I think I have to specify the “Christian Scientific” community - - which is the focus of BioLogos.
It wouldn’t be particularly relevant if NON-Christians Scientists interpreted Eden as figurative.
But in the realm of Christianity, I think there is overwhelming agreement that Scientists who are practicing
Christians have no problem relegating the Eden story cycle into the category of “figurative, not historical”.
George Brooks
I think what Eddie meant was that you don’t have to be scientifically inclined to come to the conclusions that Adam and Eve, are some form of metaphor, allegory etc.,
I’m not a scientist, and I largely came on to this site to get othe people’s viewpoints on these issues. It wasn’t even science that led me from my prior YEC convictions… It was simply getting increasingly difficult to continue reading the Bible with literalistic interpretation.
-Tim
Genesis was the best science we had for centuries and centuries.
It was actually geologists who first started to question the literal nature of the Biblical timeline.
But long before the geologists started fussing over how terrifically long it took for certain geological
processes to occur … we had people working through the logic of Genesis and concluding that there
had to be people BEFORE Adam.
This was the natural result of the Genesis creation plot not holding up well to scrutiny.
See the Wiki article:
QUOTE:
“The first known debate about human antiquity took place in 170 AD between Theophilus of Antioch
and an Egyptian pagan “Apollonius the Egyptian” (probably Apollonius Dyscolus), who argued that
the world was 153,075 years old.”
The problems with the Genesis plot go way back… but in the absence of any real knowledge
of the early earth, how would you argue against Genesis? First it was the geologists… then
it became the biologists.
Before we discovered germs … how else would you explain disease ? Other than “miasma” and
evil spirits?
George Brooks
George,
The discussion of monogenism, polygenism, and pre-Adamism is very fascinating to me.
I am bit disturbed however, that most proponents of pre-Adamism (according to what I’ve seen on YouTube) embrace seemingly anti-Christian and racist undertones. Many have stated their view that Adam was the creation of the white race, while the other pre-Adamic races were mongrels. I don’t appreciate that view in the slightest… Especially since the Bible puts next-to-no emphasis on skin color.
That being said the monogenism belief has a very difficult time explaining Genesis 4 in terms of harmony. I would say that that particular chapter (when examined closely) is very damaging to monogenism.
An archetypal view of Adam is intriguing to me… But I wish that pre-Adamite proponents would drop the baggage of white supremacy and “mongrelism” when referring to other races.
-Tim
@TimothyHicks
I understand your antipathy to racial manipulations of various theories of pre-Adamism. I agree with you completely.
But I think we can be sure that these are relatively recent developments, triggered by the desire to prove
some racial viewpoint.
But I wonder if you are misinterpreting my point. I brought up “pre-Adamist” theories to point out that
long before civilization had developed any useful theories of science and history … there were people
trying to bring a little more sense to the Genesis Creation plot structure.
The fact that racially motivated folks hi-jacked these scenarios for their own purposes is not really
the point I was trying to make.
George Brooks
George,
You’re correct. I got a little bit distracted.
One can see, like you’ve demonstrated, the long history or Jews, Christians, Pagans etc., struggling with the text, in concerns with human origins. One can also see, despite the historical difficulties, the overall consensus of Church Fathers discarding pre-Adamite theology.
I think a lot of it has to do with pre-conceived notions, concerning the Biblical text. We assume that it must be true and harmonious, under each lens, we examine it: literarily, theologically, historically, chronologically. Many assume that if it’s not historical then you might as well just throw it away. It’s no longer useful and it’s no longer God’s Word.
But I don’t think that’s necessary… Genesis 2-3, when examined on it’s own merits, heartily embraces monogenism. Genesis 4, when examined on it’s own merits, heartily embraces the contrary: the existence of non-Adamite people.
Theologically the accounts are both complimentary and quite consistent, in how God deals with Man. It does not follow that it has to be historically consistent however. And I think one would be hard pressed trying to make it historically consistent.
-Tim
Firstly, let’s keep track of the DOUBLE issue:
I don’t see any problem with modern Evangelicals retaining the Creation story as spiritually instructive.
But even MORE so, I think any modern person, knowing what they know about the natural world,
would find it acceptable (if not necessary) to REJECT the Creation story as historically untenable.
Eddie, if you want me to say additionally that this is from a “perceived need” to be consistent with
our understanding of evolution and cosmology - - yes, I’m fine with that statement.
George Brooks
You write: "So really my questioning is just a commentary on the meaning of “obvious” as you used it …
[a position] adopted only after years of agonizing personal struggle before finally accepting evolution! "
There’s really no way of knowing the lasting impression of a childhood indoctrination, using non-rational
argumentation.
I remember having a similar dispute with a mob of atheists. They said that it was logically obvious
that there was no god. I said that if something like belief in God was so obviously disproved, then
it shouldn’t be too difficult to “obviously disprove” Free Will.
THIS is when a couple of atheists turned against the others … saying "Oh… no… humans definitely have
free will! " The atheists united in “obvious rationality” could not come to agreement on the issue of
Freewill.
But I think I digress…
What makes an argument OBVIOUS? I suppose it depends on the clarity of your initial assumptions.
If the audience accepts the value of science, then it should be relatively obvious. This would be my position anyway.
George Brooks
I can see I’m going to have to stop using the word “obvious”. Forgive my amateur mistake!
But on a serious note… I think the former is the correct one. I especially like your choice of words here:
". . . such scientists will try to find some other sense in which the Adam and Eve story can be true,
e.g., as a figure of speech."
I think this is the usual response by Christians who are unwilling to reject their scientific viewpoints.
But I also know more casual Christians who simply say: “they are just stories!”
George Brooks
This is just my opinion, but I think the main reason why debates like this go on is because Adam is part of the genealogies (Genesis 5 and 1st Chronicles), and again in Luke’s Gospel.
Were Adam not part of the genealogy I don’t think the debate for “Allegorical Adam” vs. “Historical Adam” would be nearly as strong. Most people would simply say, “Adam could be a historical personal, but there isn’t much in the text that demands it.” —
@TimothyHicks
And yet the genealogies for Jesus contradict each other…
While Evangelicals argue insensibly that BOTH genealogies are correct, I would wager that
BOTH are wrong.
George Brooks
George, I agree with you that the Jesus geneaolgies give a completely different set of names. But I would strongly hesitate to give just a blanket statement (BOTH of them are wrong) without hearing the arguments for why they both are right — it obviously was important to both Matthew and Luke, and thus we should study why it was so important.
In any case, the people that study and compare Hebraic genealogies know how bizarre they can seem to modern people … What with all that telescoping to what not. Many argue that Matthew and Luke are different because they are following a different genealogical line — either starting from a different line of one of David’s son, or one is going by a more “legal genealogy” — for instance things get complicated when a husband dies and the wife marries again, and then “fatherhood” gets transferred over too the new father even though they aren’t biologically related.
I would do some study on it online — it’s a very fascinating topic.
-Tim
I do not believe that Genesis says that the whole earth was necessarily flooded. The Hebrew word for earth can mean land or earth; therefore, I believe that the flood may have been a local event in Mesopotamia. As far as the animals, perhaps God wanted to save the lives of the animals in Mesopotamia too. There are some questions that cannot be answered with certainty. Could it be read as a universal flood? Yes, but it does not have to be read that way. Let us not make the Bible say more than it has to say. What or who caused the flood? God! How? We do not know.
Mary and Joseph were distant cousins; therefore, it depends whose line of the family that we are talking about.
Henry, it is quite clear that a global flood was indicated. For a number of reasons. First, it says the whole earth, not partial earth, not partial land. So your exegesis is flawed from the beginning, regardless whether the word is earth or land. Secondly, the mountains were covered so they could not be seen. Third, a huge barge was built to accomodate a whole bunch of animals that could have walked or flown away if it is was just a local flood. In the time it took Noah to build this ark, he could have walked around the earth several times. Even with only a year’s warning, walking would have been faster than building. The length of time of the flood and all the conditions attached to it indicate something much larger than a local flood. Geography in the area does not permit a local flood to cover the mountains. With a local flood, the large barge could have beached in a number of places, and it is unlikely it would have lasted for more than a year, and mountains would have been visible.
And we do know how it was caused… by rain for forty days and nights, as well as water from the fountains of the deep (under ground, or under the water). These fountains were most likely visible, and so appeared above the level of the water, and were likely the primary source of the flood, augmented by rain, which may have partially been caused by these fountains as well, which increased the humidity of the atmosphere greatly. Some speculation here, of course, but much better and more reasoned speculation than speculating that we just do not know.
Lets not make the bible say less than it actually says.
I do not. Remember that you are dealing with translations. The question to ask is this: What did the original Hebrew say? If you are a Hebrew scholar or use Hebrew Language Tools, please look up your sources. Have a nice day! Also, are you a Theistic Evolutionists. Most accept the concept of a local flood.
“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.