The Fall in Evolution

Faith & Science Conversation
23

I know. I was agreeing with you on the first part but not on the second part.

I do not. That one just makes it too easy to turn religion into a tool of power. So I don’t think that definition serves any good purpose.

Again it goes back to that question of whether something is good because God commands it or God commands it because it is good. The former is that whole vacuous authoritarian morality crap. The latter means it is not about obedience but about the wisdom of God’s recommendations and that there are reasons why doing otherwise is going to cause us trouble. In other word, sin isn’t bad because we are disobeying God. It is bad because of what it does to us. And if we are going to grow up out of the toddler mentality then it is about time we start understanding why daddy says no! The whole “because I said so” gabble is not going to hack it anymore.

24

So Emily, which view do you favour? There are only two after all.

25

About the term “Spiritual Death” -

  1. It’s nowhere in Scripture.

  2. If one want to imply that Spiritual Death happened on the moment A&E sinned the only immediate effect was the separation away from the presence of the Lord.

  3. We are all separated from the presence of the Lord here on Earth, does that mean every newborn is Spiritual Death the moment the baby leaves the womb?

Sounds like original sin to me as a consequence.

26

Standard reply: neither is the word “trinity”.

Not by a long shot. The immediate effect was that they would now need a savior, for they could not redeem themselves and because of their spiritual death (for as God promised, they surely died that day) they were facing the prospect of eternal damnation.

In my opinion, yes it does.

27

A lot of things are not in the Bible, including the doctrine of the Trinity or even the word “Trinity.” Nor are there galaxies, electrons, DNA, … in the Bible… so what? they don’t exist or didn’t? No the fact that something isn’t in the Bible is irrelevant! We believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because it is implied by what is in the Bible and spiritual death is even more strongly implied than the Trinity. The words “second death” certainly ARE in the Bible, and the implications of Genesis and Luke 9:60 are inescapable unless you think God is liar or Jesus is a nutter.

Yep. The original sin of Adam and Eve had consequences and the separation from God is one of them.

28

Hi Emily,
BioLogos VP @jstump just released a book about this! He wrote about the views included in the book, and addressed the two that ECs might most identify with in his summary about it. Might be helpful to you!

29

Well, during the years I have probably read Gen 1-3 more than 100 times and not one single time interpreted “you shall surely die” as spiritual death. It’s just not what was communicated to the ancients. In a world with hundreds of gods the real God declares there is only One and the reason why people die is sin.

A&E were denied access to the tree of live.

22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

“surely die” vs “live forever”, it’s meant either spiritual or physical, I pick the latter.

30

I would agree with you if not for the part you omitted:

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen 2:17, NKJV)

Because they did not suffer physical death the day they ate, so demanding it meant physical death is to argue that God lied or God changed his mind, both are unthinkable.

This too must be spiritual or at least non-literal, e.g. the tree was sacramental (that’s what I think), unless you posit a tree that is so magical that God cannot restrain its power and must remove A&E from its presence. I think what makes more sense is that A&E were no longer privileged to eat of the tree (like being denied communion, about which it is also common to refer to as life giving). I don’t believe that if they ate of the tree they would live forever in spite of the fact that God no longer wanted them to live forever (if he ever did)-- that makes the tree more powerful than God.

EDIT: typo

31

These myths eh? Stuff we had to evolve through.

32

You seem to favor proof by assertion.

Proof by assertion is about as interesting and valid as you’d expect.

33

You seem to favour imparsimonious myth over reality.

34

It may be that I believe in myths. But I and others are debating aguendo from scripture. That is a valid form of argumentation even if you don’t believe scripture, and even if scripture is a pack of lies. You are not doing anything remotely valid nor are you contributing anything. It’s a waste of pixels.

35

Emily didn’t specify that. She needs to know that the myth of the Fall is precluded by evolution but is a product of cultural evolution nonetheless. Making up stories, about a made up story, claiming to be derived in a Goedelesque way from the story, is a worthwhile use of pixels I’m sure.

36

There you go again. What part about begging the question is proving difficult? If you don’t believe A&E existed, then asserting that fact without reasoning would be annoying enough in a discussion about whether A&E existed. In a side discussion that is taking for the sake of argument that they existed, it’s even more annoying.

And, by the way, in case you don’t grasp the concept, “the myth of the Fall is not precluded by evolution” just because you say “the myth of the Fall is precluded by evolution.” And the Fall being a product of ‘cultural evolution’ is not firmly established because you say so.

37

There you go again ignoring Emily’s question.

38

How so myths?

Without Gen 3 the Bible would be a very thin book.

39

So what Ed? Is Jesus thinner because He humanly believed them?

40

Why do people say things like that, you are not the only one. It takes away the fun of answering.

Nevertheless…

The garden of Eden story in Genesis 2 suggests that A&E were created immortal, so “you will surely die” makes perfect sense to me, the moment they sinned they lost their immortality.

I understand that it bites evolution at first glance, but does not have to be if one reads the story of Eden and the Fall in paradise, Gods garden, a heavenly place where A&E stands model for the human race (everyone born here on this earth) is kicked out of Paradise into a hard place here on Earth because they did listen to the snake instead of God to learn obedience, away from the presence of the Lord for a short time.

It’s the only way evolution makes sense to me.

That God created a world with death as a necessity is a result of something happened earlier.

41

But it reads more than what you quoted. It reads: “on that day you will surely die.” It is the on that day part that makes the interpretation of physical death problematic and makes the interpretation of spiritual death more plausible, in my opinion.

42

Just got caught up and found myself most in agreement with these points:

I think “the Fall” does refer to the transformation which places us outside the natural checks and balances of nature. It requires us to become more self reliant and also to seek what cosmicscotus refered to as the voice of the spirit. I think (sorry @Klax) that mythic thinking about this rift in our nature is productive, and beyond the reach of direct analysis and conceptualization. It is a question of getting insight into the way our being has been divided and the desirability to form a relationship between the parts of our fractured nature.