Paul’s Adam (Part 2)

March 16, 2010
Category: BioLogos Features

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

In last week’s post I wrote (1) that there is indeed a problem with seeing Adam as the progenitor of all human beings who lived a few thousand years before Jesus in that it is incompatible with what we know of the past, scientifically and archaeologically; (2) Paul seems to share such a view of Adam when he says “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people” (Romans 5:12); (3) Paul’s view of Adam is of non-negotiable theological importance and so must be addressed.

This is the problem in a nutshell: Paul says something of vital and abiding theological importance that is anchored in an ancient view of human origins.

I suggested last week that what Paul says about Adam is not as straightforward as it seems. This week and next I want to begin expanding on that point by outlining some of the issues that invariably arise when trying to understand “Paul’s Adam.”

Raising these issues is not an attempt to make a simple matter more difficult than it needs to be. And digging deeper into what Paul said is not a clever way to ignore him. These are issues that come up inescapably, one way or another, when informed readers try to understand what Paul was communicating. There is nothing new being raised in these posts.

Rather than obscuring Paul, it is important to engage these issues if we are to take Paul with utmost seriousness. That means understanding him as he deserves to be understood—making the effort to hear him as clearly as we can rather than to hear ourselves through him. In order to hear Paul well, the issues listed below are among those that will need to be accounted for somehow.

I realize that dissecting Paul’s view of Adam is a very difficult issue for many, and I do not do this lightly. But it is important to remind readers that BioLogos intends to be a place where important and sometimes emotionally laden issues can be aired and discussed. That is rare in our world—even in our Christian world—where marking out territory and going into battle are unfortunately commonly accurate metaphors for expressing disagreement. Sometimes patience and true understanding are left standing on the periphery (“Better a patient person than a warrior, those with self–control than those who take a city,” Proverbs 16:32).

These are challenging issues—but they are not going away, and simplistic solutions rarely provide lasting comfort. What is needed is patience, respect, and knowledge. It is with this intention that I continue this discussion over Paul’s Adam and how that can, for people of faith, be in conversation with the natural sciences. The list that begins here is intended to lay some of the necessary elements of that conversation.

I should go without saying that neither BioLogos nor I claim to have laid this difficult matter to rest in a series of a few posts. We’re in this together, folks. We welcome interaction with these issues below, and by all means feel free to add other factors that you deem relevant to this discussion.

1. Adam in the Old Testament

As important as Adam is to Paul, he is not a figure that gets a lot of airtime in the Old Testament. In fact, after Genesis 5, Adam makes his lone Old Testament appearance in 1 Chronicles 1:1, the first name in a genealogy (chapters 1-9) that spans from Adam to postexilic Israel. The reference to “adam” in Joshua 3:16 is a place name and in Hosea 6:7 it either refers to humanity in general (e.g., JPS translation “to a man”) or a place name (see TNIV and NIV footnotes; note also the second half of v. 7 where we read “they were unfaithful to me there”). It is unlikely and out of place for Hosea 6:7 to refer to the Adam of Genesis—and even if it did, this lone reference between Genesis 5 and 1 Chronicles 1 hardly amounts to a counter-argument.

So, how does one explain Paul’s high-profile view of Adam vis-à-vis his relative absence in the Old Testament? From where did Paul get his idea of the central importance of Adam for all humanity? What would drive Paul to bring front and center a figure who, of the 923 chapters that make up our Old Testament, is mentioned only in Genesis 2-5 and one postexilic text?

2. Adam Theology in the Old Testament

Adam may not be a major player explicitly in the Old Testament, but Adam theology is another matter. In addition to the Adam/Israel parallel from a previous post, some understand Noah to be an Adam figure as well—a new “first man” at a “new creation.” Noah as a second Adam seems pretty clear, and some also see figures like Abraham, Moses, a David, as “new Adams.” Each of these figures represents the “first” of some “new beginning” for God’s people.

I understand that seeing “Adam theology” all over the Old Testament may not be persuasive to everyone, which is fine since these are just avenues of exploration. Still, seeing Adam as a pattern for other Old Testament figures is hardly rare in the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation. The Old Testament is not seen as a loose connection of some stories or historical reflections. It is a “grand narrative” that tells one story of God and his people. (Some readers may be familiar with what is sometimes called a Biblical Theological approach to interpretation. Others call it Redemptive-Historical.)

Paul presents Jesus as a new Adam (Romans 5:17; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22); Adam is the “pattern” of the one to come (Romans 5:14). Is Paul carrying through this theme of “new beginnings for God’s people”? In other words, is Paul doing more than simply turning to Genesis 2-3 and reading it isolation? Does Paul have a bigger theological grid in mind—a “grand narrative” of the Old Testament?

3. The Fall in the Old Testament

According to the traditional interpretation of Romans 5:12-21, Paul sees Adam’s disobedience in the Garden as the cause of death in the world and the reason all subsequent humans are corrupted by sin. Some add that the actual guilt of Adam’s transgression is immediately passed on to all subsequent humans. (Humans are not just corrupted by Adam’s transgression, but also bear the guilt of what Adam did).

Does that interpretation of Paul fit with how human beings are described in the Old Testament? To be sure, the world is a mess and God needs to set it right. But does the Old Testament teach or imply that every human being is dead in the sin that Adam committed? Are non-Israelites ever referred to, directly or indirectly, as having inherited the guilt of Adam’s transgression? Is the fall in the Garden seen as the problem of humanity that must be dealt with? Why is adamic cause of human misery never mentioned let alone driven home?

As for the Israelites, they are not presented as being dead in sin and thus incapable of pleasing God. The giving of the law, with its blessing for obedience and curses for disobedience, actually assumes the possibility of pleasing God. “Righteousness” is clearly an attainable status through obedience to the law.

So, what connection does Paul’s view of human depravity (“dead in sin”) have to the Old Testament? How does Paul’s view of sin relate to the notion of sin in the Old Testament? Is it “deeper” and more universal than what we find in the Old Testament? If so, why does Paul draw such a central conclusion about sin that is either muted or absent in the Old Testament?

This raises another sort of question: Is it even necessary for Paul and the Old Testament to have the same exact view of the nature of sin? Can Paul have a clearer view on the true depth of our alienation from God that is not yet present in the Old Testament in general or Genesis specifically? Does Paul’s use of the Adam story actually depend on him not reading it literally?

These are the first three issues that need to be thoughtfully and respectfully engaged as we seek to understand Paul’s Adam. We’ll continue this next week.

Filed Under:

religion, Adam, Eve, theology, Bible, biblical studies, Paul, Old Testament, New Testament, Pete Enns, the Fall, metaphor, mythology, culture, history

Share |

Comments (88)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.

Joe Francis - #6934

March 16^th 2010

Pete,

I appreciate that you are keeping this discussion going. I appreciate the fact that the bible is a starting point for how think about issues of science and faith. This is important to creationists like myself.

I am not a theologian, but off the top of my head, what do we do with the biblical instruction that “all have sinned” ” all fall short of the glory of God” “there are none who are righteous.” Don’t these concepts make more sense if they are connected back to the fall and the transgressions of the representatives of the human race? Does the Bible ever allude to our sin being assigned to several major points in human history or one?

Its kind of funny when I think about it, but I think biological common descent is driving your hermenuetic in part, but what I see is a biblical common descent that is really important to our understanding of our sin nature and soteriology which cannot be ignored.
Joe Francis - #6938

March 16^th 2010

more verses to ponder in Corinthians:

The first man (Adam)was earthy, the second man (Adam) is from heaven. Then the passage suggests that those who are “earthy” are related to Adam. Wouldn’t this tend to imply that Adam was chemical, organic, and physical? Also this includes the term “all.” This word is used throughout this part of Corinthians. Aren’t these broad sweeping statements all encompassing of humanity rather than one people group….i,e., one thing we all have in common is our chemical make-up…..more biblical common descent stuff here I think.
Rick Cruse - #6941

March 16^th 2010

While appreciative of and challenged by the opportunity (need?) to think differently about our relationship to Adam, I’m wondering if you’ve perhaps painted the OT with a brush a bit too wide and created OT life as some type of “sin-nature free” zone. In Psalm 51, David seems to be dealing with some very basic, intrinsic issues related to sin, something broader than simply his own personal struggles. It seems that, at least in the OT, we are left to a significantly-more inductive process to identify sin in all its “glory.” Paul, on the other hand, seems to take a more deductive approach, starting from a settled conclusion and growing out the ramifications from there.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #6950

March 16^th 2010

Adam was a real person and the Father of the human race whose fall tainted us all. Regardless if you believe he literally was made directly from dust on the ground or indirectly from God supernaturally creating a soul & infusing it in a pre-human hominid. He was real.
Get over it.
Even if we don’t take Genesis “literally” & hold it to be a stylized symbolic allegorical tale doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain real history. There is a danger here of answering on extreme “hyper-literalism” with another “Pure Myth”. I see no logic in either extreme & as a Catholic Christian I reject both errors.
jason - #6955

March 16^th 2010

Can we assume that in future posts you will be dealing with Adam in second temple sources? I’m thinking especially of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, among others. It seems to me these could potentially have more relevance for what’s going on in Paul.
GPLeague - #6957

March 16^th 2010

Point #3, frankly, gave me the willies. I’m all for refining original sin (around the edges) in light of modern biology/anthropology, but I don’t want to resurrect Pelagius in order to help us do it. What needs revising is not the extent to which Adam’s sin affects everyone else, but the means by which it affects. Westminster say: “They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.” Imputation of their sin aside, how was their corruption conveyed to us, if not by “ordinary generation”? That is what I think this discussion hinges on.
Norm - #6958

March 16^th 2010

I want to begin this post by stating up front that the issues under discussion here concerning Paul’s interpretation of Adam, the Fall and Death are some of the most complex and difficult ones that we find in scripture. However IMO they are discernable and coherent when the ground work is examined and presented within Paul’s theological biblical view.

I’ll begin with Adam’s fall. Death is used as a metaphor in Genesis and throughout the OT that corresponds with a loss of immortality or separation from God. The Pauline view then of Death reflects this understanding and is central to this discussion and implies Paul is speaking of the reestablishment or overcoming that Death through Jesus Christ. In both Rom 5-8 and 1 Cor 15 Paul uses Adam in a collective or corporate view that embodies Israel’s covenant people and not man kind at large. This especially is noticeable in 1 Cor 15:21-49 in which Adam as the first dispensational man whom brings death is described as “natural and earthy” contrasted to Christ the second Adam who brings forth the “spiritual” dispensation mode of existence with God. Paul’s metaphorical view of “Sin Death” is found throughout OT scripture especially in Isaiah 25 and Ezekiel 37.
Bob R. - #6961

March 16^th 2010

Many of the so-called messianic allusions in the O.T. would not be interpreted with modern hermeneutics in the same manner that the gospel writers did. Our aversion to allegory as an interpretive principle would deny it.

For example: Mat 2:15 And [Jesus]was there [Egypt] until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (KJV) [cf. Hosea 11:1] A careful historical reading of Hosea 11 will show that the original passage refers to Israel. Matthew interprets Hosea 11 allegorically – a “no, no,” at least in Protestant circles.

Paul, too, uses allegory. (Gal. 4:24 KJV; Gk. allēgoreō) Without Paul’s interpretation, we would not even consider the Hagar-Ishmael-Sarah-Isaac story as representing two covenants. Our hermeneutic wouldn’t allow us to find such hidden meanings.

Is it possible that Paul is allegorizing Gen 1-3 by deriving his arguments from an “in-between-the lines” perspective? If that is the case, then the historicity of Adam is neither here nor there. What is important is the “hidden meaning” that allegorical hermeneutics is designed to uncover from the Genesis story.
eddy - #6963

March 16^th 2010

“So, how does one explain Paul’s high-profile view of Adam vis-à-vis his relative absence in the Old Testament?”

It depends on how you define or interpret the absence or presence of Adam. If you hold a quantitative definition (i.e. how many times Adam is mentioned in OT vs NT), I get your point. But if it is about a qualitative presence (i.e. the historical and theological role that Adam plays in both testaments), Adam is very real in the OT as much as he does in the NT.
eddy - #6965

March 16^th 2010

“The giving of the law, with its blessing for obedience and curses for disobedience, actually assumes the possibility of pleasing God.”

This is understandable. To do the right thing pleases God and act wrongly annoys God. The real issue is our consistency to do wrong when we should have done right, which is the recurrent theme of both Testaments.
dopderbeck - #6966

March 16^th 2010

Point 2 about “Adam theology” in the OT seems very promising and correct to me. The tentative views I’ve developed on this tough question also play on that theme. For example, Abraham is a type of “new Adam.” In the OT, all of Israel is derived from Abraham; in the NT, all of those engrafted into the new covenant by faith are spiritual sons of Abraham. But it is clear that not all who are part of Israel, even in the OT narratives, are simple biological heirs of Abraham. There is intermarriage with non-Abrahamic people even in the geneological line of Christ (Rahab and Ruth).

Abraham’s role in the economy of salvation, then, clearly does not depend on any modern notion of genetics. Moreover, the significance of Abraham in the economy of salvation is progressively developed in scripture, particularly between the OT and the NT.
dopderbeck - #6967

March 16^th 2010

(cont’d)

But this doesn’t mean Abraham must be seen as either a “symbolic” figure or a “literal” one. Scripture presents him as both. Moreover, it doesn’t mean that being a “son of Abraham,” either as an Israelite or a member of the new covenant community, lacks real ontological meaning. We shouldn’t accept the modern reductionist fallacy that says being is nothing more than genetics.

It seems to me the same paradigm can and should be applied to “Adam.” The condition of being “in Adam” is not a genetic condition, but it nevertheless is an ontological reality grounded in “historical” events. Questions of evolutionary genetics are thus orthogonal to the questions Paul asks of what it means to be “in Adam.” We can’t and shouldn’t deny the findings of evolutionary genetics, which tell us about our deep material origins. But we also, IMHO, can’t and shouldn’t deny the theological notion that we are ontologically “in Adam,” i.e., constitutionally bound by sin.
Gregory Arago - #6971

March 16^th 2010

David (dopderbeck),

Once again, thanks for your insightful posts! I’d like to hear more about the recognition that genealogy and genetics offer varying contributions on this topic. Do you have someone to cite in particular who has helped you with this?

It would be good to see a response from someone on the BioLogos team wrt being ‘ontologically in Adam,’ even if modern genetics hypothesizes that this is physically impossible. Here is where I believe philosophy comes in to offer a powerful alternative to reductionism.

“We shouldn’t accept the modern reductionist fallacy that says being is nothing more than genetics…The condition of being “in Adam” is not a genetic condition, but it nevertheless is an ontological reality grounded in “historical” events.” - dopderbeck

I’d only add that it is a theological notion, and it is also a cultural and linguistic notion of human existence ‘in Adam’. These fields also carry appropriate weight when taking into account a more holistic picture (i.e. than just natural-physical sciences + theology) of the topic we are discussing, even if there are (few or) no culturologists or linguists here to represent themselves.
Joe Francis - #6982

March 16^th 2010

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #6950

BenYachov you said:

“Even if we don’t take Genesis “literally” & hold it to be a stylized symbolic allegorical tale doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain real history.”

Can you give an example of how a symbolic allegorical tale can contain real history?

If an allegorical tale refers to real history…. are you saying Genesis talks about a real historical event which happened prior to the telling of the allegorical tale? If so what is the nature of the historical event you are speaking of…just curious.
Dan Lioy - #7001

March 16^th 2010

From my perspective, it is possible that a highly stylized, literary rendition can be both symbolic in content and point to historical and theological truths.

For instance, I think it is possible to regard Genesis 1 as portraying the creation of the universe in a story-like manner that, one the one hand is akin to other ANE stories, and on the other hand is sufficiently distinctive to set itself apart from the latter.

So one historical truth would be that the universe had a starting point. A corresponding theological truth would be that the Creator-King brought all things into existence. Admittedly, some might regard these observations as merely faith-based statements which cannot be proven using the scientific method. Fair enough.

Still, the preceding need not rule out the potential validity of such premises. For instance, Francis Collins, in a recent interview with Charlie Rose (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10909), wryly asked “why is there something instead of nothing”. The backdrop of Collins’ Q was the supposition of the universe originally being created by God.
Joe Francis - #7013

March 16^th 2010

Dan,

Thanks for your comments. The Genesis account is similar but also very different and even polemic to ANE accounts. For instance, there is no sequence of days in the ANE accounts that I know of. Why would God make Adam allegorical or symbolic in a line of geneologies which eventually culminate in historical figures? Is there a biblical basis for this. Some theists accuse other theists of perpetrating the idea that God is deceptive. Isn’t this line of thinking, that some figures are allegorical and some are historical confusing when one considers the text itself? Would a 15 century BC reader come to this conclusion, that God is portraying geneologies which are part allegorical and part history? What would be the reason for this and how does this flow from scripture?

Thanks again for your input.
Dan Lioy - #7018

March 16^th 2010

Thank you, Joe, for your thoughts. I, too, embrace the view that the Genesis creation account is, in part, intended as a polemic to the ANE ones. In fact, I argue as much in my monograph, “Search for Ultimate Reality”.

As for the possibility that God might somehow be deceptive, I remain unconvinced of this. I think part of the issue is a lack of awareness (e.g. culturally, historically, etc.) that later generations of readers might have with what an original audience of readers would have instinctively understood concerning a biblical text.

This is where the scholarly study and analysis of specialists such as Peter Enns (among others) comes into play. Also, as his blog makes clear, it is important to understand someone such as Paul on his own terms, and as much as possible within the historical and cultural context in which he lived / wrote.
Dennis Venema - #7026

March 16^th 2010

Thanks for another great post, Pete. I’m already looking forward to next week…
Karl A - #7036

March 17^th 2010

Dan, is your monograph accessible somewhere for viewing/reading?
Thanks.
Dan Lioy - #7057

March 17^th 2010

Karl, please send me a private e-mail regarding your Q. Thanks!
Dan Lioy - #7058

March 17^th 2010

Karl, my mistake. I realize now that EMs are not accessible here. Another option is do an internet search by using my name and the book title, or clicking on my name and going to my homepage.
Joe Francis - #7061

March 17^th 2010

Dan,

Thanks again for your comments. What I understand of the ANE setting during the time period of the writing of Genesis, I think supports the notion that Genesis, in its entirety is historical narrative. For instance, it is my understanding that the surrounding ANE cultures lived by the idea that political power is related to the strength of one’s gods, and that theogony is the explanation for the origin of Gods etc…. Many if not all of the events of the first creation week are polemic to these ideas…i.e. God is showing that He is different from any other God because He is one, He is powerful over nature and apart from nature and has no origin. In my opinion this would provide a reason for why God would create using a sequence of days rather than instantaneously to show His power and not necessarily to provide an explanation for cosmogony. By creating the universe in a short period of time….He is certainly showing an awesome display of power, and one that we can relate to and 15 century people could relate to, since we live in this same time frame. For example, the 7 day work week is also based on this principle. Based on this, I don’t see a need for God to use allegory or poetry to explain His creative acts. (?)
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #7066

March 17^th 2010

>Can you give an example of how a symbolic allegorical tale can contain real history?

I reply: Well off the top of my head the “Cursing of the Fig tree” is clearly an allegory about the destruction of Jerusalem & the whole Book of Revelation is about First century Roman persecution of Christians as a foreshadowing of end time events told in smbolic language.

It’s not hard guy.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #7067

March 17^th 2010

>If an allegorical tale refers to real history…. are you saying Genesis talks about a real historical event which happened prior to the telling of the allegorical tale? If so what is the nature of the historical event you are speaking of…just curious.

I reply: I said it “contains” real history & yes since it is a Divinely Inspired work there is no reason we can’t believe it is a symbolic tale about how the first man given an immortal soul by God really fell from Grace. This “either you believe in a literal Adam or you believe in Evolution” meme is pure nonsense IMHO.
Gregory Arago - #7069

March 17^th 2010

I agree that the thought of “either you believe in a literal Adam or you believe in Evolution” is nonsense, yet without calling it a ‘meme.’

The idea of ‘memes’ is also nonsense IMHO.
Martin Rizley - #7071

March 17^th 2010

Dr. Enns, You ask, “Does the Old Testament teach or imply that every human being is dead in the sin that Adam committed? Are non-Israelites ever referred to, directly or indirectly, as having inherited the guilt of Adam’s transgression?”
Why do you ask, “Does the Old Testament teach. . .” rather than, “Does the Bible teach. . .”? There is, after all, one divine Author behind both Testaments, an Author who does not contradict Himself. Moreover, the apostle Paul (whose interpretation of the OT is authoritative) is clear that all human beings are dead in sin through Adam’s transgression (Rom. 5, Eph. 2). We are “by nature” chidlren of wrath, something that could not have been said of men prior to Adam’s sin. David confessed that his mother “conceived” him “in sin,” and that is not a reference to the sinfulness of human reproduction! It is a reference to the sinful condition in which all men are born as the result of Adam’s sin. Moreover, the Bible says that death passed to ‘all men’ (not just Israelites) because of the one man’s sin. So all men are dead in sin because of Adam’s sin.
Moses Kostamo - #7082

March 17^th 2010

I look forward to the next installment in this series. These cliffhanger endings each week are killing me:-)

Evolutionary Creationist: “Was Adam a real historical person?”

Young Earth Creationist: “Yes he was, and I’m going to meet him in heaven someday!”

EC: “What if he didn’t make it to heaven?”

YEC: “Well then I guess you’ll get to meet him.”
John VanZwieten - #7083

March 17^th 2010

Moses,

LOL.

Martin,

It seems to me that you’ve walked right into the “trap” set by Dr. Enns.

If, as you say, Paul’s interpretation of the OT is authoritative, and if Paul’s interpretation of the OT is not literal but rather theological, then a theological interpretation of the OT (and specifically Adam) is the authoritative one.
Joe Francis - #7090

March 17^th 2010

BenYachov #7706

You said:” Well off the top of my head the “Cursing of the Fig tree” is clearly an allegory about the destruction of Jerusalem & the whole Book of Revelation is about First century Roman persecution of Christians as a foreshadowing of end time events told in smbolic language.”

O.K. I agree, but in these cases the allegory refers to a real historical event. What do you believe is the real historical event?...you apparently believe that historical events can be deciphered from or connected to the biblical allegory, so I think you should be able to explain what you believe the historical biblical event is which is reffered to in the creation allegory.
Russell Roberts - #7112

March 18^th 2010

Pete,

FYI, Wright has a compelling argument for the Jewish self-perception as being taking on the role of Adam. The beasts and the ‘Son of Man’ phrases in Daniel 7 are relevant. So Adam’s role, especially in first century Judaism is not as tenuous as it might first appear.

I would add that eph ho pantes hamartias in Romans 5:12 is by no means a clear statement by Paul.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #7114

March 18^th 2010

>O.K. I agree, but in these cases the allegory refers to a real historical event. What do you believe is the real historical event?...

I Reply: Simple, God gave a pre-human hominid an Immortal Soul in a state of original innocence & also gave him a wife & they where tested/tempted & fell from grace. We all descent from that original couple.

>you apparently believe that historical events can be deciphered from or connected to the biblical allegory, so I think you should be able to explain what you believe the historical biblical event is which is reffered to in the creation allegory.

I reply: As a Catholic I believe in the Authority of Scripture, Tradition & the Church. I reject Protestant beliefs such as Sola Scriptura, the Perspicuity of Scripture & private interpretation. The Church’s teaching authority & tradition lead me(as per Pius XII’s teaching) to believe we come from a real Adam & Eve.

I accept biological polygenesis but I hold too a rigorous Theological monogenesis & I think it likely Adam’s offspring mated with other Pre-human hominids.
Joe Francis - #7116

March 18^th 2010

Thanks BenYachov, That is very helpful because that is not my tradition.

What is the church’s position on pre-human hominids?
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #7117

March 18^th 2010

Additional.

>you apparently believe that historical events can be deciphered from or connected to the biblical allegory,

I reply: Not from scripture alone we need tradition. Orthodox Jewish Physicist Gerald L. Schroeder talks about how in Jewish Tradition after the death of Able by his brother Cain, Adam & Eve separated for a while & Adam mated with creatures who had the form of humans but had no Nehfessh(soul) which the Talmud calls “Masters of the Field”. That sounds plausible.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #7123

March 18^th 2010

>What is the church’s position on pre-human hominids?

I reply: It’s a matter of natural science to determine.
Joe Francis - #7125

March 18^th 2010

What is the churches relationship to natural science….they do not always agree do they?
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #7126

March 18^th 2010

>What is the churches relationship to natural science….they do not always agree do they?

I reply: The Church has always held to the Augustinian Principle. If a particular interpretation of Holy Writ contradicts what we know from natural science then natural science wins out & the text in question must be re-interpreted. This was the case even with that overblown shmuck Galieo. Galieo DID NOT prove his views scientifically(& I believe he plagiarized much of his dialogs from a Jesuit named Scheiner which justly won him enemies) we had to wait to the late 18th century & the early 19th century for the science to prove conclusively that the earth moved. Of course even after Shmuck Boy’s death the Church relaxed it’s ban & Catholic could teach heliocentric science as a theory. Father Copernicus was allowed but schmuck boy was not.
Patrick M - #7128

March 18^th 2010

Hi BenYachov, I agree with you on the topic of Adam. I’m Protestant, but I feel that the rejection of a historical “Adam” is unnecessary, and can lead to bad theology in general if one is not careful. Logic tells us (whether you believe in evolution or not) that there had to be a first human at some point in time. Whether his name was literally “Adam” or not is not really important. The fact is there was at some point in time the first human who was not merely an animal, but something else altogether. Someone with a spirit and soul. Rejecting the existence of such a first man is almost the same as saying there is no real distinction between humans and animals.
Patrick M - #7129

March 18^th 2010

Another issue is that it implies that mankind has always been sinful, and was in fact created by God as a sinner, and was never in a state of innocence. This also has tricky theological problems of its own! It either implies God created humans inherently sinful from the beginning, or “The Fall” gets turned into a metaphor for our own personal first sin, with the implication that we’re all born innocent. This again has the theological problem of being essentially a form of pelagianism.

Completely rejecting the idea of any sort of historical Adam seems to have no real “scientific” advantage to me. Sure, reading Genesis very literally will give you problems, but you don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the historicity of Adam is completely false, then I think we honestly have to re-think an incredible amount of theology developed over the last 2000 years, including with Paul’s very own! That’s a pretty radical thing to do for what seems like very little “scientific” advantage, in my mind.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #7133

March 18^th 2010

Right on Patrick!:-) You go guy!:-)
Gregory Arago - #7134

March 18^th 2010

Thanks, Patrick for both of these posts! Espcially #7128 expresses in a concise and clear way how I view the issue and which I’ve tried to say here also. You’ve even left the door open for Dr. Enns’ theological perspectives by saying ‘if one is not careful,’ because I’ve no doubt that he is careful in his analyses! Others have refused the ‘logic’ that you point out tells us “there was at some point in time the first human who was not merely an animal.” I fully agree with you on the repercussions of doing this in terms of accepting or rejecting a ‘real distinction’ between humans and animals.

I’d congratulate you just for being you, but you’re a day late in writing! : D
Joe Francis - #7136

March 18^th 2010

Yes, I agree Patrick, that there is” little scientific advantage “to reformulating scripture, and even though I reject the idea of an animal predecessor to Adam; it doesn’t mean that the concept of common descent has to be rejected. Lots of ideas in science are debated until a clear answer is found.
Martin Rizley - #7159

March 18^th 2010

Ben Yachov and Patrick, I don’t really know how much is gained by affirming belief in some sort of historical “Adam” if that Adam is not identified with the biblical Adam who was the husband of Eve, whose sons included Cain, Abel, and Seth, whose grandsons included Enoch (through Cain) and Enosh (through Seth), etc. If you believe in any Adam other than the biblical Adam, you have rendered the Bible incomprehensible to most people, who assume (naturally and rightly, in my opinion) that the Bible is to be taken at face value when it gives genealogical lists and sketches in broad outline the development of human history and culture in connection with particular persons in those genealogical lists? If you ‘salvage’ the doctrine of original sin by affirming an original father of the human race, while at the same time saying we know nothing about that father, since the information given concerning the biblical Adam is fictitious and not to be taken at face value, what gain has been made, as far as strengthening people’s confidence in the authority and perspicuity of the Bible?
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #7170

March 19^th 2010

>Ben Yachov and Patrick, I don’t really know how much is gained by affirming belief in some sort of historical “Adam” if that Adam is not identified with the biblical Adam who was the husband of Eve, whose sons included Cain, Abel, and Seth, whose grandsons included Enoch (through Cain) and Enosh (through Seth), etc.

I reply: The historical Adam & the Biblical Adam are the same person even if the Adam in Genesis is a stylized allegorical representation of him. Just as the “Son of Man” in the Prophecies Ezekiel & the “Son of Man” in the New Testament are the same person. Your either/or fallacy is unconvincing to me.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #7171

March 19^th 2010

>If you believe in any Adam other than the biblical Adam, you have rendered the Bible incomprehensible to most people, who assume (naturally and rightly, in my opinion) that the Bible is to be taken at face value when it gives genealogical lists and sketches in broad outline the development of human history and culture in connection with particular persons in those genealogical lists?

I reply: Catholics like myself a prior reject the idea the Bible is perspicuous & plead the need for tradition(2 Thes 2:15) & Church (1 Tim 3:15). However many Protestants who do profess Perspicuity limit it to matters of salvation(i.e the plain things are the main things etc). Thus it doesn’t matter if Genesis is a literal tale of the historic biblical Adam or an allegorical tale of the same. You still know enough from the Bible to be saved & believe in Justification threw Faith.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) - #7172

March 19^th 2010

>If you ‘salvage’ the doctrine of original sin by affirming an original father of the human race, while at the same time saying we know nothing about that father, since the information given concerning the biblical Adam is fictitious and not to be taken at face value, what gain has been made, as far as strengthening people’s confidence in the authority and perspicuity of the Bible?

I reply: Even Protestant Apologist James White once quipped Sola Scriptura & perspicuity don’t mean the Bible contains all knowledge. We don’t have to know what color the eyes of St. John where or what was on the Menu of the last supper. Thus logically all we really need to know from Genesis is Adam was made by God & fell thus requiring the coming of Christ to restore the human race with his Cross & Resurrection. BTW an allegory is NOT A FICTION. Or do you really believe the future anti-Christ will be a literal seven headed beast & not a real man symbolized by the same?
Patrick M - #7175

March 19^th 2010

Yeah, I’d agree with what BenYachov is saying. The account of Adam is not “fictitious”. It’s stylized and infused with metaphor, and written in a mythic form of writing, but just because some modern readers can’t understand how that works doesn’t mean it’s not the case. The Bible is full of allegory, symbolism, types, metaphor, etc. The Epistle to the Hebrews makes this point clear, as well as do many of Paul’s writings. But that doesn’t mean none of those things ever happened.

I think you’re assuming I’m throwing out more than I actually am. The Bible is “messy” as Peter Enns himself often says. I think we do best when we don’t try to out guess it too much, and just interpret it as Paul and the other New Testament writers themselves do. Perhaps that leaves us with parts that we have trouble fully making sense of, but we don’t have to know the answer to everything to be confident in the gospel of Jesus Christ (who is ultimately the reason and answer to everything in the Old Testament).
Martin Rizley - #7193

March 19^th 2010

Patrick and Ben Yachov, I am open in principle to the presence of metaphor and allegory in the Genesis narrative of Adam and the Fall; I just don’t think the textual evidence supports the view that we are intended to read it that way. The narrative is too tightly embedded into the rest of the Genesis record, formally and stylistically, to be treated as belonging to a different genre than the other Genesis narratives which make up the book of Genesis, all of which are introduced by the same “toledot” formula. The genealogies and the ages given, as well as little details such as the passing mention of Tubal-Cain’s sister Naamah, are (I believe) conclusive proof that we are to understand the narratives of concerning Adam, Eve and their lineal descendants to be an accurate record of actual historical events. Far from seeing the snake and the tree as metaphorical symbols, I believe that these were actual physical realities in the Garden (the snake a common “beast of the field” and the tree a non-magical, run of the mill fruit tree, that by virtue of circumstances, became associated with spiritual realities (continued).
Martin Rizley - #7194

March 19^th 2010

The serpent became associated with Satan by means of demonic possession, through which it became the medium by which Eve was tempted to sin. It is for that reason that Satan himself became known as “the serpent of old,” because he tempted our first parents by means of a serpent. The tree on the other hand, was in itself like any other fruit tree, but by God’s appointment, it became associated with the inheritance of eternal life; that is, had Adam obeyed God, God would have made the eating of the fruit of that tree both the occasion and outward “sacramental” sign of Adam’s inheriting from God the blessing of eternal life. In itself, the tree was like any other; there was nothing magical about it, but it was made ‘special’ by God’s appointment. I believe this historical reading of the text is supported by its harmonious agreement with the other narratives of the Genesis record, all of which are framed in the same way (“these are the generations of”) and all of which purport to give us a record of events ‘in the beginning.’ I see no textual reason for reading these passages as allegorical or symbolical.
Patrick M - #7195

March 19^th 2010

Hi Martin,
I’m open to that view as well, although it’s kind of a different debate from what I was trying to say. My main point is that I feel you don’t have to reject what Paul says and implies about the reality of Adam because of evolution or anything else science is telling us right now. I can see why you might want to insist on the historicity and literalness of other aspects of the story as well. You could very well be 100% correct, I’m not really arguing against that. But to me, the doctrine of the original man and the Fall is a core one in traditional christian orthodoxy that for me requires some really strong evidence before I’m going to reject it. Whether or not he was actually named “Adam” (for instance) is a lot more debatable, and has a lot less theological implications. But that there was an original first man who was innocent and subsequently fell has a lot deeper theological implications. That’s basically what I’m trying to get at.
Austin Davis - #7202

March 19^th 2010

You might say the geaneologies were partially myth (which back then was perfectly accepted as useful for teaching truths) which was really only used indicate the Jewish descent from their famous ancestors.

Thus Adam truly meant all of mankind, and not a solitary figure. Maybe Paul had this in mind. As a Christian, I find the last point you made to be the beginning of the most satisfying answer, specifically in your sentence, “Can Paul have a clearer view on the true depth of our alienation from God that is not yet present in the Old Testament in general or Genesis specifically?” It seems to me that the Biblical narrative is a story of redemption, but even more deeply it is the story of God reaching out to mankind to communicate with us and act in our lives. The Jewish myth story was the method by which they understood that. Christians believe that God became flesh, actually met with mankind physically, in the only way we can really understand, and is drawing us into communion with him.
Martin Rizley - #7206

March 19^th 2010

Austin,
The only problem with what you suggest about Adam—namely, that Adam is a ‘symbol’ for all of mankind, rather than a ‘solitary figure’—is that the details of the Genesis narrative contradict your hypothesis. There is simply too much detail given to us about Adam’s relationship to his wife and his sons to see him as anything other than a real individual, the progenitor of the human race. For one thing, we are told that Adam’s son Seth was born sometime after the death of Abel, when Adam ‘knew his wife again.’ If Adam symbolizes “all of mankind,” with whom did ‘all of mankind’ have sexual relations to beget Seth? Moreover, we are told the precise age at which Adam begot Seth (130 years) and the reaction of Adam’s wife when she bore Seth (“God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel”). All this attention to detail tells us that “allegorizing” the character of Adam simply will not do. Such an interpretation takes us away from the intention of the inspired writer, who clearly wants us to see Adam as a real individual.
BenYachov - #7208

March 20^th 2010

There is no unanimous tradition telling us what parts of Genesis are Allegory & what parts are literal & for me that speaks volumes. Thought I would say Traditions seems to insist Adam was a real person. Augustine saw a contradiction between taking both Genesis 1 & 2 literally. Genesis 1 seems to teach the world was created in six days & Genesis 2:4 seems to say all things where created in one day. He wasn’t alone Philo believed that too & Aquinas said that it was a possible point of view. Thus they believed Genesis 1 was a different genre within Genesis from let us say Genesis two & interpreting Genesis 1 as an allegory.
BenYachov - #7209

March 20^th 2010

I also might agree with Dr Enns who said QUOTE”.A literal understanding of Genesis from an ancient mind frame would not necessarily be the same as what we now think of as a literal reading—where everything corresponds to reality in a one to one fashion. Ancients were much more accepting of the language of metaphor and in many cases, expected it. This was the way that complex ideas were often transmitted in terms that people could understand.” Thus I might be skeptical of Martin’s interpretation for this reason since he seems to be reading the text with a “modern” understanding.
BenYachov - #7210

March 20^th 2010

Also from the Patristic perspective there is no universally held view as to the precise age of the Earth. Some Fathers taught the Earth was 4,000 another 5,000 & still another 10,000 and Augustine himself said the Earth was not yet 6,000(as an Answer to the Aristotelians who taught the Earth was infinitely old & the human race eternal). Some young Earth Creationists make a big thing of the fact these are all “young” ages as some sort of poof we are meant to believe in a Young Earth by the traditional “Unanimous consent” rule of St. Vincent of Lerins. But as one Traditional Catholic commentator once quipped “These are but merely the opinions of the Fathers as private scientists not articles of Faith”. If Jesus taught the Apostles the true age of the Earth one would think either the Bible would record it or the Fathers would all give the same age & mention it came from the Apostles.
BenYachov - #7212

March 20^th 2010

OTOH if we can learn anything from Old Earth Progressive Creationist interpretative schemes & recognize there is a lot of overlap between that view & Theistic Evolution(i.e. both believe in an “Old World” but differ on Darwin & Macro-evolution) then there really is NO REASON why we can’t take the text as near literally as Martin does with the small exception of recognizing in Hebrew “Father” can also mean “ancestor” & Begot can mean “Descent from” as well. Thus we need not ignore science in regards to the age of the world & uphold the Augustinian Principle. Till the Pope tells me different I see no reason to be beholden to any of these views or reject them(including Martin’s). If I believe Fr Jaki even the Fathers who took Genesis “literally” often mixed allegory into their “literal” understanding.
BenYachov - #7214

March 20^th 2010

Msgr John F McCarthy a Traditionalist Catholic Priest(who seems quite anti-Darwinian & somewhat of a Creationist) once wrote QUOTE"Finally as The first eleven chapters of Genesis are historically true, even though they are not written in the genre of precision that is required of modern historians.”

Is there some point of contact here between Enns & McCarthy?
Gregory Arago - #7225

March 20^th 2010

Thanks for your contributions here, BenYachov. You gently indicate that a ‘hyper-literalism’ is not a common position, even with the Church Fathers, and certainly not in the Roman Catholic Church. I mentioned the importance of ‘Tradition’ and ‘Ecclesia’ in addition to ‘Scripture’ to Martin before, but you do a much better job explaining what it is like to live in this Christian environment of belief. I only hope that he (and Joe) will see this as a responsible position, and not hold it against the Church as being schismatic.

If I understand your position, in line with the Vatican’s, it means that you reject a ‘non-historical Adam’. This is consistent with many Protestants’ allegiances; even evangelical Protestants on this Blog have defended the ‘historicity of Adam.’ Dick Fisher is one example, speaking with historical studies, King lists, etc. that Adam was an historical figure; another person even suggested that Adam wrote the text Genesis.

I wonder if you could address this: Can it be disproven that ‘Adam wrote Genesis’?
Martin Rizley - #7230

March 20^th 2010

Ben Yachov,
Thanks for your response. It seems me that the point you make (taken from Dr. Enns) about the differences between the “ancient” and the “modern” mind is a bit overblown. I am not at all convinced that the ancient mind thought in a ‘less literal’ manner than the modern mind; if anything, I think the reverse is true. Since the ancients did not have the ‘hangups’ we moderns have about the supposed demands of ‘natural law’ (they were not locked into the post-Enlightenment rationalism that dominates in so many universities and seminaries) they were much more inclined to interpret literally biblical narratives that seem ‘impossible’ or even ‘absurd’ to Western moderns, interpreted literally. For an analogy, just look at how easily tribal peoples today in Africa and India (whose cultures more closely resemble the ancient biblical cultures than our own) receive the Genesis narratives as literally true. They have no question about the ‘literalness’ of the serpent in the Garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, etc. (I had several friends from tribal cultures in northeast India in seminary, and they had no modern, Western, rationalistic hangups about interpreting Genesis literally.) Continued
Martin Rizley - #7232

March 20^th 2010

Moreover, the point you make about traditional interpretations of Genesis is interesting and informative, but as a Protestant, I have a different view of the authortative character of tradition. I believe that believers are individually responsible to ‘hear’ and ‘obey’ what God is saying through His written word, even if particular church leaders are misinterpreting that written Word due to lack of spiritual insight. In this regard, I believe Jesus dealings with the Jewish leaders of Israel is enlightening. Although they knew much about rabbinic tradition and the traditional interpretations of the Torah, Jesus called them ‘blind leaders of the blind.’ When Nicodemus, a highly educated religious leader, expressed ignorance concerning the doctrine of the new birth, Jesus said, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?” The implication is that Nicodemus should have known the truth, since he knew the Scriptures. For Jesus, to know the written Scriptures is to know the truth, since the written Scriptures are truth (John 17:17). Moreover, the Scriptures are perspicuous, since Jesus often said to His opponents, “Have you not read?” implying that the Bible in itself is clear in its teaching (cont.)
Martin Rizley - #7238

March 20^th 2010

Knowing that church leaders can be spiritually blind, and that the Scriptures are clear in themselves (especially with regard to their major teachings), and knowing that we will be judged personally and individually for being “foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25), that we have a responsibility to deal with the Scriptures in a direct manner by “searching” them to determine the truth of falsehood of various teachings brought to us by church leaders. We are to be like the Bereans, who in response to Paul’s teaching “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11) We are by no means obligated to accept traditions or traditional interpretations that lack a clear Scriptural foundation, any more than the Jews in Jesus’ day were obligated to accept the traditions of the rabbis. We are to be on guard against those who “teach as doctrines the commandments of men” and who “reject the commandment of God, that they may keep their tradition” (Mark 7:7, 9). It is on this basis—on the basis of ‘what is written’—that I believe in a literal Adam, regardless of what Augustine or any other particular church father may have taught.
Joe Francis - #7260

March 20^th 2010

I agree with Martin that the first readers of the Genesis account, would have every reason to take the scriptures at face value and as true historical narrative. We also get a sense of this when Moses gives a speech to the Israelites before entering the promise land in Deutoronomy. He knows they need confidence to enter the promise land without him, so he reminds them of what they saw and what they heard God do in the wilderness, i.e., He demonstrated his power in the pillar of fire, the parting of the sea, the provision of manna….etc… All of these things were physical events which they could experience with their senses and they demonstrate God’s power over nature and his power in relation to the static polygods of the ANE culture around them. Moses did not have to use symbolism or a statue of God to represent God. It is apparent that God did these things so that they would believe and understand His power and position as the one true God, in contrast to the inept unacting gods of the surrounding polytheistic ANE cultures.

The unparalleled nature of the Genesis account gives the same impresssion…it is a true physical manfestation of God’s power.
Joe Francis - #7261

March 20^th 2010

As we see that the sun and moon are real manifestations of God’s creative acts in space and time on day four of creation, just like the israelites of old there is no reason to think of Adam as anything less than a real physical person created on day 6 of creation….this is just another example of God’s power as he intervenes in the natural world he created…. a message of power over nature that he wanted to demonstrate to a people in the midst of attractive polythiestic cultures.

It is interesting that Augustine may question 6 day creation in his writings but he also opts for a much younger universe, one that is created instantaneously. So in one way he is a really really young age creationist. Although I must say you can find quotes by Augustine to support just about any creation view.
BenYachov - #7266

March 20^th 2010

Martin,

I think the basic difference between us is I’m a Traditional Catholic & you are a Conservative Protestant(not a terrible thing to be since most Liberals give me a rash). I outright & without apology reject Sola Scriptura & the teaching of the Reformation as “Traditions of Men” and I hold to the Traditions of the Apostles (2 Thes 3:6) & as you have said you ” have a different view of the authortative character of tradition.”

So sadly on many points we are likely doomed to disagree. Plus I’ve been a Catholic Apologist for much of my youth & these days in my middle age I grow weary of having keep fighting what I still believe are the un-biblical errors of the so called Reformers(these Days I find New Atheists to be greater enemies to the Holy Church then our separated brethren ever would or could be).

Plus this isn’t really the forum for Reformation Vs Counter-Reformation & I don’t wish to distract from the main theme here which is Genesis, Evolution & such.(continue)
BenYachov - #7267

March 20^th 2010

Anyway Martin if you will indulge my curiosity? Where do you stand on the creation spectrum? Are you a Fiat Young Earth Creationist? An Old Earth Progressive Creationist? No preference? Do you believe Evolution is completely incompatible, somewhat compatible? etc.. Finally what denomination of Protestant are you? Calvinist Reform? Lutheran? etc…

I’d like to know. BTW feel free to quiz me. Cheers bro & Christ be with you.
BenYachov - #7268

March 20^th 2010

Hey Gregory,

>I wonder if you could address this: Can it be disproven that ‘Adam wrote Genesis’?

I reply: Well if I believe in both a literal Adam(& I do) & an Old Earth then I believe Adam lived about 250,000 years ago. I find it hard to believe a text written back then (assuming Adam could develope a written language) survived a quarter of a million years till whenever the flood was & finally to Abraham then Moses. God could have done that if he wanted too but I likely think God simply revealed this truth to Moses. I’m a Big believer in Tradition but not at the expense of written revelation. Logically you can’t disprove Adam wrote genesis but you can’t disprove Richard Dawkins went back in Time with his Time Lady wife to write Genesis as a laugh at our expense. But I think it quite guite quite unlikely.
Joe Francis - #7269

March 20^th 2010

BenYachov,

Thanks for asking Martin that question. Hopefully he will be able to respond.

Just curious, where do you insert the 244,000 years in the Gen 5 and 11 geneologies?
Joe Francis - #7270

March 20^th 2010

Dear BenYachov,

The Galileo affair seems so overblown on many accounts in written legend over the years.

However, when you read Galileo’s own writings, he makes his devotion to the church and scriptures very clear, however, his beliefs are very similar to yours, he believes that nature is an important authority and a more reliable authority than scripture itself. I think he would share your views. Why then do you distance yourself from his ideas?
Gregory Arago - #7271

March 20^th 2010

Hi Joe,

You speak of Galileo, but how about Gutenburg? He seems to have had an enormous impact on the argument you are making, in terms of defending a ‘personal faith’ by reading the Bible in the vernacular as a result of the printing press. Sure, his invention is ‘applied science,’ but it affected the fate of Protestantism of all stripes in a significant way.

Pre-Gutenburg, the idea of ‘Sola Scriptura’ was a fantasy.

Gregory
Richard Colling - #7275

March 21^st 2010

Thanks for an insightful and informative article that addresses a core issue in the science/religion controversies. In my experience, fundamental literal creationists ( and many other non-fundamentalists) live in mortal fear that if the “death (physical) through Adam” verse in Romans is not interpreted literally, then the entire Christian theology falls apart. Since science clearly demonstrates that death was a part of life from its very inception billions of years ago, this fear would, to them, seem well-founded. UNLESS, as you suggest there are bigger, better, and more accurate ways to interpret this. One of the things that sets humans apart from all other life on the planet is our ability to think and reason on these higher levels - engaging and being able to comprehend concepts such as subtlety, symbolism, and higher order reasoning - perhaps part of what it means to be made in the image of God.
Rick
Gregory Arago - #7278

March 21^st 2010

Hello Richard,

Would you be willing to go one step further with your suggestion and reject an historical Adam? That is the key question here.

I am greatly appreciative of Dr. Enns taking on this issue and agree with your assessment that the article(s) is both insightful and informative.

For me, there is no problem with what you highlight because I am not a fundamental literal creationist and accept an ‘old’ earth (geology).

The major issue, however, and I suspect Dr. Enns might have been surprised by the resistence to his proposal, is accepting or rejecting a historical (not a ‘literal’) human person called ‘Adam.’

In my view Patrick laid it down best in #7128.

Talking about subtely, symbolism and higher order reasoning is fine, but if one says “sets humans apart” perhaps they can take a stronger stand on the historical existence of Adam.

As a biologist, what are your thoughts about this?
Joe Francis - #7282

March 21^st 2010

Hello Richard,

Thanks for joining the discussion. Gregory has some good questions for you and I look forward to your reply to those.

I have some thoughts for you. Biology does not rule out that there are biological mechanisms which control the life-span of organisms, and, as you know, some biologists and futurists believe that longer life spans and immortality is not out of the question.

As a young age creationist, those facts and hypothesis support the biblical based idea that life, once, could have been created to be immortal.

Also, I believe that the way plants and animals are designed, that indeed immortality would not have been a big problem in the pre-Fall world. However, I also believe, since the Bible speaks about an “organismal” creation, that organisms did not die, but cells could have expired. However, the design of life is such that cells can die, without effecting organismal lifespan.

So I would say that ideas gleaned from both biology and the bible support the idea of organismal immortality.
Richard Colling - #7285

March 21^st 2010

Hi Gregory,
Thank you for your question.

You reference Patrick’s post #7128. I copied some here.

”“I’m Protestant, but I feel that the rejection of a historical “Adam” is unnecessary, and can lead to bad theology in general if one is not careful. Logic tells us (whether you believe in evolution or not) that there had to be a first human at some point in time. ... The fact is there was at some point in time the first human who was not merely an animal, but something else altogether. Someone with a spirit and soul.

My thoughts:
I see nothing in biology that rejects the idea of a “first human”. Logically, there must have been a “first”. In fact, some have suggested (reasonably I believe) that human chromosome #2 is the ‘smoking gun’ that provides the actual evidence in support this idea. (Graeme Finlay and David Wilcox have written about this in some detail.) This would be a genetic bottleneck so to speak - paving the way to a new human speciation event. Consistent with this idea is the relative genetic uniformity (non-diversity) within the human population. This means that humans came into being “recently”. (in evolutionary time).

All best to you.
Rick
BenYachov - #7286

March 21^st 2010

>Just curious, where do you insert the 244,000 years in the Gen 5 and 11 geneologies?

I reply: The geneologies don’t have to be complete or precise or is King David literally the Father of Jesus? I have no problem believing in huge gaps within the geneologies.

BTW guys. I reject Sola Scriptura & perspicuity just as fearsomely as the next Catholic. But I don’t think this forum is the place for it IMHO(though I have no problem with theological liberal bashing;-).

Cheers.
Richard Colling - #7288

March 21^st 2010

Thanks for the questions Joe.

Your comment: As a young age creationist, those facts and hypothesis support the biblical based idea that life, once, could have been created to be immortal.

My thoughts: Cell populations do indeed sometimes change to become somewhat “immortal”. (Cancer cells for instance.) But while a useful description, it is probably not totally accurate. Even these “immortal” cell lines are accumulating damage to DNA that, over very long periods, who can say what becomes of them. (HeLa cells from the reproductive tumor of Henrietta Lacks in the 1950s? is a good example.) Her cells have literally been spread across the globe as an “immortal” cell line. But the truth is that today, unrestricted by normal genetic selection pressures, they are remarkably different than when first isolated decades ago - even amongst different laboratories all over the world. In addition, cells like these are only “immortal” if we (humans) thin them out and replenish nutrients regularly.

Even if immortality was theoretically possible, the genetic and fossil records differs. Death appears to be a part of life from its very inception.
Rick
Joe Francis - #7292

March 21^st 2010

Hi Richard,

I agree with everything you said, in fact I believe that death was a part of life soon after it was created.

However, this is an interesting discussion, because if we accept common descent, which is one of the concepts influencing Pete’s view of Genesis and Adam, then, a form of immortality is also accepted. . (and I do believe in common descent as I have stated elsewhere). let me explain.

Many biologists if not all agree that life “begets” life. Therefore all living things are on a continuum of a kind of immortal life via the cell level. Gametes are alive, and they are transferred to make a new organism. So where is death here? It is at the level of the individual organism, yet the cells involved in making individuals never die. So I would say that form of immortality is accepted in biology.

Asexually reproducing organisms like E.coli are also an example…have they ever really died as an organism?

Also as you know there are researchers who have extended the life span of mice and nematodes up to 65%. They are forcasting even more increases in life span as research moves forward.
Richard Colling - #7293

March 21^st 2010

Joe,

You are right, and few people recognize this point. In essence, life, once created, has never ended.
Joe Francis - #7295

March 21^st 2010

Thanks Rick,

My main point here is that I do not think it is unreasonable based on the biblical evidence and some biological evidence that living organisms, could have been at one time created to be immortal. And as we discussed, this does not mean that individuals cells did not expire.

I appreciate our discussion
Gregory Arago - #7296

March 21^st 2010

Also sending my thanks Rick,

You wrote:
“I see nothing in biology that rejects the idea of a “first human”. Logically, there must have been a “first”.”

I find this a very important concession. There are biologists out there who imagine that their ‘science’ actually can trump even logic. In some cases, I’ve come across people who deny that ‘there must have been a first,’ saying instead that ‘no first is necessary.’ Thus, I’m pleased to hear you affirm this logical principle and its expression in history and biology.

Also, you wrote: “new speciation event…means that humans came into being “recently”. (in evolutionary time).”

I can accept this and also gladly note the qualifier ‘evolutionary’ wrt ‘time.’ Other types of ‘time’ have different characteristics, depending on the case.

Both of these topics will likely come up again.

Welcome to 1250 character chats!

~
Just curious how the Gutenburg reference met you Joe…
McLuhan’s “Gutenburg Galaxy” is amazing on this issue.
Joe Francis - #7297

March 21^st 2010

Greg,

I have to confess that I do not know much about Gutenberg. I do not like to comment on individuals until I read their actual writings. Creationists have a tendency to make claims about history without doing their homework.

I am more familiar with the successful creationists like Pasteur and Damadian. Apparently Damadian discovered the science behind the MRI. I also like James Clerk Maxwell, he used biblical principles to discover properties of light.
Joe Francis - #7298

March 21^st 2010

Thanks for the reference Greg.
Richard Colling - #7299

March 21^st 2010

Thanks back at you both. These were good.

I engage with some trepidation. Earlier experience has taught me creationists hate my views - and me, are eager to pronounce me outside the Christian faith, and will do all in their power to destroy those who understand God’s created order differently than they. This included using so-called Christian theological discussion boards to disseminate false and disparaging information that was career threatening. This despite the fact that building bridges of understanding and peace to science/faith discussions will be difficult if Christian biologists are encouraged to offer their understanding of biology, genetics, and evolution.

To my way of thinking, we are all searching for the same thing: Truth. Those of us who come from a faith perspective believe that discovery of the deeper truths of God’s created order can only lead us to a deeper understanding of God himself. No need to demonize, vilify or destroy brothers in the faith.

Sadly, your apparent experience with scientists who refuse to engage honestly and professionally has a counterpart for me: Christian theologians who work from an authority paradigm rather than a r truth-seeking paradigm.
All best.
Rick
Martin Rizley - #7303

March 21^st 2010

Joe Francis and Ben Yachov,
Joe, you describe yourself as a ‘young age creationist’ who believes in ‘common descent.’ Could you explain to me what that means?
Ben Yachov, you asked about my church affiliation. I am a member of a Reformed Baptist church, which is theologically conservative church in the Calvinistic tradition. Our Confession of Faith is similar to the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians, except that we practice ‘credo-baptism’ (the baptism of confessing disciples only). Regarding the old/young earth issue, on matters relating to the history of life on earth, I hold for all practical purposes to the young earth position (Flood geology). Regarding the age of the universe, that all depends on the duration of the creation days—whether they were all of uniform 24 hour duration. I am not sure we can say that on the basis of Scripture alone, given the fact that the first three days were not “solar days” (strictly speaking). I do believe they were ‘solar-like’ (each day consisted of a day a night), but their exact duration seems to me uncertain.
BenYachov - #7306

March 21^st 2010

Thanks for the info on your beliefs Martin. Feel free to ask me anything if it strikes your fancy. So you believe in a young Earth but are open to a possible somewhat old Universe? That is an interesting permutation(it might even solve some anti-Creationist objections). I have always believed there is a lot of overlap between Old Earth Progressive Creationism vs Theistic Evolution but your view leads me to see there might be some middle positions between Young Earth Fiat Creationism & Progressive Creationism as well. It’s interesting to know. Thanks & God be with you guy.
BenYachov - #7307

March 21^st 2010

Hey Joe,
>However, when you read Galileo’s own writings, he makes his devotion to the church and scriptures very clear,

I reply: He was IMHO a likely plagiarist, who often talked out of both sides of his mouth. Galileo had originally agreed to put forth his view as a hypothesis not established fact & he went back on his word. Also scientifically he didn’t prove his view correct at the time(we have to wait a few hundred years for science to prove the motion of the Earth). His was just a mostly luck guess. Also he clearly said the Bible had lied when it spoke of Joshua stopping the sun. How can one accuse the Bible of lying & be seen as “devoted” to the scriptures?

Father Copernicus never did any of this nonsense & that is why the Church left him alone & the Pope honored him.
BenYachov - #7308

March 21^st 2010

>however, his beliefs are very similar to yours, he believes that nature is an important authority and a more reliable authority than scripture itself.

I reply: I fail to see how? I believe truth can’t contradict truth. Thus I would never say the Bible “lied”. I would say that this or that verse his been misunderstood or should be understood allegorically. I don’t believe the Bible is meant to tell us about natural science. Natural science & natural knowledge in general is something WE CAN figure out ourselves using our natural powers of reason. Thus the Bible isn’t needed to do a job we can do ourselves. The Bible reveals supernatural knowledge which by definition CANNOT be known by out natural powers. For example I can know God exists threw reason alone but I can’t know He is a Trinity without the Holy Writ. I believe the Bible is consistent with science or will be consistent with whatever specific science turns out to be true.
BenYachov - #7309

March 21^st 2010

>I think he would share your views. Why then do you distance yourself from his ideas?

I reply: Nah if I lived at the time I would have bagged on him for making scientific claims without proof. St Robert Bellermine had it correct “should it somehow be proven the Earth moves then the verses that speak of Joshua stopping the sun must be re-interpreted
Joe Francis - #7312

March 21^st 2010

Martin #7303

Martin,

I have stated this position on other BioLogos blogs.I am a young earth or young age creationist who believes in polyphyly…i.e. I believe God created many different kinds in the beginning, and all species today are descended by common descent from those first kinds. For instance, there may have been an original dog kind in the beginning, and from that kind all dogs, wolfs, and other canines were derived. I believe that mutation and natural selection are real phenomenon in nature but they would not act fast enough to cause this rapid diversification…young age creationist believe that there may have been some event which promoted this rapid diversification after the initial creation and after the flood but we don’t see this in any major way today (although some speciation events are occuring now). We also think this is consistent with the fossil record. For instance we believe the horse fossil record is a real record of horse diversification. This is part of a relatively new field in creation biology called baraminology. Go to creationbiology.org for more info.
Gregory Arago - #7592

March 25^th 2010

“I believe God created many different kinds in the beginning, and all species today are descended by common descent from those first kinds.” - Joe

I’m just curious, Joe, how many ‘different kinds’ do you think were created ‘in the beginning’? What (i.e. instruments, experiments, methods, etc.) do you use to ‘quantify’ or ‘measure’ this *number* or ‘kinds’? Is there *any* particular method of biblical interpretation that helps you come up with this *number* (i.e. by reading Scripture from the inside-out) or demands that *only* direct creation is a possibility for you to consider?

Yes, I’ve heard of baraminology and polyphyly. This means you accept ‘common descent’, but not a ‘(universal) common ancestor,’ is that right?

What does “may have been some event” (#7312) mean? That sounds rather uncertain, difficult to put much of any stock in it.

p.s. you might want to try your hand making a contribution to wikipedia on baraminology, as there is it more than once called ‘pseudo-science’, which doesn’t suit well your defence/offence of this position as if it makes *actual* contributions to scientific knowledge.
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me

Paul’s Adam (Part 2)

1. Adam in the Old Testament

2. Adam Theology in the Old Testament

3. The Fall in the Old Testament

Filed Under:

Add Your Comment