If a literal reading of Genesis flood and destruction of Sodom and Gomorah is false, how should we explain direct New Testament references to the Genesis accounts?

Faith & Science Conversation
, ,
102

Some ancient cultures proposed rituals to facilitate the transition from boyhood to manhood. Usually the boy is removed from the mother. This isn’t to disagree with your point, which I agree with. Like Keener says regarding whether a healing miracle is naturally or supernaturally occurring: there is a fuzzy boundary between short and long hair, yet short and long hair really do exist.

Similarly, there is a fuzzy physical boundary for when and where an event happens, but events do certainly happen.

I am inclined to think the awakening of human beings to the presence of God was a definable and localized event. The history of spiritual awakenings among people groups could be an area of fruitful discussion. But that’s a conversation I would have more to learn from than contribute to.

2 Likes
103

I first saw it proposed by Peter Enns. If nothing else, it does make good sense that during the exile, some members of Israel would see themselves as exiled from the Garden with the hope of return. Both creation stories in Genesis probably go back further and I am guessing the meaning was fluid over time. I think the suggestion that it one ups an older creation myth has some validity.

I think the point is fair about Paul. For starters, he is not writing a philosophical treatise or systematic theology. He is sending situational letters to churches and writing about whatever he deemed most pressing at the time. We may overdress these personal letters for doctrine at times.

I agree with this. Theology comes after faith. For me its read the Bible prayerfully and openly, surrender to God’s call and the transforming and risen Jesus, and then figure out what all the Bible stuff means after. That is a lifelong process and God will use Scripture to teach us many lessons. Faith is not about head knowledge or knowing facts. But the Church has considered the Bible inspired for a long while. We all have to deal with the problem of evil, arguments against our faith, competing interpretations of the Bible and some very difficult passages inside.

We also sometimes spend way too much time on a single issue or something that is not too important. To be honest, many of these threads go hundred of pages and round and round for weeks, My MO is to start in some then bow out. I don’t want to rehash the same issue over and over again. I will bow out of this one shortly. I’ve said what I believe and read others responses that I can digest over time when the issue inevitably comes up again.

Yes, we have no systematic theology from Paul and we can’t ask him questions. But many Christians believe the canon is part of an inspired set of works God left us and Romans comes the closest to a treaty on beliefs. It is the most difficult to understand as well. What really matters is how we understand inspiration and the nature of the Bible. It also ties into the sacrificial work of Jesus. We know Jesus saves us but how, from what? There are a few theories of atonement and Adam figures into some of them as does the notion of original sin.

As far as verses go, yes we can read the Bible at different levels. We can read mark as a whole or isolate different parables. I have no issues with narrative criticism. We can also read Mark in relation to the other gpspels or the canon as a whole.

As an example of the exorcisms in Mark on a narrative level, part if their narrative framework is showing Jesus has power over everything. It starts with the voice from heaven calling him God’s son, he heals a paralytic and pronounces hi sins forgiven, then he heals a man with a withered hand and all sorts of diseases. Then he stills the storm. He has control over the weather/nature. He commands demons and evil spirits and he can even raise the dead. Mark is clearly telling us Jesus is Lord. But we still can ask what to make of the individual miracle reports.

Same for me.

3 Likes
104

Thank you for the kind words!

What I definitely don’t want to happen is for Christians to think my posts are advice from a fellow Christian which could easily happen given the predominately Christian audience at this site.

2 Likes
105

That can come down to how life is viewed and thus how death is defined. We Western types tend to treat spirit and body as pretty much separate almost as though the body is like clothes for the spirit, but that’s Platonic influence, not ANE thought. As I think I mentioned already, from my understanding spiritual death results in physical death; the two cannot be separated that way. At root being human involved having both, and the definition of death is the separation of the two.

Dredging my memory, I can’t recall a clear definition of this from ANE material.

Ooh, more science fiction!
Or bad philosophy. Either way, it can’t be sustained from the text given that Adam & Eve in the Garden stories were capable of thought and speech before the transgression.

Why wouldn’t they be?

Weeds themselves? No; the curse was that humans would have to deal with them outside the Garden.

Eden is a theme that recurs throughout the scriptures, so the writers certainly didn’t see it as a pipe dream.

Thus you declare God to be a sinful being.

There’s a nakash, a shining being / serpent. The later “addition” is just an interpretation.

Quite so.

I second that!

I’d say the world is in an inter-Edenic state since the new Earth is described as a restoration of Eden with some “enhancements”.

Paul says Adam’s sin resulted in death and our inevitable sinning is a result of that death that we “inherit”.

Augustine would have flunked Greek 102 if he’d been in our class – getting “in whom” from “ἐφ’ ᾧ” in that context is a Greek 101 mistake.

2 Likes
106

If you know enough about ANE thought it sort of jumps out at you. They were nearly fanatics with recapitulation as a theme; it’s done in various epics.

He wrote sentences over a hundred words long, often with the verb at the end. In that sense the way he thought was much closer to Greek from three to four centuries earlier.

It was written in scrolls, which made for an interesting phenomenon: most works were written to fit on a standard scroll, which often meant careful editing to get the length right: too short and you waste expensive papyrus, too long and you have to add papyrus to the scroll, which was also expensive.

And used the word ενοχή or αἰτία, both of which lean towards “guilt”.

1 Like
107

Not at all. It is a fact of human existence and it is central to the Christian relgion. To be sure there is a question of what that fact of human existence consists of exactly. But plain denial is just a refusal to answer the questions and deal with reality.

Yes it absolutely does. Genesis 6:5 “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

The only counterpoint to make is that this does not mean God could not see any goodness in anyone whatsoever. That would be wrong.

I think this simplistic reading of the text is wrong. It is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. I think the issue here is a conflict between deciding what is good and evil for themselves rather than learning this from God. People dictating good and evil according to distorted self serving standards has been a major problem throughout history.

I disagree that this has anything whatsoever to do with sentience.

No, I think He warned them of something a part of life which could be a source of considerable danger – like telling ones children not to play/go in the street.

Why do our actions always have serious even disastrous consequence for our descendants?

Maybe so we would take parenthood more seriously.

No. I think the point was that we had to learn to take responsibility for our own actions because we would always have to deal with the consequences.

Yes. Many places on the Earth are Eden. The flaming sword is a persistent symbol throughout scripture – never meant to be taken literally. No, not another planet or plane of existence – that would remove the story to fantasy, having nothing to do with the reality in which we exist. Rivers dry up all the time.

I will never adopt an understanding which is plainly wrong. Sin is NOT the price of free will – only the possibility of sin. Freedom and responsibility are inseparable.

All nonsense.

No. Sin is the product of our choice.

You can have free will without sin because you can make a different choice.

Incorrect. The snake is there. The name change is irrelevant.

Yes people like to imagine and make up all kinds of nonsense which they claim is how it was “understood originally,” “understood during the exile,” “understood by Paul.”

Things have often been understood incorrectly for that long.

Important, when relevant.

I certainly don’t subscribe to the way most understand it. But I don’t think it helps to avoid the basic question of what is wrong. What is the conflict Paul describes in Romans 7:19? Why do we have a problem even doing the things we believe is right? What is the problem Jesus came to deal with? Because God having a hard time with forgiveness is definitely not it – not for any kind of God I could ever believe in.

Agreed.

I can imagine this just fine… been there… done that… I just don’t think that is the Christian view of reality. Some people don’t find Christianity way of thinking helpful. Others like myself do.

??? Are you talking about this?

At most I would suggest a slight alteration that God gave us great gifts and power and we misused them. Perhaps there was no time of absolute innocence (if there is such a thing), but I think it is enough that there was a time when those gifts and abilities God gave us were not misused. And once they were, it was like a addictive drug with too many far reaching consequences poisoning everything in life.

4 Likes
108

Uou are assuming that you know *“The Christian way of thinking”

You only know, or understand the extreme version. The one that claims that all of mankind is innately evil and basically doomed but the favoured few, of which you are one are OK. God does no care for all of His creation!

Now read and understand the last chapter of Jonah!

You appear to epitomise the “selfish” Christian. “I’m alright Jack, Damne the rest!”

I guess if you think humans are inately selfish then this would all make perfect sense. Why should you be any different?

That is backwards.

If you make different choice then you do not sin.

And the point is ? That option is always availbalbe. To make the right choice and not sin.!

We have that choice. We do not have to sin.

Whye would you say that? Just because sin is an option does not mean God has to take it!

Besides, God cannot sin. If you think He can then you misunderstand what sin is.

O wow! 2 words! You get a whole doctrine from 2 words! Brilliant!

If you read the passages as a whole instead of dissecting them you ill see what the topic is. And it is not that man is inately or terminally sinful. It is that Adam was the first sinner, which meant that sin exists. And Jesus is the first true remedy. Fist in and first out. And Paul tries his best to make people like you understand and instead you break his words down (like one of these posts) and ignore the whole thing!. You are too busy being clever and (un)intelligent .
There is no such thing as Original Sin.

We sn because we want to. Or because we like the expected result. or because we do not like the virtuous option, or because we do not care about thow it might affect others, IOW selfhness. but

We do not have to sin.

We can choose not to sin, or conversely choose the option God would want.

There is nothing forcing us to sin. It is not a disease, or an inherited trait.

God gave us the choice. instead of forcing us to only do good.

If we have a true choice then both choices must be valid… Putting a gun (Hell) to someone’s head negates that choice.

God refuses to force us to only do Good, Neither by puppet strings or coercion (Heaven and Hell). Jesus is the only answer to that conundrum. He cancels sin.

Richard

109

That’s it. Nice review.

This book is not the be-all-end-all volume with regard to these matters. Nor is it presented as the “final answer” to all your questions. Instead it stands as a model of charitable Christian dialogue on important matters — and it represents an effective and helpful answer to those who take such controversial points as opportunities to abandon Christianity altogether. I cannot recommend the book highly enough.

Do you think the blessing became an addictive drug?

110

I think we are saying the same thing. Obviously I know the serpent, a craft animal given special significance in antiquity plays a role in the narrative. See the quote above I included by Bill Arnold. The interpretation of the identity of the serpent was changed over time by Christians and that is relevant because that is all I am claiming. If we want to read the Garden story in its “original context” – I don’t know-- say 3,000 years ago, we are probably not going to find Satan there. But if we want to read all of Scripture with a canonical dimension we can identify the serpent as Satan. My point is that interpretation of the event changed and I am never convinced whatever the initial author a group believed has to be the only or primary meaning of a story or passage. It may have been included in Scripture precisely because of its antiquity an dit was a good story that spoke to people during the Babylonian exile. What ancient authors’s and audiences believed is a good place to start but I believe inspired scripture is more than the sum of its parts (especially when atomized and dissected). Interpreting scripture is a more complex task than people realize. Being written thousands go years ago by people in different languages with vastly different cultures and worldviews is our first and very obvious clue to that.

Do you dispute that the interpretation of the event would have changed over thousands of years in different times, cultures and different --what scholars like to call–Sitz im Leben (life settings)?

The story has taken on different meanings over the years and I’ll bet of all the people posting in this thread there will be half a dozen interpretations (with some overlap of course).

That seems like a tautology.

I agree which is why I have some gripes with @Mervin_Bitikofer interpretation which I do lean towards. Paul goes further than “we are all Adam because we all sin.” That is 100% true but Paul goes further. And I agree with you on the issue if atonement. What did Jesus come to do? As I said to Richard: “It also ties into the sacrificial work of Jesus. We know Jesus saves us but how, from what? There are a few theories of atonement and Adam figures into some of them as does the notion of original sin.”

But as far as Romans 7:19, I attribute some of that to heredity and environment. We are creatures of habit. We have primate aggression and reproductive sexual urges. We have free will in my view but we ar not as free as we think. Some of the things we think our “choices” might not be and some of the things we think we do by compulsion might be “choices.”

Let my spitball my intiial thoughts as they come to me. It is not really just about Paul but also how we understand Jesus and His work on the Cross. Jesus conquered sin and death and longstanding Christian tradition is Adam brought those into the world. Paul agrees. Jesus being an antidote for a “made-up” poison is theologically troubling. Now, we can still believe the world is fallen and broken without a literal Adam. But yes, if Paul claims Adam’s sin somehow broke the world, which I think he clearly does, this is a theological issue. I don’t think Paul is inerrant. There is a verse where he forgets who he baptized then corrects himself a few lines later (no erasers in antiquity). But we have to take seriously all the verses about Jesus and what we think he did. The issue is much Karger than just “was Adam literal?” As an example, I am very partial to the solidarity model of atonement. Good came to change our view of him, not his view of us. Its catchy. But I don’t think it does full justice to s scripture on the atonement and whether or not that is consistent with God’s judgment is a thorny question (I mean shouldn’t there be punishment for sin?–whether corrective or retributive). I mean “we are justified by His blood” seems like a lot more than God wanted us to like him. You can still get there but the path is a bit messy. I mean how does Jesus’s death justify us? Because we see th sacrifice and turn to God? That seems strained and very forced.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

For all I know, Paul thinks Adam was a real human and all humans are somehow corporately and literally tied up into him. Ancient societies were not as individualistic as us. Or maybe he is using Adam as a metaphor for all our sin. He definitely has death (human per @St.Roymond which I won’t dispute) as a result of Adam’s sin though.

My point was not that these are insolvable but evolution does create a lot of friction with parts of Scripture. Recognizing this and evaluating it is probably the only way to begin to soften up conservatives to this. I can tell most are just going to reject science over scripture all day every day when it comes to big issues like sin, death and how they see th fall and Jesus’s atoning work on he cross. Without eliminating some of those problems I see little hope of meaningful dialogue.

Reading Romans 8:

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God, 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its enslavement to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning together as it suffers together the pains of labor, 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Its seems creation is broken for Paul.

1 Like
111

As it concerns the world of man, I think the idea of a generational curse carries the sense in which we are messed up and yet carry the guilt of our own sin.

As it concerns the physical world, the place of the chaotic sea before the fall of man, and its absence in the new creation, leads me to believe this world was created with a view to sin whether it had already existed or was foreknown.

1 Like
112

I don’t like taking a single sentence out of a passage but on this occasion I feel justified.

Are you claiming that a man can/could break God’s creation? That would make God weak and man stronger.

The whole idea that God could not foresee and account for Adam’s disobedience. (assuming the account is accurate history) God must have known the consequences of allowing Adam to obey or not! Which is why the punishment seems out of character. Everything we now know of God points to forgiveness not punishment. One single disobedient act causes all Hell to let loose? Are you serious? What God are you worshipping? A weak and vengeful one? Or a strong and forgiving one?

Everything actually boils down to our view of Scripture. It would seem that people here take Scripture over and above the character and power of God. As if man could fathom God!

Making Scripture infallible or just as accurate history is putting Scripture at worse on a level with God, but more likely above Him. Scripture is not God! Neither is it God’s words, dictated or otherwise.(I very much doubt that God would put Himself in such a bad light )

You prefer to honour Scripture over God!

I doo not worship Scripture.

If Scripture says God said it, then it must be?

That is putting the cart before the horse.

Richard

113

I’ve probably missed or miscommunicated something here, because I’m definitely in agreement too, with @mitchellmckain’s statement that God having a hard time with forgiveness is not the problem Jesus had to overcome.

In a recent book by by Pastor Brian Zhand (I think it was in “Wood Between the Worlds”), he reminds us (wisely I think) that no one atonement model is going to capture everything accurately and completely by itself to the exclusion of all other atonement models. As far as atonement model(s) go, he pithily asks “can we at least keep it plural”? Because they all seem to offer something - even perhaps the penal substitutionary one (my least favorite - or the one that I’ve learned to despise because of where it’s taken so many modern Christians now). But even in its case, one can find isolated verses here or there which lean on such language, making it understandable why some have gone in that direction. So I will still insist that not all models are equal - and some much more faithful to the entire arc of scriptures than others. But my main point is, if we latch onto just one model and put it forward as the only way to understand the entirety of what Christ has done for us, then we have likely just created large blind-spot areas for ourselves. And I am my own audience in saying this, because I definitely have my favorite atonement models (or even just model) that I’m enamored with: that Christ came to rescue us from sin - ultimately our own sin - is a key part of that model.

2 Likes
114

AFAIK, the snake in Eden was not told to be evil or adversary (satan), just a snake. In the creation story, everything created was called ‘good’. The functional interpretation of the creation story does not think that ‘good’ refers to morally good or perfect. Rather, it suggests that ‘good’ tells that everything operates as intended - functionally working, ordered system.

I read that ANE people would easily have made a mental association between the snake and the chaos monster (snake-like) in the ANE belief systems. Chaos creatures were not considered to be evil but they could cause disorder and mislead people. Not sure if this claim is correct.

Whatever our interpretation is, it is just an interpretation - the story does not tell enough about the snake. Genesis 3:15 speaks about a conflict between the seed of the woman and the snake. This verse probably is the key reason why Christians have usually interpreted the snake as the main adversary.

2 Likes
115

No… the misuse of God’s gifts.

For example, this habit of blaming everyone and everything for your own mistakes – something you find so much of in prisons among criminals. Bad habits, even bad habits of thought, are like that – i.e. addictive.

1 Like
116

It fascinates me that we still see parallels in modern culture and thinking. We often use the metaphor of the devil sitting on one shoulder whispering temptations into our ear and an angel on the other shoulder. Metaphors aside, I think we all sense this inner voice that we sometimes give in to which results in bad outcomes. Overall, the Adam and Eve story makes a lot of sense as a metaphor that describes human psychology and how we grow from children to morally accountable adults.

2 Likes
117

Not a far fetched assumption but a proof of experience. I have been listening many many many different Christians of all different denominations and places (including you) for a long long time

I don’t know most of the content and extent of what you know. But I am very confident that you don’t know the content and extent of my knowledge.

I don’t believe any of that.

Mankind is not innately evil. But like all primates we learn by imitation and unfortunately too many of the examples available to imitate are full of very self-destructive habits.

I don’t believe in any “favored few.” I very much disagree and disapprove of the Christian idea of assurance. That is, the only assurance I believe in is an assurance of the love and goodness of God and NOT any assurance of my salvation. That is entitlement which I believe turns religion into something evil. I am not OK. I don’t believe in Christianity because it gives me some advantage over other people. I only believe in Christianity because I think it is correct. I often say, if I find myself in hell, I will not be complaining – I will be praising the goodness of God, because that is one thing I can at least be certain of.

And I certainly believe God cares for all of His creation.

What I don’t believe in is magic – divine or otherwise. Logical coherence is the difference between dream and reality. And so God’s omnipotence is not the omnipotence of a dreamer who just alters reality according to His desire. So it is not just a matter of God choosing some people to fix. He is trying to help all of us. But sin is a matter of addiction and that is very difficult problem to overcome. I do believe what Jesus did is crucial, but no I don’t think “poof, problem solved.”

I have done so many times. That ending is superb!

You are not God. You don’t know me. And I know what Jesus said about doing things like this. Very dangerous. “As you judge, so shall you be judged.” Be careful, or jumping to superficial uninformed conclusions will be how God judges you.

How is what I said backwards when you say the same thing?

Incorrect. Freedom of will is not absolute or inviolable. Many things can damage it, including chemical, biological, and physical damage. Addiction (bad habit) also damages our free will. Even if we have the choice in the beginning, it becomes harder and harder to change the more we indulge in bad habits. To not know this most basic fact of human existence is to be very poorly informed.

No. Definitely not!

Point being… what science discovers is not always relevant to the conclusions of religion. And even when it is relevant, we should definitely pay attention but not jump to the conclusion that the religious belief is completely overthrown.

As you can see from my responses to others that is a big part of my way of thinking also.

Ah yes… one of the areas where the discoveries of science might indeed be relevant.

1 Like
118

I would claim --if that were true-- that this is the system God designed and created. It is possible that in creating free beings God had to surrender a degree of His power and give us actual control. This would not be a weakness on God’s part but love. Maybe the Christian God is a god who risks? Maybe love entails that risk and the possibility if being burned. I can’t rule that out. What I don’t think is God is impotent and made a weak and fragile creation and is now trying to fix His own mess. I suspect the world running the way God expected it to even if it’s not 100% perfect. God understands we are not God so I am sure He has reasonable and just expectations for us.

I agree that death and toiling for the whole of humanity on the basis of Adam and Eve eating a forbidden fruit is overkill. But at the end of the day, I have trouble questioning God on designing such a system when many here will tell you God designed a system where life must destroy other life, where children get cancer, suffer and die horrible deaths and so on. Regardless of where I fall on the issue, I think wisdom tells me “God’s ways are above my ways here” and I am just guessing. I can try to accept what I think scripture says on this or ignore it.

Yes. The devil being in the garden is a later reinterpretation of the garden story. I am not saying that makes it automatically wrong. Just that we have to figure out how to interpret it. Same as original audience, same as exile audience, same as Paul and 1st century? Same as the Christian Church? I think we just have to wrestle with the story and let God teach us what He wants.

2 Likes
119

No it’s my fault. I was responding to the other part of his quote, not the end. This part:

What is the conflict Paul describes in Romans 7:19? Why do we have a problem even doing the things we believe is right? What is the problem Jesus came to deal with?

My point was I think Paul goes further than just identifying us as sinners with Adam. Something fundamental about the world changed.

I don’t think God has a hard time with forgiveness nor did I think you did.

3 Likes
120

One other thing I find interesting about the snake in the garden, is that it is not described as being anything particularly unusual, being capable of speech and reason, just “more crafty” than the other wild animals.
Perhaps it made frequent trips to Hobby Lobby.

2 Likes
121

Hmm. Human justice, logic and compassion. We know better than God?

find a system that answers death? If you allow birth, then you must allow death otherwise you run out of space rapidly. So would you prefer pointless death? At lest in the system we have death sustains life.
What about suffering? How do you prevent physical damage? Healing involves suffering… From slitting you finger on a piece of paper to being mauled by a dog, or attacked by a virus. Everything in creation has a purpose and much of it reties on other bits. That is one reason we believe in a creator instead of chance and fluke. But, and It has become a bit of a mantra
To be free to live you have to be free to die.
As soon as you tr and prevent, you impinge on freedom. All megalomaniacs and dictators believe that their control stops suffering. There would be no violence. (as long as no one tries to overthrow them!) What you want is for God to dictate.

So,

To claim humanity caused any sort of physical death is, quite frankly, naive and stupid. God is not a thick as some so called Christians think He is.

Richard