Cain's Paranoia

Faith & Science Conversation
21

@aleo

Hey Albert.

You wrote, “It seems to be that Genesis 2-4 was the product of a committee.”

While I have no intrinsic problems with thinking that there’s more than one author involved in Genesis, I’m curious about your thoughts on why you think these specific passages are part of a committee?

It is, like you say, difficult to get around the idea of Adam not finding a partner (i.e., if there ARE other people around, why does God feel the need to make a “special creation” for Adam… or put him under a “deep sleep”?) — it’s also interesting that Abraham also falls under a “deep sleep” before his covenant agreement with God.

However it’s ALSO difficult to understand how the Cain story is integrated into this “committee written passage of chapters 2-4” that very obviously implies a separate civilization other than the “Adam clan”… it’s hard to understand what the intentions of the author is at times.

-Tim

22

Hi Tim

All the versions of Genesis I’ve read state that Adam was ‘made from scratch’ (dust), and so there were No other humans around to ‘partner’ with. And none of the newly created animals seemed to fit the bill. So, as a last resort, God created Eve. Tim, am I the only one who thinks that the author of that passage was a misogynist?

Science can offer no proof, but it is eminently feasible that Adam stands for the one (or just a few) Homo sapiens whose brain was ‘programmed’ to become Mind, a mind that could conceive abstract thoughts and symbols, a mind that could invent a language that enabled him to ‘program’ the brains of his fellow Homo sapiens–thus transmitting Human Nature rapidly as Words, not genes.

This scenario fits Genesis 1 just fine. I am not worried that it does NOT fit Genesis 2,3 &4, except it does ‘explain’ the people of Nod and where Cain got a wife.
Al Leo

1 Like
23

He was and all of us were. Stardust. Made in core of stars and blown out in supernova explosions. Every single atom in your body comes from stardust. Genesis is absolutely correct. Adam was made from scratch from dust. It is a scientific fact.

24

@aleo

I’m reading that passage over again, and I can see what you mean. It sounds like the author is very subtlety comparing animals to a woman. I’ve never realized that before. I’ve heard some say "God made Eve because He looked at Adam and said, “You know I can do better.” " :smile: My attempt at light humor…

The scene in Genesis 2 very much depicts (hints at, whatever, you wish to call it) that A&E are the only two people, and in Genesis 4 it very much depicts that their are other people beside the A&E clan. To me I don’t find this a huge problem, if you read the text for the messages / intentions / doctrines etc. that the author is trying to teach you.

In a similar vain, the chronology of Genesis 1 does not fit with Genesis 2. But the chronology isn’t the point. If the way you read the Bible is that everything must fit in a nice-neat chronological-historical box, then this can be very problematic for you. But if you read it for it’s doctrine, then perhaps not so much. Every time Paul refer to Adam (or on the rare occasions Eve) it’s to make a theological point, not a biological one.

A&E are made from dust (you can’t fit common descent in this passage… because it’s not trying to teach you common descent)… but it could be that the author was saying we are made of “earth”. We live and die… and that’s our condition. Or it could be as polemic against Enuma Elish that says man was made from the blood of demon gods.

It’s an on-going conversation, for sure!

-Tim

25

Tim,
How do you reconcile A&E with the genetic facts. Do you lean to one of three positions of Biologos?

26

@Patrick

As have been discussed earlier by many different people, there’s a wide range of views of A&E. I’m not 100% certain which way I lean, but as far as genetic fact, the only thing I feel that has to change is putting A&E along with other human beings living at that time. The other option (though with this one I hesitate) is to put A&E in a more “allegorical lens”, based off the discrepancies of Genesis 2 and Genesis 4. In many ways the story of Adam tells us a story of us all.

I don’t feel like I need to know 100%, of which particular view, I lean towards, right away. The commonality of all viewpoints is that it tells a story of hearing what God has to say, then disobedience, then denial, “covering up” our sin with minuscule fig leaves, God’s judgement, God’s grace, the human condition, then God covering us fully with a “coat of skins”… that’s what I gather from A&E.

The rest of the details I’ll one day know. But what’s important, for now, is to grasp the meaning of the bulk of the story. Perhaps that isn’t satisfactory for most… but it satisfies me, at the moment.

-Tim

27

Well how can you make sense of the story without reconciling with the science first? Don’t you have to nail down A&E before you go to Cain - as the same arguments apply with that story too? Then you get to Noah and the flood and then deeper and deeper into it. Then you get to the NT, don’t you have to apply the same to it (the NT)? If you are going from YEC to TE/EC, how do you put the brakes on at TE/EC so that you don’t overshot and get to where I am?

28

@Patrick

There have been many people through out the ages that have acknowledged Jesus Christ as Savior, having little to no knowledge of the Old Testament. We aren’t required to know exhaustive details of every single person in Jesus’ lineage to understand the gospel message. And I’m sure when the thief on the cross, right beside Jesus, repented of his sins in his final moments, Jesus wasn’t saying “But what about Adam? Do you believe that he lived with other people or not?”

I’m not saying it isn’t important… just that it’s importance is elevated to the utmost extreme. Which are the three views of Biologos exactly? Historical Representative of Human Race? Historical Archetype of Israel? A couple that was chosen from a human pool of millions to perform a task by God, to demonstrate a “change in humanity”? A personal story of a couple’s fall from God? Perhaps an allegorical twist?

All of these views have some merit, and any one of them (or combination of them) could be true, in accordance with the genetics and fossil record. I’m not going to dogmatically claim one is true over the other, because then that would feel more like guessing. The fundamental message doesn’t change.

-Tim

29

Of course the fundamental message doesn’t change but you change. You look inside, you study it, you’re thoughts and beliefs are evolving - all good. So after looking at A&E can you give us a status update of what you believe and what you don’t. How has it changed since say High School?

1 Like
30

@Patrick

This does not really answer you question, but I will try my best. My view of A&E has been fluctuating quite a bit. My view since it changed in “High School” (P.S. I think you think I am much older than I am… I’m 21). I no longer believe in Monogenism (the idea that A&E are the original couple that begat us all). I believe that Adam and Eve lived with other human beings, and there were other human beings before them (this knowledge is based off what I read in Genesis 4, and what the world around me: the fossils and genetics etc. seem to be telling me).

My major “fluctuation” is whether or not Adam and Eve were historical people or allegorical people. I’m currently reading a very interesting book by Peter Enns called “The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made It Impossible To Read”. The basic “meat” of the book is that that Israel’s Origins stories (i.e., what happened prior to Israel’s monarchy and kingdom) were written during their exile in Babylon. And for the purpose of explaining Israel’s situation at that time.

If you’re a conservative fundamentalist Christian reading the book, this will make you feel uncomfortable. But if you’re open to the idea (speaking from a Christian perspective) it explains many, many things. For example, in no less than 8 examples, (five of them being in Genesis), their is a trend where the younger brother gets favored over the older brother. This is not only counter-intuitive to Ancient Culture, but it also goes against the grain in today’s world. It’s supposed to be the firstborn that gets the blessing from the parents, the privileges, the car etc. That’s generally how things work.

But in the Bible we read something very different:

Abel gets favored over Cain.
Isaac gets favored over Ishmael.
Jacob gets favored over Esau.
Joseph is the youngest of 11 sons, at the time, and is the favorite.
Ephraim get’s the blessing of his grand father Jacob, instead of Manasseh.

This is just in Genesis, but the trend continues in others books too…

Moses gets favored over Aaron.
David, the youngest of eight sons, and least likely to be king, becomes king anyway.
Solomon gets favored over Adonijah.

There are too many to simply call them coincidental. And in nearly all these cases there is extreme sibling rivalry: Cain kills Abel, Ishmael gets left in the desert, Esau tries to kill Jacob, Joseph’s brothers throw him down a well and sell him to slavery, Adonijah, through political scandal and maneuvering tries to get Solomon out of the way so he can be king.

What is my point here? The point is during the exile of Babylon, the “younger” and smaller kingdom of the two kingdoms of Israel, Judah, was the remnant of what was left. And that the biblical author’s Origins Stories reflect that reality. The “younger brother” in the biblical stories, are the focus of the narrative. Peter Enns applies this same logic to that of Adam and Eve… it’s a recasting of Israel’s whole story in two chapters.

There are other interesting examples such as Noah’s ark. The Hebrew word “tovah” is only used in two places in the entire Old Testament. Noah and his family get on the “tovah”, that’s covered in slime and pitch, and baby Moses gets put in a “tovah”, that’s covered in slime and pitch. In both scenarios it’s talking about salvation. The whole world gets wiped out by a flood in Noah’s day, but the ark saves him. In the time of Moses, the Egyptian pharaoh at that time, orders that the Hebrew male babies 2 and under are to be killed… baby Moses gets protected in the “ark” (English translates “basket”).

So yeah… I have a tension between two viewpoints. Allegorical Adam, that tells Israel’s story, and further re-envisioned in Paul’s letters regarding Adam and Jesus. Or literal Adam, that get’s told in Paul’s letters, 100% at face-value.

Some refer to Noah as “Adam 2.0”. Other’s refer to Adam as Israel’s archetype. Paul refers to Jesus as “the second Adam” … sometimes Adam appears to be a mold, if you ask me! None of these viewpoints seem wrong to me though… but rather different portraits (angles, perspectives, etc.). Sorta like that picture I’ve seen once of a cylinder hanging on a string. If you look it at from one angle, the shadow cast on the wall is in the shape of a square. But looking at it from yet another angle, the shadow is in the shape of a circle.

Which one is correct, and which one is wrong? Neither is right and neither is wrong. They both are giving their perspective.

Does this answer your question more thoroughly?

-Tim

32

Hi Tim

Genesis 2,3 clearly puts the creative sequence as Adam>animals>Eve. The author was clearly a misogynist. Can you assure me that attitude has NOT affected the theology constructed in the centuries that followed? Paul advised wives to be submissive to their husband and obey his wishes in all things. The Catholic church cannot even consider women becoming priests–or priests having wives (unless they had first become Episcopalian). You don’t think the church depends on Biblical Support from this passage in Genesis 2,3? I do. Genesis 1 states the truth: God created humans male and female (concurrently) and with His blessing, told them to procreate. Why muddle the waters?
Al Leo

33

@Eddie

Yes. Finding biblical patterns is very exciting! And I’ve noticed that Genesis, especially, has much more condensed patterns than the other Bible books.

Thanks for once again correcting me. Often when I hear about a Hebrew or Greek word, it’s taken from a book (or a video). Then later I find, researching the actual Masoretic text, that I’ve been slightly mistaken. It’s interesting that the phrase for “ark of the covenant”, the word for “ark” here is actually not the same, as the word used for Noah’s boat and Moses’s basket.

@aleo

I’m not intentionally trying to muddle the waters. And yes, I agree with you, that that probably had a huge effect over the centuries concerning men and women. But even so, let’s say that the Genesis 2 description of the creation of woman is completely misogynistic. I still don’t think we should ignore Genesis 2-3, for it has other things to teach us.

For instance… when Adam and Eve sin, they become afraid, and guilty of their “nakedness”. So they cover themselves up with fig leaves. Then later, after God dealing judgement on Adam and Eve, God covers them up with coats of skin.

If you’re reading these passages, in light of the New Testament, here’s what it tells me. When human beings mess up we try to forgive ourselves, or hide our own shame, but at the end of the day, all we’re doing is sewing fig leaves on ourselves. But when God forgives, he covers us completely, with something more substantial: a coat of skin.

-Tim

35

Tim, you make some good points. There are some very good lessons to be learned from much of Genesis 2,3. The analogy that A&E could not defeat their proclivity to sin all by themselves–i.e without God’s help–is one case in point.
Al Leo

36

[quote=“Eddie, post:34, topic:2656”]
Al, I think “misogynist” (woman-hating) is a loaded word, and too strong for the story in Genesis 2-3.
[/quote]You may be right, Eddie, but is it just coincidental that both the OT and the Koran have Eve created subsequent to Adam, and that whenever and wherever those scriptures play a dominant role in society, women have never (or very rarely) achieved positions of power or as much freedom as males? It seems to me that only when this portion of Scripture has lost much of it power to guide society, as it has in so much of the western developed nations, that one half the human race is no longer considered ‘second class’ citizens. When the ‘man/women in the street’ becomes sufficiently educated that he/she recognizes the falsity of the passage with the sequence Adam>animal>Eve, the baby (the entire Scripture) is likely to be thrown out with the bathwater. That may be the biggest price to pay for allowing that passage to remain as being the ‘inspired Word of God’.
Al Leo

38

Eddie, you are very good at spotting instances where people over-state their case. I knew that male domination was a well-entrenched human behavior before Genesis 2,3 was written, yet what I wrote made it seem like I thought Genesis was the ***cause.***I guess I was just disappointed that the author’s inspiration was not sufficient to clearly point out that sex discrimination was wrong.
Al Leo

40

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.