,. No just names of 'talking heads' do not represent any thing of substance. Substance still has to direct citations, quotes of Theologians, not indirect references. I have taken these references to note, and will read some of them in the future including Claus Westermann. I do believe you are overstating the conclusions in Claus's Commentary on Genesis.

The bottom line are the doctrines and dogmas of the Traditional Christian churches, and for that matter all churches and religions. This is where the 'Buck' stops concerning what is taught and believed in the institutions.

[robrecht]

I do not see any 'real' point in continuing the discussion, because 'my reading' is too nebulous,. No just names of 'talking heads' do not represent any thing of substance. Substance still has to direct citations, quotes of Theologians, not indirect references. I have taken these references to note, and will read some of them in the future including Claus Westermann. I do believe you are overstating the conclusions in Claus's Commentary on Genesis.

The bottom line are the doctrines and dogmas of the Traditional Christian churches, and for that matter all churches and religions. This is where the 'Buck' stops concerning what is taught and believed in the institutions.

Please quote exactly where you feel I have overstated any conclusions of Westermann's commentary!

My reading or that of any other exegete or theologian appreciative of exegesis is only nebulous for those who do not desire to read and understand the texts, especially in the languages in which they are written. To criticize such a reading without even hearing it is akin to ignorantly judging a book by its cover. Similarly, I did not merely provide you with names of 'talking heads' but described for you a school of thought developing within the Christian tradition for nearly 2,000 years that would not be neglected by anyone attempting to have a properly theological understanding of Christian doctrines. Of course, that would not support a polemical agenda.