I agree that Denis Lamoureux is excellent at explaining the ancient science of the Bible. He’s a professor Science and Religion at St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta.
Here’s his web page
Note that he has lots of material available for free access, including web lectures.
Who am I to say. Paul and some of the writings that are attributed to Paul certainly seem to disagree.
No, metaphors don’t have to be an exact match to still provide meaning.
It seems as though Paul may be stressing the interdependence (and equality of value) of the sexes, theologically in this chapter because just a couple of verses later he continues " For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." It is true that Paul refers to the order of creation of Adam and Eve as an illustration. It may be that his audience (and Paul himself) took Genesis literally/historically, but even if he did, we as modern readers are not obligated to do so. In other words, Paul need not be “scientifically infallible” to get the spirit-inspired theological message across to his readers. God accommodates the people’s common understanding of creation at the time and Paul uses it as a sort of parable to emphasize his point. That’s my take…
I’m not entirely sure anymore, but from my understanding gnosticism taught that some sort of divine woman birthed all humans and was never deceived. I think that was also related to people who adhered to gnosticism believing that women were supposed exercise oppressive authority over men, that men were the ones deceived. From my understanding, Gnosticism also associated Eve with Sophia (wisdom) and equated her with Jesus and seeing as her some divine figure. I believe some gnostic myths even believed Eve on purpose triggered the Fall (the first sin) as means for humans to become more enlightened and it Adam was therefore deceived in not joining her earlier, or something of the sorts.
I believe the correct translation of the 1 Tim. 2 passage is not simply “authority” but to “domineer” which was what certain gnostic sects and pagan sects did. So I guess from my OEC understanding, it’s Paul simply correcting their theology, clarifying that women were not less deceived or superior, etc. but that Eve also sinned, and first even.
Thanks I’ll check it out!
Okay, fair enough 
so do you think maybe it was Paul making a point but using something which is not necessarily objectively true, but perhaps was true from Paul’s perspective. As in, he did believe in the Creation myth as reality, and God used that teaching to correct certain theological truths? I mean, God clearly didn’t really have an issue with people believing the Genesis 1-2 story, right? If that’s the way He decided to pass on the story of Creation before science shed more light on stuff.
Okay thanks! So you think the theological/metaphorical point of the verse should be taken as if the creation story was literally true? As in, creation shows both women dependent on men (Eve from Adam - possibly as Adam being the first modern human to receive a human spirit first and then Eve being brought to him for his sake), as well as men dependent on women (all men now are biologically born through women)? As in, God didn’t mind Paul/the church in that day believing the creation myth being reality (since God decided to reveal it to them that way and it holds theological truths).
Yes, that’s how I’d read that.
Ooooh, I don’t know about that. Anaximander predates Paul by 600 years. And Paul would have known him well. As he reveals in Romans 1:23.
We should avoid taking isolated verses out of their Biblical context, and Biblical passages out of their cultural context. In re-reading the full chapter, Paul is addressing some who evidently were not adhering to cultural norms for proper behavior within the church. What is considered proper and respectful in public 2000 years ago in Corinth is no doubt quite different that what we consider proper here and now. I suspect there are a lot of dress and grooming variations that we don’t give a second thought to, that would horrify Paul. Men with long hair, various varieties of facial hair, bare legs, shorts, jewelry, hats, etc. which mean no disrespect. Ironically, we hear of men admonished for wearing ball caps or gimme caps in church, not because it is a symbol of submission as in Paul’s time to cover one’s head, but rather because it is considered too casual and self-absorbed. And it it rare for women in evangelical churches to wear a head covering or hat. And if they do, it is usually to “dress up” rather than a show of submission.
So, I think Paul’s point is to not offend, though men and women are equal in God’s eyes.
Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with it, ultimately.
I might add that I sometimes wear my Chacos sandals to church as have some foot pain, and they are comfortable, and have had it commented on with it implied that it was too casual for an old deacon. My reply was that Jesus wore sandals, but was foot-shamed a bit anyway.
Behavioral Instructions tend to annoy me because, as a “Preacher’s Kid” I remember the first rule of behavior at Church: “Being a Preacher’s Kid, everyone will have their eyes on you. Behave yourself.” Trying to draw a parallel between Genesis and proper behavior in a church in the 1960s and suggesting that such a parallel is godly instruction because Paul drew the parallel for 1st century Corinthian pagans fails to impress a teenager in the 1960s. You, male or female, want respect? Cut it out. You want my gratitude? Tell me the Gospel. No one is too young or too old to hear that.
I have no trouble with saying Paul believed the creation story to be true because that is what he was taught. The only way Paul could know it was actually true in a factual sense is if he was given supernatural wisdom, which I don’t think he was. But Paul believing it was true doesn’t make it true in the YEC or OEC sense. There were probably many other things Paul believed true that aren’t.
Correct and I even believe the Genesis 1-2 story was inspired. It just isn’t inspired science/history.
The point of the story isn’t how or when God created, but God is the only god and He made everything. Including things that were considered gods in other cultures.
That’s an unusual understanding of Gnosticism
That’s not my understanding of Gnosticism in toto. I don’t know much but it’s some stuff I’ve heard over the years about their beliefs on the creation story.
Seems accurate to me, ‘In Gnosticism, Sophia is a feminine figure, analogous to the human soul but also simultaneously one of the feminine aspects of God. Gnostics held that she was the syzygy (female twin divine Aeon) of Jesus (i.e. the Bride of Christ), and Holy Spirit of the Trinity.’ guess.
But read the rest of her post. Did the Gnostics believe that a divine women birthed all humans?
I was explaining that Genesis 1 doesn’t have an Eve created from Adam.
“Just as the tortoise ultimately beat the hare in a race, so too should you persevere and focus steadily on your goals so that you can attain them.”
In reading this quote, how many people think this speaker is trying to claim there was a historic race between a tortoise and hare, complete with talking animals?
Not from my reading, no to this:
Sophia, the final aeon of God the Son’s final aeon luminary, parthenogenetically birthed the Demiurge, in her self-deception. God, the Father or more likely the Son (via Barbelo, God the Mother, the Father’s first creation), created Adam and Eve’s souls that were enfleshed by the Demiurge.
Sure, but evolutionary theory was on the scene at the time Genesis 1:27 was finally laid down.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.