The search for Adam and Eve

[David Troxler]

Just read the latest Christianity Today article cover story.

Here it is:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/historicaladam.html

I welcome what Karl Giberson and others in the Church of the Nazarene are doing in the area of life science. When we examine this however, we are in somewhat new territory.

I am interested in helping people make the theological adjustments that will allow for science to be incorporated into one's life. We have all seen the detractors. I had one person in church bring me an article taken from a spurious website that castigates those Nazarenes who are thinking and researching and therefore changing the denomination. Without trying to resurrect the discussion about those naysayers, how do we aid the conversation for people who are truly seeking to make peace with scientific discovery.

Appreciate your thoughts.

[Ryan Scott]

I still think its important we focus people on what scripture intends to teach us with these stories (which has little, if anything, to do with historical details).

Archaeology tells us there's no evidence for anything in the biblical timeline before the Sinai wanderings. I don't have to take a position on that either way because my faith rests on the tradition from which those stories come and what the community uses those stories to say about God.

If they're real people, then they become real examples. If they're not real people, they become stories used to illustrate the timelessness of God who acts in the same ways for real people today.

[Roland Hearn]

I've just finished reading Karl Gibberson's "Saving Darwin." I've got to say I was disappointed. I have in the last five years completed the leap from old earth creationist to uncertain evolutionist. I read Gibberson's book hoping to find a thorough articulation of the issues, instead I found a history lesson on the battle of creation vs evolution. Some of which was interesting but the parts I found really helpful could be reduced to 20 pages. His comments on the fall and the reduction of the gap between humanity and primates was entirely unsatisfying and left me without good responses to the questions I know people can raise. For my part I don't need a literal Adam and Eve but I do need a "fall" to explain the distance between a God of love and a sinful humanity. Gibberson concedes the universality of sin but says it is simply the evolved mechanism of selfishness. That doesn't work for me because as he admits it exists alongside altruism and the desire to love and do good. The benefits of the later far outweigh the former and every time we act in love we experience a rush of self worth that is in direct contrast to the shame we experience when we act in selfishness. By Gibberson's theory give us another 100,000 years and we can evolve into glory and grace. The only reason that could not happen is an arbitrary divine fiat that we shall always be separated -this is not an act of love. Why can't God simply decree that we are not responsible for the state with which we are born, move into our lives at birth, and act proactively to aid our choices for the holy. Only then if we sin from that level playing field would it be just to judge. According to Gibberson's view we have evolved into a state of morality and choose selfishness over love for its benefits for natural selection and we will always act sinfully because of that condition. That doesn't seem fair or logical to me, particularly when there are species benefits to love that far outweigh the seeming benefits of selfishness. Why he rejects a moment of encounter between God and a newly evolved humanity seems beyond me. He mixes the figurative story with the literal one in order to reject that possibility -why? From reading the article it seems they would suggest that about 10,000 humans were the original humanity that were met by God and given a moral and spiritual nature. I just need to see more to work out how 10,000 people combine to create universal sinfulness. I've got to say, recognising the process I have been through I willingly concede that science and not literal biblical readings have the better chance of answering that question but I think it is a legitimate question. At the end of the day we need a reason to need a saviour today. I guess I can live without the story to back it up but I know there are lots of people that can't.

I think this is a worthy thread and good point to discuss -it directly affects the way we will be the church going forward. I hope it doesn't get hijacked by other concerns -ie scriptural inerrancy.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Well, the subject is widely being hijacked, so it's likely it will be here, too. When all you have in your hand is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This will continue to be a rallying point for every theologian - and those who'd like to be - with some unrelated ax to grind. When theologian types move into areas of non-expertise, and insist that their perspective is the only correct one, the discussion goes nowhere. Unfortunately, the same thing can be said for scientists who bring to the table good work and then begin making theological pronouncements.

I was grateful for the link to this article, in part because former ENC professor Karl Giberson was early brought into the discussion. Giberson is a person of strong faith, and I am grateful for his involvement in the discussion. He is not "the enemy."

This discovery/theory seems to complicate things. If one's position on scripture requires you to still insist the world is flat, these developments won't make your defense any easier. It might, however, encourage us to revisit our perspective on Paul, sin and redemption, and even the nature and character of God. There are some for whom that is going to be frightening, and some who simply are not prepared for the experience. That doesn't mean they aren't still my brothers and sisters.

For some reason, I can envision similar conversations centuries ago when those heretics began to toy with the idea that the earth might not be the center of the universe. Are you kidding me? That will mess up your theology, and probably even your psychology.

[Roland Hearn]

Thanks Dennis, you are right - Karl Gibberson is not the enemy. I mentioned his name because I've just read his book, he is included in the article and I didn't find from him the held I needed just more questions. I personally don't think we have anything to fear in science. I think as the picture grows clearer it will be ever more apparent what a marvelous, gracious God we serve. I simply love the idea of God building into the very nature of, well, nature a mechanism, for want of much more accurate term, that pushes toward Him. I don't need Him hovering over every moment of creation making sure nothing goes wrong - although He may have hovered a little from time to time. I do know that when we needed Him he was there and while I was still a sinner He died for me. I'm not sure we need more than that but I think a theology that can grasp and grapple with science is a good thing and in Gibberson, Oord and others I see them at least trying.

[Shea Zellweger]

Archaeology tells us there's no evidence for anything in the biblical timeline before the Sinai wanderings.
Thread hijack in 3... 2...
Really? I thought we had some decent evidence for the mesopotamian flood. I also thought there was no conclusive evidence regarding the supposed Sinai wanderings...

I agree with the rest of Ryan's point though. Rather than talking about how to make the Bible fit with science, or make science fit with the Bible, I'd rather talk about the message of the Bible, which has nothing to do with science, when reading the Bible, and talk about the findings of science, which have nothing to do with the Bible, when studying science.

[Carolyn Franklin]

No, Shea, I really almost hijacked it! I had a very good post to share all about the DNA testing that I have been doing at Family Tree DNA with my brother's Y-DNA, my Mother's mtDNA and with the Family Finder DNA tests and the results that I have been getting back from those tests.

My faith has not dimished in the new awareness of my genetic history. In fact it is an awareness of the awesomeness of God and this wonderful universe that we live in. I don't know how He did it all but He has made a spiritual impact on His creation.

I think the last 20 something years of my reading the theology board here on NazNet has been a great learning experience for me about God and spiritual matters. I'm not a theologian and can not enter into conversation here on an intellectual level with the scholars, but, I can read and I can learn, and my faith is stronger today from the things that I have learned here. I might really have some conflicts between science and my spiritual life had it not been for a foundation that I have gained here.

Dr. Bratcher was one of those who taught me so much by his participation here.

Just one last tidbit of information about my dna testing and results. My paternal Y-dna test result, which my brother, took the test for me since my dad is no longer living, was a big surprise for us. The Dunlaps came from Scotland, but our Haplogroup which is J2a4b goes all the way back to the Northern Middle East. It originated in the Anatolia, the Levant and Northern Mesopotamia areas. We have matches with Sephardi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Hebrews and Samaritians.
Can you imagine my first thoughts when I read the results of the test? My first thoughts were, wow, maybe my genetic ancestors were there when Jesus was there or what if the woman at the well that Jesus offered the Living Water to was one of my genetic ancestors!! Oh, well, it was a neat thought to me. :) How exciting to me to have come from the area where Jesus walked on this earth.

I love science and I love my Lord! They are both enriching my life, however, if I had to take one and leave the other it would have to be my Lord. Can't do without this spiritual relationship and the Living Water that I am blessed to get to partake of.

gc

[Roland Hearn]

Thread hijack in 3... 2...
Really? I thought we had some decent evidence for the mesopotamian flood. I also thought there was no conclusive evidence regarding the supposed Sinai wanderings...

I agree with the rest of Ryan's point though. Rather than talking about how to make the Bible fit with science, or make science fit with the Bible, I'd rather talk about the message of the Bible, which has nothing to do with science, when reading the Bible, and talk about the findings of science, which have nothing to do with the Bible, when studying science.
That is true for the most part, and certainly true of the message, but ultimately there is no value in a faith that can't mesh with science. To the extent that what we believe can't reflect observed truth then what we believe must change. As long is faith is more than observed truth we are ok but once they are at odds there is work that needs to be done. Historically the church has been resistant to truth as revealed by science. That doesn't work well. I am still comfortable with the idea that God's word isn't resistant to truth.

[Benjamin Burch]

Thread hijack in 3... 2...
Really? I thought we had some decent evidence for the mesopotamian flood.

For a Mesopotamian flood? Yes.

For Noah's flood? Not sure we could say it's the same thing.



I also thought there was no conclusive evidence regarding the supposed Sinai wanderings...


Yea... as far as I know, all signs point to no Sinai wondering, no Exodus...

[Shea Zellweger]

That is true for the most part, and certainly true of the message, but ultimately there is no value in a faith that can't mesh with science. To the extent that what we believe can't reflect observed truth then what we believe must change. As long is faith is more than observed truth we are ok but once they are at odds there is work that needs to be done. Historically the church has been resistant to truth as revealed by science. That doesn't work well. I am still comfortable with the idea that God's word isn't resistant to truth.

Sure. What I'm saying is that the best thing we can do for people is to teach them that the Bible isn't science, and science is the Bible, and allow each of those to be themselves. That would include accepting scientific findings.


For a Mesopotamian flood? Yes.

For Noah's flood? Not sure we could say it's the same thing.

I think we can. The Noah narrative is most likely based on the same flood that the other flood epics were, so that flood by default becomes "Noah's flood."

[Dennis M. Scott]

I am at least a little bit weird, but somehow it would strengthen my faith in the creator were we to learn that when he made man in His Own image, He did it many places, times and cases, rather than what I have understood as a one time, one case, one pile of dust only. Such a "discovery" would certainly not lesson my appreciation for the word of God.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I am at least a little bit weird, but somehow it would strengthen my faith in the creator were we to learn that when he made man in His Own image, He did it many places, times and cases, rather than what I have understood as a one time, one case, one pile of dust only. Such a "discovery" would certainly not lesson my appreciation for the word of God.

Certainly would deal with some of the problems in the narrative, e.g., Cain's wife. I think that it is implied that there are other people in the world.

[Doug Kitchen]

Just read the latest Christianity Today article cover story.

Here it is:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/historicaladam.html

I welcome what Karl Giberson and others in the Church of the Nazarene are doing in the area of life science. When we examine this however, we are in somewhat new territory.

I am interested in helping people make the theological adjustments that will allow for science to be incorporated into one's life. We have all seen the detractors. I had one person in church bring me an article taken from a spurious website that castigates those Nazarenes who are thinking and researching and therefore changing the denomination. Without trying to resurrect the discussion about those naysayers, how do we aid the conversation for people who are truly seeking to make peace with scientific discovery.

Appreciate your thoughts.

Dave,

I think your question has perhaps two answers - 1. What specific arguments for/against a one-man-adam are there? and 2. (sociologically speaking) how do we integrate scientists into the church?

1. I'm not a biblical languages scholar but from what I have read it is uncertain how to translate the hebrew word man that is used in Gen.

The interpretation of the word adam (and I think adamah) is pretty tricky. adamah means ground or dirt and adam can be translated a man or mankind. The point of the poetry in Gen. 1 is that "man" (probably mankind) was created from the dirt. The life came from stuff. This is also scientifically true (our carbon atoms are the same as those in the ground) but it took until the 1700 and 1800s to undo the thought that life was made from a different material than ordinary matter. The church (and philosophers) could not conceive of life not being a special and separate thing and therefore twisted scripture.

The other important issue is one of contemporaneous witnesses - when was the story of creation actually written down. How many times was it passed down orally before it was written? Did anyone have a scientific or historical recording of how many people existed at the various times in Gen.? Since I don't ever read in scripture that it was dictated by someone who was there with a complete definition of terms (like how long is a year?), I think the gist of the story of mankind is presented with a particular focus on the nation of Israel. Gen 1 is a particularly poetic view of origins that distinguishes itself from other recordings of creation and even today distinguishes itself from a purely rational and observation-based view of evolution. The trustworthiness of Gen stands in spite of its lack of scientific and historic detail.

Paul's statement that "since sin came through one man, it was necessary that sin be eliminated by one man" (lots of license with this paraphrase since I don't have time to look it up ;)) does not require a literal one-man-adam. I can easily understand that in a figurative, yet very real way. I have never met anyone who does not have "adam's" sin problem. In that sense, we are all united as one - we are all sinners.

2. We scientists are not trying to make peace with scientific discovery. For a scientist who is a christian, every aspect of our lives needs to be truthful. When we record an observation, we do not have the luxury to "disbelieve" it. When we read a paper from another scientist that records a discovery that seems hard to believe, we look for additional confirmation or solid evidence to the contrary.

Many of us are looking for peaceful coexistence with our church who often labels us as heretics or tools of the devil or any number of additional derogatory phrases. If you read the christianity today article you will notice how many professors are losing their jobs for helping students and the church to understand and integrate scientific facts and theories with the equally important task of worshiping God and living a holy life. I have been a Nazarene since birth, but have often heard the phrase "those scientists" and then some derogatory and inflammatory comment follows. I simply will not debate these statements with people who start out on the attack. Underlying these statements I have found that these individuals are expressing habitual anger. They say things like this about scientists, politicians, friends, family,... you name it. These folk need to be confronted with their sin.

There are others who are asking honest questions. So I would ask that if you find someone who is honestly struggling with science and faith to ask them to come to peace with scientists not with science - to become reconciled with their fellow believers. (This could also be said to the scientists as well). No one's mind needs to be changed. The right ideas do not make a person a part of the Kingdom, however, unrighteous behavior prevents a person from continuing as a part of the kingdom. The ways in which we argue and debate are more important than the outcome.

I went to ENC 30 years ago. The science departments were excellent training grounds for scientists. The professors were also excellent examples of holy, love-filled, Spirit-filled living. I am sure the same could be said about all of our colleges then and now. Large proportions of our science graduates stay in the church long after graduation. From what I can tell, each of our colleges is attempting to prepare students for the reality of the scientific endeavor and a faithful christian walk. The books and discussions from Giberson, Collins, et al are having a positive result for those of us in the scientific community. Students are better prepared to live in a world where they can have their science and their faith and not just one or the other.

Doug

[Ryan Scott]

His comments on the fall and the reduction of the gap between humanity and primates was entirely unsatisfying and left me without good responses to the questions I know people can raise. For my part I don't need a literal Adam and Eve but I do need a "fall" to explain the distance between a God of love and a sinful humanity.

I actually have a pretty solid confidence in this one.

I believe God created humanity to be in relationship to God and to find the fulfillment we seek only in God. Separation comes as a result of us trying to find fulfillment on our own (whether in selfishness or altruism). When we take on the individual task of self-fulfillment we discover we're more empty than we were before. When we (illogically) give up our selfish desires for self-less love, we find fulfillment in the God of self-less love and the relationship for which we were created.

Altruism is really an attempt at self-fulfillment - an added element of our selfish desire to feel good. So it's not a matter of selfishness vs altruism, but the tension between our desire for pleasure and our ability to give up that desire for God.

This actually makes sense through theistic evolution. Evolution works, essentially, on the idea of self-preservation - selfishness. When humanity evolved (or when God provided) a brain capable of independent thought, we logically chose selfishness (it had worked for millions of years and it makes logical sense). It is only as we're able to step outside of our evolved instincts and experience God that we can move beyond our instincts with the help of God's Spirit in our lives.

At least, it makes sense to me.

[Ryan Scott]

Thread hijack in 3... 2...
Really? I thought we had some decent evidence for the mesopotamian flood. I also thought there was no conclusive evidence regarding the supposed Sinai wanderings...

I agree with the rest of Ryan's point though. Rather than talking about how to make the Bible fit with science, or make science fit with the Bible, I'd rather talk about the message of the Bible, which has nothing to do with science, when reading the Bible, and talk about the findings of science, which have nothing to do with the Bible, when studying science.

Certainly there is some evidence of a flood, but its a stretch to make it anything like flood in scripture - certainly the Noah story arose from a real flood.

As for the wanderings - the specifics are not in evidence, but by the time the wanderings would have taken place, there is a sense of people migrating from Egypt. Israel existed archaeologically at that point.

Israel could have been around longer without evidence yet being uncovered - we just don't have the scientific evidence to make that claim yet.

[Shea Zellweger]

Dave,

I think your question has perhaps two answers - 1. What specific arguments for/against a one-man-adam are there? and 2. (sociologically speaking) how do we integrate scientists into the church?

1. I'm not a biblical languages scholar but from what I have read it is uncertain how to translate the hebrew word man that is used in Gen.

The interpretation of the word adam (and I think adamah) is pretty tricky. adamah means ground or dirt and adam can be translated a man or mankind. The point of the poetry in Gen. 1 is that "man" (probably mankind) was created from the dirt.
Yes and no... Genesis 1 leave both possibilities open, but when we're talking about Adam and Eve, we're into Genesis 2ff, in which I'm pretty sure the story is correctly understood to be talking about one man. Adam can be used in all of the ways that "man" has been historically used in English, including as a collective singular, but the narrative does not lend itself well to that understanding. It is clear from the outset of the garden narrative that a single man and his wife are being discussed- especially since "his wife" is never used as a collective singular to refer to womankind. Understanding source criticism allows us to recognize that the Gen 1 story could be referring to a broader group than the Gen 2 story, and the use of the singular noun "adam" with the plural pronoun "them" certainly bolsters that idea. But once you get into the Adam and Eve narrative, it's definitely about one man and his wife.


Gen 1 is a particularly poetic view of origins that distinguishes itself from other recordings of creation and even today distinguishes itself from a purely rational and observation-based view of evolution. The trustworthiness of Gen stands in spite of its lack of scientific and historic detail.
Well said.

[Benjamin Burch]

Sure. What I'm saying is that the best thing we can do for people is to teach them that the Bible isn't science, and science is the Bible, and allow each of those to be themselves. That would include accepting scientific findings.


I think we can. The Noah narrative is most likely based on the same flood that the other flood epics were, so that flood by default becomes "Noah's flood."

To me, that's a stretch.

[Hans Deventer]

To me, that's a stretch.

From "not sure" to "a stretch", something has happened. Can you share?

[David Troxler]

Dave,

I think your question has perhaps two answers - 1. What specific arguments for/against a one-man-adam are there? and 2. (sociologically speaking) how do we integrate scientists into the church?

1. I'm not a biblical languages scholar but from what I have read it is uncertain how to translate the hebrew word man that is used in Gen.

The interpretation of the word adam (and I think adamah) is pretty tricky. adamah means ground or dirt and adam can be translated a man or mankind. The point of the poetry in Gen. 1 is that "man" (probably mankind) was created from the dirt. The life came from stuff. This is also scientifically true (our carbon atoms are the same as those in the ground) but it took until the 1700 and 1800s to undo the thought that life was made from a different material than ordinary matter. The church (and philosophers) could not conceive of life not being a special and separate thing and therefore twisted scripture.

The other important issue is one of contemporaneous witnesses - when was the story of creation actually written down. How many times was it passed down orally before it was written? Did anyone have a scientific or historical recording of how many people existed at the various times in Gen.? Since I don't ever read in scripture that it was dictated by someone who was there with a complete definition of terms (like how long is a year?), I think the gist of the story of mankind is presented with a particular focus on the nation of Israel. Gen 1 is a particularly poetic view of origins that distinguishes itself from other recordings of creation and even today distinguishes itself from a purely rational and observation-based view of evolution. The trustworthiness of Gen stands in spite of its lack of scientific and historic detail.

Paul's statement that "since sin came through one man, it was necessary that sin be eliminated by one man" (lots of license with this paraphrase since I don't have time to look it up ;)) does not require a literal one-man-adam. I can easily understand that in a figurative, yet very real way. I have never met anyone who does not have "adam's" sin problem. In that sense, we are all united as one - we are all sinners.

2. We scientists are not trying to make peace with scientific discovery. For a scientist who is a christian, every aspect of our lives needs to be truthful. When we record an observation, we do not have the luxury to "disbelieve" it. When we read a paper from another scientist that records a discovery that seems hard to believe, we look for additional confirmation or solid evidence to the contrary.

Many of us are looking for peaceful coexistence with our church who often labels us as heretics or tools of the devil or any number of additional derogatory phrases. If you read the christianity today article you will notice how many professors are losing their jobs for helping students and the church to understand and integrate scientific facts and theories with the equally important task of worshiping God and living a holy life. I have been a Nazarene since birth, but have often heard the phrase "those scientists" and then some derogatory and inflammatory comment follows. I simply will not debate these statements with people who start out on the attack. Underlying these statements I have found that these individuals are expressing habitual anger. They say things like this about scientists, politicians, friends, family,... you name it. These folk need to be confronted with their sin.

There are others who are asking honest questions. So I would ask that if you find someone who is honestly struggling with science and faith to ask them to come to peace with scientists not with science - to become reconciled with their fellow believers. (This could also be said to the scientists as well). No one's mind needs to be changed. The right ideas do not make a person a part of the Kingdom, however, unrighteous behavior prevents a person from continuing as a part of the kingdom. The ways in which we argue and debate are more important than the outcome.

I went to ENC 30 years ago. The science departments were excellent training grounds for scientists. The professors were also excellent examples of holy, love-filled, Spirit-filled living. I am sure the same could be said about all of our colleges then and now. Large proportions of our science graduates stay in the church long after graduation. From what I can tell, each of our colleges is attempting to prepare students for the reality of the scientific endeavor and a faithful christian walk. The books and discussions from Giberson, Collins, et al are having a positive result for those of us in the scientific community. Students are better prepared to live in a world where they can have their science and their faith and not just one or the other.

Doug

Doug,
First, thank you for your very thorough and thoughtful response.

My undergrad degree was in Psychology and I heard the same sort of derogatory responses. There were a number of people who could not fathom Christians having anything to do with Freud's psychoanalysis or just about any other prominent psychologist/psychiatrist. I did find that my studies in that broad field served me well in preparation for pastoral ministry.

It has always amazed me when people reject insight to truth because of the packaging it comes in.

As I said in my initial post, my hope is to help individuals incorporate scientific discovery into their lives and not see it as a threat to faith. Bertha Munro's quip about there being no conflict between the best in education and the best in Christian faith needs to resurrected.

One of my concerns perhaps has a bit of pride attached to it. I am proud of our Nazarene scientists who are making a difference in the world. It distresses me when they are being shunned in the Christian realm (especially when it comes from within our own tribe).

As for 'Adam' being one man or representative of all humankind or even both, my hope is that people who desire to grow spiritually will leave room for these interpretations. To do so, means letting go of literalism. I think of Paul in Phil. 3 who had to let go of his faultless legalism in order to be used of Christ. I just hope I can let go of my preconceived ideas in order to engage with the world and at the same time be an example for Christ.

Peace,
dave t

[Benjamin Burch]

As for the wanderings - the specifics are not in evidence, but by the time the wanderings would have taken place, there is a sense of people migrating from Egypt. Israel existed archaeologically at that point.

Israel could have been around longer without evidence yet being uncovered - we just don't have the scientific evidence to make that claim yet.

I'm curious as to this. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any such migration at all. The Migration seems to have been from Canaan, not from Egypt.

[Roland Hearn]

I actually have a pretty solid confidence in this one.

I believe God created humanity to be in relationship to God and to find the fulfillment we seek only in God. Separation comes as a result of us trying to find fulfillment on our own (whether in selfishness or altruism). When we take on the individual task of self-fulfillment we discover we're more empty than we were before. When we (illogically) give up our selfish desires for self-less love, we find fulfillment in the God of self-less love and the relationship for which we were created.

Altruism is really an attempt at self-fulfillment - an added element of our selfish desire to feel good. So it's not a matter of selfishness vs altruism, but the tension between our desire for pleasure and our ability to give up that desire for God.

This actually makes sense through theistic evolution. Evolution works, essentially, on the idea of self-preservation - selfishness. When humanity evolved (or when God provided) a brain capable of independent thought, we logically chose selfishness (it had worked for millions of years and it makes logical sense). It is only as we're able to step outside of our evolved instincts and experience God that we can move beyond our instincts with the help of God's Spirit in our lives.

At least, it makes sense to me.

That's not bad Ryan and I can take most of it. The problem is altruism is not just a selfish selflessness and here we go back to the philosophical debate about can anything that feels good to me actually be selfless? Let's take the word altruism away for a moment because I don't think there is a more loaded word in the "love" debate. I think that love is a reflection of God. God is love. It is love in its broadest, most compelling, all embracing sense that drives creation forward. I can accept that humanity evolved into both selfishness as a survival instinct and love as a reflection of the eternal presence of God. I think that love responded to God. However without some first cause rejection of God how can we consider humanity lost. Of course we can talk about original sin in terms of everyone's individual original sin, and that is what I think we end up with in this debate, but surely given evolution's remarkable capacity for survival there could be one born who would realise the way of love prior to personal rejection. Perhaps we might say that of Jesus but that kind of denigrates the incarnation. I'm just not willing to abandon the observable universality of sin and the scope of redemptive grace that includes perfect love. For me the human heart completely surrendered to the grace of God reflects the lost first condition. It is possible that this all needs to be reworked and people like yourself may very well help me think through it to a more thorough understanding but I'm not there yet.

[Ryan Scott]

That's not bad Ryan and I can take most of it. The problem is altruism is not just a selfish selflessness and here we go back to the philosophical debate about can anything that feels good to me actually be selfless? Let's take the word altruism away for a moment because I don't think there is a more loaded word in the "love" debate. I think that love is a reflection of God. God is love. It is love in its broadest, most compelling, all embracing sense that drives creation forward. I can accept that humanity evolved into both selfishness as a survival instinct and love as a reflection of the eternal presence of God. I think that love responded to God. However without some first cause rejection of God how can we consider humanity lost. Of course we can talk about original sin in terms of everyone's individual original sin, and that is what I think we end up with in this debate, but surely given evolution's remarkable capacity for survival there could be one born who would realise the way of love prior to personal rejection. Perhaps we might say that of Jesus but that kind of denigrates the incarnation. I'm just not willing to abandon the observable universality of sin and the scope of redemptive grace that includes perfect love. For me the human heart completely surrendered to the grace of God reflects the lost first condition. It is possible that this all needs to be reworked and people like yourself may very well help me think through it to a more thorough understanding but I'm not there yet.

First of all, I dislike the word altruism as well - I only included it because it was there in the original post. As far as that goes, I am of the mind that we do no good on our own, but only God acting through us. The old idea that "I do not love my wife, but I love God and out of the overflow of that love, I love my wife." It's not perfect, but it roughly approximates my idea and the differentiation between altruism and love.

Beyond that, I agree about the split. I'm just not sure it wasn't planned. God gave us free will - that is important for relationship. We could not have real relationship with God unless there was a choice - and we could not experience real love without an understanding of its absence.

From the very first selfish act, the first sin, there have been effects. We believe our world is both physical and spiritual, yet when we consider evolution, we think only in terms of physical. I believe, and I think its backed up by theology and tradition that our spirituality has an effect on our physicality. Once the first individual broke relationship with God there were lasting effects - not quite Augustine's "sin in the sperm" idea, but a real brokenness that passed into creation (and not just humanity, but in the entire created order). Over time this sin, compounded with the sins of countless others have recked havoc on the world.

The coming of Jesus marks the beginning of healing and restoration, but just as Christ is redeeming the world, the effects of sin remain and continue to deteriorate. So we do indeed have two opposing forces working against each other. This is also why the social gospel ideal that we can usher in God's kingdom falters - we still need divine intervention to stop the ongoing destruction sin brings on creation. We can be growing in Christ and sowing righteousness in the world, but all our efforts will not, alone, stop the steamroller that sin brought into the world. We need God to act - that is what new creation is all about.

Obviously its a little more complicated than my brief summary here and I've been working on this in my head for quite a while and only recently begun to put in down in words. There's a long way to go.

In short, I began with the idea that the incarnation was planned from the beginning. It wasn't just a remedy for things going awry. I think that's been a confession of the Church, traditionally. If we take that seriously then Christ is the counterpoint to sin. Adam (or whoever first sinned) didn't understand what it meant to be truly human - how humanity was designed to work. That sin had real consequences that Adam could not undo. Christ had to come, living as humans were intended to live - to show how things can be made right.

This post is getting too long, but this is really exciting for me, so I'm glad we've stumbled upon this discussion.

[Roland Hearn]

From the very first selfish act, the first sin, there have been effects. We believe our world is both physical and spiritual, yet when we consider evolution, we think only in terms of physical. I believe, and I think its backed up by theology and tradition that our spirituality has an effect on our physicality. Once the first individual broke relationship with God there were lasting effects - not quite Augustine's "sin in the sperm" idea, but a real brokenness that passed into creation (and not just humanity, but in the entire created order). Over time this sin, compounded with the sins of countless others have recked havoc on the world.


Thanks Ryan, I too think this is really important thing to keep working on. If this is your starting point I don't have anything to question. I believe the first sin happened; Adam is the picture of something that happened deep in antiquity. Man rejected God and God's response was grace. If we evolved into sinful beings then God's grace is in response to what we are as a result of His activity. I just can't abide that. Condemnation for our being is not right. There is no real free will if there is no other option. God becomes almost monstrous if his response is separation for what we could not be otherwise. When God's response is remedying humanities choice, made by default by the first "Adam", then there is real choice and real remedy. Once we move away from an idea of a real choice and move to a group of beings who are struggling to survive and sin is a survival tool I really think we have begun to muddy the water. If the choice is sin or die or sin and die I'm not sure how we can see God as good.
I can live with Adam and Eve being idealised representations of something that really happened beyond the reach of human awareness but I struggle to incorporate a view of sin that is entirely the result of forces bound up in the state of being.

[Ryan Scott]

I think Adam had the choice not to sin the same way Christ had a choice to sin.

[Shea Zellweger]

I think Adam had the choice not to sin the same way Christ had a choice to sin.

I hope you don't mean this in the way I'm understanding it...
Christ had the option to sin, but it was not in his nature to do so. Are you saying that God created Adam with a sinful nature? I don't know that the story supports that idea.

[Roland Hearn]

I think Adam had the choice not to sin the same way Christ had a choice to sin.
I agree completely but I don't actually think that is what we are discussing here.

The problem that I think we are talking about is whether the story of Adam is a mythological representation of an actual choice or one to give reasonableness to the sinfulness of humanity; when in fact sin is an evolutionary process. The former I have no problem with and the reality it is reflecting on would look something like this: humanity comes into being after a long series of evolutionary accidents and arrives on the planet around 100,000 years ago, almost certainly somewhere in central Africa. God responds to what His creation would inevitably produce somewhere in the cosmos for this was the "teleos" of all of creation. He offers that creature a level of free will, consistent with the evolved brain, along with a capacity to love at a transcendent level - that equates to a new spiritual life. The edenic image of walking together in the cool of the evening is a metaphor reflecting on the quality of the relationship. At some point however, driven by evolved instincts to self preservation undoubtedly, this first being chooses self preservation over trust in this new relationship and the rest is history. I can live with that but it seems to me that what Gibberson and others are saying is that a group of people arrived somewhat simultaneously having evolved to a humanity that included sinfulness. Sinfulness was never a choice but a condition. When we talk about living in a condition of sin today we are directly referring to the result of a choice made. The result is clearly a non-relationship with God. The remedy is forgiveness of sins and for us, as Wesleyans, an embracing of complete relationship demonstrated by a quality of perfect love that is nothing more nor less than the outworking of the heart perfected by faith which we capture in the phrase “entire sanctification.” If my condition is not the result of human choice then it seems somewhat harsh of God to leave me judged for something I could do nothing about. The "Adam" story becomes more of a justification on God's part than the reflecting of anything true about how humanity came to the place of sinfulness. Entire sanctification quite simply is the establishment of a relationship as was intended from the beginning. If that relationship is not a part of the human story then our theology is in serious need of attention. That isn't to say that if the truth is in line with what Gibberson proposes then recovery is beyond us but there are serious implications to the whole salvation narrative of sin being a part of evolution rather than choice.

[Ryan Scott]

Then we do agree, Roland. I was merely arguing that, given scientific evidence, its possible it took a while for humanity to evolve the kind of brain capable of making a choice - Adam could represent that first person.

I fully believe there was a first sin - I just don't think we can believe the writers of Genesis knew exactly how it came about any more than we do. Maybe they did, I just haven't seen any evidence yet to support it.

[Roland Hearn]

Yes the more we have talked the more I have come to the conclusion that we agree, I think it is an important theological principle and I think it is one that could be lost amidst unclear thinking about what the scientific issues maybe. Still we do have to be able to respond if our theology does not meet what science has proven, to use a less than scientific term.

[Daniel Hamlin]

I finished "The Language of Science and Faith" over vacation a couple of weeks ago. I found one quote that was interesting and I posted it to my Facebook status when I read it. It seems relevant to the discussion at hand:



Any time an apologetic argument is framed and presented as an alternative to faith as a foundation for belief, there is a danger that further advances in knowledge will undermine this argument. Such advances will appear corrosive to faith, but only because a theologically suspect argument for the existence of God has been framed and promoted as legitimate." - The Language of Science and Faith, pg 142

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm having difficulty remembering the importance of the "time" when God made man to be in His Own image. Man had been dust. Between one instant when he was dust and another point when he had been made in God's image, he was not yet in God's image: not quite. How long was that "time between"? We can superimpose a specific time, but the narrative isn't clear. Likely it wasn't intended to be clear.

As for the fall, our understanding for quite awhile has been that Adam represented us all. While it was not inevitable, it was representative. Original sin is not a biological, physical substantive thing, but a condition of the heart we "inherit" or have in common. Man chose to sin then, and so do we all. It is not the result of creation - for we were not created that way. We (represented by Adam - whether it was a single individual as commonly assumed, or the first, which could need to include more than one - on a broader scale that we have understood - Adam (mankind - the first Adam). That it might have happened to more than one then doesn't conflict with my own experience, because every person I have ever met has made the same choice. (Again, Adam represented us all - not well, but appropriately.) I would disagree with those who (might) maintain that the sin condition in man was a result of some sort of evolutionary process. Physical scientists who suggest that might benefit from a little broader theological understanding.

When Paul says "by one man sin entered into the world" even if his understanding was a single historic individual, his very premise would allow that to be a condition of mankind (resultant of the fall) solved in the second Adam.

Mind boggling to me is the idea that it might have happened simultaneously in various places - dna lines. It would be much easier to comprehend in the case of one individual in a single place. As it is, the case now being suggested requires a creative God who worked on a much broader scope. The more complicated, the more magnificent a creative God is revealed.

I really am open to corrective or alternative thoughts here.

[Shea Zellweger]

I agree completely but I don't actually think that is what we are discussing here.

The problem that I think we are talking about is whether the story of Adam is a mythological representation of an actual choice or one to give reasonableness to the sinfulness of humanity; when in fact sin is an evolutionary process. The former I have no problem with and the reality it is reflecting on would look something like this: humanity comes into being after a long series of evolutionary accidents and arrives on the planet around 100,000 years ago, almost certainly somewhere in central Africa. God responds to what His creation would inevitably produce somewhere in the cosmos for this was the "teleos" of all of creation. He offers that creature a level of free will, consistent with the evolved brain, along with a capacity to love at a transcendent level - that equates to a new spiritual life. The edenic image of walking together in the cool of the evening is a metaphor reflecting on the quality of the relationship. At some point however, driven by evolved instincts to self preservation undoubtedly, this first being chooses self preservation over trust in this new relationship and the rest is history. I can live with that but it seems to me that what Gibberson and others are saying is that a group of people arrived somewhat simultaneously having evolved to a humanity that included sinfulness. Sinfulness was never a choice but a condition. When we talk about living in a condition of sin today we are directly referring to the result of a choice made. The result is clearly a non-relationship with God. The remedy is forgiveness of sins and for us, as Wesleyans, an embracing of complete relationship demonstrated by a quality of perfect love that is nothing more nor less than the outworking of the heart perfected by faith which we capture in the phrase “entire sanctification.” If my condition is not the result of human choice then it seems somewhat harsh of God to leave me judged for something I could do nothing about. The "Adam" story becomes more of a justification on God's part than the reflecting of anything true about how humanity came to the place of sinfulness. Entire sanctification quite simply is the establishment of a relationship as was intended from the beginning. If that relationship is not a part of the human story then our theology is in serious need of attention. That isn't to say that if the truth is in line with what Gibberson proposes then recovery is beyond us but there are serious implications to the whole salvation narrative of sin being a part of evolution rather than choice.

I don't really like this approach. I'd prefer to let the story speak for itself, rather than try to recast the narrative in terms of science. While I'm willing to say that we evolved, I don't think we need to bring our understanding of evolution into the story of Adam and his wife- it's a story that comes with a point (And if you ask most Jewish interpreters, that point has nothing to do with "original sin"), and we can get the point of the story without recasting it to comply with our contemporary understanding of origins.

[Roland Hearn]

I don't really like this approach. I'd prefer to let the story speak for itself, rather than try to recast the narrative in terms of science. While I'm willing to say that we evolved, I don't think we need to bring our understanding of evolution into the story of Adam and his wife- it's a story that comes with a point (And if you ask most Jewish interpreters, that point has nothing to do with "original sin"), and we can get the point of the story without recasting it to comply with our contemporary understanding of origins.

Shea, I'm not a 100% clear on your point here. The fact that Jewish interpreters disagree about the point of the story is no surprise because they disagree on the solution. I appreciate your idea of not trying to recast the narrative in terms of science but as I said before if what we believe about the application of God's grace to our lives is at odds with science we probably need to do some work. I think there is just as much problem with trying to make science conform to a literal biblical interpretation as there is with having our faith and science saying two different things. Science is a pursuit of truth. Faith is a pursuit of truth. While the one is physical and the other metaphysical they should not be at odds. The beauty and simplicity of the story of grace is damaged to some degree if it is based on ideas and concepts that aren't true. To hold in tension ideas that seem beyond us is different to holding in tension ideas that our counter to each other.

"I'm just not sure" is a different response in kind and impact to "they don't need to agree because they are dealing with different issues." My being is both spiritual and physical and will be through eternity. I am the product of God's grace in both spheres. I want to at least hold out hope that those two spheres aren't incompatible.

BTW - "letting the story speak for itself," is precisely what I think we all want. What it is saying is important, however. Is it reflecting on a real truth or a story to rationalise the existence of sin? I think there is important implications to how that is addressed.

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea, I'm not a 100% clear on your point here.
My point is that these "scientific narratives," such as the one you offered, and the one at the end of Giberson's latest book, are not necessary.


BTW - "letting the story speak for itself," is precisely what I think we all want. What it is saying is important, however. Is it reflecting on a real truth or a story to rationalise the existence of sin? I think there is important implications to how that is addressed.

I don't think it's reflecting fact, or a story to rationalise the existence of sin. I think it's a story written for a purpose (or perhaps several purposes- it's kind of complex), and the purpose is best understood by telling the story as it is.

[Ryan Scott]

I hope you don't mean this in the way I'm understanding it...
Christ had the option to sin, but it was not in his nature to do so. Are you saying that God created Adam with a sinful nature? I don't know that the story supports that idea.

Yes, if you're looking at the story, and at sin, in the traditional way. Luckily, this is the post Traditional theology board, so we can move beyond it.

I look at it more as relationship. God created humanity in relationship to God, but with a desire for self-fulfillment - a self-fulfillment only possible in relationship to God. So in a sense, humanity was created sinless in that humanity was created with this relationship already intact. I do think that humanity was created with the curiosity/free will/selfish desire (whatever you want to term it) that inevitably leads to us exploring other options for self-fulfillment - that equals sin, the breaking of the relationships with God.

Each and every time we make the wrong choice, it has compounding consequences, which prevent our full return to right relationship, short of divine intervention. From here we move into the idea of atonement.

I guess I'm saying God created humanity knowing it was inevitable that we would sin.

I don't think this is contradicted by Genesis, albeit the specifics come from putting together other theological ideas from scripture - it certainly isn't explained this way in Genesis - I just don't think the narrative contradicts it.

[Benjamin Burch]

My point is that these "scientific narratives," such as the one you offered, and the one at the end of Giberson's latest book, are not necessary.



I don't think it's reflecting fact, or a story to rationalise the existence of sin. I think it's a story written for a purpose (or perhaps several purposes- it's kind of complex), and the purpose is best understood by telling the story as it is.

This might be the most important post yet on this thread. Until we can stop trying to figure out the story and science together, we'll never get anywhere. This whole "image of God" misunderstanding has really derailed the entire conversation. Until we can understand that the "image of God" is not a thing we have, and is not something given to us at a specific time, and is not a quality we must have obtained, we will never do well with scientific discovery.

The "image of God" in Scripture is what humans are. We are the image of the creator God, and that is part of what it means to be human. To be human, as we are human, is to be this, and have the capacity to be this. All our reconstructions simply miss the point.

Also, no historical reconstruction of human origins that tries to fit into Adam and Eve will ever make sense of the story's main referent - the Election, Land, Law, Sin, Exile, Covenant Faithfulness. Until we read Genesis 2:4ff that way, we will forever chase down silly scientific narratives that have nothing to do with what the story of Adam and Eve is really telling us.

[Roland Hearn]

My point is that these "scientific narratives," such as the one you offered, and the one at the end of Giberson's latest book, are not necessary.



I don't think it's reflecting fact, or a story to rationalise the existence of sin. I think it's a story written for a purpose (or perhaps several purposes- it's kind of complex), and the purpose is best understood by telling the story as it is.

I'm sorry Shea that still isn't clear to me, persevere with me. What I here you say is something of a tautology. It means what it means, it's purpose is its purpose?

[Doug Ward]

There is a point that has been made here, that seems at least unclear to me. The point is that Paul obviously thought there was a literal Adam. Just for fun, I was reading through Genesis Rabbah, a Palestinian Targum that is reflective of Paul's world. In it Adam is clearly treated literally, and allegorically, and symbolically. The Jews took this story in 18 different directions and found meaning in almost every conceivable way. Just an example from Genesis 1. The rabbis noted that on the opening day of creation, the word "light" was used 5 times. What was the point? It is obvious. With the creation of light, one can see that God always intended to communicate through the Pentateuch - the 5 books that match the 5 uses of "light." Imagine the fun the rabbis had with the serpent, or the type of fruit, or the role of sex in the fall.
The idea of literal vs. symbolical, etc. would not have been a dividing point for Paul. He would have simply used the Adam narrative. The whole idea of literal or figurative is our battle - not Pauls. Paul referenced people and stories in clearly non-historic ways. To do so was not Paul's main point, he used the story in creative ways to make his point. It seems to me the fact that Paul used Adam does not tell us anything about literal or non-literal. It simply sidetracks us.

[Benjamin Burch]

There is a point that has been made here, that seems at least unclear to me. The point is that Paul obviously thought there was a literal Adam. Just for fun, I was reading through Genesis Rabbah, a Palestinian Targum that is reflective of Paul's world. In it Adam is clearly treated literally, and allegorically, and symbolically. The Jews took this story in 18 different directions and found meaning in almost every conceivable way. Just an example from Genesis 1. The rabbis noted that on the opening day of creation, the word "light" was used 5 times. What was the point? It is obvious. With the creation of light, one can see that God always intended to communicate through the Pentateuch - the 5 books that match the 5 uses of "light." Imagine the fun the rabbis had with the serpent, or the type of fruit, or the role of sex in the fall.
The idea of literal vs. symbolical, etc. would not have been a dividing point for Paul. He would have simply used the Adam narrative. The whole idea of literal or figurative is our battle - not Pauls. Paul referenced people and stories in clearly non-historic ways. To do so was not Paul's main point, he used the story in creative ways to make his point. It seems to me the fact that Paul used Adam does not tell us anything about literal or non-literal. It simply sidetracks us.

I completely agree, here. I've often said that I think Paul viewed Adam literally, but the 1-to-1 between him and Christ is simply a textual narrative which Paul uses to say what Paul wants to say. I think Paul would look at Tim Keller with bewilderment, slap him in the side of the head and asked (as my Youth pastor lovingly asked me), "are you some kinda moron?"

Paul's point was not to speak of a literal Adam. I think he viewed Adam literally, but did not need it, and did not rely upon it. He simply used the Adam narrative.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'm sorry Shea that still isn't clear to me, persevere with me. What I here you say is something of a tautology. It means what it means, it's purpose is its purpose?

What I'm saying is that we should let the story speak for itself, rather than trying to re-present it according to our modern understanding of origins, etc. Nearly every other story we hear is allowed to speak for itself- true stories, fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc... There was a time when folks thought Hercules, Achilles, et al really existed and did the stuff the stories say about them. We don't believe that today, yet we don't try to come up with a more "scientific" version of the Nemean lion, or a "historical" understanding of what it means to be dipped in the River Styx.
I'm not 100% sure what we're supposed to learn from Genesis 3- I think the first theme to explore in it is God's grace (in letting them live), and there's obviously something about broken relationship in it as well, but I can read that without having to recast Adam and his wife as some kind of archetypal representation of our historical ancestors.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Except that we tend to consider the word of God as in a different category than fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc. Would you suggest we put them all in a similar bucket?

[Hans Deventer]

Except that we tend to consider the word of God as in a different category than fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc. Would you suggest we put them all in a similar bucket?

Well, I would definitely argue that Jesus told stories (and He wasn't the only one in the Scriptures), but He Himself was as historical as it gets. We're Christians for a reason: it's about Him.

[David Troxler]

I completely agree, here. I've often said that I think Paul viewed Adam literally, but the 1-to-1 between him and Christ is simply a textual narrative which Paul uses to say what Paul wants to say. I think Paul would look at Tim Keller with bewilderment, slap him in the side of the head and asked (as my Youth pastor lovingly asked me), "are you some kinda moron?"

Paul's point was not to speak of a literal Adam. I think he viewed Adam literally, but did not need it, and did not rely upon it. He simply used the Adam narrative.

Thanks Ben.

One of the problems I was having with the original article stemmed from the brief quote attributed to Keller. I was trying to reconcile what I am sensing with his objections. Not that I am endorsing the slap upside the head, the rest of the matter, aided by Doug Ward's observations help me greatly.

dave t

[David Troxler]

I'm having difficulty remembering the importance of the "time" when God made man to be in His Own image. Man had been dust. Between one instant when he was dust and another point when he had been made in God's image, he was not yet in God's image: not quite. How long was that "time between"? We can superimpose a specific time, but the narrative isn't clear. Likely it wasn't intended to be clear.

As for the fall, our understanding for quite awhile has been that Adam represented us all. While it was not inevitable, it was representative. Original sin is not a biological, physical substantive thing, but a condition of the heart we "inherit" or have in common. Man chose to sin then, and so do we all. It is not the result of creation - for we were not created that way. We (represented by Adam - whether it was a single individual as commonly assumed, or the first, which could need to include more than one - on a broader scale that we have understood - Adam (mankind - the first Adam). That it might have happened to more than one then doesn't conflict with my own experience, because every person I have ever met has made the same choice. (Again, Adam represented us all - not well, but appropriately.) I would disagree with those who (might) maintain that the sin condition in man was a result of some sort of evolutionary process. Physical scientists who suggest that might benefit from a little broader theological understanding.

When Paul says "by one man sin entered into the world" even if his understanding was a single historic individual, his very premise would allow that to be a condition of mankind (resultant of the fall) solved in the second Adam.

Mind boggling to me is the idea that it might have happened simultaneously in various places - dna lines. It would be much easier to comprehend in the case of one individual in a single place. As it is, the case now being suggested requires a creative God who worked on a much broader scope. The more complicated, the more magnificent a creative God is revealed.

I really am open to corrective or alternative thoughts here.

Dennis-

Throughout this discussion I have been reminded of the Samson Agonistes/Everyman story. Having not read that in 30+ years my recollection is a bit sketchy, however, the image of Adam being the representative of all of us and his story ultimately being our own rings true.

Then, picturing Christ, the firstfruit of the dead being the representative of all the redeemed causes me to wonder about our being made new. I get Paul's picture of "as in Adam...so then in Christ..." Here I wonder if we have limited our understanding of newness. As someone else has already said in their post, when we look at this just from a physical understanding of life and death, we can only have one Adam and one Christ.

Spiritually, however, we are all Adam because of sin. Can we not also all be Christ (not in the sense of dying for the sins of another) but if we are all "little Christs" (Christian), can there not be a greater development in the makeup of our spiritual being? Just wondering aloud.

Now, if we can only find evidence of spiritual DNA....

dave t

[Benjamin Burch]

Except that we tend to consider the word of God as in a different category than fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc. Would you suggest we put them all in a similar bucket?

I don't think we can make that distinction. I think if you want to say we put Scripture in a different category than any other literature, in that it instructs us in faith and practice - yes.

But Scripture utilizes every literary form imaginable at the time, including fables and hero epics.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I don't think we can make that distinction. I think if you want to say we put Scripture in a different category than any other literature, in that it instructs us in faith and practice - yes.

But Scripture utilizes every literary form imaginable at the time, including fables and hero epics.

You are correct, and in fact those literary forms appear to have been employed to instruct us in faith and practice, which . . .

[Roland Hearn]

What I'm saying is that we should let the story speak for itself, rather than trying to re-present it according to our modern understanding of origins, etc. Nearly every other story we hear is allowed to speak for itself- true stories, fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc... There was a time when folks thought Hercules, Achilles, et al really existed and did the stuff the stories say about them. We don't believe that today, yet we don't try to come up with a more "scientific" version of the Nemean lion, or a "historical" understanding of what it means to be dipped in the River Styx.
I'm not 100% sure what we're supposed to learn from Genesis 3- I think the first theme to explore in it is God's grace (in letting them live), and there's obviously something about broken relationship in it as well, but I can read that without having to recast Adam and his wife as some kind of archetypal representation of our historical ancestors.

Sure Shea that does clarify a little and I fully get your point about trying to overlay science and origin narratives on the top of the story but I do think the story is speaking of origins. It is kind of hard to miss. I do think it is saying something and it is speaking about broken relationship and God as creator. My little anecdote probably is as far from the truth as any other but it is a part of being human to want to know where we come from. In truth the antagonism against evolutionary theory, IMHO, has less to do with a desperate fight for scriptural authenticity then it does about a fear of certain foundational self image concepts being undermined - that in the guise of scriptural inerrancy. We are never going to be able to minister to the inquiring mind with the kind of response that doesn't at least attempt to show how a story that is an imagery is at least in someway reflecting truth. The kinds of stories that you quoted as being allowed to "speak for themselves" actually have nothing to say to this day apart from entertainment. They have outlived their usefulness. Not so with the story of Adam and Eve and its reflection on sin, grace, and redemption. When we want to speak into someone's life the truth of grace begging the question doesn't help. The story clearly addresses the origin of sin and broken relationship. And so we come back to the original question. It is not a mute point the difference between sin as en evolved state and sin as a choice there are serious ramifications. The biblical story of Adam and Eve is at least a starting point for trying to address that. I do not believe it is literally true but I do believe it has worth and the worth is more than simply "it is what it is." I do not need it to be allegorical, I don't need it to be historical, I certainly don't need it to fanciful. It says something about the human condition, the origin of sin and relationship and it is not good enough to hide our own uncertainty behind "let it speak for itself" because I think that is a given. But what is it saying?

[Shea Zellweger]

Except that we tend to consider the word of God as in a different category than fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc. Would you suggest we put them all in a similar bucket?
I think once you put aside the possibility of the story being literal, then yes, these are the most logical categories. This is where having faith in inspiration becomes very helpful- if I don't believe God inspired the Bible, then it becomes just another cultural mythology and collection of stories. Thankfully, I do believe that God inspired the Bible, so although it's a cultural mythology, it is the cultural mythology which God selected to tell humans about the relationship between them and God.



I do not need it to be allegorical,
As long as you're willing to say that...
[/QUOTE] But what is it saying?[/QUOTE]
I'm with you all the way on this. I do think the story is about a broken relationship, between Adam and his wife, and between the two of them and God. But although it's set "in the beginning," I don't think it's about the origin of sin. I think on the broadest scale what the story tells us is that even in ideal conditions, and in constant relationship with God, people ultimately choose to leave that relationship.

Based on dating for the story (pretty sure it's Priestly source, ca. 500 BCE), there IS an allegorical way to read it, but not in regard to science. Adam and Eve could represent Israel, choosing to break relationship with God on the advice of some foreign influence, and being expelled from Canaa. The author(s), then, would be calling Israel to rid itself of foreign influences in hopes of restoring that relationship.

Either of these readings are directly applicable today, allow the story (and author) to speak for itself, and do not overlay any contemporary scientific understandings. They are far from the only two readings that do so, but they are the two I prefer.

[Thomas Oord]

I've only been able to read a few posts in this thread. But I think some of you will be interested in Michael Ruse's June 10 Huffington Post essay, "Adam and Eve Didn't Exist. Get Over It!" He wrote it in light of the Christianity Today article.

Although his rhetoric can be a bit harsh, I agree with the main point Michael is making...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/adam-and-eve-dont-exist-g_b_874982.html

Tom

[Paul DeBaufer]

I've only been able to read a few posts in this thread. But I think some of you will be interested in Michael Ruse's June 10 Huffington Post essay, "Adam and Eve Didn't Exist. Get Over It!" He wrote it in light of the Christianity Today article.

Although his rhetoric can be a bit harsh, I agree with the main point Michael is making...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/adam-and-eve-dont-exist-g_b_874982.html

Tom

All in all a very good article.

I love this sentence from the Huffington Post article: "the disappearance of a literal Adam and Eve is not only possible but something of a relief" and his clean-up, "When did a Nobel Prize winner ever change his or her mind in the face of a reinterpretation of the Trinity? It may be true that this is a one-way process, but in no way does this imply that theology is inferior. The changes are part of theology."

[Jon Bemis]

After reading both articles, I think both make valid points. But thought this point from the Christianity Today article (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/noadamevenogospel.html?start=1) was especially good:

"At this juncture, we counsel patience. We don't need another fundamentalist reaction against science. We need instead a positive interdisciplinary engagement that recognizes the good will of all involved and that creative thinking takes time. In the long run, it may be the humility of our scholars as much as their technical expertise that will bring us to deeper knowledge of the truth."

[Hans Deventer]

After reading both articles, I think both make valid points. But thought this point from the Christianity Today article (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/noadamevenogospel.html?start=1) was especially good:


What is at stake?

First, the entire story of what is wrong with the world hinges on the disobedient exercise of the will by the first humans. The problem with the human race is not its dearth of insight but its misshapen will.

I agree with the latter, but don't see how the former would require an historical first couple.


Second, the entire story of salvation hinges on the obedience of the Second Adam.

Agreed. But I'm not buying the theory that in order for Jesus to fulfil the role of the Second Adam, we'd need an historical first one.


Hebrew thought offers one clue to resolving this tension: the corporate nature of humanity. Scripture often calls groups of people by the name of their historical head. Israel is an obvious example. So are Canaan and Cush.

Makes sense.


Thus, some have suggested—as does John Collins in Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Crossway, 2011)—that if both biblical and scientific clues suggest a larger population contemporary with Adam and Eve (Whom did Cain marry? Whom did God protect him from?), we can still conceive of Adam and Eve as leaders of that original population. That suggestion has the virtue of embracing both a prehistoric couple and a prehistoric population.

Could be. I'd like to add:


Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) in Biblical (as well as modern) Hebrew is sometimes used as the personal name of an individual and at other times in a generic sense meaning "mankind", in the same way as the earlier Canaanite 'adam'.

[Shea Zellweger]

Could be. I'd like to add:


Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) in Biblical (as well as modern) Hebrew is sometimes used as the personal name of an individual and at other times in a generic sense meaning "mankind", in the same way as the earlier Canaanite 'adam'.


Again I will point out that while the word is used in the broader sense elsewhere, the narrative of Genesis 2-3 is clearly referring to an individual. If one wishes to make Adam an allegorical representation of humanity, that's fine, but the Adam of the story is definitely an individual human, and the word is not being used to refer to "mankind."

[Jon Bemis]

Again I will point out that while the word is used in the broader sense elsewhere, the narrative of Genesis 2-3 is clearly referring to an individual. If one wishes to make Adam an allegorical representation of humanity, that's fine, but the Adam of the story is definitely an individual human, and the word is not being used to refer to "mankind."

Pretty much how I understand it too.

[Hans Deventer]

Again I will point out that while the word is used in the broader sense elsewhere, the narrative of Genesis 2-3 is clearly referring to an individual. If one wishes to make Adam an allegorical representation of humanity, that's fine, but the Adam of the story is definitely an individual human, and the word is not being used to refer to "mankind."

Not in the story, no. But then there is always the question how to interpret the story. And as long as I hear no serious solutions for the question where the people came from that Cain went to, I tend to take the story of the individual "Adam" as representative for my story and yours and the rest of mankind's.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Cain's wife: I've always wanted to preach on this and title my sermon, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner." Sure, bring her home to meet the parents. Boy, are they going to be surprised!

[Shea Zellweger]

Not in the story, no. But then there is always the question how to interpret the story. And as long as I hear no serious solutions for the question where the people came from that Cain went to, I tend to take the story of the individual "Adam" as representative for my story and yours and the rest of mankind's.

I think I see where you're going with the Cain thing, but not sure that the one necessarily follows from the other. The question of where Cain's wife came from doesn't really seem to have any bearing on whether Adam "represents" you or me or anyone else. One can understand Adam and Eve as having been mythological, or as having been 2 people among many, without needing them to be representative. See the first interpretation I offered in post #62 (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?5069-The-search-for-Adam-and-Eve&p=83493&viewfull=1#post83493).

[Hans Deventer]

I think I see where you're going with the Cain thing, but not sure that the one necessarily follows from the other. The question of where Cain's wife came from doesn't really seem to have any bearing on whether Adam "represents" you or me or anyone else.

I didn't claim it did. I just tried to say that the story of Adam's family, even in the Scriptures, doesn't seem to be the story of the only people alive at the time. So my point was that though the story is about individuals, we might very well interpret it more broadly since it doesn't appear to be historical. Now whether or not we actually should interpret it as representative is another story :), but one that does make sense to me. That's all I'm saying.

[Roland Hearn]

I think once you put aside the possibility of the story being literal, then yes, these are the most logical categories. This is where having faith in inspiration becomes very helpful- if I don't believe God inspired the Bible, then it becomes just another cultural mythology and collection of stories. Thankfully, I do believe that God inspired the Bible, so although it's a cultural mythology, it is the cultural mythology which God selected to tell humans about the relationship between them and God.



As long as you're willing to say that...
But what is it saying?
I'm with you all the way on this. I do think the story is about a broken relationship, between Adam and his wife, and between the two of them and God. But although it's set "in the beginning," I don't think it's about the origin of sin. I think on the broadest scale what the story tells us is that even in ideal conditions, and in constant relationship with God, people ultimately choose to leave that relationship.

Based on dating for the story (pretty sure it's Priestly source, ca. 500 BCE), there IS an allegorical way to read it, but not in regard to science. Adam and Eve could represent Israel, choosing to break relationship with God on the advice of some foreign influence, and being expelled from Canaa. The author(s), then, would be calling Israel to rid itself of foreign influences in hopes of restoring that relationship.

Either of these readings are directly applicable today, allow the story (and author) to speak for itself, and do not overlay any contemporary scientific understandings. They are far from the only two readings that do so, but they are the two I prefer.

I'm not going to go much farther with this because I think we have pretty much exhausted this discussion. However I'll say this: the idea that the story of Adam and Eve can have anything at all to do with scientific explanations is laughable. The story resonates with early historic reflections on existential questions. To suggest it is purely national I think is to miss the need for prehistoric and early historic people to address those questions. There is hardly a culture anywhere that doesn't have such stories and they almost all have some kind of national/race/locale representation but they answer the deeper question of where do I come from? Of course the story of Israel is located in the Adam story because for the Israelites they were the centre of humanity. Their history was the true history of humanity and all other humanity reflected the repercussions of deviation from God's path and that started with Adam. God's redemption for humanity started with him selecting from the children of Adam a people that would bring salvation to all of humanity. So the ideas of the origins of humanity, the origins of sin and the purity of Israel are all so intimately connected it is of no benefit at all to try and separate them. However I think that the ideas of Cain's wife and wanderings among hostile people suggests that even in their mythology there was an understanding that "something else" was happening in terms of the human story. I think modern science has no need at all to attempt to be reconciled with this story of beginnings. But, the issue of sin, that I started my series of posts with, does draw significant implications from whether or not we see sin as a biological reality and a part of evolution or as a choice to resist the love of God. I think the Adam story has something to say about that.

[David Graham]

Yeah, I think I'm with Roland on this.......

It's a story which "explains" the origins of humanity, sin and human suffering, that we "receive by faith", even though in reality, science may tell us "how" humanity came into being. (I do suspect however, that science may well prove a common "ape" ancestor of us all.)

Yet, theologically, we can always say: "well our original ancestors sinned and we have inherited their sinful nature, BUT, in Christ (the second Adam, the first to rise from the dead) we can have a new beginning, free from the overlord of sin and death, to obtain life in all of its fullness forever".

[Pete Vecchi]

I believe God created humanity to be in relationship to God and to find the fulfillment we seek only in God. Separation comes as a result of us trying to find fulfillment on our own (whether in selfishness or altruism). When we take on the individual task of self-fulfillment we discover we're more empty than we were before. When we (illogically) give up our selfish desires for self-less love, we find fulfillment in the God of self-less love and the relationship for which we were created.

Altruism is really an attempt at self-fulfillment - an added element of our selfish desire to feel good. So it's not a matter of selfishness vs altruism, but the tension between our desire for pleasure and our ability to give up that desire for God.



I agree with all this.

Edit: By the way, I just started looking at this thread today, and the above quote is from post number 14. After I posted (pre-edit), I saw that my post was number 77. I stopped reading at post # 14, just because there's way too much reading for me to get into in posts 15-76 right now...

[Steven Burton]

So why is Cain so afraid of other people coming after him when he murdered his brother?

[Shea Zellweger]

So why is Cain so afraid of other people coming after him when he murdered his brother?

help me make the connection Steve... this post doesn't really fit the flow of the thread thus far so far as I can tell. It's definitely an important question when addressing the text, but there are already some prepared answers for those who wish to read the passage as literal history- Adam and Eve had "many other sons and daughters"... could be some of those; God created additional people; Cain doesn't understand the world well enough to know any better; etc.

[Steven Burton]

See post 70.

[Dennis Bratcher]

So why is Cain so afraid of other people coming after him when he murdered his brother?

Could you clarify the question? The Genesis narrative seems quite clear:
4:14 ". . . and anyone who meets me may kill me."

If the question is, “who were these other people?”, then the answer is that the text does not say. If we provide a concrete answer we move into speculation beyond what the text allows. We must be honest enough to admit that.

It does seem obvious that the biblical narrative assumes that there are other people living in other places, both from this passage and the account of Cain finding a wife from “the land of Nod, east of Eden” (4:16). That tells us that this narrative is not an historical account about ultimate origins (in spite of the Greek name of the book, Genesis). Rather it focuses on a representative couple as a way to talk about humanity in general, and the story of God and humanity. Recall, the Hebrew word adam is a generic term for “man”, and so “humanity” or “people.” It is only used as a proper name in a derivative sense, and then not until late in the creation narratives (4:25 or 5:1).

In other words, to try to read this story as a historical account leaves us with questions for which the only answers are speculation and guesses, some of which drift into the ludicrous. Read as theology, the narrative is a coherent and compact story of the nature of humanity and the nature of God in his interaction with human beings at their worst.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Steven Burton]

Well when the conversation entered into the fighting between was he the first and father of all or was he metaphorical I usually throw that question into the mix. And as Shea pointed out so nicely they had other kids which means....... If we are looking at it as some due in a literal sense.

And Shea trust me you are not the only one that gets confused by my random questions thrown in or comments. I tend to create pictures of connecting things that seem to some as abstract and can not be made into a picture/concrete. I have been told that I can do Abstract concept = concrete/picture concept. Where it seems like it would be an Abstract concept =/= concrete/picture concept. I do seem to lean some towards concrete/picture at times when I am unsure. (= means bridge)

[Paul DeBaufer]

Did Adam and Eve exist?

No.


from this article I read today Adam, Eve & the Bible (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/beyond-adam-and-eve_b_928200.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008)

[Jon Bemis]

from this article I read today Adam, Eve & the Bible (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/beyond-adam-and-eve_b_928200.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008)

Another article (http://christianitytoday.imirus.com/Mpowered/book/vctrc11/i3/p4) that explores the possibility Adam and Eve were not actual historical persons from Christianity Today.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Some conservative Evangelicals are having a "Galileo moment" (http://ht.ly/65A1J) in this article. Maybe it is time to realize that the narrative is as Ben said here (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?5729-How-do-you-read&p=94648#post94648)

[Paul DeBaufer]

Karl Giberson clarifies his position based on questions he received in today's NPR interview. The Bible is a Library Not a Book (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/the-bible-is-a-library-no_b_923690.html?ref=tw) Maybe this will help.

[David Troxler]

Another article (http://christianitytoday.imirus.com/Mpowered/book/vctrc11/i3/p4) that explores the possibility Adam and Eve were not actual historical persons from Christianity Today.

Hi Jon, that's the same article this thread began with.

[David Morris]

One cannot look at evidence that doesn't exist.

I'm really not trying to push one view over another. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and there is an equally appalling lack of empirical evidence for that one as well. That is what faith is all about.

I personally don't care whether there was ever a real Adam and Eve or not.


So we are quick to say that, due to the lack of empiric evidence, it is a fact that Adam and Eve (as Genesis tells it) didn't exist.

Then when that same lack of empiric evidence exists for the resurrection of Christ, it would be absolutely heretical to say it must not of happened?

In the name of science, isn't truth only that which can be proven and seen?

[Jon Bemis]

Hi Jon, that's the same article this thread began with.

You know, I thought it looked vaguely familiar. :)

[Ryan Scott]

So we are quick to say that, due to the lack of empiric evidence, it is a fact that Adam and Eve (as Genesis tells it) didn't exist.

Then when that same lack of empiric evidence exists for the resurrection of Christ, it would be absolutely heretical to say it must not of happened?

In the name of science, isn't truth only that which can be proven and seen?

I didn't say they don't exist. I don't know. I also said it's perfectly acceptable to believe they did exist. I just said there's no evidence to support the claim.

There are only two faith claims I find foundational to my faith - that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and that the Holy Spirit is active in the world. My only evidence for either is purely experiential.

I don't think there were two people named Adam and Eve, but there were people who first understood their relationship to God and those people sinned in a way that has real consequences for the world hereafter. There's a real difference between the theological position of "first people" and the biological/historical consequences of Adam and Eve.

[Doug Ward]

So we are quick to say that, due to the lack of empiric evidence, it is a fact that Adam and Eve (as Genesis tells it) didn't exist.

Then when that same lack of empiric evidence exists for the resurrection of Christ, it would be absolutely heretical to say it must not of happened?

In the name of science, isn't truth only that which can be proven and seen?

This has been claimed a few times in this thread now, but it is not true. We have a little more evidence of the resurrection than we have for Adam and Eve, actually much more. One can approach these two events differently. Neither can be empirically proven, but one has far more evidence than the other.

[Todd Erickson]

So we are quick to say that, due to the lack of empiric evidence, it is a fact that Adam and Eve (as Genesis tells it) didn't exist.

Then when that same lack of empiric evidence exists for the resurrection of Christ, it would be absolutely heretical to say it must not of happened?

In the name of science, isn't truth only that which can be proven and seen?

From a sheerly biblical standpoint, the problem is this:

There are plenty of bits in the NT about how our faith depends on the resurrection of Christ.

There is not a single statement, anywhere in the bible, stating that our faith or relationship with Christ depends on a literal Adam and Eve. We have decided doctrinally that it does, but nobody anywhere in the bible is actually asking us to do so.

[Ryan Scott]

We have decided doctrinally that it does,

I'm not even sure we have. I don't know too many doctrines (other than, as was mentioned, a Penal Substitution theory of atonement) that rely on a real, physical Adam and Eve. We may have decided they were important colloquially and even connected our colloquial understanding to our doctrines, but they're not doctrinally necessary.

[David Morris]

From a sheerly biblical standpoint, the problem is this:

There are plenty of bits in the NT about how our faith depends on the resurrection of Christ.

There is not a single statement, anywhere in the bible, stating that our faith or relationship with Christ depends on a literal Adam and Eve. We have decided doctrinally that it does, but nobody anywhere in the bible is actually asking us to do so.

Todd, I agree with your assessment that you won't find anything in the Bible that states how our relationship with Christ is dependent on a literal Adam and Eve. There is plenty of NT support about how our faith depends on the resurrection of Christ What I was asking Ryan, out of good old fashioned curiosity, had more to do with the hard evidence (seen and proven) that Jesus Christ was resurrected. Just about everybody on this thread, and in this forum, is way smarter than me, and threads like this challenge what I have believed to be true for a majority of my life. I am not doubting my faith for a second, but I am beginning to analyze some of what the church taught me at a young age.

I am with Ryan, and probably 99% of the participants on this forum, by believing that Jesus Christ is resurrected because the evidence experientially is to strong to ignore. There is no hard physical evidence that anyone has found that would prove or deny the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but what He has done in my life is all the proof I need.

This discussion is all very new to me. I read the CT article about two months ago on a flight from Indy to Seattle, and it has been working itself out in my mind.

[Ryan Scott]

Todd, I agree with your assessment that you won't find anything in the Bible that states how our relationship with Christ is dependent on a literal Adam and Eve. There is plenty of NT support about how our faith depends on the resurrection of Christ What I was asking Ryan, out of good old fashioned curiosity, had more to do with the hard evidence (seen and proven) that Jesus Christ was resurrected. Just about everybody on this thread, and in this forum, is way smarter than me, and threads like this challenge what I have believed to be true for a majority of my life. I am not doubting my faith for a second, but I am beginning to analyze some of what the church taught me at a young age.

I am with Ryan, and probably 99% of the participants on this forum, by believing that Jesus Christ is resurrected because the evidence experientially is to strong to ignore. There is no hard physical evidence that anyone has found that would prove or deny the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but what He has done in my life is all the proof I need.

This discussion is all very new to me. I read the CT article about two months ago on a flight from Indy to Seattle, and it has been working itself out in my mind.

We do have historical proof. As much as scholars don't like it, the Bible is about as authentic a source of information from the time period as anything else in existence. However, like most historical accounts of the time, we have to take them with a grain of salt academically (seeing as how history as an academic discipline didn't arise until the 1800's). We do rely on more than experience, just not evidence concrete enough for mainstream science.

[David Morris]

We do have historical proof. As much as scholars don't like it, the Bible is about as authentic a source of information from the time period as anything else in existence. However, like most historical accounts of the time, we have to take them with a grain of salt academically (seeing as how history as an academic discipline didn't arise until the 1800's). We do rely on more than experience, just not evidence concrete enough for mainstream science.

My only beef with this statement Ryan is that we say "the Bible is about as authentic a source of information from the time period as anything else." I agree, much of what we see in Scripture has also been backed up through archeological finds. However, I struggle with the Bible being an authentic source of information for one thing, and not accurate for another. I realize creation and the life, death and resurrection of Christ are two totally different time periods.

[Benjamin Burch]

My only beef with this statement Ryan is that we say "the Bible is about as authentic a source of information from the time period as anything else." I agree, much of what we see in Scripture has also been backed up through archeological finds. However, I struggle with the Bible being an authentic source of information for one thing, and not accurate for another. I realize creation and the life, death and resurrection of Christ are two totally different time periods.

It's a good source for one thing - the only thing it pretends to be a good source for - faith in Jesus Christ.

[David Morris]

It's a good source for one thing - the only thing it pretends to be a good source for - faith in Jesus Christ.

Ben, can you elaborate on this statement please?

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, can you elaborate on this statement please?

What I mean is that we seem to ask a whole lot from a collection of books. All we really need is a source of faith, and it certainly provides that. Why do we ask it to be more than that? Why would we need it to be more than that?

[Todd Erickson]

Heh. Total sidebar thought. What if the knowledge of good and evil is what truly separates us from the other animals? :P

[Paul DeBaufer]

I keep hearing that there was no death prior to Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. But then how do we deal with


22 Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— 23therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

Seems God thinks that to live forever they must've eaten from the Tree of Life, which they didn't. Seems to me that death awaited them because they failed to eat from the Tree of Life (one which they were allowed to eat, yet didn't.)

[Steven Burton]

I keep hearing that there was no death prior to Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. But then how do we deal with



Seems God thinks that to live forever they must've eaten from the Tree of Life, which they didn't. Seems to me that death awaited them because they failed to eat from the Tree of Life (one which they were allowed to eat, yet didn't.)

I just read Plato for the answer to that question, because of his influence on western thought and some of Christianity.

[Rich Schmidt]

I keep hearing that there was no death prior to Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. But then how do we deal with


22 Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— 23therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

Seems God thinks that to live forever they must've eaten from the Tree of Life, which they didn't. Seems to me that death awaited them because they failed to eat from the Tree of Life (one which they were allowed to eat, yet didn't.)

Yes!

God apparently created Adam & Eve (humanity) with the possibility of living forever in relationship with him, but because of their sin, they will die/return to the dust. According to the story, the possibility of living forever would have been realized by eating from the tree of life. Adam and Eve were not created as eternal beings that would have lived forever if just left alone. They were created to depend on God and God's gifts for life.

So we can imagine that the "history" behind the story of the creation of Adam & Eve is God raising up humanity over millions/billions of years, starting with elemental particles (dust) and eventually shaping us into human beings. He then initiates a relationship with us... and we turn away. Etc.

Death is still an enemy that will one day be defeated.... when we live in that city where the water of life flows like a river from the throne of God and the Lamb, watering the tree of life, which bears an abundance of fruit, and whose leaves are a medicine to heal the nations.

[Todd Erickson]

This reply, in my opinion, could of been taken as ridicule.

Except that it's true. It's quite easy to believe that the earth is flat, or the sun revolves around the earth, based soley on our perceptions. Which was the point.

Julie, please show me that the earth isn't flat without using science.

[David Morris]

Death is still an enemy that will one day be defeated....

It hasn't already?

[Rich Schmidt]

It hasn't already?

Not until the end, when resurrection happens for us all.

I'm thinking of the phrase from 1 Corinthians 15:


20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Interestingly, this passage includes some of what we've been talking about, with its references to Adam.

[David Morris]

Death is still an enemy that will one day be defeated....



Not until the end, when resurrection happens for us all.

I'm thinking of the phrase from 1 Corinthians 15:

...26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death...

Interestingly, this passage includes some of what we've been talking about, with its references to Adam.

Is there a difference between defeating something and also destroying it? Death is surely something that has already been defeated, although we wait for the second coming to destroy it.

[Rich Schmidt]

Is there a difference between defeating something and also destroying it? Death is surely something that has already been defeated, although we wait for the second coming to destroy it.

Perhaps. Feel free to mentally edit my earlier post to say "destroyed" instead of "defeated" if you like. :) My point is that death will one day die and no longer be a reality that the creation has to contend with... and this is true regardless of whether Adam and Eve were a literal first human pair in a garden or whether God raised up a community of hominids into relationship with him.

[Ryan Scott]

My only beef with this statement Ryan is that we say "the Bible is about as authentic a source of information from the time period as anything else." I agree, much of what we see in Scripture has also been backed up through archeological finds. However, I struggle with the Bible being an authentic source of information for one thing, and not accurate for another. I realize creation and the life, death and resurrection of Christ are two totally different time periods.

The gospels are as authentic a historical source as anything else from the period - that being said, for all such documents, bias must be taken into account. Clearly the gospel writers had a specific purpose in writing what and as they did. Likewise, the official Roman records of the time have their own bias.

That's all I mean.

[Rich Schmidt]

The gospels are as authentic a historical source as anything else from the period - that being said, for all such documents, bias must be taken into account. Clearly the gospel writers had a specific purpose in writing what and as they did. Likewise, the official Roman records of the time have their own bias.

That's all I mean.

I think the confusion may have begun because in your earlier post you referred to "the Bible" and not "the gospels." The Bible is a much more diverse collection, covering everything from creation to resurrection, over a much broader "time period" (to quote your earlier post & David's). We can't treat "the Bible" as an undifferentiated unit... but now I'm preaching to the choir. :)

[David Morris]

Perhaps. Feel free to mentally edit my earlier post to say "destroyed" instead of "defeated" if you like. :) My point is that death will one day die and no longer be a reality that the creation has to contend with... and this is true regardless of whether Adam and Eve were a literal first human pair in a garden or whether God raised up a community of hominids into relationship with him.

I didn't want to pick to much on the verbiage, but there is a difference between defeating something and destroying it. I'm looking forward to The Day!

[Paul DeBaufer]

I don't know about disease, that's a very specific kind of suffering and I'd like to say it probably comes as a cumulative consequence of humanity's collective sin. But I do believe we were made to die - that's part of life.

When God says creation is good, I think Genesis is making the statement that the world was as God intended it to be. Once humanity broke relationship with God, things started going awry. I just don't think death and suffering were anything new - they just became things we feared without the relationship to God we were intended/created to have.

If death had not existed then Genesis 3:3but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’ is totally incomprehensible to both Adam and Eve, yet she seems to understand what death is. Then there is the statement from God about good thing that they hadn't eaten from the tree of life. So, I agree that death wasn't anything new.

[Rich Schmidt]

If death had not existed then Genesis 3:3but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’ is totally incomprehensible to both Adam and Eve, yet she seems to understand what death is. Then there is the statement from God about good thing that they hadn't eaten from the tree of life. So, I agree that death wasn't anything new.

God: "...you shall surely die."

Adam: "Uh... die? What is that? Is it like a party? It's good, right?"

God shakes head...

[Benjamin Burch]

If death had not existed then Genesis 3:3but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’ is totally incomprehensible to both Adam and Eve, yet she seems to understand what death is. Then there is the statement from God about good thing that they hadn't eaten from the tree of life. So, I agree that death wasn't anything new.


God: "...you shall surely die."

Adam: "Uh... die? What is that? Is it like a party? It's good, right?"

God shakes head...

We should also keep in mind that the vision of God's shalom, Kingdom, and reign in the Old Testament does not include the elimination of death until its very latest stages (Daniel 12 - written about 165 BC). Throughout most of the OT, death is expected even in God's new heaven and new earth.


For I am about to create new heavens
and a new earth;
the former things shall not be remembered
or come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice for ever
in what I am creating;
for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy,
and its people as a delight.
I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
and delight in my people;
no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it,
or the cry of distress.
No more shall there be in it
an infant that lives but a few days,
or an old person who does not live out a lifetime;
for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth,
and one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed.

We simply cannot draw neat lines from death in Genesis 3 to God's restoring it in Christ as though the Bible tells us a coherent story. It doesn't, and it doesn't pretend to.

We ask it the wrong questions, and set ourselves up to get the wrong answers when we expect it to do this.

[Todd Erickson]

Is there a difference between defeating something and also destroying it? Death is surely something that has already been defeated, although we wait for the second coming to destroy it.

If you destroy it, you must remove it from the game, you cannot put it into the discard pile.

[Todd Erickson]

Hrm. Ben quoted Isaiah:

"No more shall there be in it
an infant that lives but a few days,
or an old person who does not live out a lifetime;
for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth,
and one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed."

But this is talking about the new heaven and the new earth. So...Hrm.

[Benjamin Burch]

Adam was created a king maybe not absolute king but a ruler of the earth in fact Adam was oder to rule over the earth but he wasn't faithful to his commisiom and he lost his dominion over the earth. After the fisrt Adam fail to ruler over the earth God brought in a 2nd Adam which is christ Jesus. If there was not a first why do we need a second?
Thanks
Larry

We don't need a "second Adam". We need Christ. Paul uses Adam to explain Christ's salvation. Paul could have done it without Adam.

[Hans Deventer]

ATTENTION!

Just checking, but we are ALL committed to thinking post traditionally here, aren't we? Otherwise this could just as well have been posted on the general theology forum.

I have to admit that when I read some comments, doubt arises.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Just checking, but we are ALL committed to thinking post traditionally here, aren't we? Otherwise this could just as well have been posted on the general theology forum.

I have to admit that when I read some comments, doubt arises.

I was noticing the same thing so I think your doubt is not unwarranted.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Ii tend to still aspire to think in rather simple ways. I can follow some complex process for a little ways, however. I have come to the place where I find it spiritual strengthening to allow God to have created man however He wanted, and to have described it to man also however He felt it was best for man to hear/discover it. It's miraculous, however one looks at it.

I did find it necessary to sit down and reflect a bit at the thought of His having created man with merely superficial differences like dna records in many places at once. It's beginning to look like God is bigger and more capable than I earlier had considered. Accepting one big bang was challenging enough, but to have faith that there were several big bangs in various places with the same result stretches faith even more. I like that.

I know it is self-serving, but I can imagine that it may have been more than Moses could have accepted, recorded and promoted.

[David Morris]

ATTENTION!

Just checking, but we are ALL committed to thinking post traditionally here, aren't we? Otherwise this could just as well have been posted on the general theology forum.

I have to admit that when I read some comments, doubt arises.

No, I am not committed to thinking post traditionally here. I am willing to participate in the discussion from what I have believed for so very long to be true, and I am willing to listen to and attempt to understand what is being said by people with much more knowledge than me on the subject. However, if someone has to be committed to thinking a certain way to participate in any thread or forum on NazNet, then it will seriously hinder the ability to have quality conversations.

[Ryan Scott]

I take the position I do on death in Genesis, first, because Genesis doesn't say anything about death coming from sin, but, honestly, a more important reason is because I believe the incarnation of Christ was planned before the creation of the world. I am uncomfortable with a God who creates, doesn't anticipate sin, and then has to hastily come up with a plan to solve the problem. That doesn't seem like the God of scripture.

It seems more coherent, both logically, and from scripture, that God created the world as God intended it to be, knowing that the free creatures God created would not be able to avoid seeking fulfillment of their selfish desires. From there, all of history is a path towards reconciliation, whereby these human creatures come to realize that the only way to satisfy their selfish desires is to give them up totally and selflessly serve others. Christ provides both the example and the means through which this reconciliation is possible, and the Holy Spirit provides our ability to actually live it out. We look forward to the full reconciliation that comes at the end of time, when we are returned to our creative relationship to God, but with a powerful understanding of the value of said relationship for our very being.

If the plan was for people to live perfectly and peacefully forever, then Christ doesn't have a part to play - which is something I'm uncomfortable with.

[Hans Deventer]

No, I am not committed to thinking post traditionally here. I am willing to participate in the discussion from what I have believed for so very long to be true, and I am willing to listen to and attempt to understand what is being said by people with much more knowledge than me on the subject. However, if someone has to be committed to thinking a certain way to participate in any thread or forum on NazNet, then it will seriously hinder the ability to have quality conversations.

David, after having posted on NazNet since 1998 and having had innumerable discussions, I'll dare to say this is not true. Unless one is willing to start to think in a different way, not just "understand their views", discussions are an utter waste of time and energy, and usually lead to disrupted relations and/or angry posts. (Understanding that merely asking questions is appropriate, but that is a rare phenomenon.)

So the very reason for this forum is to separate the people who simply aren't willing to think any different from what they once learned, and those who are indeed committed to a post traditional way of thinking or at least open to changing their minds. If this explanation still isn't clear, try http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?4620-So-what-s-this-forum-about.

Your initial remark seems to indicate this might not be a place for you to post, though of course I might do you injustice by grounding it on only one post. Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Now do understand, people are very welcome to post on the general theology forum, within the rules of NazNet and its goal. But this forum is specifically there NOT get drawn into the 5,469,248th discussion on Calvinism or Arminianism, creation versus evolution etc etc without the commitment to be willing to change one's mind. Which as I see it, is a crucial element of post traditional thinking.

[David Morris]

David, after having posted on NazNet since 1998 and having had innumerable discussions, I'll dare to say this is not true. Unless one is willing to start to think in a different way, not just "understand their views", discussions are an utter waste of time and energy, and usually lead to disrupted relations and/or angry posts. (Understanding that merely asking questions is appropriate, but that is a rare phenomenon.)

So the very reason for this forum is to separate the people who simply aren't willing to think any different from what they once learned, and those who are indeed committed to a post traditional way of thinking or at least open to changing their minds. If this explanation still isn't clear, try http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?4620-So-what-s-this-forum-about.

Your initial remark seems to indicate this might not be a place for you to post, though of course I might do you injustice by grounding it on only one post. Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Now do understand, people are very welcome to post on the general theology forum, within the rules of NazNet and its goal. But this forum is specifically there NOT get drawn into the 5,469,248th discussion on Calvinism or Arminianism, creation versus evolution etc etc without the commitment to be willing to change one's mind. Which as I see it, is a crucial element of post traditional thinking.

Hans, it is likely I misunderstood the aim of your post. As I said, I am willing to think differently...but what I took from what you said is that I must be committed to a specific view in order to participate in this forum. I am open to changing my mind, and this thread has challenged me to do just that. My contribution at this point in the thread has been asking questions to seek a better understanding on others views and beliefs. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, it is likely I misunderstood the aim of your post. As I said, I am willing to think differently...but what I took from what you said is that I must be committed to a specific view in order to participate in this forum. I am open to changing my mind, and this thread has challenged me to do just that. My contribution at this point in the thread has been asking questions to seek a better understanding on others views and beliefs. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

No problem at all. Thanks for asking and allowing me to explain!

[Paul DeBaufer]

Ii tend to still aspire to think in rather simple ways. I can follow some complex process for a little ways, however. I have come to the place where I find it spiritual strengthening to allow God to have created man however He wanted, and to have described it to man also however He felt it was best for man to hear/discover it. It's miraculous, however one looks at it.

I did find it necessary to sit down and reflect a bit at the thought of His having created man with merely superficial differences like dna records in many places at once. It's beginning to look like God is bigger and more capable than I earlier had considered. Accepting one big bang was challenging enough, but to have faith that there were several big bangs in various places with the same result stretches faith even more. I like that.

I know it is self-serving, but I can imagine that it may have been more than Moses could have accepted, recorded and promoted.

This sounds like steady state cosmology, is it making a comeback?

[John Kennedy]

I'm still firmy convinced that the most essential question re creation is why, not how.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I'm still firmy convinced that the most essential question re creation is why, not how.

OK, I'll bite: usually we say who, rather than why. Your post seems to deserve longer discourse.

[Todd Erickson]

OK, I'll bite: usually we say who, rather than why. Your post seems to deserve longer discourse.

Actually, all of Ben's statements on this thread have been along that theme.

[Dennis M. Scott]

This sounds like steady state cosmology, is it making a comeback?

I only was wanting to point out that recent dna evidence points to more than one strain (likely not the proper term) that indicates not only one "Adam and Eve." I was using the big bang theory as an often referred to attempt to identify a beginning. IMO there still have been no plausible theories of human origin - at least none as reasonable as the biblical story.

[Daniel Hamlin]

I'm still firmy convinced that the most essential question re creation is why, not how.

Obviously you haven't been listening to Al Mohler, then. :)

[Thomas Oord]

The fact the creation is continually renewed is good.

Show me where God said that creation was "perfect". He obviously could have chosen that word, but didn't.

Dan,

I agree with you. Craig Boyd has a nice essay in a book I edited, Creation Made Free, in which he specifically talks about the lack of perfection in creation. You might check it out to add support for your (good) argument.

Tom

[Paul DeBaufer]

Substitute "time dilation" for "death" and it makes just a much sense.

Adam and Eve had never seen anything die, right? And prior to creation nothing had ever died, right? So how could they know?

Oh I think time dilation easy compared to death.

[Hans Deventer]

Several posts did not help. Once again, if you're here merely to defend traditional views versus non-traditional views, THIS IS NOT YOUR FORUM! I really don't know how to make it any clearer. But since people refuse to listen, and I refuse to let this forum become another battlefield of useless discussion, I'll be acting more promptly now. I'll remove any post from people who appear to be only defending traditional views from this forum.

Right now I've split this thread. If you want to defend traditional views, you're welcome at the general theology forum in the thread http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?5823-Traditional-vs-non-traditional-view-of-Adam-and-Eve.

This a moderator's post.

[John Kennedy]

OK, I'll bite: usually we say who, rather than why. Your post seems to deserve longer discourse.

I'd say more, but I'm afraid Al Mohler would get bent out of shape.

Actually, to me, the particular mechanics employed by the Creator (see, Al, I capitalized it!) in the process have little to do with our living out his purposes. How long and by what means is, IMO, much less significant than why he chose, at incredible risk to the realization of his purposes, to allow us to choose.

Were I seeking such, Mohler's SBC would probably refuse to ordain me. This is most emphatically a place where both I and they can join in a hearty "Thank you, Jesus!"

[Steven Burton]

When will we let go of this western planotic view of perfection?

[Todd Erickson]

Thoughts on the subject from my friend Tad: http://taddelay.com/2011/08/22/the-debate-about-adam-and-eve-has-nothing-to-do-with-adam-and-eve/

[Paul DeBaufer]

Thoughts on the subject from my friend Tad: http://taddelay.com/2011/08/22/the-debate-about-adam-and-eve-has-nothing-to-do-with-adam-and-eve/

Great post by your friend Tad. Thank you.

[Steven Martinez]

This is a Host Post: I am asking all participants to remember that this is the Post traditional Theology forum. This does not mean that every post traditional theological thought is correct, orthodox or biblically sound, but those ideas are to be taken respectfully and disagreements with such views should be done with respect and tact. For example, I think Ben's post-modern, Process, Catholic view is wrong (I mean I like Jean Luc Marion but I cannot truly buy what he is selling) and we have had personal conversations about such things. But we respect each other and both agree to disagree and we both agree that we do not know all the answers. Personally I find the biblical evidence of an open God theory to be weak and un-compelling as the biblical arguments for an all knowing, all powerful God. I think both arguments are more philosophical than theological in their designs. I am also asking Hans to stop moving posts to the other theology forum as I will simply delete posts that are just not embracing the nature of this forum and the original post.

[Hans Deventer]

I am also asking Hans to stop moving posts to the other theology forum as I will simply delete posts that are just not embracing the nature of this forum and the original post.

No problem, Steven. It was a one time action.

[David Troxler]

Just read the latest Christianity Today article cover story.

Here it is:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/historicaladam.html

I welcome what Karl Giberson and others in the Church of the Nazarene are doing in the area of life science. When we examine this however, we are in somewhat new territory.

I am interested in helping people make the theological adjustments that will allow for science to be incorporated into one's life. We have all seen the detractors. I had one person in church bring me an article taken from a spurious website that castigates those Nazarenes who are thinking and researching and therefore changing the denomination. Without trying to resurrect the discussion about those naysayers, how do we aid the conversation for people who are truly seeking to make peace with scientific discovery.

Appreciate your thoughts.

I began this thread several months ago asking for input how to aid the conversation for people who are truly seeking to make peace between Scripture and scientific discovery.

I'm still working on that, realizing I am learning much more about science and scientific method in the process. However, I found this link on today's NCN News email about as helpful as anything. It references Dean Nelson and Karl Giberson's upcoming book release about physicist/theologian John Polkinghorne.

Here is the NCN link and their link to USA Today's e-column-
http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?id=10010689
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-08-28/Why-certainty-about-God-is-overrated/50166464/1

The idea that certainty being overrated can be troubling to some, but expressed doubts are at least honest. I trust the Scriptures. As I learn of scientific discoveries that point to earthly origins as well as origins of the cosmos, I am fascinated, and I find no reason not to trust those discoveries.

It is comforting to know that God allows for doubt from His creatures. If I am looking for an answer to those who are seeking, this kind of comfort is about the best I can share.

[Roland Hearn]

Thanks for the info David - I've ordered the book.

[Roland Hearn]

Personally I find the biblical evidence of an open God theory to be weak and un-compelling as the biblical arguments for an all knowing, all powerful God. I think both arguments are more philosophical than theological in their designs. My point of view exactly. I'm uncomfortable embracing both perspectives fully - but I guess that isn't for this thread, so go ahead and delete it if necessary. I wonder if God knew I would blunder in like I just did, or whether He just thought there was a good chance knowing me?

[Hans Deventer]

My point of view exactly. I'm uncomfortable embracing both perspectives fully - but I guess that isn't for this thread, so go ahead and delete it if necessary. I wonder if God knew I would blunder in like I just did, or whether He just thought there was a good chance knowing me?

I've never been convinced by the philosophical arguments, but it does seem to me that the open view fits the biblical data better. Till there is a better theory, of course.

[Roland Hearn]

I began this thread several months ago asking for input how to aid the conversation for people who are truly seeking to make peace between Scripture and scientific discovery.

I'm still working on that, realizing I am learning much more about science and scientific method in the process. However, I found this link on today's NCN News email about as helpful as anything. It references Dean Nelson and Karl Giberson's upcoming book release about physicist/theologian John Polkinghorne.

Here is the NCN link and their link to USA Today's e-column-
http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?id=10010689
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-08-28/Why-certainty-about-God-is-overrated/50166464/1

The idea that certainty being overrated can be troubling to some, but expressed doubts are at least honest. I trust the Scriptures. As I learn of scientific discoveries that point to earthly origins as well as origins of the cosmos, I am fascinated, and I find no reason not to trust those discoveries.

It is comforting to know that God allows for doubt from His creatures. If I am looking for an answer to those who are seeking, this kind of comfort is about the best I can share.


Book arrived a couple of days ago and now I have read it. I feel like I must have been a student of Polkinghorne for sometime. There is very little I disagree with if any. I found myself truly inspired by his life.

[Larry Parsons]

We should also keep in mind that the vision of God's shalom, Kingdom, and reign in the Old Testament does not include the elimination of death until its very latest stages (Daniel 12 - written about 165 BC). Throughout most of the OT, death is expected even in God's new heaven and new earth.



We simply cannot draw neat lines from death in Genesis 3 to God's restoring it in Christ as though the Bible tells us a coherent story. It doesn't, and it doesn't pretend to.

We ask it the wrong questions, and set ourselves up to get the wrong answers when we expect it to do this.

{Throughout most of the OT, death is expected even in God's new heaven and new earth.} Just wondering couldn't we be living in the New Heaven and earth now according to Isa. 65
Thanks
Larry

[Benjamin Burch]

{Throughout most of the OT, death is expected even in God's new heaven and new earth.} Just wondering couldn't we be living in the New Heaven and earth now according to Isa. 65
Thanks
Larry

Not really, no. Not in a Christian context. The discussion of "New Heaven and earth" in Isaiah is specifically speaking about a return from exile, to the land, and restoration of worship in Jerusalem. Eschatological language of renewal and permanence was used to express hope and joy surrounding God's glorious faithfulness. While that, historically, has already taken place, the final restoration we await (Romans 8) has not yet taken place.

[Larry Parsons]

Not really, no. Not in a Christian context. The discussion of "New Heaven and earth" in Isaiah is specifically speaking about a return from exile, to the land, and restoration of worship in Jerusalem. Eschatological language of renewal and permanence was used to express hope and joy surrounding God's glorious faithfulness. While that, historically, has already taken place, the final restoration we await (Romans 8) has not yet taken place.

So you don't believe the promise that is found in 2 Peter 3:13 is refering to the promise that found in Isa 65,66? Why couldn't Isa. 65-66 be refering to the gospel age or the age of the New Covenant? So why couldn't the New heaven and the new earth in Isa.65:17 being talking about the gospel age. death is not yet conquered Vs 20. I'm off the subject about Adam
Thanks
Larry

[Benjamin Burch]

So you don't believe the promise that is found in 2 Peter 3:13 is refering to the promise that found in Isa 65,66? Why couldn't Isa. 65-66 be refering to the gospel age or the age of the New Covenant? So why couldn't the New heaven and the new earth in Isa.65:17 being talking about the gospel age. death is not yet conquered Vs 20. I'm off the subject about Adam
Thanks
Larry

Because I don't think anything in the OT talks about "the Gospel age". I don't even know what that would mean on a Biblical timeline. Isaiah is written for its time period, and is talking about the return from Babylonian exile. There was no belief yet in the future, eternal Kingdom of God as we speak about it today, or what we mean when we refer to the eschaton.

[Larry Parsons]

Because I don't think anything in the OT talks about "the Gospel age". I don't even know what that would mean on a Biblical timeline. Isaiah is written for its time period, and is talking about the return from Babylonian exile. There was no belief yet in the future, eternal Kingdom of God as we speak about it today, or what we mean when we refer to the eschaton.
Ok, "But according to His promise we are looking for....2 Pet.3:13 Where do we find this promise that Peter is talking about? I'm not saying you are wrong in one way you are complete correct. But there is what is call typological prophecy or double fulfillment. Peter knew that the end of the old heaven and earth (Old Covenant)was at hand and because of this they were waiting for the New heaven and earth to come in effect which was the New Covenant .
Thanks
Larry

[Carl Hueston]

What about the generations listed in the first books of the New Testament giving us a real connection from Adam to Jesus?

[Steven Martinez]

What about the generations listed in the first books of the New Testament giving us a real connection from Adam to Jesus?

How does the genealogies given to us in the Bible give us a real connection. They are not exactly verified by empirical data. They have to be taken on some measure of faith. On top of that the genealogies do not even match. They do not agree on who the father of Joseph was. At the same time, the genealogies are based upon Joseph's line when Jesus had no physical connection to Joseph so they are almost moot in regards to any physical connection to Adam or Abraham. Again the genealogies seem to stress theological aspects. The aspects being that Jesus fulfills prophecy by being through the line of David, and the other aspect that Jesus offers salvation to all as the Son of Man as he is fully human being in line with Adam, the son of God. I think it is safer to say that Luke is writing that Jesus is in fact a human being, rather than making any statement about Adam.

[Steven Burton]

Why does it have to be factually consistent? It was written in a time frame that facts are not really consider the same as facts are today. They would mix in political as well as mythological aspects into their historical writings so to look at something that traces a genealogy of a historic person in this time period you might run into some very complicated problems as Steve so kindly pointed out above.

[Carl Hueston]

So Adam is not the first man?

[Steven Martinez]

So Adam is not the first man?

I do not know, I was not there. My position in regards to this question is that I simply hold no stock in it. If God reveals to me that there was some guy named Adam who was the very first person I doubt it would change my understanding of Christian Theology. If God revealed to me that the first person was some guy named Frank and it was a million years ago I doubt it would change my understanding of Christian Theology. My faith is based upon the belief that God is real. I have no empirical data to prove the existence of God but I believe that God is real and I have a relationship with God. I will never have a relationship with Adam so Adam is simply not important to my faith. What is important is that God became flesh and dwelt amongst us.

[Randy Wise]

So Adam is not the first man?

The answer to your question is a matter of faith. As has been pointed out the answer doesn't speak to us if one is a christian or not. Faith in Christ Jesus answers that question. Personally I believe by faith that the first human male body was of the dust of the earth and was created by God. I believe God formed the spirit of that man that we call Adam making Adam the first living fully human being.

R.

[Hans Deventer]

What about the generations listed in the first books of the New Testament giving us a real connection from Adam to Jesus?

Carl, you are very welcome to ask a question here. But since this is your first post, I do want to point out on which forum you are asking it. If you're aware of that, perfect. If not, do understand that this fact will colour the answers you get.

[Carl Hueston]

Sorry Hans if I offended or asked the wrong question or asked in the wrong forum. It looked funny to me that someone doubted that Adam existed and curiosity got me. I went back and read what this forum is for, so I'll keep that in mind before I post again.

[Hans Deventer]

Sorry Hans if I offended or asked the wrong question or asked in the wrong forum. It looked funny to me that someone doubted that Adam existed and curiosity got me. I went back and read what this forum is for, so I'll keep that in mind before I post again.

No problem at all, Carl! I just figured it might have escaped your attention.

[Daniel Hamlin]

So Adam is not the first man?

According to the scientific evidence, the genre of the story, and the worldview of the Ancient Near East, Adam doesn't appear to be the first man.

[Dennis Bratcher]

According to the scientific evidence, the genre of the story, and the worldview of the Ancient Near East, Adam doesn't appear to be the first man.

FWIW (apart from scientific evidence): In Hebrew, the word 'adam is not normally a proper name. It is a generic term for "man," or as we would say today "human being" or even “humanity.” Throughout the early references to 'adam in Genesis, the word usually occurs with the definite article ha'adam, “the man.” In those verses even when it does not have the article, it is obvious from context that it is being used generically, as in Genesis 1:16 (without) and 1:17 (with). That is why modern translations like the NRSV do not translate the word as a proper name until 4:25 when it begins to occur consistently without the article and is paired with the woman, whom the man has already named Eve. At that point the narrative begins to track humanity in terms of the story of a specific family.

Unfortunately early English translators, working from certain assumptions about the story, ignored the article and translated the word as a proper name even when it had the definite article, as in KJV 2:19 (they did the same thing with the word satan, which most often also has a definite article with it). Yet others like Martin Luther understood the distinction in 2:19, and translated dem Menschen, “to the man,” rather than “to Adam” (KJV), although Luther begins using “Adam” in 3:8 where the word does have the definite article.

In any case, I think it is important to allow the actual biblical text to inform what we think about this.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Daniel Hamlin]

I see our Concerned friends have found this thread and are bashing us, again, on their Facebook group page It's frustrating because they don't understand the wrestling that many of us have undergone when presented with various lines of evidence from both science and scripture.

So, to the Concerned who are lurking, let me say this: We are your brothers and sisters in Christ. We love Jesus and have accepted him as Lord. I'd love to sit down over a cup of coffee and discuss these issues, at least then you and I could put a face, personality and relationship to a name.

[Hans Deventer]

I see our Concerned friends have found this thread and are bashing us, again, on their Facebook group page

Daniel, why are you reading there at all? One of our most friendly members, Rich, has seriously tried to bridge the gap. To no avail. Of course they disagree by definition with the purpose of this forum. We all knew that, didn't we? So what? It's not up to them to decide who's a Christian and who is not. There's only One who kept that privilege to Himself.

"I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgement before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God. " (1 Cor 4)

I really wish we could stop giving them attention. We only help their cause this way.

[Rich Schmidt]

Daniel, why are you reading there at all? One of our most friendly members, Rich, has seriously tried to bridge the gap. To no avail.

They banned me from their Facebook page a long time ago, so I can't even see it... unless someone else is logged into Facebook and lets me borrow their computer for a bit.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Daniel, why are you reading there at all? One of our most friendly members, Rich, has seriously tried to bridge the gap. To no avail. Of course they disagree by definition with the purpose of this forum. We all knew that, didn't we? So what? It's not up to them to decide who's a Christian and who is not. There's only One who kept that privilege to Himself.

"I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgement before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God. " (1 Cor 4)

I really wish we could stop giving them attention. We only help their cause this way.

It's frustrating to be called a heretic (in not so many words). I hold to the tenets of the Apostle's Creed, which for centuries has been a sufficient summary of what's necessary to believe. However, for some reason that's not good enough, simply because I view non-essentials as not essential. Suddenly non-essentials are made essential by cultural warriors and popular Christian leaders. In my opinion so much baggage gets added to the "Good News" that it becomes just as burdensome as the Old Testament law.

[Hans Deventer]

It's frustrating to be called a heretic (in not so many words). I hold to the tenets of the Apostle's Creed, which for centuries has been a sufficient summary of what's necessary to believe. However, for some reason that's not good enough, simply because I view non-essentials as not essential. Suddenly non-essentials are made essential by cultural warriors and popular Christian leaders. In my opinion so much baggage gets added to the "Good News" that it becomes just as burdensome as the Old Testament law.

I agree. But there's nothing you can do about it. If people decide to appoint themselves as your judge, how can we stop them? Do a google search on "hans deventer naznet" and you'll see what these nice people can do. Can you take them serious? Of course not. And thankfully, we know Who will really judge us.

And actually, these groups will kill off themselves. If everyone is a judge, no one will be orthodox enough, because each and every one of them will know better.

[Rich Schmidt]

They banned me from their Facebook page a long time ago, so I can't even see it... unless someone else is logged into Facebook and lets me borrow their computer for a bit.

If any of the Concerned are reading this, please know that I would be happy to talk with you, answer any questions, etc. Just send me a message on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/richschmidt

(Please send me a message, not a friend request. I try to only be "friends" on Facebook with people I actually know in real life. Thanks!)

[David Pettigrew]

And actually, these groups will kill off themselves. If everyone is a judge, no one will be orthodox enough, because each and every one of them will know better.

I have so often found this to be true. Groups that splinter always splinter. The group that split from the Nazarene church in the late 50s has itself had three major splits, with each of those splits each subsequently splitting. I see history repeating itself through facebook - all in the name of Christian perfection!
http://crossview.info/stuff/movement.jpg

[Kyle Borger]

The question of the existence of a literal Adam and Eve seems to also spark a debate whether everything in the Bible is true and correct. My faith in God is secure if all of man was born out of Adam, but it is also secure if Adam is an example of man's creation by God and subsequent failure. Reading Genesis 4 it is apparent that other people existed outside of the family of Adam. Where they also created directly by God's hand at the same time as Adam or soon after Adam? Did Adam and 3veEve have other children that are not mentioned? How much time has passed for these other children to move away and occupy other lands and become seperate from Adam's family? What seems to make sense is that God created man and God created the universe. Does the Bible attempt to explain how this happened? It doesn't seem like that is the case. The Bible often seems to focus most specifically on the relationship between man and God. I believe that is the greatest purpose of the Bible; explain and provide insight into how man interacts with God and how God desires interaction with us.

I smile when science and archeology find evidence that suggest that Biblical events may be true and when science attempts to disprove the Bible I simply shrug and wonder why they attempt to disprove something that makes no claims toward explaining exactly how God interacts with the physical world. The Bible is full of truth and fully explains God's glory and grace in dealing with his creation.

Science requires us to reproduce an event to prove it possible. I don't think God had any desire to see us attempt to reproduce creation and as such certainly remained a little vague in terms of how he did it.

[Hans Deventer]

I'd like to point out the purpose of this forum once again. If it were to challange post traditional theology, there would be no use for it, for that is already possible at the regular Theology Forum. This forum is specifically intended for those who would like to consider the various post traditional theologies without rejecting them by definition. It is for those who would like to think out of the traditional box. If that's not you, don't post here but use the regular theology forum instead. This is in order to avoid frustrating both you and the participants who do fit the goal.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Since this thread is still garnering attention and is being referenced outside of Naznet, I want to ask one question, which is still somewhat on topic in relation to the original post:

If I believe Jesus is the Son of God, that He died and God raised him from the dead, confess and repent of my sins and accept Him as Lord, then does my salvation depend on whether or not I believe Adam was the first man?

Yes or No?

[Ryan Scott]

Not really, no. Not in a Christian context. The discussion of "New Heaven and earth" in Isaiah is specifically speaking about a return from exile, to the land, and restoration of worship in Jerusalem. Eschatological language of renewal and permanence was used to express hope and joy surrounding God's glorious faithfulness. While that, historically, has already taken place, the final restoration we await (Romans 8) has not yet taken place.

I'm not as sure about this as I used to be. I'm not sure Isaiah and perhaps much of the OT restoration prophesies don't speak to the "Day of the Lord" more directly. I think it was Yoder who posited that when Israel went into exile their mission was changed from a people in a land to a people in the midst of other peoples, making the diaspora the norm for Jewish life and faith, not the remnant returned to Jerusalem. I believe he uses this to connect this mission to the structure Paul sets up for the early ekklesia - resident alien sort of stuff.

I'm not denying an immediate context for such prophesy, but perhaps we need to look at the immediate versus the long term, and which one receives priority in which prophesy.

[Dennis Bratcher]

. . . I want to ask one question, which is still somewhat on topic in relation to the original post:

If I believe Jesus is the Son of God, that He died and God raised him from the dead, confess and repent of my sins and accept Him as Lord, then does my salvation depend on whether or not I believe Adam was the first man?

Yes or No?

No.

1) Our salvation does not even depend on believing the items above. Salvation is not a matter of correct belief. According to Paul, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God-- not the result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9). That does not mean that we do not have to respond in faith to that grace. But that response is not strictly in believing the right things. That is, it is not mental assent to a set of propositions (which renders things like the “Roman Road to Salvation” of less use than many imagine since it is premised on logical assent to propositions). It is a matter of accepting what God has provided and letting that work out in how we live. Part of our problem is that evangelicals have tended to focus almost entirely on “salvation” rather than taking a larger view of what it means to be in relationship with God.

2) Even a person in relationship with God can believe a lot of things that are not necessarily “true” or correct (assuming that we could totally define what is true and correct). As Wesley pointed out in talking about God’s grace and the human condition:


Although every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true (for to believe any opinion is not true, is the same thing as not to hold it), yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. In fact, every thinking man is assured they are not, seeing humanum est errare et nescire: "To be ignorant of many things, and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity." This, therefore, he understands, applies to himself as well. He knows, generally, that he himself is mistaken; although in what particular opinions he is mistaken, he does not, perhaps he cannot, know. [sermon, On a Catholic Spirit (http://www.crivoice.org/cathspirit.html)]

Belief in the “correct” things, as opposed to faith in God, is a function of Christian maturity, not a condition of salvation. Those who would make it otherwise have misunderstood something about the nature of grace.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Bob Hunter]

I have a horrible confession. I know a couple of Mormons that clearly do not believe in the right things as I would define them as being "right". BUT, they are very sincere and devoted to Christ and their lives demonstrate a certain humility that I sometimes do not see in evangelical circles. Perhaps they are as Wesley described, "ignorant in many things, and mistaken in others". Whatever the case, I believe they have a genuine faith in God and I, for one, am NOT going to condemn them to Hell. If the opportunity presents itself to help them better understand Christian beliefs, I will fully engage in that conversation just as I would with a fellow evangelical who is misinformed.

[Roland Hearn]

Since this thread is still garnering attention and is being referenced outside of Naznet, I want to ask one question, which is still somewhat on topic in relation to the original post:

If I believe Jesus is the Son of God, that He died and God raised him from the dead, confess and repent of my sins and accept Him as Lord, then does my salvation depend on whether or not I believe Adam was the first man?

Yes or No?
It would be difficult to better Dennis's answer but just to go on the record, "No". Salvation depends in no way on correctness of belief but on the one in whom we believe. If it were the other way it would be salvation by works not grace.

[John Kennedy]

You mean we haven't found those guys yet? This is takin' forever!

[Randy Wise]

You mean we haven't found those guys yet? This is takin' forever!

Christians usually stay out of nudist colonies. That couple has no shame being in the buff. It could be the entire nudist colony movement was their idea. I guess we will never know.

R.

[Carolyn Franklin]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. I wish that I could add it to my "notes" on Facebook. Maybe I can add the url? I now see the "Publish to Facebook". I'm gonna try it. :)

[Gina Stevenson]

Carolyn, did that FB thing work? [well, guess we could check out your FB page and find out, huh!?] ;)

[Jon Bemis]

I began this thread several months ago asking for input how to aid the conversation for people who are truly seeking to make peace between Scripture and scientific discovery.

Here (http://www.epworthpulpit.com/god-talk/christian-faith-and-dialogue-modern-science)'s an article by Carl Leth (Professor of Theology and Dean of the School of Theology and Christian Ministry at ONU) that speaks to the issue of the dialogue between faith and science. He says, "Scientific imperialism and Biblical Fundamentalism stand at opposing ends of this engagement and call us to the margins. Either we offer an unqualified surrender to the authority of science to determine the boundaries of our conversation or we demand the submission of science to (particular) Biblical conditions. There is much more talking “at” each other than talking “with” each other."
Worth reading IMO.

[Randy Wise]

If the opportunity presents itself to help them better understand Christian beliefs, I will fully engage in that conversation just as I would with a fellow evangelical who is misinformed.

Just answer the door when they ring the door bell:)

Seriously "I" can't see Jesus not telling one who belongs to Him in a relationship that the Morman movement wasn't from above. He has ways of communicating with His own.



Randy

[Daniel Hamlin]

I've been pondering this for a while and I finally have a chance to respond. I'm just stating some thoughts, not necessarily staking out a position. I'm just trying to prompt more discussion.



1) Our salvation does not even depend on believing the items above. Salvation is not a matter of correct belief. According to Paul, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God-- not the result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9). That does not mean that we do not have to respond in faith to that grace. But that response is not strictly in believing the right things. That is, it is not mental assent to a set of propositions (which renders things like the “Roman Road to Salvation” of less use than many imagine since it is premised on logical assent to propositions). It is a matter of accepting what God has provided and letting that work out in how we live. Part of our problem is that evangelicals have tended to focus almost entirely on “salvation” rather than taking a larger view of what it means to be in relationship with God.


While my original post was more rhetorical than anything, what you posted above has been on my mind for a while. If salvation was based on mentally assenting to a correct set of propositional beliefs, then we could never be sure our own beliefs were "correct enough".

From "Not A Fan" by Kyle Idleman:

Many have made a decision to believe in Jesus without making a commitment to follow Jesus. The gospel allows for no such distinction. Biblical belief is more than mental assent or verbal acknowledgement...When we decide to believe in Jesus without making a commitment to follow him, we become nothing more than fans.

So, I realize the Christian life requires more than just a mental assent to a set of truths, but it would also seem that correctness of belief also factors in. I'm just not sure what is the correct amount of "correctness", if that makes any sense.

Furthermore, the fact that Christians hold a variety of positions, many of which are contradictory, would also indicate that someone's position is wrong. So, how can I be sure my own beliefs are "correct"?



Belief in the “correct” things, as opposed to faith in God, is a function of Christian maturity, not a condition of salvation. Those who would make it otherwise have misunderstood something about the nature of grace.


Perhaps I still don't understand the nature of grace.

[Dennis Bratcher]

So, I realize the Christian life requires more than just a mental assent to a set of truths, but it would also seem that correctness of belief also factors in. I'm just not sure what is the correct amount of "correctness", if that makes any sense.

Furthermore, the fact that Christians hold a variety of positions, many of which are contradictory, would also indicate that someone's position is wrong. So, how can I be sure my own beliefs are "correct"?

You cannot, as John Widely said so eloquently in On A Catholic Spirit (http://www.crivoice.org/cathspirit.html):


Although every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true (for to believe any opinion is not true, is the same thing as not to hold it), yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. In fact, every thinking man is assured they are not, seeing humanum est errare et nescire: "To be ignorant of many things, and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity." This, therefore, he understands, applies to himself as well. He knows, generally, that he himself is mistaken; although in what particular opinions he is mistaken, he does not, perhaps he cannot, know.

But then, as I said before, relationship with God is not dependant on the correctness of our beliefs. There is no "minimum percentage" of correctness of belief that qualifies us to be Christian. That is why religious prejudice, whether it be against Catholics, Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, liberals, or "heretics" has no place in Christianity. It is one thing to define a specific community of Faith by doctrine. It is quite another to define relationship with God in terms of correct belief.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Cam Pence]

Great article...I had Dr. Leth for several classes at ONU when I wanted to be a youth pastor and thought I had no need for theology. Reading stuff like this makes me wish I could jump in the Delorian, gun it to 88, and take my studies seriously.

[John Kennedy]

You cannot, as John Widely said so eloquently in On A Catholic Spirit (http://www.crivoice.org/cathspirit.html):


Although every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true (for to believe any opinion is not true, is the same thing as not to hold it), yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. In fact, every thinking man is assured they are not, seeing humanum est errare et nescire: "To be ignorant of many things, and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity." This, therefore, he understands, applies to himself as well. He knows, generally, that he himself is mistaken; although in what particular opinions he is mistaken, he does not, perhaps he cannot, know.

But then, as I said before, relationship with God is not dependant on the correctness of our beliefs. There is no "minimum percentage" of correctness of belief that qualifies us to be Christian. That is why religious prejudice, whether it be against Catholics, Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, liberals, or "heretics" has no place in Christianity. It is one thing to define a specific community of Faith by doctrine. It is quite another to define relationship with God in terms of correct belief.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Dennis -
Did you really mean to turn John Wesley into John Widely? I realize he believed the world was his parish, but the expansion was a bit unexpected.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis -
Did you really mean to turn John Wesley into John Widely? I realize he believed the world was his parish, but the expansion was a bit unexpected.

That's what happens when you have grandkids hanging around when you're typing. But it's a distraction I wouldn't trade for the world.

db