Wow. Great question. Adam did not know sickness until he got kicked out of the garden. If he had a microbiome then it would have been a friendly one. I have sometimes thought that the references to no rain and the artesinal springs and mist that watered the garden referred to a sort of quarantine that the garden existed in, cut off from outside contamination. So I guess my answer to your question would be that it is unknowable in this life. Insufficient data, but great question.
Just a quick point: your belief is not likely to be true. The book of Genesis is now thought to have been written in response to the Babylonian exile and the first creation story was likely written about 500 BCE or thereabouts. As for the second creation story there is pretty good evidence that is/was a story transmitted orally as a polemic against competing pagan creation stories. But it only came into written form around 800 BCE.
A good starting point for you, should you want to learn more about the history of Genesis and other books of the Pentateuch is Peter Enns very informative article available here on Biologos.
Blessings,
Michael
2 Likes
Argon, I know this wasn’t germane to your point, but when you say Hebrew classification was “shaky”, all that really means is that it was different.
Last time I looked, we bracket together 3 independent classes and 1 superclass as “fish” within our science, and officially term a group of reptiles as “fish” (ichthyosaur = “fish-lizard”). We also colloquially include amongst fish coelenterates (jellyfish), echinoderms (starfish), mollusks (shellfish), crustaceans (crayfish) and insects (silverfish, which aren’t even aquatic). And Herman Melville referred to the whale as a “fish” even after quoting Linnaeus’ reference to them as mammals. All pretty inconsistent by Hebrew standards!
That said, of course, this all underlines that treating Genesis as either modern or ancient science leads to all kinds of pitfalls, from expecting too much detail from a general account to imposing our arbitrary classifications on their arbitrary classifications.
For an example of the latter, Hebrew remes, “creeping thing” (day six rather than five, in fact) to us “obviously” means insects etc, whereas it probably actually signifies a 3rd category of mammal, the wild prey animals, in addition to domestic animals and wild carnivores. Therefore, insects are not specifically mentioned in this general account, and might be either assumed under the beasts on day 5, or as a component of the vegetation environment on day 3 - or more likely they are simply, in a primarily humanity-orientated theological account, not considered relevant at all.
On Nick’s point, to say that evolution is implied in the text is contextually nonsensical and completely, utterly, anachronistic. There is no transformism in the text, let alone variation or natural selection. There is only an orderly introduction, and that order follows (a) topographically, the order of the separation of the environments of heaven, sea and dry land and, (b) theologically, the order of formation of the equivalent sacramental spaces of God’s heaven, man’s earth and the sky between, and the realm of disorder, the sea, progressively pushed aside to make this order.
2 Likes
“Angels” are a classic post-exilic literary feature. Genesis mentions angels in eight (8) different chapters.
And this text:
Gen 28:12
“And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.”
This is classic post-Exilic imagery!
I think that there is plenty of room for evolution in animals producing after their kind. Especially since is kinds Of life that are created. For example plants. You talk about not imposing modern biology definitions on the Hebrew text, and yet your position implicitly assumes that kind should be equated with the word species.
If we maintain that all Scripture is God breathed, then yes, the origin of Genesis predates even life on earth.
Human chromosomes show the legacy of the same number of chromosomes that Chimp common ancestors have. So maybe Chimps and Humans are ALSO of the same kind?
SIDE NOTE: Isn’t it puzzling that whales are genetically kindred to a specific branch of LAND animals?
There is definitely a branching of kinds. Genesis seems to list the most important kinds to humans, and lists them in the order they evolved. Whales aren’t really exceptions in the sense you want them to be. It’s not a science textbook. Dinosaurs lived on land and in the water and in the air, but to say the birds were created on the fifth day rightly captures that dinosaurs ruled the earth before mammals. It is the same with fish and plants.
How do you work that one out, Jamie? The only Genesis “kinds” I mentioned were the only three mentioned on day 6: wild beasts, domestic animals, prey animals. Anything more specific is read into the text and needs to be justified from it.
For the rest, I was merely pointing out that a word like “fish” (not used in Genesis 1) has not historically been a biological category even in English, but a descriptive one mainly implying “living in water”.
I do think you’re right to say that “after their kinds” implies no more than “fruitfully reproducing”, and so in no way precludes transformism over time any more than observed variations of offspring do. Nobody disowns their kids because they don’t look identical to either parent… and as far as Genesis is concerned, “kind” is no less applicable to the individual than the species, because it doesn’t refer to either.
But if that’s taken to mean the text teaches evolution, then I’d have to disagree.
1 Like
Well said! Thanks for chiming in. One could similarly dissect our English folk categories of “fruit” and “vegetable” or any number of other culturally relevant but non-scientific categories.
Just curious… elsewhere on this thread or a similar, related thread, I looked into the word remes a bit, but I didn’t dig too deeply, for lack of time. Do you have any references I could glance at for your suggestion that it
? I don’t doubt what you’re saying, just interested to learn.
By all means - John Walton’s NIV Application Commentary on Genesis, p127 and pp341-2 argues the case in detail, based partly on comparison with Akkadian cognate.
But it’s not entirely new - online I’ve found the seeds of the same in the American Journal of Science for 1832 here!
To ease reference, maybe I should quote a bit of Walton:
The division of the Hebrew terms used up to this point in Genesis reflects the nature of the animal (not the locomotion, genre, species or the morphology).
If this is true we are mistaken to translate remés as if it describes a type of locomotion (eg “creeping things”). An alternative is suggested by the Akkadian cognate nammasu/namastu, which typically refers to wild animals that travel in herds; they are distinct from the animals that hunt or scavenge, from the domesticated cattle, and from the docile beast that do not tend to be found in herds… These animals were typically characterized as being the prey of hunters and predatory beasts. The most common members of this group were wild cattle, antelope, fallow deer, gazelle, and ibex. Some of these could be managed, though not domesticated.
Hope that helps!
1 Like
Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to quote that.
Oddly, this fits with one of the passages that didn’t fit the mold when I did my word study (and it was in this thread, post #97, apparently):
While this passage from Habakkuk clearly refers to a sea-dwelling creature, the emphasis is on the fact that it travels in schools, and is prey for fishermen — very similar to Walton’s reading (except the aquatic element). (P.S. @pacificmaelstrom may find all this of interest.)
That’s interesting. A bit I didn’t quote talked about whether “rabbits” would be in the remes category, and Walton thought it would depend whether “prey” or “herd” was the operative principle. Your passage suggests the former, so it would be interesting to see if that sense fits the other passages where there is definitely a wider designation intended.
1 Like
When you say “post-Exilic” what evidence do you have that there was not an oral tradition regarding angels pre-exile? For that matter, is it possible to know what oral traditions were, well, in any past historical period? If an oral tradition is not written down, then there is no way for historians to study it.
It’s pretty hard to imagine a vibrant oral tradition of angels amongst the Hebrew … that left absolutely no trace among physical or written finds.
Galileo tried to explain the plains and mountains he saw on the moon. The Papal visitors look through the telescope and they said they could see a crystal layer on top of all those lunar mountains, keeping the moon a perfect sphere.
Galileo looked at his visitors… and said: I see crystal mountains ON TOP of that crystal layer.
Seems kind of circular to say that the first five books in the Bible must have been Written after exile because they mention angels and angels are only mentioned after the exile. If the first five books were written before the exile then they themselves would be evidence of angels being written about before the exile. As to your crystal mountains analogy, “it’s turtles all the way down”.
@Nick_Allen… study the history of angels and angelology. Outside of the Bible… who emphasized a constant intervention of anonymous God’s servants… ? The closest match are the Zoroastrians.
Understanding “kinds” as applied to a real world situation !!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Once we agree that the three rabbit populations came from the same original population, we can see how the idea of “kind” can be treated!!!
What has developed amongst these populations is at the very core of the Speciation discussion.
We know that rabbit “A” and “B” must represent a “kind” … because they can bring forth (after their kind) new generations.
We know that rabbit “B” and “C” must either be the same “kind” or a different kind… because This intersection can bring for new generations too!
But what about Rabbit “A” and “C”? They cannot bring forth anything… so, by Biblical definition, they cannot represent a kind of any thing. << This is a wonderfully elegant Biblical proof!
So the mystery, it turns out, is not about A & C … it’s about B!!! - - if A and C are not of the same kind, what does this make “B”? It makes B into a larger Kind than either A or C. Because it can promote either (smaller) kind!!!
Freddie, you are using the same logic that I did some years ago when I first embarked on a career in science. As I continued on and found the evidence for evolution undeniable, I reluctantly concluded that I had to live two separate lives: On Sundays I could profess my Christian Faith (which pleased my Mother, bless her heart), but on weekdays I would be free to follow wherever my science studies led me. My chosen specialty, physical organic chemistry and reaction mechanisms, would never have led me to believe that my science and my religion could be made compatible. But a few of the scientific books I read for pleasure did accomplish that end. Perhaps they can help you do so as well.
Ian Tattersall: (1) Becoming Human; (2) Masters of the Planet
Simon Conway Morris: Life’s Solutions
Christian de Duve: Genetics of Original Sin
The crucial point with these books (and several others) is that by some 200, 000 years ago Darwinian evolution was capable of producing Homo sapiens, a primate with a large brain, who for 150,000 years lived much like their contemporaries, the Neanderthals. Neither of these creatures operated as moral agents, and neither would be considered fully human according to today’s standards. About 50,000 years ago some Homo sapiens began to bury their dead with gifts for an afterlife; they left magnificent cave art and sculpture, and even created music using bone flutes. All of this in a Great Leap Forward (using Jared Diamond’s terminology). Even the arch-atheist, Richard Dawkins, who insists that all other animals are products of an evolution that operates purely by chance, using small steps with no detectible direction or purpose–even Dawkins accepts that Humankind appeared on this earth in a Great Leap Forward.
So Adam is not totally mythical after all.
Al Leo
The Augustinian view of the Fall is inheritance of sin guilt. The Eastern view is inheritance of the disease of death. As Paul wrote, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…” (Romans 5:12).