Adam's rib.

[OldWiseGuy]

Why? And what fulness of it's meaning can you obtain from a literal reading that you can't from an allegorical reading?

You can only go so far with this subject by accepting traditional orthodox teachings, then you come to a wall. At that point you must return to the beginning, the literal text, and start over. It's like returning to a crime scene to re-examine the evidence.

A good place to start examining this creation account would be to ask, "Why didn't God form Eve from the dust of the ground, as Adam was formed."? This would make more sense from an evolutionary point of view. All other orthodox teaching would still be valid: man and wife, God and Israel, Christ and Church, etc. Why the 'rib'?

owg

 

[Molal]

You can only go so far with this subject by accepting traditional ordodox teachings, then you come to a wall. At that point you must return to the beginning, the literal text, and start over. It's like returning to a crime scene to re-examine the evidence.

A good place to start examining this creation account would be to ask, "Why didn't God form Eve from the dust of the ground, as Adam was formed."? This would make more sense from an evolutionary point of view. All other orthodox teaching would still be valid: man and wife, God and Israel, Christ and Church, etc. Why the 'rib'?

owg

Do you think that you are conflating literal text with a literal interpretation?

I propose that one can extract a greater theological truth from an allegorical interpretation than a literal interpretation.

I am not sure what you mean by traditional orthodox teachings.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you think that you are conflating literal text with a literal interpretation?

I propose that one can extract a greater theological truth from an allegorical interpretation than a literal interpretation.

I am not sure what you mean by traditional orthodox teachings.

The interpretation and the literal text must agree. The proper meaning must be derived from the story. After thousands of years of study the fulness of meaning is still incomplete. (I believe we can all agree on that.)

Today's christians have a large body of incomplete traditional orthodox teachings on this subject that have sprung from the original account. Working backwards from the teachings of Christ regarding himself and the church, to those of Paul regarding husbands and wives, to the metaphor God and Israel being husband and wife, to the examples of the patriarchs and their wives (as types of Christ and the church, most notably Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah), you find yourself in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. If you go a little farther back there is only Adam. A good question to ask is why did Eve come later. Why wasn't she formed at the same time as Adam, and from the same material.

 

[gluadys]

A good place to start examining this creation account would be to ask, "Why didn't God form Eve from the dust of the ground, as Adam was formed."? This would make more sense from an evolutionary point of view.

How so? What biological example is there of male and female evolving independently as if they were two different species?

The other creatures God made directly from the earth were not human.

So both in scripture and by evolutionary theory, humans produce humans. Male and female are not different species.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How so? What biological example is there of male and female evolving independently as if they were two different species?

The other creatures God made directly from the earth were not human.

So both in scripture and by evolutionary theory, humans produce humans. Male and female are not different species.

I'm not implying that man and woman are different species. I'm addressing their origins as described literally in the bible. Many here cannot contemplate the creation of mankind without the strong influence of their belief in evolution, thus answering my original question of how evolution influences your opinion of the Genesis account. I believe that that belief is a road block to a more complete understanding of the subject. If you reject the literal story it's hard to construct the metaphors that would spring from it.

owg

 

[gluadys]

If you reject the literal story it's hard to construct the metaphors that would spring from it.

owg

How do you come to that conclusion?

And what did you mean by saying it would be more in keeping with evolution to depict the woman being created, like the man, from the dust of the earth?

Neither statement makes sense to me, and I would like to get some idea of the logic behind them.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not implying that man and woman are different species. I'm addressing their origins as described literally in the bible. Many here cannot contemplate the creation of mankind without the strong influence of their belief in evolution, thus answering my original question of how evolution influences your opinion of the Genesis account. I believe that that belief is a road block to a more complete understanding of the subject. If you reject the literal story it's hard to construct the metaphors that would spring from it.

owg

Hey, Wise Guy. You have your point clearly made. Dragging on this debate is quite boring and flavorless. It will only frustrate you as if you were talking to some .... If they don't get it now, they will not ever get it.

 

[Mallon]

I don't think we need to contemplate the Genesis creation story literally in order to draw meaning from it any more than we need to contemplate Aesop's fables literally in order to draw meaning from them.

And as for one's subscription to evolution being a roadblock to deeper understanding, I completely disagree (speaking as someone who actually subscribes to evolution). I think the special creationist focus on the scientific aspects of the Genesis creation account serves as the largest roadblock to drawing further meaning from the text. Read almost any article from AiG about Genesis 1, and you'll find little about the deeper theological significance of the text, and lots about undefined created "kinds", inferred vapour canopies, and thermodynamics (e.g., http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp).
If anything, I think interpreting the text ahistorically and ascientifically helps with, rather than detracts from, drawing deeper meaning from the text.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How do you come to that conclusion?

And what did you mean by saying it would be more in keeping with evolution to depict the woman being created, like the man, from the dust of the earth?

Neither statement makes sense to me, and I would like to get some idea of the logic behind them.

You could easily place the evolutionary model over the creation of Adam by declaring that the sixth 'day' occurred over millions of years, but for Eve to have evolved the same way the story would have to read differently, such as: " God also formed the woman from the dust of the earth (over millions of years, of course), and brought her to the man (fully formed)." But there's no provision for this in the story. Eve was taken from Adam's side; an event that happened virtually overnight. She appeared suddenly, fully formed.

Juvenissun is right. My question (and it was a question) has been answered. There is some sort of roadblock to understanding this story fully. It probably isn't evolution alone but I think it figures in somewhat. On the other hand maybe people, having searched a little deeper and finding something that they don't like or cannot deal with just don't want to go there. And I also understand that.

owg

 

[Molal]

You could easily place the evolutionary model over the creation of Adam by declaring that the sixth 'day' occurred over millions of years, but for Eve to have evolved the same way the story would have to read differently, such as: " God also formed the woman from the dust of the earth (over millions of years, of course), and brought her to the man (fully formed)." But there's no provision for this in the story. Eve was taken from Adam's side; an event that happened virtually overnight. She appeared suddenly, fully formed.

Juvenissun is right. My question (and it was a question) has been answered. There is some sort of roadblock to understanding this story fully. It probably isn't evolution alone but I think it figures in somewhat. On the other hand maybe people, having searched a little deeper and finding something that they don't like or cannot deal with just don't want to go there. And I also understand that.

owg

Alternatively, God provided the genesis story as a theological truth to God creating everything, not a blow by blow account of how God created things over 6 days.

Fortunately, there is abundance evidence of an allegorical approach to Genesis directly from God's creation. There is no supporting evidence for a literal interpretation.

In my mind, teaching an allegorical approach is not only correct, it will bring more people to Christ.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Alternatively, God provided the genesis story as a theological truth to God creating everything, not a blow by blow account of how God created things over 6 days.

Fortunately, there is abundance evidence of an allegorical approach to Genesis directly from God's creation. There is no supporting evidence for a literal interpretation.

In my mind, teaching an allegorical approach is not only correct, it will bring more people to Christ.

Agreed (mostly). Now we should construct a more complete allegory from the literal text. This is what I'm aiming for.

owg

 

[Molal]

Agreed (mostly). Now we should construct a more complete allegory from the literal text. This is what I'm aiming for.

owg

Now I think I see where you are coming from.

Thanks OWG.

I also agree with creating a full-functioning allegorical understanding from the genesis text. This involves word studies, contextual studies, etc.

 

[gluadys]

You could easily place the evolutionary model over the creation of Adam by declaring that the sixth 'day' occurred over millions of years, but for Eve to have evolved the same way the story would have to read differently, such as: " God also formed the woman from the dust of the earth (over millions of years, of course), and brought her to the man (fully formed)."

How do you get this from an evolutionary model? As I see it, this scenario would actually be contrary to an evolutionary model because it suggests that male and female have distinct origins and that sexual reproduction is by nature a hybridization of separate species.

But you said earlier you were not suggesting separate species.

As I see it the text as it is fits better with an evolutionary model than the re-write you think evolution would require.

So why do you think it does not? Perhaps the problem is that your evolutionary model is not really evolutionary.

But there's no provision for this in the story. Eve was taken from Adam's side; an event that happened virtually overnight. She appeared suddenly, fully formed.

Allegory has no more problem with this than with the earlier text which describes the creation of Adam.

Juvenissun is right. My question (and it was a question) has been answered. There is some sort of roadblock to understanding this story fully. It probably isn't evolution alone but I think it figures in somewhat.

Well, to get rid of a roadblock, one has to be able to see it. You and juvenissun apparently see something I don't see. It would be helpful if you could describe it.

I think it probably has nothing to do with evolution at all. It may have something to do with some misunderstanding of evolution which leads you to infer that a rewrite of the biblical text would be needed, but as I said, I think the literal text as it stands is closer to an evolutionary model than the re-write you think evolution calls for.

Then there is the whole matter of allegorical interpretation. Allegorical interpretations don't really have much to do with evolution. Allegory as a feature of biblical interpretation is quite independent of evolution and has been around a lot longer.

Agreed (mostly). Now we should construct a more complete allegory from the literal text. This is what I'm aiming for.

owg

So give it a go. Maybe if we saw what you are aiming for, we could see why you think evolution poses a problem to understanding it.

 

[Molal]

I considered OWG description a submission that genesis was allegorical and evolution was true.

But, reading your post, Gluadys, I tend to think that he meant the opposite - that evolution is not true.

Ahhhhh - I'm confused now.

 

[gluadys]

I considered OWG description a submission that genesis was allegorical and evolution was true.

But, reading your post, Gluadys, I tend to think that he meant the opposite - that evolution is not true.

Ahhhhh - I'm confused now.

I think he is looking at both the literal and the allegorical meaning. I have no problem with that.

In fact, I strongly agree with his thesis that the allegorical meaning must be based on understanding the literal meaning.

However, he also states that acceptance of evolution is some sort of roadblock to understanding the literal meaning. That is the point that puzzles me. I don't see why a TE would have any trouble understanding the literal meaning of the text.

 

[Molal]

I think he is looking at both the literal and the allegorical meaning. I have no problem with that.

In fact, I strongly agree with his thesis that the allegorical meaning must be based on understanding the literal meaning.

However, he also states that acceptance of evolution is some sort of roadblock to understanding the literal meaning. That is the point that puzzles me. I don't see why a TE would have any trouble understanding the literal meaning of the text.

Neither do I - evolution is not a read block to the literal meaning, it maybe that it is a prerequisite for understanding.

Thanks for your reply Gluadys

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How do you get this from an evolutionary model? As I see it, this scenario would actually be contrary to an evolutionary model because it suggests that male and female have distinct origins and that sexual reproduction is by nature a hybridization of separate species.

But you said earlier you were not suggesting separate species.

As I see it the text as it is fits better with an evolutionary model than the re-write you think evolution would require.

So why do you think it does not? Perhaps the problem is that your evolutionary model is not really evolutionary.



Allegory has no more problem with this than with the earlier text which describes the creation of Adam.



Well, to get rid of a roadblock, one has to be able to see it. You and juvenissun apparently see something I don't see. It would be helpful if you could describe it.

I think it probably has nothing to do with evolution at all. It may have something to do with some misunderstanding of evolution which leads you to infer that a rewrite of the biblical text would be needed, but as I said, I think the literal text as it stands is closer to an evolutionary model than the re-write you think evolution calls for.

Then there is the whole matter of allegorical interpretation. Allegorical interpretations don't really have much to do with evolution. Allegory as a feature of biblical interpretation is quite independent of evolution and has been around a lot longer.



So give it a go. Maybe if we saw what you are aiming for, we could see why you think evolution poses a problem to understanding it.

There are two models present in our thinking. Spontaneous creation, and, evolution over time. One must be subordinate, the other dominant. I believe that science must be subordinate to scripture (at least in the church). The evolutionary model cannot be neatly superimposed over the biblical model even when interpreted allegorically.

The roadblock occurs when one views Genesis as the beginning of everything. Genesis describes the origin of the material universe, but allusions to, as well as detailed descriptions of, events prior to Gen 1 are found here and there and are vital to understanding the whole allegory of Genesis.

Past/present/future is a common outline for study but past is rarely used to understand Genesis-especially the creation of man. Does Genesis always reveal just the present and the future but never allude to the past?

Genesis means 'beginnings' so most believe that nothing important occured before the opening verse that might relate to it, and that every metaphor and type points to future events only. I don't believe anyone can understand the beginnings of man without a good understanding of history prior to that time.

When the principles and events of preAdamic history are understood there is little room for evolution in (my)understanding.

owg

 

[gluadys]

There are two models present in our thinking. Spontaneous creation, and, evolution over time. One must be subordinate, the other dominant. I believe that science must be subordinate to scripture (at least in the church). The evolutionary model cannot be neatly superimposed over the biblical model even when interpreted allegorically.

I agree. Since scripture is not science, it makes no sense to superimpose any scientific model (evolutionary or otherwise) on scripture.

The roadblock occurs when one views Genesis as the beginning of everything. Genesis describes the origin of the material universe, but allusions to, as well as detailed descriptions of, events prior to Gen 1 are found here and there and are vital to understanding the whole allegory of Genesis.

But we haven't been talking about Gen. 1 As per the OP we have been focusing on the creation of Eve from Adam's rib in Gen. 2

When the principles and events of preAdamic history are understood there is little room for evolution in (my)understanding.

owg

Maybe so, but what does that have to do with the creation of Eve? She was not pre-Adamic.

My questions relative to the "roadblock" evolution presents to understanding the literal text of this passage still stand.

As for other passages, I don't think there is really any bar to understanding the literal meaning of them either.

I think you are saying that a careful study of the literal text of Genesis reveals the existence of a pre-Adamic history that is incompatible with the history of evolution.

You may be right.

But I still don't see how accepting evolution would be a roadblock to understanding this literal meaning of the text.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I agree. Since scripture is not science, it makes no sense to superimpose any scientific model (evolutionary or otherwise) on scripture.



But we haven't been talking about Gen. 1 As per the OP we have been focusing on the creation of Eve from Adam's rib in Gen. 2



Maybe so, but what does that have to do with the creation of Eve? She was not pre-Adamic.

My questions relative to the "roadblock" evolution presents to understanding the literal text of this passage still stand.

As for other passages, I don't think there is really any bar to understanding the literal meaning of them either.

I think you are saying that a careful study of the literal text of Genesis reveals the existence of a pre-Adamic history that is incompatible with the history of evolution.

You may be right.

But I still don't see how accepting evolution would be a roadblock to understanding this literal meaning of the text.

You have made it clear that you have no problem in your understanding of the creation of Eve as revealed in the literal account. I wouldn't try to talk you out of that.

I'm suggesting that it is probably difficult to construct a complete allegory concerning the event if Eve had been evolving within or alongside Adam for millions of years. That doesn't fit the pattern of Eve being spontaneously created because of a late-emerged need that God saw in Adam.

That's why an evolution model doesn't fit Eve. There was no need for her until Adam was fully formed, and God 'realized' that he was without a compatable companion.

The two ways of looking at the creation of Eve are incompatable, imo, and I think belief in one gets in the way of belief and understanding of the other. That's my opinion, but if it doesn't affect one's understanding, that's fine.

Having said that, and because it's my thread D) , I will ask you what you believe is the significance of Eve being formed from the rib of Adam, as literally written?

owg

 

[gluadys]

I'm suggesting that it is probably difficult to construct a complete allegory concerning the event if Eve had been evolving within or alongside Adam for millions of years.

In that case, I don't understand what you mean by a complete allegory.

That doesn't fit the pattern of Eve being spontaneously created because of a late-emerged need that God saw in Adam.

Ok, I think I see the problem now. Apparently you are under the impression that TEs try to fit the literal story to an evolutionary framework via allegory.

No, that is not what we do at all. We don't try to make the literal story fit any science at all, not even by allegory. Scripture is not only non-scientific literally; it also does not relate to science allegorically.

In fact, the only time I see scripture interpreted as an allegory of science is when creationists misapply it e.g. when they take a phrase like "stretched out the heavens" and claim it is allegorically a reference to the expansion of the universe.

That's why an evolution model doesn't fit Eve. There was no need for her until Adam was fully formed, and God 'realized' that he was without a compatable companion.

No problem since literally the creation of Adam doesn't fit an evolutionary model either. Nor is that what we are attempting to do.

Having said that, and because it's my thread D) , I will ask you what you believe is the significance of Eve being formed from the rib of Adam, as literally written?

owg

Probably the same thing you do. Once we get rid of the notion that we are trying to fit the literal story allegorically to evolution, then the allegory we do see is strictly theological. I have no quarrel with seeing the story as reflecting theology on the relation of men and women, the institution of marriage, and even (per Paul and St. John Chrysostom) on the relation of Christ and the Church.