Does it matter if Adam is literal?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Hey George… while I can’t get to all of your points, I will respond to some of them.

Origen, 2nd Century AD, had some interesting things to say about this passage!

“…it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with atten­tion, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.” -Origen in De Principii Book 4. Passage 16 (Emphasis Mine)

I will concede that “He shall come through the clouds and every eye shall see him.” to be a bit of mystery. Most modern people say that it has something to do with television or media — but since these are recent inventions I wonder what most people thought of this particular passage!

Interestingly, Job says the He (God) “Hangs the earth upon nothing.” … which is pretty amazing to me. Also that most other biblical passages say the earth is on pillars. “Nothing” and “Pillars” are quite substantially different! Many YECs point to Isaiah 40:22 and argue that God “sitting on the circle of the earth” clearly says that the earth is spherical (The Hebrews had no other words for “sphere” so “circle” had to do). My major problem with this is that the Hebrew word is used two other times in the Bible, once in Job, to say “He drew a circle on the surface of the deep” other translations say “He set a compass on the surface of the deep”… I’m just wondering how it’s possible to “draw a sphere”, if “circle” is supposed to mean “sphere”.

In any case, my basic overall point was that the Columbus-narrative is false (it only has one book that’s fictional, not historical, that backs it up) … there may have been some disagreement a-midst Christians, but could you really call it “heresy”…?

The Draper-White Thesis states that Christianity is historically known to be in WARFARE with scientific progress. Yet most people I know say the exact opposite… that the scientific method itself STEMS from Christian Thinking. The idea, for instance, that the earth is stationary and the Sun, Moon, and Stars all go around the earth, are pretty much observed everyday. It takes other exhaustive reasoning, such as telescopes, meticulous recording of the stars (later the pendulum by Focault) all of which wasn’t readily available to them. I’m more interested in their overall PREMISE (their mindset) of the Natural World, than specific claims.

The above is a 40 minute video that goes into pretty good detail about the differences in Jews and Greeks when it came to science (or natural philosophy). If you have the time I think it’s pretty fascinating.

The video discusses how early Christians read their Bible, and goes over 4 basic points that the Christian Worldview promoted when it came to how they understood the world of nature…

  1. The De-Divination of the World

  2. The Relative Autonomy of Nature

  3. The Comprehensibility of the World

  4. The Unity of Heaven and Earth

-Tim

22

Like I said in my introduction to the book’s comments:

"… let them have the middle ages! But it did happen that Christians zealously opposed the world’s scientists - - and it happened twice: in the 6th century and the 19th century. "

Christopher Columbus and the related “Flat Earth” anecdotes were only important to demonstrate that religion can fog a Christian’s mind. If the popular writers for the last 500 years got the anecdotes wrong for the Columbus period is not really an issue - - if we can document AUTHENTIC history for the exact same thing happening in another period.

Church Fathers INSISTED on a Flat Earth (for Biblical reasons) for centuries leading up to the book CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY. Finally, Christian thinkers were able to dispose of this error.

What is pretty shocking to me was that a brand new Christian movement emerged in the 1800s - - seemingly without the slightest bit of science to trigger it - - all over again!

The point of the story is still valid (twice) - - we don’t need the Christopher Columbus stories to make the point. We have Cosmas’ book CHRISTIAN TOPOGRAPHY, and Robotham of the 1800s!

George Brooks

23

Alright then … I shall agree with you. HOWEVER, do you agree that two instances (the 6th century and the 19th century), in our very long Church History, is grounds for the Draper-White Thesis that HISTORICALLY Christianity has been at constant war with scientific progress? Not denying your two instances, but they seem few and far between to justify a historical warfare that are separated by 1,300 years.

Like I said earlier… I’m more interested in the overall premise (Draper-White which is still in our textbooks today) than odd instances in our history where there was dispute. Draper-White claims Historical Warfare, yet ironically doesn’t acknowledge that Modern Science (as we know it today) probably wouldn’t exist (or would have been seriously delayed) were it not for Christian Thinking. Science doesn’t support itself — it’s very foundation is on philosophical grounds.

I’ll have to read the book for myself one day.

-Tim

24

I really really want to agree with you Timothy. But considering the magnitude of the episodes revolving around
religion vs. science, I really can’t blame people for INFLATING the importance of any given event.

Just looking back to the time of Galileo … we had ruined careers… people burned… this is pretty nasty stuff!

So… we turn to the modern period. Do we have a pause when we can shrug off the foolishness of prior times?

Frankly, I don’t see it. Instead of the Catholic Church, we have the Evangelicals stepping in … keeping things agitated.

RELIGION takes the hit - - but it seems to continue to permeate politics, economics and even SCIENCE. So, I just
can’t join your team/protest on this one.

RELIGIONISTS continue to cause the trouble.

George Brooks

25

Most of the “stake burning” you talk about has to do with priests not wanting the Bible to be translated in a language the people understood. William Tyndale is a prime example of opposition towards that. In this example we aren’t even really talking about “Christians” versus “World Scientists”… we are talking about a religious INSTITUTION that didn’t want people to think for themselves, or even to read the Holy Book that they (the Priests) could ONLY understand.

In regards to Galileo, that’s an extremely misunderstood premise. The Catholic Clergy actually liked Galileo’s idea, and didn’t mind at all that he would write a book about it. The only stipulation was for Galileo to present his idea as “just an idea” and “not yet proven”. Instead Galileo ends up doing the opposite, and writes his book AS proven FACT (even though the information he had wasn’t a whole lot and could still be understood under the Tychonian Model). He also went against the Church in translating Scripture for himself saying, “The Bible teaches how to get to Heaven not the way in which the Heavens go.” So he stepped on the Church’s toes in two different ways … writing off his theory as completely concrete and translating the Bible for himself.

Read the book Galileo Went to Jail & Other Myths for more information.

The Scope’s Monkey Trial, ironically, had to do with a single issue. The common descent of man being related to APES. The Fundamentalists of that day didn’t even disagree with Evolution as a whole or an Old Universe. Most held to the Day-Age theory of Genesis 1. They disagreed on a single point, that is, that Man was SEPARATE from Evolution.

You use words like “religion” and “religionists”… however there are many, many thousands of denominations of Christianity. This “division” was never intended by the Early Church or by Paul. The unity of the Early Church was where I put my main focus on, because you can see a mindset that is more steeped into what Christianity teaches.

Folks like Augustine and Justin Martyr argued that “Because what we can observe in nature is more easily proven, then that should stand first, as opposed to biblical interpretation which is often very difficult.” — in other words don’t get overly attached to Biblical interpretation. This demonstrates a sort of “checks and balances” with that of Science and Scripture. The fact that some Christians have forgotten that doesn’t negate the original premises. The doctrine of the Unity of Truth and the doctrine of God’s Two Books, were very well accepted early on.

In today’s world we seem to have missed that.

-Tim

1 Like
26

Do not be so negative, George. The Story of Jonah never bothered me, and remember that if God can create a universe, je could save Jonah too. I know you will never agree.

27

There are Five facts regarding Genesis that must be taken into account.

  1. The Genesis account exists.

  2. ‘Adam’ is a Hebrew name which belongs to a language that did not exist when the first sin was committed in Eden, therefore there was no individual specifically named ‘Adam’ in Eden.

  3. There was a first, original sin committed by Man as Man was not always around to commit it. Therefore the committing of sin by Man had a beginning. A first sin is a certainty.

  4. There must have been an individual later called Adam in the Hebrew language who was the biological father of an individual called Cain.

  5. Cain found a wife East of Eden in a land called Nod. Therefore other, non-related Humans existed separately from any literal Adam, Eve and their offspring.

28

In the Evolution scenario … we have non-human animals eventually becoming human WITH MORAL AGENCY.

From a Divine Perspective, not necessarily a scientific one, there would be a FIRST human animal with moral agency. And even within the lifespan of such a FIRST MORAL HUMAN, you have a time when the human is an infant and a toddler.

It is customary in Western religion that at some point an infant’s maturation brings him or her into an AGE OF MORALITY.

This is the parallel to the first sin of Adam…

30

5 posts were merged into an existing topic: Genesis and anthropology

34

@Find_My_Way

Thomas, have you abandoned this thread?

35

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.