A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

This is a very good point!

Creatures with human body that were not accountable and moved into Sumer, had to live in community with accountable human beings. This very fact requires that God made the non-accountable moving into Sumer into accountable humans even if they did not marry with long residents in the country.

God coherently excluded that non-accountable humans live together with accountable ones.

But one has to add another important aspect:

The non-accountable moving into Sumer were made into accountable human beings in the state of need of Redemption produced by the first sin in human history according to the principle “Adam’s sin became our sin” (@Kathryn_Applegate).

At this point it would be interesting to know whether or not @Kathryn_Applegate considers that the humans living outside Noah’s region were accountable.
If she considers they were not accountable then our two models are equivalent.
If she considers they were accountable then she would be assuming that Adam’s sin propagated to other accountable humans like sort of spiritual contamination (what I reject).

The “Genealogical Adam” model by @Swamidass seems to accept that those outside Sumer (“outside the garden”) were not accountable. If Joshua Swamidass considers that they became accountable by moving into Sumer and got the state of need of Redemption, then our two models are equivalent but genealogical descent would not be necessary for getting the “original sin”, and thus “de novo Adam” would be rather useless. By contrast, if Joshua considers that they did not become accountable, God would have favored marriage between accountable and non-accountable people, what in my view is against the sanctity of marriage.

It would be profitable for the debate if Kathryn and Joshua could comment on this.

I apologize for the lack of clarity: I conclude to 3200-3000 BC as date for the Flood because I place Adam at about 3500 BC (beginning of writing) and Noah 10 generations later.

God does not act in a “deceitful manner” if the resurrected Jesus does not appear to us today like He appeared to the Apostle Thomas so that we can put our finger where the nails were, and put our hand into his side. God has left us enough trustworthy accounts to believe in the Resurrection.

Similarly for the Flood: We have the accounts of Noah, Jesus and the Apostle Peter.

So by simply passing an invisible boundary they were suddenly made accountable and no body bothered to tell them?

But again, there isn’t any evidence of even a regional flood of the size needed by your theory during this time period is there(if my memory is correct)?

Here is the problem. The resurrection left no physical evidence that would persist until today. A regional flood of the size required by your theory would. Archaeology tells us when and to what extent the regional floods covered that area. This is why it is deceitful. A miracle that should have left traces didn’t. Which leads to God erased the traces.

1 Like

Non-accountable humans moving into Sumer were suddenly made accountable the same way as Adam and Eve were made accountable according to the description of @Kathryn_Applegate:

“God revealed himself to Adam and Eve in an intimate way. A spiritual birth had taken place: for the first time[4] they knew God and they knew God had a will and so did they. They were selves, free to obey or rebel. He gave them rules and consequences for breaking those rules. And they chose, in their freedom, to rebel.” “Adam and Eve (in this scenario) were the first to be spiritually alive and thus became a new kind of human—what John Stott termed Homo divinus.” (see Article).

The only difference consists in that Adam and Eve were made accountable in the state of original Grace. By contrast the humans moving into Sumer were suddenly made accountable in the state of need of Redemption. The reason for this is that they became accountable after “the first or ‘original’ sin”, and therefore it applies to them that “Adam’s sin became our sin” (see Article). In other words they were made accountable in the same state of the long residents in the country.

The difference is the non-accountable humans did not receive a revelation from God. They did not receive a copy of the rule book. They were not told of the consequences. So why were they made accountable when the millions in the same situation as them were not? Probably easier to just say they died when they didn’t have to.

And how about the accountable humans that had left Sumer? Humans like to move around if history is any indication. This is the bigger problem for your theory.

Non-accountable humans did receive the knowledge of God’s will in “an intimate way” at the very moment they became “accountable”, that is, “selves, free to obey or rebel”; God “gave them rules and consequences for breaking those rules” (@Kathryn_Applegate, Article). God wrote the requirements of His law on their hearts, “their consciences also bearing witness” (Romans 2:15).

They were made accountable because they moved into Sumer and had to live with the accountable long residents there. Therefore they became exactly the same kind of “selves, free to obey or rebel” the genetic descendants of Adam and Eve in Sumer were and we today are.

Smart objection!

Genesis 6:1-4 clearly links the increasing of the population of accountable humans in Noah’s region to the immigration of the “sons of God” coming from outside. This fits well to the fact that the emergence of the first cities in Sumer attracted populations coming from the North. Additionally Genesis 11:4 shows that even Noah’s descendants were reluctant to be “scattered over the face of the whole earth”.

Humans like certainly to move around but prefer to move there where life is more enjoyable!

The hypothesis that a significant population of “accountable humans left Sumer” in the period 3500-3200 BC does not seem to be supported neither by Scripture nor by available historical data.

Anyway if a little number had left Sumer, in agreement with Genesis 6:11-13 we should assume that they would have carried with them the culture of corruption and violence they were used to, and according to Jesus and Peter they would have been in the number of those destroyed by the Flood. This speaks in favor of the miraculous character of the event instead of an ordinary regional flood affecting only Sumer. So what you call “the bigger problem” for my theory seems rather to strengthen it!

I dare to insist: In my theory I apply the same conclusions @Kathryn_Applegate derives in her Article. It is a remarkable result of this blog that through different ways we have developed two models capable of consistently explaining the transmission of “original sin” without need of Adam as “sole genealogical progenitor of all humanity”, and fitting the teaching of St. Paul and the declarations of the Council of Trent. And as I argue here the conclusions can be applied to give an account of Noah as a real person and the Flood a real although miraculous event in history.

The interpretation of Adam and Eve in the Garden causes great controversy on many levels. But there is another theory that is not covered in the article “Were Adam and Eve historical figures?” that clears up a number of the conflicts that arise with historical events, like the flood. The theory is that Garden of Eden is in the ethereal place called Paradise (Luke 23:43). In this ethereal garden, Adam and Eve had direct communications with God and His angels, the animals were tame and the roses had no thorns. This is not the earth we know from the fossil record or scripture. But we do know that God kicked Adam and Eve out of this place. What is described starting with Genesis 4:1 matches what we know about the earth.

Recent historical discoveries helped to date some of these events, and the first is the great flood.

Around 9000 BC, there was an increase in global temperature by 7 degrees celsius over a 50 year period, resulting in a major melting of the enormous ice formation which at that time was about 45 million square kilometers - 1/3 the land was of Europe today.
(Blum, Heinz. “Erwärmung Bewirkte die Sintflut.” Museion 2000, 3/1994, 41-46. Print)

Since the flood of glacier water, the ice receded, finally exposing Scandinavia by 4000 BC. But that first rush of flood waters destroyed the settlements along the low-lying river banks. The “miracle” about the flood is that God came to Noah and prepared him for this event so he could save these enlightened peoples, and allow to propagate.

So now the “flood” is killing people who are not in Sumer? Why insist that it was a flood? It sounds more like the Angle of Death.

1 Like

I cannot agree with this assumption. In Genesis 3:24 God casts Adam and Eve out of Paradise as the consequence of their actions - He held them accountable from the beginning.

We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. (1 John 3:12)

There is another explanation for the flood coming out of cultural anthropology. The timing of the flood coincides with an end to cannibalism and the beginning of the farming culture - a Christ-like culture, not a robbing culture, the decedents of Cain. See my post below.

Right. 

1 Like

Thanks Shawn for referring to this theory.

In my view what you state is equivalent to assuming that God endowed “Adam and Eve” with strong spiritual powers (Original Grace or Blessing) so that they could master evolutionary mechanisms like lust, greed, trickery, and overcome illness, pain, and bodily decay.

By contrast there is no need to assume that “the animals were tame” in the sense that they did not harmed each other, and “the roses had no thorns” to protect them because animals attracted by their fragrance would have taken care of not trampling the plants.

In the context of this explanation your claim that “God kicked Adam and Eve out of Paradise” means that after their transgression (the first or “original” sin) “Adam and Eve” lost the state of Original Grace: Selfish evolutionary mechanisms weaken their love to God and the others, and they experienced sickness, pain, and physical death.

In my view the “Paradise” in Luke 23:43 refers to the state where the saints “see God like he is” (1 John 3:2), and is a different place from the “Garden” where Adam and Eve were placed.

When Jesus speaks of Heaven, He speaks exclusively of the Kingdom of God. There is only one place where Jesus speaks of Paradise and that is where He will meet the sinner next to Him. We know that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus and His victory over Death. So the only place that Jesus would see the sinner was in the highest reaches of Hell, AKA Paradise.

It was not until Easter Sunday that declared victory over Death and rose triumph from His battle with Satan [Death].

This view of the Adam and Eve story is illogical. Why would a Good God blame billions for the acts of two? Isn’t a more logical explanation that the billions upon billions of souls were in their own right already guilty? How is it so hard to see that Adam and Eve were just a proxy for all the fallen, and when the proxy failed the simple test of loyalty, now all need to be restored the hard way? Where else do the 1/3 of Heaven fit into the creation/restoration story? (Rev 12:3-9)

Excellent point!

It was a flood that worked like the “Angel of Death” did, for instance in:

  • 2 Kings 19:35: The angel kills 185,000 men of Sennacherib’s Assyrian army, thereby saving Hezekiah’s Jerusalem.

  • 2 Samuel 24:15-16: The LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning until the appointed time, and 70,000 men of the people from Dan to Beersheba died.

God could certainly have reached the same effect with an “Angel of death” or a “pestilence”.

Why did God prefer a miraculous flood, or in case of Sodom and Gomorrah a miraculous rain of fire and brimstone?

About this one can only speculate.

As a matter of fact Jesus and St. Peter unambiguously describe the event as a flood.

A possible reason is suggested by St. Peter: The state of corruption and violence before the flood originated from the delusion that sinners can live on earth forever without caring to atone. So it was fitting that God destroyed them by destroying the very earth where they were living as warning for future generations and for the sake of Redemption “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:8-9). In this line of thinking St. Peter also says that the flood water “symbolizes baptism” (1 Peter 3:18-21).

In any case nothing seems to speak against considering Noah’s Flood a “Plague” and supposing an Angel behind it, very much in the sense of Revelation 15, 16.

All this rather strengthens the interpretation of Noah’s flood as a miraculous real event in history, which Genesis 6-9 describes using allegory to some extent.

Based on the evidence Sodom appears to be a real natural event and is told using allegory to some extent.

And if you drop the flood part then there is no problem with a lack of physical evidence. Once you consider parts of the story allegory what’s to stop you?

Antoine, we both seem to equate “Image Bearer” with the state of being morally responsible for one’s actions–i.e. “accountability”. However, by restricting “Image” to only that which is visible, you ignore its common use as a metaphor, as illustrated in the Webster dictionary: image =
7: figure of speech
8 : a popular conception (as of a person, institution, or nation) projected especially through the mass media promoting a corporate image of brotherly love and concern
9 : a set of values given by a mathematical function (such as a homomorphism) that corresponds to a particular subset of the domain

IMO when Jesus proclaimed “before Abraham was, I AM” he was referring to his role as Messiah–the Savior that God foresaw, at the foundation of the earth, was going to be required when ANY life form produced by evolution reached the stage of Consciousness and Conscience. I do NOT feel that God foreordained that evolution would produce the exact physical nature that we see in modern Homo sapiens that fulfilled this requirement. Do you?
Al Leo

If I understand well you claim:

The “billions upon billions” human persons, who came into existence after “Adam and Eve’s” sin (i.e.: the first or “original” sin), are “in their own” in need of Redemption (“restoration”) because each of them personally and necessarily commits an act of rebellion against God, and not because of the first sin.

Am I right interpreting you this way?

If not, thanks in advance for clarifying so that I can fittingly answer.

Dear Antoine, The theory that I have stated is that the billions had committed the same original sin as Adam and Eve. And that Adam and Eve were just 2 of the 1/3 that fell from Heaven for following Satan. This theory was published by Origen of Alexandria and called the Apocatastasis, the Restoration of All Things.
I hope that clarifies.
Best Wishes, Shawn

I would be thankful if you could refer to such evidence.

In fact the only physical evidence in the ordinary world is the lack of about 200,000 people in Sumer after the flood, which seems to be undetectable by today’s computational analysis of genetic divergence.

Had the flood destroyed the 14 million non-accountable humans that lived outside Sumer producing a bottleneck of 8 persons as genetic common ancestors of today’s humanity, the lack would have left a detectable trace.

In other words, “Hyperbole” is not the only possible account for the flood after all. We have worked out an alternative coherent account, that allow us to consider Noah a real person in history and the flood a real miraculous event like the destruction of the 185,000 soldiers of Sennacherib’s Assyrian army.

In my view this is another remarkable result of our debate and I thank you sincerely for your contribution to this.

Dr. Steven Collins
Discovering the City of Sodom

There is a web site covering the excavations.

BTW this is what I would consider to be real evidence of the event/miracle.

Thanks for this Shawn, I see now what you mean.

In my view one should distinguish between Apocatastasis and the theory of original sin you refer to. So for instance both, Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa, were supporters of Apocatastasis but substantially deviate from the theory of original sin you propose (see this Reference).

Your theory raises some problems. Likely the main one is that while Adam and Eve were completely aware of the transgression they committed in “the ethereal place called Paradise”, each of the “billions” is completely unconscious and unaware of his/her own “original sin”. This amounts to say that none of these “billions” shares “the state of original sin” because he/she personally and actually commit a transgression like that of Adam and Eve in the “ethereal Paradise” before falling down to earth.

So by supporting with @Kathryn_Applegate that “Adam’s sin became our sin” I maintain that after the first sin in human history (“original” sin) each human comes into existence in the state of “Need of Redemption” even if he/she has not yet committed any sinful act by him/herself.

This does not mean at all that “God blame billions for the acts of two” and is no “good God”. On the contrary, it means that:

  • God is keen to redeem the sinners and let them on earth to give them time to repent.

  • But it had been awkward on the part of God keeping on earth two groups of people: one in Need of Redemption by Jesus Christ and another without such Need.

  • Therefore God bounds everyone over to “Need of Redemption” (“disobedience”) so that “He may have mercy on them all” (Romans 11:32).

This view of the Adam and Eve story seems entirely logical and strengthens the idea that God is good and astonishingly creative in His mercy: He finds ways to redeem the sinners respecting always their freedom.

It seems to me that this view also follows from @Kathryn_Applegate’s conclusions although it is not fully developped in her Article.

Yes, I am glad we agree that this meaning of “Image Bearer” is an important one: this view is clearly supported by Genesis 9:6.

Thanks for this remark. I formulate things more accurately:

The biblical term “In the image of God He created them” (Genesis 1:27) is sort of compendium of all the Christian theology: Its meaning is unfathomable.

A further important meaning is surely the interpretation by Gregory of Nyssa (I think very much in your line): If man is image of God, surely he participates in all the divine perfections. Gregory “singles out for special emphasis three perfections, namely, reason, freedom, and immortality”, although “these are only part of the total image” [see this Article].

Then one can distinguish also a “vocational meaning”: In Genesis 1:27 “Image of God” defines the primeval vocation of humans to be and become in the likeness of God through sanctification of work and family life. As already said in a previous post, the term can be especially interpreted in the sense that the interpersonal relationship of male and female is image of the interpersonal relationship within the Triune God (as Pope John Paul II and Karl Barth have stressed).

Undoubtedly when Jesus proclaimed “before Abraham was born I AM” (John 8:58) he was referring to his personal identity as Son of God. But this rather means that “before Abraham” it was clear for God which type of body He prepared for His Son.

This is supported by Colossians 1: 15-17: Jesus Christ makes visible the invisible God, so that in him all things (visible and invisible) hold together. God has reconciled us “by Christ’s physical body”. So we are called to become Christ’s body and thereby visible Image of the invisible God. This is a corner stone in Teilhard de Chardin’s “cosmic theology”, who defines his “Omega Point” in similar terms, and to this extent I agree with him too.

Accordingly I think that since the moment referred to in Genesis 1:27 every creature with human body shares already God’s Image because it shares the same specific body the Son of God takes to incarnate. For me the “Omega Point” of Creation is Incarnation (and here I may deviate from Teilhard): God foreordained that evolution through elimination of intermediate varieties produces a gap that makes it possible to distinguish modern humans from all other extant life forms. This is the observable basis for defining humanity (Genesis 5:1-2) as community called to be governed by “sense of right and wrong” engraved in human heart (“Conscience”) and law (Genesis 2:17; 9:6).