The Fall of Man

thekawasakikid · #1 1st January 2004, 04:04 PM

Hiya, and a Happy New Year!

After dinner today, conversation wandered to eventually the continuing discussion/debate/argument/war between the creationist and theistic evolutionists

It centred upon the literal, or non-literal, interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis... whereupon my mother asked what I thought was a pretty intriguing question - if the Creation and Fall of Man in Genesis are to be taken non-literally, how did Man fall? Did he fall, or was he always sinful?

Thanks for your time

Micaiah · #2 1st January 2004, 08:59 PM

Happy new year Thek.,

A tick to mum from me. Before the fall, God said the world was good. Death entered the world because of sin. Death is a necessary ingredient of evolution, and therefore it is unscriptural to assert that God used evolution to create the things we see today.

There are other reasons. Scripture plainly asserts God made each animal after its kind, and the earth was made in six literal days.

Have a close look at the arguments that follow from those who support the notion of theistic evolution. To be able to marry evolution and Scripture, you must disregard the plain teaching of Genesis, and interpret it as some kind of allegory. That is wrong. Scripture is inspired by God. We can be sure that the assertions of Scripture are true and authoritative, whether they be assertions of historical, scientific, or spiritual truth. If we cannot trust the plain assertions of Scripture regarding the physical world, then why trust the spiritual truths taught in Scripture.

Bushido216 · #3 2nd January 2004, 12:05 AM

Actually, a taking Genesis literally is just one way of interpreting it. As Pope John Paul II (long may he live) stated "Truth cannot contradict Truth". Since we know that the earth is older than 6,000 years we must re-examine Scripture.

Anyway, at a guess I would assume that the Fall of man would be the Fall of man from the natural order of things. i.e., when we became self-serving and evolved to the point where we could be.

Micaiah · #4 2nd January 2004, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Bushido216

Anyway, at a guess I would assume that the Fall of man would be the Fall of man from the natural order of things. i.e., when we became self-serving and evolved to the point where we could be.

ie interprets the Genesis account of the fall as allegory. The fall could not happen by degrees over time. Man disobeyed God's word. Enter sin.

fragmentsofdreams · #5 2nd January 2004, 11:55 AM

I think we must simply say that we don't know. God's Creation reveals to us that Genesis 1-3 is not a literal historical account, so we have no account of how Sin entered the world. All we know is that it is here and we need Christ.

lucaspa · #6 2nd January 2004, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by thekawasakikid

It centred upon the literal, or non-literal, interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis... whereupon my mother asked what I thought was a pretty intriguing question - if the Creation and Fall of Man in Genesis are to be taken non-literally, how did Man fall? Did he fall, or was he always sinful?

Thanks for your time

Let me run this one past you and see what you think.

What is "sin". The "sin" in Genesis 3 is disobeying God and eating a fruit that God had forbidden. Now, just as an aside, God is pretty stupid according to this tale. Anyone who has ever raised kids knows that as soon as you say "Don't get in the cookie jar.", that is exactly where they go! If you really don't want them in the cookie jar, you don't use this approach.

But anyway, it seeems to me that sin is being selfish and putting your interests ahead of both God and anyone else. Well, guess what? Selfishness is built into natural selection. Natural selection picks traits that are good for the individual, not necessarily the species. It doesn't look ahead and say "you know, getting those big antlers so you can attract the girl elk of your dreams isn't going to work for the group. Those antlers are going to be so big that you guys aren't going to be able to get away from your predators. You'll all be killed." Instead, as long as the individual gets the girl Irish elk, that's all that matters. Natural selection can't work solely for the benefit of else. It can't be completely unselfish.

So selfishness and thus disobedience for our benefit is built right into our genes by the process that designed us.

lucaspa · #7 2nd January 2004, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Micaiah

Before the fall, God said the world was good. Death entered the world because of sin.

Genesis 2:17 says Adam would die "in the day" that he ate the fruit. Adam lived 930 years after he ate the fruit. The death referred to could not have been physical.

In Genesis 1:29 God gives herbs to humans to eat. Thus, man can pull up carrots and onions, to name just two, to eat. This kills them. Physical death was always in the world. It is unscriptural to claim that physical death only began with Adam's sin.

Scripture plainly asserts God made each animal after its kind, and the earth was made in six literal days.

Genesis 2:4 plainly states that the earth was made in one literal day (beyom). Since God cannot contradict God, this tells you that neither creation story is literal history.

Have a close look at the arguments that follow from those who support the notion of theistic evolution. To be able to marry evolution and Scripture, you must disregard the plain teaching of Genesis, and interpret it as some kind of allegory. That is wrong. Scripture is inspired by God. We can be sure that the assertions of Scripture are true and authoritative, whether they be assertions of historical, scientific, or spiritual truth. If we cannot trust the plain assertions of Scripture regarding the physical world, then why trust the spiritual truths taught in Scripture.

1. As you said, Scripture is inspired. It does not follow from this that every Scripture is historically and scientifically true. Scripture itself doesn't claim this. The most that it claims (in I Timothy) is that scripture is useful for instruction in righteousness! That's it. So yes, Scriptures are true for spiritual truth, but no claim for any other type.

2. I know I've used this example to counter the last sentence at least 3 times on this forum. No one has ever countered it; yet we keep seeing the same claim made again and again.

You are claiming in the last sentence that:
if a text isn't true in every detail, then we can't trust it in any detail.

But is this true? Do we really judge texts this way? Let's take this out of religion for a moment. Take Shakespeare's Macbeth. The Scottish history is not true at all. Yet the play retains its popularity. Why? Because it does talk to us about spiritual/human truths of greed, lust for power, betrayal, honor, and justice. We accept the spiritual truths as true even tho they are set in a non-true history.

Genesis (particularly Genesis 1) is set in the best science of the day -- Babylonian science. That science is wrong. But the theological truths of Genesis 1-3 are just as true in modern science as they were in Babylonian science. One of the tragedies of Biblical literalism is that, in forcing a literal reading, these theological truths get lost or ignored. How sad!

Sinai · #8 3rd January 2004, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Micaiah

Death entered the world because of sin.

Although it may be true that spiritual death entered the world because of sin, it does not follow that physical death must also have been caused by sin.

Death is a necessary ingredient of evolution, and therefore it is unscriptural to assert that God used evolution to create the things we see today.

It would probably be more accurate to say that it is unscriptural to assert that the Bible either requires evolution or that it denies evolution.

Scripture plainly asserts...the earth was made in six literal days.

No. The scripture plainly asserts that creation took six yoms. Although yom can mean a 24-hour day, it can also mean just those hours in which the sun strikes a particular portion of our planet's surface; or it can mean a generation, an era, or an indefinite period of time. You may choose to favor one of those meanings over another one if you wish--but that is your interpretation. If your Christian brother chooses to favor a different meaning, that is his interpretation.

Micaiah · #9 3rd January 2004, 08:41 AM

The context is plainly that a day means a day, unless you want to twist the plain teaching of Scripture to accomodate what is essentially a secular view of origins.

lucaspa · #10 3rd January 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Micaiah

The context is plainly that a day means a day, unless you want to twist the plain teaching of Scripture to accomodate what is essentially a secular view of origins.

Micaiah, the context of Genesis 2:4 is plainly that the heavens and earth were created in one day (beyom). So, you are faced with a choice:

1. Decide that neither story is literal.
2. "yom" in Genesis 2:4 has to be longer than a day. In which case Sinai's interpretation then becomes valid.

As to "accomodating a secular view", what about Luke 2:1. It says the whole world was enrolled. Now, don't you "twist the plain teaching of Scripture" to accomodate secular evidence that not all the world was enrolled.

Even more basic, let's look at that "essentially a secular view of origins" claim more closely. What is the idea of an old earth based on? God's Creation, isn't it? How can that be "secular"?

Also, who decided that a young earth was wrong? Christians. Many of whom were ministers. Hardly "secular" people.

So, trying to dismiss the ideas a "essentially secular" -- not religious -- doesn't work at all. You may disagree with the conclusion, but the idea that old earth is secular and non-religious simply won't stand testing. It is based on God by religious people.