Still Learning: From the way you describe “image bearer”, & “potentially human” and “Original Blessing” it would be a “very slippery slope” to navigate. In my view, it was 50,000 yrs. ago (or more) that the Homo sapiens brain was ‘reprogrammed’ to operate as Mind, which then could seek to know and worship the Creator of the Universe which surrounded them. This revision of brain circuitry may have occurred in just a few isolated humans (referred to in the Bible as Adam & Eve) who invented an articulated language which could then spread the ‘Blessing’ to all they came into contact with. By 10,000 BC this potential to covenant with God and thus become image bearers had spread to “the four corners of the earth”. All Homo sapiens, including the Feugians Darwin described, the aborigines of Tasmania and Australia, were fully human, even if not aware of Christ. The early explorers who encountered these people often were accompanied by missionaries who introduced them to Christianity and Jesus’ sacrifice, which the missionaries fervently believed was the most effective way of teaching about our Creator and his love for us. But these native people were already fully human–just unenlightened humans.
Accepting this scenario for humanity’s emergence does NOT necessitate abandonment of the concept of Original Sin, but it does require its re-examination. But re-examination is exactly what has been needed for 2,000 yrs., and the theory of evolution gives us the best of reasons for doing so.
The early interpretation of Darwinian evolution stressed “the survival of the fittest”–the fittest being the most powerful an dominating members of any species. It’s bloody aspects were given the greatest press–predation proceeding “red in tooth and claw”. More recently the newer knowledge of genetics and of environmental science have alerted us that cooperation and altruism (even love) are important contributors toward survival. As these God-like qualities became more pronounced in the higher animals (the more complex ones), evolution was fulfilling God’s plan of Alpha—>Omega. However, the Selfish Genes that played such a prominent role leading up to various primate species which (on earth) were the prime contenders for Image Bearer, were responsible for instinctual behavior which effectively blocked the level of altruism and cooperation needed for true image bearing level. Giving Homo sapiens a Mind and Conscience was a gift that made it possible to rise above instinct. And the free will to use it in that fashion–or to refuse that gift, casting pearls to swine–made Sin possible.
If this philosophy/theology I am proposing has any appeal (especially to evangelicals) it might be to those who are uncomfortable with a seemingly wrathful God of the Old Testament. Be good or I will curse you. Almost as puzzling is Jesus’ directing us to pray to Out Father: “lead us not into temptation”. That may have been the most effective plea for the people of that age, but to the present generation a more cogent plea might be: “grant us spiritual strength to overcome our animal instincts so that our spirits can more truly bear your Image”.
Is it heresy to believe that Scripture can, not only be interpreted more faithfully, but actually be improved upon? Or heresy to think that working toward a happier form of life here on earth for present and future humans is an integral part of ‘being saved’, of fulfilling God’s purpose for us?
God bless
Al Leo
There’s a third option, there, between metaphorical originators and literal originators: literal but not originators. If Cain’s wife came from outside Adam and Eve’s lineage, some argue this does not necessarily contradict the notion of Adam and Eve as literal selective members within a larger group of early hominids.
In addition to the euphemistic and chaos-monster arguments mentioned by others, it’s often overlooked by those arguing for a literal interpretation that the literal text does not compare the physical tail to a physical cedar. It compares the movement of the tail to a cedar, and while it is not completely clear which part of the cedar that may be referring to, my uneducated mind suspects the smaller (a.k.a. more hippo-tail-like) branches swaying in the breeze are at least a better candidate than the generally immovable trunks…
I’m fine with that view, but doesn’t the bible say that Adam lived like 900 years? That really bothers me if it were to be interpreted literally. I prefer the idea that Adam was simply an archetype for humanity itself, since the very word Adam means Human in hebrew.
For comparison, imagine if someone asked… “if the sun and moon are real, why does one find them not just in the Bible, but also in ANE parallels?”
Obviously, they are found in both sources as a result of their reality and factuality, hence they are recorded not just in the Bible but in other accounts as well.
So if, in fact, Adam and Eve were real, and this fact were passed down in various fashions, I.e., the “consciousness” of that historical fact were passed down and inherited in various cultures, I would think it exceedingly odd if some aspects of this history were NOT found in sources outside of the Biblical text. If it really did happen, would we not expect to find similar accounts outside the Bible?
By analogy… I know it is debated and hardly conclusive, but I find it at least interesting that the Chinese character for “create” is constructed from simpler characters including “life” “mouth” soil” and “walk”. I don’t think anyone would suggest that this “parallel” (if it is in fact accurate) suggests that the Hebrews simply borrowed in some fashion the cultural understanding of the ancient Chinese. But if this parallel does really exist (which I don’t mean to claim certainty that it does), then I think the best explanation would be that they both reflected consciousness of an earlier event, rather than suggest some direct “dependence” one upon the other.
So yes, parallels could exist because of dependence or borrowing, but they also could exist because they each, independently, refer to a previous historical event that was passed down to the divers cultures that each incorporated (and to various degrees changed) the details. Or perhaps even a mixture of the two.
I agree, my wording is just crass, I apologize for that.
Slippery only if you exploit those who are potentially human. If you value them as ones who could be human (by that I mean serve God’s purpose of being image bearers), than it is not slippery. So only slippery if taken out of context.
But you describe it much better, I think I agree with you, but I am not as educated as you to spell it out as you do.
So I again apologize for appearing to pervert your stance.
I will try to refer to the two categories as enlightened or not yet enlightened humans in the future to attempt to avoid this.
I think it would be heresy to say that we can reach our full potential and glorify God if we aren’t doing it for Him, and just doing it to make earth a better place. Or even more so heresy to think we could achieve world peace or make this a better place apart from Him.
I think we all agree that loving others as ourself would make a happier form of life here on earth for present and future humans. But if one did not give God the glory for that love and acknowledge that love comes from God, I do not think it could be done…and this has been proven by the world we live in.
S. L., it is a pleasure to correspond with you, because you seem very willing to try to comprehend new concepts, and your responses have shown me that I, too, am still learning how to best phrase my ideas so that they are clear and more concise.
[quote=“still_learning, post:26, topic:38329”]
I will try to refer to the two categories as enlightened or not yet enlightened humans in the future to attempt to avoid this.
The first of your quotes above indicates that your have grasped my concept that over the period of the last 50,000 yrs. all Homo sapiens have received the Gift of Consciousness & Mind, and are thus fully human.–not just potentially so. However, not all humans today are enlightened with the truth that God wishes us to live our lives so that we become, as much as possible, creatures made in His Image. IMHO anyone who strives toward that goal has been Saved.
What worries me is how we go about this task of ‘enlightenment’–how we follow the command in Mat. 28:19 “go forth and make disciples of all nations.” It is easy to interpret this to mean that one must profess Jesus as one’s Savior–nothing else will suffice. But is that really so? For instance, were not the Native Americans who worshiped the Great Spirit and were stewards of His Creation acting as Image Bearers?
Blessings,
Al Leo
You too sir. It is easier to be open to new concepts and be humble with acknowledgment that that ‘almighty me’ could be wrong. When my life isn’t about my pride, but glory of the Almighty God, who is living inside of me, humility is what should ooze out of me, it pride. If there is any humility seen in me, may it be known that it comes from God in me, it me.
I kind of disagree with you here. I do think we were told to make disciples (not force make, rather help guide those searching) by confessing Jesus as one’s Savior. And nothing else would suffice or be worthy to proclaim (if one was to proclaim anything).
A disciple of Jesus was one who followed Jesus, Jesus said I am the way. I don’t think that should be substituted. BUT, I also don’t think that should be proclaimed in arrogance or fear mongoring either.
I spoke of my view on other faiths in this thread
Post 161. So as to try and keep this slightly shorter.
Though I have to wrap this up, I am starting to question some of the above. If God is love, when a man shows love, it is from God. So maybe everyone was miraculously made image bearers when Adam was? I have to get going for a few days, but that is one thing I am looking into now.
I could go with numbers one and two of the above. There were varying accounts of the terrorist attacks on NYC in newspapers around the world on Sept 12, 2001 — that is, the day after. All were accommodated to the needs, interests, political philosophies of the countries and people who read those newspapers — but contained some similar details. So why could that sort of thing not have been true in regard to this event as well??? Number 3 does not seem relevant. Number 4 is assuming too much on the negative. The idea that the biblical writers were countering a polytheistic worldview with their own — after all, there are differences as well as similarities — is an interesting one…I have seen that expressed in a number of places.
And how DID the biblical writer know that snakes have vestigial legs (many varieties, that is)??? I have read some comments elsewhere to assert that this means the Bible believes in evolution…
Good point. And after the Sandy Hook Shooting, there was a lot of wrong information spread on the radio when it first happened. But it was minor details, it all got corrected, and nobody denied that there was a massacre. (Until the nutty conspiracy theorist in Florida.)
You are right, Beaglelady…Forgot about Sandy Hook…so we have plenty of examples from our own era…And we do not always know how much of what we have via ANE sources fell into the less-reliable categories you just described…all we do have are the scraps and odd bits that managed to survive the centuries…I have read elsewhere — along the way in life — that the old “story” about Pandora’s Box is a retelling of this same essential theme — that is, humanity forbidden to do something, then doing it on the belief they will benefit from it, and then – ta da!! — all sorts of bad things fly loose from that box…in other words, some version of this general earlier story has migrated through the literature in some form or other over time.